Football League statement - Coventry City (2 Viewers)

[SkyblueBazza]

I would guess it has been paid.

This is SISU...they will hang on to any monies for as long as they possibly can! Deadline 14th...means it will leave their account no sooner, although it might arrive later as they will say they've paid it out of their account - thereby maybe dooming us to another points deduction.

 

---

[Godiva]

I assumed that the outstanding "matters" was are SISU going to appeal or not.

yes, seems everybody assumes that.
But it could simply be clever and careful wording.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I believe we still have to wait till after all the bills have been settled and all legals have been dropped.. a few weeks yet as a minimum before talks can begin..

 

[Kingokings204]

The good news to come out of today is that we are coming home. We all just hope it's sooner the better.

 

[skybluetony176]

yes, seems everybody assumes that.
But it could simply be clever and careful wording.

You may well be right but there's enough rumours and theories out there about our "imminent" return to the Ricoh without us adding to them.

We're better than that Godiva

 

[shmmeee]

Why only focus on compass part? It's a joint venture with two parties. Surely ACL can do a deal with the club on their part?

Can they? Surely it's a separate company (IECE) like ACL is to Higgs and CCC. Or is that different because it's 50/50?

 

[Delboycov]

Don't trust SISU and maybe their statement is just another card being played in this long drawn out fiasco yet even I'm encouraged by it...particularly that they've ditched the vote losing rhetoric about playing in the Coventry area/community and building their own ground. They come out and say they are abandoning the hopeless and completely embarrassing appeal then I may just become a believer.

 

[No future with SISU]

I think SISU have underestimated ACL
I think SISU have underestimated CCC
I think SISU have underestimated the fans, who they though would follow them to Sixfeilds
I think SISU have underestimated the courts

Great post.

 

[No future with SISU]

So if that was the stumbling block you'd back ACL at the expense of never seeing the club in coventry again.

Brilliant

More rubbish from you, the only way SISU can now make any money is a return to the RICOH. Even if we back ACL, SISU will have to do a deal to get back. Hopefully then they will sell up.

 

[No future with SISU]

I only care about the club and couldn't give a fuck about ACL - you?

You do not care for the club, all you care about is the council getting done over by a hedge fund. You must have been gutted when the Judge let us all know how SISU operate, that is why their is NO FUTURE with them.

 

[Grendel]

You do not care for the club, all you care about is the council getting done over by a hedge fund. You must have been gutted when the Judge let us all know how SISU operate, that is why their is NO FUTURE with them.

I want the club back at any cost to anyone else. You only have to look at the comment on here that many do not want that. Some are so stupid they would rather we did not get back unless SISU get shafted -- which then means the club is shafted - again.

Yes I mean you and your ilk.

 

[No future with SISU]

They came along because the club went bust due to the crazy rent deal.

They were bust when they left highfield road, it was all ready sold and they were paying £1.2m rent for it. The rent at the RICOH was not the reason they went bust, the JR report will show you that if you can read it. I know you are too busy working in your £100,000 job and then spending your spare time bulling on here to find the time to read it.

 

[Grendel]

They were bust when they left highfield road, it was all ready sold and they were paying £1.2m rent for it. The rent at the RICOH was not the reason they went bust, the JR report will show you that if you can read it. I know you are too busy working in your £100,000 job and then spending your spare time bulling on here to find the time to read it.

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

 

[No future with SISU]

I want the club back at any cost to anyone else. You only have to look at the comment on here that many do not want that. Some are so stupid they would rather we did not get back unless SISU get shafted -- which then means the club is shafted - again.

Yes I mean you and your ilk.

The club has been well shafted by SISU, so SISU getting shafted will make no difference to the club.

 

[skybluetony176]

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

We must have gone for option 1 as well. Unless I was in a coma for the play off and promotion years.

 

[No future with SISU]

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

They were in the champship when the deal was made. How long were SISU in charge before they complained?

 

[stupot07]

They were in the champship when the deal was made. How long were SISU in charge before they complained?

Regardless of what sisu have done, and the fact they should have addressed the rent earlier.....



....do you think that £1.3m was a good deal? Even on the championship?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

That, again, is preposterous. You know the percentage of rent against turnover when SISU took over. Why therefore pretend that the rent we all know was uncompetitive was the primary factor in our financial demise? It was no more a factor than the crazy contracts given by SISU to Bell, Wood or McSheffrey. But you never mention those. Cost control, or lack thereof was three times the order of magnitude a player as the rent. That's SISU's maladministration of the cost control.

But you're stuck in the same groove as Nick and your clique. Rent, rent, rent, rent, rent....

 

[ccfcway]

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

so it was the 3 years paying £1.4 million (4.2 million) that put us into admin ?

 

[skybluefred]

so it was the 3 years paying £1.4 million (4.2 million) that put us into admin ?

