Rent Money owed to ACL rumour (1 Viewer)

[Ian1779]

It seems to me that with you its everyone else's fault you never accuse or hold Sisu accountable for anything ?

They are accountable for plenty of this mess as I have said previously. The difference is I don't hold them to blame exclusively.

 

---

[duffer]

Don't think you can make quite as direct a comparison - but I get the point.

Am I right in saying that the FL refused a groundshare at the Butts? What was the reasoning behind that, as that's in Cov?

Might have made this all a bit easier.

Hi Ian, I don't think Butts was ever an option. There was never any suggestion of a formal approach I don't think, and because it's a rugby ground rather than a footy ground I'm not sure the FL would have sanctioned it. Also, it just wouldn't work - two turnstiles, one stand, nothing like sufficient. Nuneaton's Liberty Way would be a better bet for our current attendance and holds more, fwiw...

 

[sky blue john]

They are accountable for plenty of this mess as I have said previously. The difference is I don't hold them to blame exclusively.

Doesn't ring true when your trying to play down that they have threatened to liquidate the club !!

 

[Ian1779]

Doesn't ring true when your trying to play down that they have threatened to liquidate the club !!

So where is the quote that says ' we are threatening to liquidate the club'?

 

[sky blue john]

So where is the quote that says ' we are threatening to liquidate the club'?

Its common knowledge that TF reported it to the CET.
And also if i'm not mistaken Joy has threatened it during a meeting or two with Acl, CCC.
So i hardly think its a one off ill advised blunder !!
Do a search in the CET.

 

[Ian1779]

Its common knowledge that TF reported it to the CET.
And also if i'm not mistaken Joy has threatened it during a meeting or two with Acl, CCC.
So i hardly think its a one off ill advised blunder !!
Do a search in the CET.

I have - i can see it mentioned, but no actual direct quote that says - 'we are going to liquidate club'

 

[Ian1779]

Its common knowledge that TF reported it to the CET.
And also if i'm not mistaken Joy has threatened it during a meeting or two with Acl, CCC.
So i hardly think its a one off ill advised blunder !!
Do a search in the CET.

As for it being mentioned in meetings, I wouldn't know, I wasn't present.

It's funny how people put absolute faith in comments made in meetings ( were these coments actually minuted?) and then don't seem that bothered that no one thought to minute a meeting where £14m was spent bailing out ACL.

 

[James Smith]

I don't know why, but I'm thinking 'Hunt for Red October'?

(Coming soon, the sequel, 'Hunt for the Golden Share').

With regard to the mention of liquidation, it wasn't a "poorly chosen phrase", it was a direct threat posed by Fisher and SISU in the press and also in meetings when the roadmap was proposed. I'd agree though that I can't see the logic of liquidating something that you can sell, even if not for very much. (I appreciate others differ - the point being, I think, that liquidation shows how ruthless you are to other businesses that you might have to deal with in the future).

As for the suggestion here that ACL have somehow double-charged for the £590k, I think OSB has nailed that. The £590k doesn't relate directly to the rent, or the escrow, and it hasn't yet been paid by anybody.

How do rumours like this start, I wonder, and who are they designed to benefit...

Yep Hunt for Red October, Richard Jordan (playing Jeffrey Pelt) says it to Joss Ackland.

 

[sky blue john]

I have - i can see it mentioned, but no actual direct quote that says - 'we are going to liquidate club'

Lol !!
You choose to ignore it was said by TF then ?

 

[Bennets Afro]

so my question would be ........... considering every tom dick and harry knew about the Escrow and the guarantees given by GR/MM why didn't the administrator know and account for it? Especially when the accounts for all the group companies mention the Escrow account

GR and MM didn't pay the rent though if they paid anything it was to top up the Escrow account. It might seem like playing with words but you have to look at the legal contracts in place. GR & MM had no legal liability to pay the rent. They were guarantors to the rental deposit Escrow account.

