Serious question about ACL, CCC (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Ok - worst treatment of any football club in a council stadium in terms of rental payments and revenue gains

- a desire to make commercial gain out if the club regardless of their financial state. Go and look how other councils have treated their clubs.

Ultimately though the issue is this - sisu are a faceless organisation that has zero interest in the football club. The council, you would hope, have done concern at preserving the club in the city. So altruism you would expect as many councils have - Swansea, stoke, forest and Doncaster to name but a few. However, they have demonstrated none.

Depends what you want. I want the club back in Coventry and I have no interest in the council, Higgs and certainly not ACL whose spiteful decision to reject a CVA has left us in the lower eschelons of the league rather than top 6.

This club has never been out of its city when it owned the stadium and had never been bankrupt once let alone twice.

I want the club back regardless - I suspect you'll concern yourself over other matters.

It's the 'I want the club back regardless' bit that I don't totally hold to (and I suspect the same is true of you, Grendel). I want the club back, and I could just about stomach SISU staying on, if I was sure that they wouldn't further shaft the football club financially. I'd rather have 2-3 years more pain now and have done with than being set up for future subservience to an entity that might suffocate us, for its own financial benefits. I find it hard to trust them with our club. Might be a problem I have to get over, but can't at present. PUSB

 

---

[Grendel]

FFS, they are not my "beloved" SISU. Grow up.

Don't be harsh. That's Tony's version of a rational debate.

 

[shropshirecov]

Unviable rent deal. Yep, that's definitely up there. Don't forget selling off parts of the arena & potential income streams....

 

[The Gentleman]

You have had responses, you're just side-stepping them with some passive-aggressive 'please be serious and not mean like you normally are, am I right fellas?' tact.

That you reeled off names of such awful turncoats gave you up immediately.

What ? I thought these forums were for asking questions. How did you want me to start, come on by giving everyone high fives saying "hi, I'm the new guy so can i just sit and watch for a bit". The reason is I had a question and it was directed to the people I said and lets call a spade a spade, they do often come back with sarcastic remarks, but you've sussed me now so here is my high five.

 

[sky blue john]

Can anyone join in or is this a private council love fest !!

 

[skybluetony176]

FFS, they are not my "beloved" SISU. Grow up.

sorry, that was a bit unfair.

your right we had no other options at that time, but we did have options before sh1tsu stole the club from its home city and stuck it in sixfields. that is not ACL, CCC or Higgs fault. the blame their lays firmly with sh1tsu.

so what i don't understand is why you are still concentrating on an option that kept the club in its home city over the decisions of a hedge fund that took the club away from the city?

especially when at this moment in time ACL, CCC and Higgs have zero influence other the future of the club and the people that do take an olive branch and use it to beat the fans of the club.

 

[ajsccfc]

The pretend incredulity too, you're really running the gamut. Who, me? All I did was present a hilariously loaded question to my list of villains and pre-empted any reply with hostility. Soz mate!

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Can anyone join in or is this a private council love fest !!

Speeeeeeeeeeedoooooo (sorry about that, just been ages since I let one of those out!)

 

[Grendel]

What ? I thought these forums were for asking questions. How did you want me to start, come on by giving everyone high fives saying "hi, I'm the new guy so can i just sit and watch for a bit". The reason is I had a question and it was directed to the people I said and lets call a spade a spade, they do often come back with sarcastic remarks, but you've sussed me now so here is my high five.

I've answered so why not respond?

 

[stupot07]

New to this posting but have been reading for a bit but wanted to ask a serious question to the likes of Grendel, Fernando, Torch, Hill83, Edgy and Robon to name some. What is it that ACL/CCC have done that is so bad to cop what they get from you lot continually. Don't bother coming back with smart arse remarks because this is a genuine question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[The Gentleman]

Ok - worst treatment of any football club in a council stadium in terms of rental payments and revenue gains

- a desire to make commercial gain out if the club regardless of their financial state. Go and look how other councils have treated their clubs.

Ultimately though the issue is this - sisu are a faceless organisation that has zero interest in the football club. The council, you would hope, have done concern at preserving the club in the city. So altruism you would expect as many councils have - Swansea, stoke, forest and Doncaster to name but a few. However, they have demonstrated none.