If Grendel say's so it must be right.:sarcasm:

 

[kmj5000]

Timmy to ACL:

"As planned and announced 18 months ago, we sailed off into the sunset. Unfortunately, we met stormy waters, lost our way and had a mutiny as the crew lost faith in the captain. So we were forced come back to port.

I know I said that there was no way we were interested in renting the Ricoh but as it is apparent that we now have no chance of purchasing it on the cheap, I wonder if you might be interested in having us back?

We are getting a bit desperate now as even our team manager thinks it is imperative for the future of the club that we come back to play in your stadium.

I know we have caused you a lot of trouble in the past by not paying the rent, taking one of your shareholders to court and incurring unnecessary costs and inconvenience on a 'hopeless' case but we are hoping that you might consider having us back as a tenant?

We regret that we might still have to continue with legal action against one of your owners because Joy is upset by the Judge's comments but we are now getting almost as desperate as the fans and it has dawned on us that we have boxed ourselves into a corner.

If we pay you the amount the FL ordered us to pay 12 months ago, subject to an agreed adjustment for some additional expenses Mr Aplleton neglected to include in his calculations, could we please open negotiations and consider letting us to use your magnificent Stadium?

We are sorry for all the unnecessary trouble and anxiety we have caused to you and the fans"

 

[sky blue john]

They came along because the club went bust due to the crazy rent deal.

Lol !!
Are you for real ?

Oh so plunging to administration for the first time in our history had nothing to do with not owning the stadium and needing 22,500 paying adults at full ticket prices with a wage bill which was only average on the league we were in?

Please explain.

They were not paying £1.2 million rent at Highfield Road -- this was equity release to a Private Company incurring penalties due to late surrender. They were paid to sell and were paying back on the equity at an increasing rate of interest.

The club were not bust at that point at all. The issue was that the costs of renting the stadium were as high as equity release from a company that had already paid them and the revenue was actually no greater and gradually got worse.

Simple economics;

Worst deal in the league for a rental arrangement = either an uncompetitive squad or financial ruin. We went for Option 2.

So Grendel if a crazy rental deal of 1.2 million a year sent ccfc bust. How long before ccfc go bust again paying Arvo 1.8 million a year in interest alone ?
Simple economics !!!
I know you won't answer the Arvo interest question because it blows your whole rental council argument out of the water !!!
At least we know where the CW money has gone !!

 

[covmark]

So Grendel if a crazy rental deal of 1.2 million a year sent ccfc bust. How long before ccfc go bust again paying Arvo 1.8 million a year in interest alone ?
Simple economics !!!
I know you won't answer the Arvo interest question because it blows your whole rental council argument out of the water !!!
At least we know where the CW money has gone !!

Has ARVO received any money?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Has ARVO received any money?

If you're trying to argue it's of a lower significance because the cash hasn't changed hands (as it's not there) - why bother invoicing then?

 

[covmark]

If you're trying to argue it's of a lower significance because the cash hasn't changed hands (as it's not there) - why bother invoicing then?

They haven't then, ok thanks.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

They haven't then, ok thanks.

If you can't debate the point; don't raise it. Otherwise it makes you look ill-educated.

Again....

 

[sky blue john]

Has ARVO received any money?

Has SP seen the CW transfer money ?
No SP hasn't seen the transfer money so I should imagine its gone into Arvo's back pocket !!

 

[covmark]

If you can't debate the point; don't raise it. Otherwise it makes you look ill-educated.

Again....

I'd rather look ill educated than a pompous muppet.
Regards to your question. I have no idea why they'd invoice it, maybe they're hoping Bernie Ecclestone wants to spend his billions on a football club that doesn't own its own stadium and plays 35 miles away from where it's supposed to. Then they can get hold of their interest charges. Tbh I'm losing the will to live reading about all this crap. We've got a game tomorrow, I'll be happy to debate with you about football, someting I know a little bit more about

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I'd rather look ill educated than a pompous muppet.
Regards to your question. I have no idea why they'd invoice it, maybe they're hoping Bernie Ecclestone wants to spend his billions on a football club that doesn't own its own stadium and plays 35 miles away from where it's supposed to. Then they can get hold of their interest charges. Tbh I'm losing the will to live reading about all this crap. We've got a game tomorrow, I'll be happy to debate with you about football, someting I know a little bit more about

Personally, I'd rather look a pompous muppet than make a comment I can't comment or contextualise. These costs, invoiced, builds that status of the business as a creditor, which protects the businesses' interests in the event of administration, or the unlikely event of a buy-out, etc. (look at how SISU used the huge value of the creditor status to 'shape the administration in their favour - how much is that 'control' worth?). So, it does have a 'value'. Maybe not a transferred cash value, but it does have a value. That's why they bother doing it.

To claim that due to the fact it hasn't been paid makes it insignificant, or worthless really isn't to understand the motivation behind it