Does your friend know how much was actually paid by GR or MM?

From what i am led to believe, as the CVA was rejected, ACL were entitled to no money.

The deal with the FL was to compensate for the missing rent arrears so ACL were not out of pocket as part of receiving the Golden Share.

If the said rent arrears had already been settled by Robinson, whether that is partially or in full, then it has been settled and no money is outstanding to ACL. So why tell the FA that it is still owed and why chase the club for a debt that has already been paid???

 

[James Smith]

So where is the quote that says ' we are threatening to liquidate the club'?

Tim said "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided."

That was March last year and is taken from the Guardian.
Http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-administration-ricoh-arena

 

[skybluetony176]

So where is the quote that says ' we are threatening to liquidate the club'?

was it not brought up in the higgs vs sisu court battle?

 

[duffer]

As for it being mentioned in meetings, I wouldn't know, I wasn't present.

It's funny how people put absolute faith in comments made in meetings ( were these coments actually minuted?) and then don't seem that bothered that no one thought to minute a meeting where £14m was spent bailing out ACL.

The stuff in the roadmap meetings was in the court transcripts... and the liquidation threat was also made quite clearly to the press, by Fisher.

As for the bail-out meeting, agree that it's odd that there are no minutes, although it's given that there was a unanimous vote to do it. Maybe more will come out at the JR...

 

[Ian1779]

Tim said "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided."

That was March last year and is taken from the Guardian.
Http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-admimistration-ricoh-arena

So how is that a threat of 'we are going to liquidate the club'?

Describing the possible consequences is very different to threatening to do it yourself.

 

[sky blue john]

So how is that a threat of 'we are going to liquidate the club'?

Describing the possible consequences is very different to threatening to do it yourself.

Lol still trying to ignore it !!

 

[Ian1779]

Lol still trying to ignore it !!

It's not ignoring it is it?

Notice how you conveniently ignore ACL rejecting CVA in first place, now what exactly have they done about their supposed 'concerns at the admin process'

Fuck all.... but that's fine for you.

 

[duffer]

So how is that a threat of 'we are going to liquidate the club'?

Describing the possible consequences is very different to threatening to do it yourself.

Come off it - who do you think was threatening liquidate the club when he made this statement?

 

[Ian1779]

Come off it - who do you think was threatening liquidate the club when he made this statement?

I'm sorry but describing something that could occur as a result of the club's poor financial health is not the same as saying you will do it yourself.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm sorry but describing something that could occur as a result of the club's poor financial health is not the same as saying you will do it yourself.

Who else could do it? All debts are to Sisu.

It was a blatant threat and your failure to see it betrays your bias. As others have said, they admitted in court threatening the council with it upon relegation as well.

The club has been running at a loss as long as I can remember, the "poor financial health" hasn't suddenly just come along. By definition, it'd be a conscious decision not to carry on funding the club by Sisu.

 

[James Smith]

I'm sorry but describing something that could occur as a result of the club's poor financial health is not the same as saying you will do it yourself.

I've fixed the link and I would read the rest of the piece and not just the one quote. He goes on to say that

"They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation."

It goes on but you can read it from the original piece. Tim then said the now infamous"... we do not posture, we do not threaten" etc. quote in the Coventry Telegraph a week later.

 

[duffer]

I'm sorry but describing something that could occur as a result of the club's poor financial health is not the same as saying you will do it yourself.

I'm sorry too Ian, because you're kidding yourself here. It's not hearsay, and it's not an external agent; SISU threaten to pull the plug in the roadmap meetings, Fisher threatens insolvent liquidation in the press. No other party here is threatening to liquidate the club, or indeed even has the power to do so at that point in time.

Even the owners don't have to liquidate (or threaten it), there are a range of other options available to them - re-negotiate in good faith or sell up, being the most obvious ones.

It's a threat to liquidate, and it comes from SISU - there's really no other way to read it.

