Either Sisu pay up or ACL issue a winding up order and put us into admin. End of really. Personally I think we will either go into admin and end up owned by ACL/ a new buyer with a better deal with ACL. If Sisu want to be nasty they could liquidate us but not sure what the point would be as they will lose money
ACL hold all the cards (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter OyJimmy
- Start date
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
ACL running the club would be another public sector disaster. Leave CCFC in the private sector and hand over the assets so we can move forward.
Sell the complex at a fair price, let SISU develop the area, let them make a huge profit by selling a going concern and then SISU can move on.
We will be left with a great development, a well financed club and no SISU.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Why should we let SISU develop the area? They got shares for free and started in a 'debt free' situation. Last season alone we lost over £6m; and we're facing a winding up order that could obliterate the club totally.
What credibility have SISU shown you that they deserve an even bigger train set to play with? Is this so they can practise reading Due Diligence documents and hopefully begin to get one right?!?!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The club itself will never make a profit so it needs other income streams. Those related to CCFC will still not be enough and are all interrelated with attendance. SISU are the only ones interested and with there resources can provide.
Go with it and enjoy the ride.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Anybody who believes that Sisu took over a "debt-free" situation is very naive, or being deliberately obtuse.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
If SISU hadn't acquired the shares they would have been worthless anyway, or that is what we were told anyway. Joe Elliot certainly helped out by visiting shareholders in their homes and convincing them to hand them over.
When exactly were we 'debt-free', did you really fall for Ranson's spin?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
In fact if they took over a "debt-free" situation, why did they have to take over?
Uncle Joe's clock didn't need to be ticking at all.
Uncle Joe's clock didn't need to be ticking at all.
If I had to forecast an eventual scenario, I can see the football club being united with the arena under the umbrella of the council/ plus a consortium of investors. This would surely be the best solution. The question is how SISU can retreat from this situation with some dignity and some financial compensation to appease investors.
This situation would at last provide a status quo with infinitely less suspicion, a share of all revenue sources for all interested parties and a club with a huge reserve of financial collateral. CCFC would still have to be run very tightly as a business and should aim to break even to appease tax payers. For this to happen though SISU will need to cut their losses and bow out gracefully.
This situation would at last provide a status quo with infinitely less suspicion, a share of all revenue sources for all interested parties and a club with a huge reserve of financial collateral. CCFC would still have to be run very tightly as a business and should aim to break even to appease tax payers. For this to happen though SISU will need to cut their losses and bow out gracefully.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Have you ever considered a career in stand up? With one liners like that you'd be made for the role.
The council can't even get bins collected when there is a snow flake on the Ground.
What do you suggest when we make more and more losses -- just add to the council tax?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
not sure ACL hold all the cards but they certainly have a stronger hand than they used to.
If the object of the project is to sell to a serious developer then why sell to SISU and let them take the profit. If you think that the club would ever own the site then i think you may well be disappointed. So if the council want to sell on, ignore the middle deal go for the main one.
SISU are never going to develop the site, they are just not in that sort of business
CCFC were not debt free at the take over. The deal was SISU would take over circa £9m of the debts, all other debts written off, on the basis that ownership of the club passed to SISU.
Unless an alternative deal was there then SISU called the tune on the deal
The club at takeover had no assets and masssive debts............ the shares had no worth at all other than emotional attachment........... with or without SISU doing the deal ............ it is the same arguement as GH made put forward with his £1 offer for all the shares SISU has
If the object of the project is to sell to a serious developer then why sell to SISU and let them take the profit. If you think that the club would ever own the site then i think you may well be disappointed. So if the council want to sell on, ignore the middle deal go for the main one.
SISU are never going to develop the site, they are just not in that sort of business
CCFC were not debt free at the take over. The deal was SISU would take over circa £9m of the debts, all other debts written off, on the basis that ownership of the club passed to SISU.