Depends what you want. I want the club back in Coventry and I have no interest in the council, Higgs and certainly not ACL whose spiteful decision to reject a CVA has left us in the lower eschelons of the league rather than top 6.

This club has never been out of its city when it owned the stadium and had never been bankrupt once let alone twice.

I want the club back regardless - I suspect you'll concern yourself over other matters.

You'll have to bear with me for a bit because these posts come thick and fast. From what I can gather, your main gripe seems to be the rent which was set at a certain rate. If we got back into the premier league a few years after we were relegated, and had stayed there because we managed that for over 30 years, would you still gripe about the rent even though we would be earning the gazillions the premier league has to offer ? That aside, I work as a Building Surveyor and have lots of clients who have tenants they like and do business with but charge them a rent which they think will return them a nice profit and allow them to continue to work in the area they do. This is normal practice for people who are branching out just as the Ricoh was.

 

[torchomatic]

When does a "nice profit" for the landlord become unaffordable for the tenant?

I work as a Building Surveyor and have lots of clients who have tenants they like and do business with but charge them a rent which they think will return them a nice profit and allow them to continue to work in the area they do. This is normal practice for people who are branching out just as the Ricoh was.

 

[torchomatic]

I could understand using "we" for the Club, but for ACL?

Not this again.. making cheap points out of first person use of "we"..... its rubbish G and not worthy.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

That's the point. There wasn't another option.

Why......?
Why was there no other option.

 

[torchomatic]

Richardson had already sold HR to Wimpey. We had no ground, we were homeless. What else could our club do?

Why......?
Why was there no other option.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Richardson had already sold HR to Wimpey. We had no ground, we were homeless. What else could our club do?

Torch... ... why was it that there wasnt anywhere to play this season...there was last and the season before that and that.....

Let me help maybe?

Why was there nowhere to play?
> Because our owners did not pay the rent...... is that not the reason? Was it not self inflicted vagrancy?

 

[skybluetony176]

Richardson had already sold HR to Wimpey. We had no ground, we were homeless. What else could our club do?

i ask you again.

your right we had no other options at that time, but we did have options before sh1tsu stole the club from its home city and stuck it in sixfields. that is not ACL, CCC or Higgs fault. the blame their lays firmly with sh1tsu.

so what i don't understand is why you are still concentrating on an option that kept the club in its home city over the decisions of a hedge fund that took the club away from the city?

especially when at this moment in time ACL, CCC and Higgs have zero influence other the future of the club and the people that do take an olive branch and use it to beat the fans of the club.

 

[The Gentleman]

When does a "nice profit" for the landlord become unaffordable for the tenant?

Like you say, when the rent becomes unaffordable, there is the problem. We all know that the rent was too high for us playing in the lower leagues but did it has only really become an issue in terms of withholding rent etc in the last couple of years. As soon as Sisu started to do this and show how serious they were, was it not the case that they got round a table and thrashed out a new deal for a third of the original deal, I bet some of my mates who rented their houses and got made redundant by Peugeot wished they had landlords like ACL/CCC who could cut their rent like that rather than turfing them out on the street. I simply cannot understand why people from all sides get hung up on the rent issue when we all know that it is not the rent that has caused all this. If it was, then when Sisu came along being the sharp minded business people they are supposed to be, they would have asked for it to be reduced then and say they would not complete without it. With no other option ACL/CCC would have reduced it like they have offered to more recently.

 

[stupot07]

years after we were relegated, and had stayed there because we managed that for over 30 years, .

You can't base your business model on the off chance of getting into the PL. We'd already spent 4 seasons in the championship before moving to the Ricoh and the parachute payments were long gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[duffer]

Richardson had already sold HR to Wimpey. We had no ground, we were homeless. What else could our club do?

Politely, I think there are a few flaws in your argument.

First off, from everything I've read the rent wasn't an issue when the club first moved to the Ricoh - this wasn't an unreasonable deal done at gunpoint, there was a lot of communication between the boards of ACL and CCFC at the time and it would seem everyone was content that it was a reasonable figure. Indeed, when a sliding scale based on league position was proposed it seems the club knocked it back, on the assumption that they'd never be relegated, presumably.