 

[oldskyblue58]

From what i am led to believe, as the CVA was rejected, ACL were entitled to no money.

The deal with the FL was to compensate for the missing rent arrears so ACL were not out of pocket as part of receiving the Golden Share.

If the said rent arrears had already been settled by Robinson, whether that is partially or in full, then it has been settled and no money is outstanding to ACL. So why tell the FA that it is still owed and why chase the club for a debt that has already been paid???

There is no contractual right for ACL to demand the payment of £590k from Otium as far as I know. Therefore no right of set off against any debt they believe they are owed for rent by CCFC Ltd. It is not a clause imposed on Otium by ACL.

Did GR/MM actually pay anything? if so how much? - proper evidence please not "my friend told me in the canteen". He might be right but as this stands its nothing more than a rumour.

The contract is between Otium and FL and includes a provision for Otium to pay ACL £590k in compensation (not rent). I assume the FL thought that such a payment might encourage settlement of the dispute. That £590k is not based on any calculation of rent arrears. It is not the same legal requirement as the CVA either. In deed even the £590k proposed by Mr Appleton was largely compensation for termination of the lease based on a totally arbitrary figure and not rent at all.

Even by Mr Appletons figures ACL are out of pocket by £636k. Surely he checked how such a significant sum was arrived at? We know he did enough to discount the original claim so you would have to assume so. Appleton calculated that ACL would have received 156k in rent from the CVA that still left a lost rent of £480k. Did GR/MM actually pay any of the difference? Irrelevant really though because that CVA deal never actually happened

Bottom line is that this FL figure of £590k doesn't actually represent anything other than what ACL might have got if they accepted a proposed CVA that was rejected. It is not back rent, it is not even a termination of lease payment. It is a figure included by the FL as a precondition of granting the golden share, yes it is the same as a failed CVA proposal but it could have been any figure imposed by the FL. Its an arbitrary number

Just my opinion but for the FL to include any sum at all would seem to point towards them being uncomfortable with what had gone on. They did not have to impose any sum at all.

Finally is it not strange this comes up now when payment due 31st May. You have got to think that lawyers, directors, owners & FL will have been poring over all these documents for months and months ........ that any double payment, incorrect calculation or misrepresentation would have been spotted a long time ago. It is pretty basic calculations. Does anyone really think that GR/MM would have paid anything they were not legally required to, or that the administrator would not have factored in a key part of the financial set up (in fact as he acted for the creditors should he not have been chasing GR/MM anyway ? )

Just to add if there is no legal contract between Otium and ACL how can ACL chase the club at all for anything?

 

[Grendel]

Come off it - who do you think was threatening liquidate the club when he made this statement?

It is somewhat amusing. The statement doesn't say that but of course there is a veiled threat of a sabre rattling nature as there is with building a new ground.

Duffer, however, is clearly a man who believes what Mr Fisher says.

So Duffer when will the new ground be built?

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

If you're still reading the thread OSB, in your opinion is liquidation a possibility? I thought it would be as they could use the losses incurred to offset tax on profits made in other investments. To me if the money that could be achieved through a sale is less than can be made by offsetting the debt then it would be a real possibility.

 

[Bennets Afro]

Your right Otium are not legally obliged to pay this money to ACL. I have no hard proof, that is why i was asking for Simon Gilbert to do some digging and ask some questions to see if this rumour is true. Even though he was proudly bleating before about seeing a lead on here and following it up. As this doesn't support the councils hard done to view then I am guessing he will not follow this up or even be allowed to print it if it turns out to be true.

I am meeting the club tonight so shall ask the question myself and see what they know or say

 

[Ian1779]

I'm sorry too Ian, because you're kidding yourself here. It's not hearsay, and it's not an external agent; SISU threaten to pull the plug in the roadmap meetings, Fisher threatens insolvent liquidation in the press. No other party here is threatening to liquidate the club, or indeed even has the power to do so at that point in time.