Unless an alternative deal was there then SISU called the tune on the deal
The club at takeover had no assets and masssive debts............ the shares had no worth at all other than emotional attachment........... with or without SISU doing the deal ............ it is the same arguement as GH made put forward with his £1 offer for all the shares SISU has
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Sisu have nowhere to go now. They need to leave but for some reason they continue to hold the shitty end of the stick in the belief that things will get better. (apparently).
I am not convinced they have been running at huge losses anyway. I think the holding companies have charged ridiculous amounts for management fees and have built up a significant paper debt. If CCFC go bust they will have already made their money. When that happens may be sooner rather than later. The revenues coming in to the club will now be a little clearer and it will be interesting to see how month by month balance sheets work out without people dipping in to the funds now that ACL have first dibs at the income.
I am not convinced they have been running at huge losses anyway. I think the holding companies have charged ridiculous amounts for management fees and have built up a significant paper debt. If CCFC go bust they will have already made their money. When that happens may be sooner rather than later. The revenues coming in to the club will now be a little clearer and it will be interesting to see how month by month balance sheets work out without people dipping in to the funds now that ACL have first dibs at the income.
Do you usually always just take one line out of everyone's posts in an attempt to ridicule them if they don't necessarily share your unbalanced view.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
A slightly alarmist post dear chap. From what I have seen, ACL and the council's involvement therein have played a blinder. The Arena is well-used and profitable, high-class concerts and sporting events abound; and when SISU resorted to distressing ACL, they've played wise hands not once but twice. Looking at SISU's track-record since taking over, and ACL's time in charge of the Ricoh - it's a brave man to claim SISU are the more responsible and credible
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
ACL might hold the cards, but the big card is Coventry City Football Club, the only card i and thousands of supporters are really concerned with and SISU hold that fucker !!
I don't give a monkeys cuss whether Take That, Oasis, Arctic whatnots or Val Doonican play at the Ricoh for a night or two.
I don't give a monkeys cuss whether Take That, Oasis, Arctic whatnots or Val Doonican play at the Ricoh for a night or two.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The football club is a loss making institution and has been for years. Any public sector involvement would make it unworkable. ACL have managed the Ricoh but have relied on an over inflated income stream from ourselves to continue operating. Now the council have restructured the debt in a way that no commercial bank would ever have done.
I wonder if we were under such ownership how much the rent would be.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Val Doonican....I may have to revise my strategy.......love to see the rocking chair in the middle of the Ricoh
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And loss making because the good ole Council took advantage of a club on its knees and proposed a sky-high rent in which our idiotic and desperate board at the time ignored the clanging alarm bells and signed anyway.
The Council/Higgs/ACL have never been the friend of the football club. The situation existed long before SISU came onto the scene.
The Council/Higgs/ACL have never been the friend of the football club. The situation existed long before SISU came onto the scene.
ACL have done exactly what they needed to do. Secure the rent arrears debt in court, getting mother (council) to take over the mortgage and finally trying to claw out the money they are owed.
But have they been wise?
What ... in retrospect ... would have been wiser, had been to accept the clubs claim from day one. The offer on the table is almost identical to what the club asked for, so in effect ACL have agreed to everything the club asked for.
Accepting the clubs demands a year ago would have resulted in a much better relationship between the parties, no split between the fans and no arrears to fight over.
Does anybody know a reporter who can ask ACL how different the current offer is to what the club asked a year ago? In addition ask if ACL believe the difference was worth the direct and indirect costs of the fight.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
ACL only make around 500k profit, which includes a disgraceful 1.5-1.9m rent, 1.28m + revenue streams which varies season to season, take that away, and ACL are fucked, so no, they don't hold all of the cards, and they are in just as uncomfortable position as CCFC.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
You say public sector involvement would make it unworkable. If you haven't noticed, with private sector ownership it is unworkable. The difference being, one of fact and one is conjecture on your behalf. I am not saying that's what should be done - lest you jump on yet another comment and clam it as fact - but what I am saying is that to pretend that the ACL route would be disaster, and that the SISU route has proven anything less is an unsustainable debate
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The goalposts moved when the council took over the loan. The £1.2M rent is no longer on the table, it is 400K, a package which includes a share of revenues and a 300K write of from the existing £1.3M rent debt.
We don't know what ACL woulud end up like if CCFC left, currently it is a hypothetical situation. There is no doubt the 2 together have a positive synergy, but CCFC would still have to pay for an alternative venue & given their record it will have to be an up front payment, no rent strike would be possible in a new venue.
And remember CCFC are still tied into the Arena rent contract, no one wants ACL to force them to pay up in order to kill the club, but that remains an option. It will cost something for them to buy themselves out of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I can't understand how you can use such hyperbolic and alarmist descriptions as 'disgraceful' with regards the agreed rent; but you can't bring yourself to criticise one iota a party who's behaving illegally, is shipping money like the Zimbabwean finance ministry and has taken us to the cusp of financial abyss
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I've said on numerous occasions that the club could've handled it better, BUT, if the tactics work and we get a suitable settlement for CCFC, then it will be a vindication of their tactics, and will be well worth the hassle.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The current arrangement is 1.28m with 0% of match day revenue.
Why should we share revenue CCFC fans make!? No, for me, it's got to be 100% match day revenue, no less, like most teams. Ok, they are writing off 300k of our 1.3m debt, meaning we would've had to pay 1m for the last year to rent the RICOH, which is unreasonable and still way above market value, this is a stumbling block in negotiations, ACL don't want to backdate it, unreasonable in my view, because the reason we stopped paying is that it's too much, and knocking off a mere 300k is actually a bit of an insult. I wouldn't accept it even if they gave us 100 years to pay it, because that's not the point.
If ACL make 500k profit in a year, and CCFC pay 1.28m rent, they're already in the red when you minus that, and that's without taking away the match day revenue on a weekly basis, it's fair to say they'll struggle because they won't have a club to rob.
To loosely quote Godiva himself somewhere on here..........'It could be said that with the general cost cutting across the board and with a healthy season in terms of ticket revenue, lower wages and now lower rent and more access to profits from vittels' CCFC might actually be close to break even'.................................... { especially if you take out all the creative accounting and debt interest, holding company transfers and administrative charges etc} Surely if ACL/council waived the legally due debt and threw in another £4 million for good measure it would be better for SISU to just cut and run back to Mayfair, writing it all off as a bum experience and gaining a little of their losses in tax avoidance, supposing they are making profits elsewhere?
cloughie
Well-Known Member
The difference now is that the mortgage payments have been lowered by refinancing via the council so theyhave ovously worked it out they only need £150, 000 a year to break even. Also the £500,000 profit per year is only that low as ACL spent money on improvements on the Arena.
I would agree both sides need to be able to trade without being reliant on each other yet I think that the figures may suggest that ACL are nearer to that.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
SBT - no catches when asking this - but what do you define as match day income ?
also £500k of the demand relates to money a court has said the club needs to put back in the escrow account. Thats money that is not ACL's and sits in an account to cover default. Of course if in time the club can prove a excellent payment record, be less of a financial risk then part or all of that money can/could be refunded to the club. I know that doesnt change your view on payment but just want to make sure you were aware of that.
also £500k of the demand relates to money a court has said the club needs to put back in the escrow account. Thats money that is not ACL's and sits in an account to cover default. Of course if in time the club can prove a excellent payment record, be less of a financial risk then part or all of that money can/could be refunded to the club. I know that doesnt change your view on payment but just want to make sure you were aware of that.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
You mean like when most people rent a premises you have to pay a deposit?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
pretty much yes don....... except such deposits usually cover repairs etc when the tenant leaves
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I haven't got the exact figures on me, but they have consistently made 500k (give or take) profit a year, bar one year, they made 3.5m, an anomaly OSB explained, but can't remember what he said exactly.
They aren't stable without CCFC, and would have to radically change if CCFC, for what ever reason, ceased to play at the RICOH.