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

The rent wasn't actually an issue for SISU for the first few years, and when they complained in earnest, there was substantial movement from ACL, with a reduction to £400k. A sum that TF shook hands on at one point, and seemed to be happy with.

ACL, as far as I'm aware, have never taken a dividend, which rather puts the lie to the suggestion that they've made an excessive profit from the club. Their accounts are a matter of public record, I've read the last couple of years, they don't seem to be making a huge profit off the back of the club. Perhaps this is why they can claim to be able to manage without them, we'll know that soon enough I guess.

There is an argument to be had that ACL tried to engineer the removal of SISU by instigating administration, but then by the time that was happening SISU were clearly trying to distress their business too and as well as not paying the rent had also threatened liquidation. Ultimately any business that will not negotiate honestly with it's creditors will find itself facing the same situation, indeed most landlords would have taken that action much earlier, imho.

So, I'm still really not seeing it. I offer this not to provoke, but to explain why I'm on the other side of the fence as it were. I'm off to get a curry now - have a good weekend.

 

[torchomatic]

December 2005. Rent was a problem. Club approached ACL.

Politely, I think there are a few flaws in your argument.

First off, from everything I've read the rent wasn't an issue when the club first moved to the Ricoh - this wasn't an unreasonable deal done at gunpoint, there was a lot of communication between the boards of ACL and CCFC at the time and it would seem everyone was content that it was a reasonable figure. Indeed, when a sliding scale based on league position was proposed it seems the club knocked it back, on the assumption that they'd never be relegated, presumably.

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

The rent wasn't actually an issue for SISU for the first few years, and when they complained in earnest, there was substantial movement from ACL, with a reduction to £400k. A sum that TF shook hands on at one point, and seemed to be happy with.

ACL, as far as I'm aware, have never taken a dividend, which rather puts the lie to the suggestion that they've made an excessive profit from the club. Their accounts are a matter of public record, I've read the last couple of years, they don't seem to be making a huge profit off the back of the club. Perhaps this is why they can claim to be able to manage without them, we'll know that soon enough I guess.

There is an argument to be had that ACL tried to engineer the removal of SISU by instigating administration, but then by the time that was happening SISU were clearly trying to distress their business too and as well as not paying the rent had also threatened liquidation. Ultimately any business that will not negotiate honestly with it's creditors will find itself facing the same situation, indeed most landlords would have taken that action much earlier, imho.

So, I'm still really not seeing it. I offer this not to provoke, but to explain why I'm on the other side of the fence as it were. I'm off to get a curry now - have a good weekend.

 

[shmmeee]

Politely, I think there are a few flaws in your argument.

First off, from everything I've read the rent wasn't an issue when the club first moved to the Ricoh - this wasn't an unreasonable deal done at gunpoint, there was a lot of communication between the boards of ACL and CCFC at the time and it would seem everyone was content that it was a reasonable figure. Indeed, when a sliding scale based on league position was proposed it seems the club knocked it back, on the assumption that they'd never be relegated, presumably.

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

The rent wasn't actually an issue for SISU for the first few years, and when they complained in earnest, there was substantial movement from ACL, with a reduction to £400k. A sum that TF shook hands on at one point, and seemed to be happy with.

ACL, as far as I'm aware, have never taken a dividend, which rather puts the lie to the suggestion that they've made an excessive profit from the club. Their accounts are a matter of public record, I've read the last couple of years, they don't seem to be making a huge profit off the back of the club. Perhaps this is why they can claim to be able to manage without them, we'll know that soon enough I guess.

There is an argument to be had that ACL tried to engineer the removal of SISU by instigating administration, but then by the time that was happening SISU were clearly trying to distress their business too and as well as not paying the rent had also threatened liquidation. Ultimately any business that will not negotiate honestly with it's creditors will find itself facing the same situation, indeed most landlords would have taken that action much earlier, imho.

So, I'm still really not seeing it. I offer this not to provoke, but to explain why I'm on the other side of the fence as it were. I'm off to get a curry now - have a good weekend.

Came to post this, you did it far more eloquently. Exactly my thoughts, except for the curry.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

December 2005. Rent was a problem. Club approached ACL.

Torch... I dont disagree that the rent was too high.. I dont disagree that the rent and revenue streams should have been negotiated... I'm a life long CCFC supporter I want my club to have access to the revenue streams from matchdays... I buy into paying a few pence more for a pint or a pie at the ground, I buy raffle tickets and programmes etc etc because it puts money into my club...

What I don't agree with is the final, complete and absolute withdrawal of the rent.. it is wrong and cannot be condoned at all. Do you not agree?

 

[stupot07]

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

)

But that doesn't add up we paid £1.2m pa for 23-25 days use per annum with little revenue coming in. Yes, we'd have paid more if we'd have had to finance the £21m that ACL put in the built but would have had access to 365 days per year revenue, that PWKH estimates is worth £14m+ next financial year. The 2 are not really comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[James Smith]

Politely, I think there are a few flaws in your argument.

First off, from everything I've read the rent wasn't an issue when the club first moved to the Ricoh - this wasn't an unreasonable deal done at gunpoint, there was a lot of communication between the boards of ACL and CCFC at the time and it would seem everyone was content that it was a reasonable figure. Indeed, when a sliding scale based on league position was proposed it seems the club knocked it back, on the assumption that they'd never be relegated, presumably.

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

The rent wasn't actually an issue for SISU for the first few years, and when they complained in earnest, there was substantial movement from ACL, with a reduction to £400k. A sum that TF shook hands on at one point, and seemed to be happy with.

ACL, as far as I'm aware, have never taken a dividend, which rather puts the lie to the suggestion that they've made an excessive profit from the club. Their accounts are a matter of public record, I've read the last couple of years, they don't seem to be making a huge profit off the back of the club. Perhaps this is why they can claim to be able to manage without them, we'll know that soon enough I guess.

There is an argument to be had that ACL tried to engineer the removal of SISU by instigating administration, but then by the time that was happening SISU were clearly trying to distress their business too and as well as not paying the rent had also threatened liquidation. Ultimately any business that will not negotiate honestly with it's creditors will find itself facing the same situation, indeed most landlords would have taken that action much earlier, imho.

So, I'm still really not seeing it. I offer this not to provoke, but to explain why I'm on the other side of the fence as it were. I'm off to get a curry now - have a good weekend.

The rent was an issue I believe from day one at the Ricoh, the old board approached ACL but I don't think that ACL had their finances in any sort of shape to be able to reduce it. Sisu took over and made no serious attempt to negotiate until we were relegated and they were already boycotting the rent..... You know the rest.

Maybe we shouldn't have let the Higgs lend us money or bail us out we might be in better shape today.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

They have what should be owned by the club.

It's not a smart ass remark - It's a genuine answer.

True they own the RICOH, but they did actually pay for it. Two things that SISU will never do

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

The club agreed the contract with ACL, and Sisu conducted due diligence and took that contract on. Nothing was imposed it was contractually agreed, twice.
The club could have requested a sliding scale rent and/or other change clauses, to offset risk, they didn't. In fact it seems they consciously rejected this.

ACL moved on the contract, significantly, event though they were not obliged to.
Not a lot of blame to be given to ACL there, most all of it lies with the club's unprofessional approach to business. Brought to new levels by Sisu not paying rent, tans moving the club.

 

[stupot07]

The club agreed the contract with ACL, and Sisu conducted due diligence and took that contract on. Nothing was imposed it was contractually agreed, twice.
The club could have requested a sliding scale rent and/or other change clauses, to offset risk, they didn't. I fact it seems they consciously rejected this.

ACL moved on the contract, significantly, event though they were not obliged to.
Not a lot of blame to be given to ACL there, most all of it lies with the club's unprofessional approach to business. Brought to new levels by Sisu not paying rent, tans moving the club.

The sliding scale that they turned down was still £1.2m in the championship, more expensive in the PL, but cheaper in league one and two. We don't know how cheap. It also included a cost per fan over a certain level, so not the great deal people like you think it is when you make the "rejecting the sliding scale" argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[torchomatic]

I do agree. And again I've said many times that withdrawing rental payments was wrong.

What I don't agree with is the final, complete and absolute withdrawal of the rent.. it is wrong and cannot be condoned at all. Do you not agree?

 

[The Gentleman]

You can't base your business model on the off chance of getting into the PL. We'd already spent 4 seasons in the championship before moving to the Ricoh and the parachute payments were long gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

They didn't base it on the premier league, they based it on what they thought they could make a few quid on and what they needed to sustain the Ricoh. Does anybody really think ACL/CCC sit there stroking a white cat just thinking of ways to hurt CCFC. I am sure that most people who start a new business venture would want to maximise profits and ensure that they keep going.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Its a shame we have come to this.

It is worth remembering that SISU could have had access to part of the revenue and access to all other profits ACL generated if they had elected to pay the (alleged) £4 million to buy out the Higgs share. If they had done that, and acted as fair and equitable partners. I am sure CCC would have sold the balance of ACL to them in due time. Then in time they could have negotiated the Freehold or modified the arrangements to ensure that they had even better returns.
But they did not, they have demonstrated complete and utter contempt, loathing and animosity towards every other party involved and continue to do so.
I was a SISU supporter, I wished them only good fortune as their good fortune would be shared by the fans.
The problem appears to be that SISU's greed and contempt led them to develop a strategy that has ultimately decimated my club. And they continue to do so. And as in most cases when you give someone your total trust and they betray you, the principle emotion in return is disgust and even hate. The hate that SISU are feeling was generated entirely by their actions. Not CCC/ ACL or the fans that refuse to fund them.

 

[stupot07]

They didn't base it on the premier league, they based it on what they thought they could make a few quid on and what they needed to sustain the Ricoh. Does anybody really think ACL/CCC sit there stroking a white cat just thinking of ways to hurt CCFC. I am sure that most people who start a new business venture would want to maximise profits and ensure that they keep going.

Are you saying that you think that £1.2m for 23-25 days per annum was fair level of rent for a championship club?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[duffer]

December 2005. Rent was a problem. Club approached ACL.

Yep, think that's answered here, the sliding scale offer..

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...-news/227-full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc

I guess you're too busy to answer the other points, or maybe you just haven't given them too much thought. Probably easier.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Ok - worst treatment of any football club in a council stadium in terms of rental payments and revenue gains

- a desire to make commercial gain out if the club regardless of their financial state. Go and look how other councils have treated their clubs.

Ultimately though the issue is this - sisu are a faceless organisation that has zero interest in the football club. The council, you would hope, have done concern at preserving the club in the city. So altruism you would expect as many councils have - Swansea, stoke, forest and Doncaster to name but a few. However, they have demonstrated none.

Depends what you want. I want the club back in Coventry and I have no interest in the council, Higgs and certainly not ACL whose spiteful decision to reject a CVA has left us in the lower eschelons of the league rather than top 6.

This club has never been out of its city when it owned the stadium and had never been bankrupt once let alone twice.

I want the club back regardless - I suspect you'll concern yourself over other matters.

Why were we never bankrupt when we were at Highfield road? Oh yes that same CHARITY that looks after any citizen in Coventry not just football fans, had to bale them out.
So why should they now not get there money back money that was donated by the people of Coventry as well as the Higgs family?
Sisu got the club for nothing and have spent nothing don;t care about us or the club.

I love the club but don't like or trust sisu so sorry if you don't like that.

As the bloke who phoned up CWR said today sell them the Ricoh and only the Ricoh no land and lets see how serious they are?

 

[mds]

The actual sum itself, £1.2m/p.a., was a lot less than if CCFC had had to finance the £21m that ACL put into the build, even at current interest rates.

Arena Construction Completion Report 27 June 2006
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

Interesting read, i posted a quote from this the other day, ACL were to be charged 1.9m rent a year or pay a 1 off fee off 21m, they paid 600k rent for 4 months to CNR (CCC owned) and then arranged the payment. ACL didnt put into the build, they paid the 21 instead of 1.9m annual rent.
Page 10 6.1 ACL had the option to pay £1.9m rent per annum or a £21m premium. ACL have paid rent of £600k to CNR since the 1 February 2006.
Constuction forcast report page 16
company structures page 17 interesting.
Like i said first time if im reading this wrong im happy to be corrected.