Even the owners don't have to liquidate (or threaten it), there are a range of other options available to them - re-negotiate in good faith or sell up, being the most obvious ones.

It's a threat to liquidate, and it comes from SISU - there's really no other way to read it.

So you don't believe a single word Fisher says normally - but this one, you're all into it to the letter.

My point is that there was no direct statement - saying 'we will liquidate club' - it was said foolishly in my opinion, in some way to provoke a reaction from the other parties involved.

For everyone to then jump on it like it was gospel is merely scaremongering.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Liquidation is a possibility but at this point I do not think it is what will happen. That doesn't mean it wont

I would have thought that the next step would be to "place" the club with new owners that allowed ARVO debt to remain in place in full. ARVO have a strong (strangle?) hold on Otium because everything is charged to them. The shareholdings say different but the real control of Otium is through ARVO in my opinion.

If they "place" the club with new owners sufficiently distant to SISU then there might be a better chance to come back to the Ricoh. But so long as ARVO there then they control whatever assets there are, the funding, and to some degree the profits/losses.

If SBS&L were to sell its shares and write off the loans then there may well be tax losses without the need for liquidation .

assumes no other tricks up their sleeve too

But to be honest it is anyones guess how SISU get out of the mess they have created

 

[duffer]

So you don't believe a single word Fisher says normally - but this one, you're all into it to the letter.

My point is that there was no direct statement - saying 'we will liquidate club' - it was said foolishly in my opinion, in some way to provoke a reaction from the other parties involved.

For everyone to then jump on it like it was gospel is merely scaremongering.

That's a false argument. I listen to what Fisher says, and then pull it apart if it doesn't stand up* (e.g. funding the new stadium).

This was a direct statement by the only party here capable of liquidating the club, SISU. They're not saying someone else might liquidate the club, as you implied, they were threatening to pull the plug. For anyone associated with the club to ignore it, particularly (say) a major creditor, would be ludicrous.

*Edit: imho, obviously - others will differ.

 

[Ian1779]

That's a false argument. I listen to what Fisher says, and then pull it apart if it doesn't stand up (e.g. funding the new stadium).

This was a direct statement by the only party here capable of liquidating the club, SISU. They're not saying someone else might liquidate the club, as you implied, they were threatening to pull the plug. For anyone associated with the club to ignore it, particularly (say) a major creditor, would be ludicrous.

How is it a false argument? I agree with you that the argument for a new stadium doesn't really stand up - but I would apply the same logic to the idea that they will consciously liquidate a club. They have virtually no assets. The golden share would not be counted in the calculations, so it is an unlikely event as a new stadium IMO.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

#100 woo hoo

 

[sky blue john]

To Grendel & Ian.
I didn't believe fisher & co when he said CCFC was moving to sixfields !!!

 

[Grendel]

How is it a false argument? I agree with you that the argument for a new stadium doesn't really stand up - but I would apply the same logic to the idea that they will consciously liquidate a club. They have virtually no assets. The golden share would not be counted in the calculations, so it is an unlikely event as a new stadium IMO.

It's a false argument as duffer can't argue the point. He's boxed himself into a corner and will get out of it by eventually patronising you and dismissing your posts as irrelevant.

 

[Ian1779]

To Grendel & Ian.
I didn't believe fisher & co when he said CCFC was moving to sixfields !!!

You don't believe him when he says he's going to build a new stadium - but you do believe when he says he's going to liquidate the club.

I guess it depends which one suits your argument.

 

[sky blue john]

You don't believe him when he says he's going to build a new stadium - but you do believe when he says he's going to liquidate the club.

I guess it depends which one suits your argument.

Just like Grendel you struggle to read peoples posts properly !
Where did i say i believe liquidation would happen ???????

 

[skybluetony176]

It's a false argument as duffer can't argue the point. He's boxed himself into a corner and will get out of it by eventually patronising you and dismissing your posts as irrelevant.

I wonder where who he could have learnt that trick from :thinking about: