Moff
Well-Known Member
Fair point...I was riled about something else at the time and for once it wasnt Sky Blue related, and may have reflected some possible angst in my post
(did you used to post on the CET forum?)
Questions for Peter Knatchbull Hugesson (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mattylad
- Start date
Fair point...I was riled about something else at the time and for once it wasnt Sky Blue related, and may have reflected some possible angst in my post
(did you used to post on the CET forum?)
Thank you for the questions. In answering these I am not promising to answer any that get put as I just won’t have time.
ACL’s lease includes the car parks. It has always been the intention to develop the car parks. If you look back to my post of 21 May 2012 http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17269-Higgs-Charity-CCFC-Sisu-City-Council you will see that I talked about continuing the regeneration of the north east of Coventry.
I think that there are two strands that are entwined and they are important. For the Football Club to survive, let alone be successful, it needs to have its income at least match its outgoings. In order to match its outgoings it needs to increase its income or reduce its costs. The profits from ACL, as it is at the moment, would not be sufficient to fund the Club as it has been run since the late 1970s. ACL has been investing each year in the facilities inside the main building, now it needs to develop the surrounding land. With the surrounding land developed, ACL will generate greater profit. In order for the Club to share that non-football growth and profit it has to have a stake in the development. That will come about if CCFC buy the Charity’s share in ACL and then joins with its then partner, the City Council, in investing in the surrounding land. You ask why should the Football Club be interested in developing that land? The answer is simple: so that it can make more money. No football club can live on its gate and shirt sales. Adding burgers and pints is not the solution: earning 365 days a year is the solution. That can be achieved through investment in and around the Ricoh. I thought this was what all the fuss was about: CCFC having sold its stadium and not being able to generate income. This I think answers your first two questions.
I think you have conflated two things in your third question: it is the duty of any directors of any company to collect money owed to the company and that is what we have been trying to do. Seeking to place CCFC in Administration will stop Sisu liquidating CCFC and simply walking away from the situation. Fisher had already threatened liquidation and it was confirmed by the other CCFC director Mark Labovitch. Once a liquidation process is begun it cannot be reversed into administration. It can be stopped by a purchase and refinancing but nobody would start a liquidation process if they thought that there was someone prepared to purchase and refinance: that is what administration is for. On whether promotion to the Championship alone would mean financial safety for CCFC or not, we will have to disagree.
I am afraid that you are wrong about the Manhattan Group fiasco. They never made an offer for the shares. I do not know where this myth came from although I can probably guess. The Option to purchase the shares remains with CCFC and were the shares to be purchased through that mechanism the procedure is already set out. The Trustees, however, I am sure, would look at any deal structure that was sensible and that would achieve a mutually satisfactory result.
I do believe that putting a stake into a football club is a gamble. I cannot see any charity investing in a football club. It is clearly a very high risk investment as my late brother-in-law found to his cost. How many clubs have gone to the wall? It is almost a pub quiz question. We don’t yet know what will happen in the coming days and weeks. As to the points deduction: if, and I say if, the Court starts the Administration process on Friday we are advised that there will be a 10 point deduction this season, if there is then a purchaser who can come to a deal with Ms Seppala there would be no deduction next season. If a Company Voluntary Arrangement is arrived at and CCFC emerges from Administration there would be no further deduction of points.
There are many ifs and maybes and I cannot foretell the future. There are enough opinions dressed up as fact on this forum for me not to add more.
ACL’s lease includes the car parks. It has always been the intention to develop the car parks. If you look back to my post of 21 May 2012 http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17269-Higgs-Charity-CCFC-Sisu-City-Council you will see that I talked about continuing the regeneration of the north east of Coventry.
I think that there are two strands that are entwined and they are important. For the Football Club to survive, let alone be successful, it needs to have its income at least match its outgoings. In order to match its outgoings it needs to increase its income or reduce its costs. The profits from ACL, as it is at the moment, would not be sufficient to fund the Club as it has been run since the late 1970s. ACL has been investing each year in the facilities inside the main building, now it needs to develop the surrounding land. With the surrounding land developed, ACL will generate greater profit. In order for the Club to share that non-football growth and profit it has to have a stake in the development. That will come about if CCFC buy the Charity’s share in ACL and then joins with its then partner, the City Council, in investing in the surrounding land. You ask why should the Football Club be interested in developing that land? The answer is simple: so that it can make more money. No football club can live on its gate and shirt sales. Adding burgers and pints is not the solution: earning 365 days a year is the solution. That can be achieved through investment in and around the Ricoh. I thought this was what all the fuss was about: CCFC having sold its stadium and not being able to generate income. This I think answers your first two questions.
I think you have conflated two things in your third question: it is the duty of any directors of any company to collect money owed to the company and that is what we have been trying to do. Seeking to place CCFC in Administration will stop Sisu liquidating CCFC and simply walking away from the situation. Fisher had already threatened liquidation and it was confirmed by the other CCFC director Mark Labovitch. Once a liquidation process is begun it cannot be reversed into administration. It can be stopped by a purchase and refinancing but nobody would start a liquidation process if they thought that there was someone prepared to purchase and refinance: that is what administration is for. On whether promotion to the Championship alone would mean financial safety for CCFC or not, we will have to disagree.
I am afraid that you are wrong about the Manhattan Group fiasco. They never made an offer for the shares. I do not know where this myth came from although I can probably guess. The Option to purchase the shares remains with CCFC and were the shares to be purchased through that mechanism the procedure is already set out. The Trustees, however, I am sure, would look at any deal structure that was sensible and that would achieve a mutually satisfactory result.
I do believe that putting a stake into a football club is a gamble. I cannot see any charity investing in a football club. It is clearly a very high risk investment as my late brother-in-law found to his cost. How many clubs have gone to the wall? It is almost a pub quiz question. We don’t yet know what will happen in the coming days and weeks. As to the points deduction: if, and I say if, the Court starts the Administration process on Friday we are advised that there will be a 10 point deduction this season, if there is then a purchaser who can come to a deal with Ms Seppala there would be no deduction next season. If a Company Voluntary Arrangement is arrived at and CCFC emerges from Administration there would be no further deduction of points.
There are many ifs and maybes and I cannot foretell the future. There are enough opinions dressed up as fact on this forum for me not to add more.
Fair point...I was riled about something else at the time and for once it wasnt Sky Blue related, and may have reflected some possible angst in my post
(did you used to post on the CET forum?)
yes I posted on there quite a lot but towards the end it just got ridiculous, so many trolls it was pointless posting anything. I pointed that out about rob, torch and grendel tongue in cheek more than anything else. Probably out of boredom as I'm not in work until 5 pm!
rob9872
Well-Known Member
I was fine with that and took it in good spirit, but do take exception to the follow up comment suggesting that I berated the alternative viewpoint.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's been covered/dissected before but is the rent of £1.2M a year that the club is charge the value of the mortgage repayments or did ACL factor is some profit with that?
Bluegloucester
New Member
Thank you Peter
mattylad
Member
Thank you for taking the time to respond and although I have only scan read this now I will certainly digest it in greater detail later.
One thing I do not fully understand still is the ACL saying they must act now in regards to SISU threatening to liquidate the club as it appears no more a threat than the threat made by you in the cov tel on the 17th of Jan where you talked about ACL possibly filing for compulsory liquidation.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...lan-edward-higgs-charity-view-92746-32606542/
If you can find the time to clarify I would be grateful or if not thank you for the responses already submitted which I am sure will aid us all in understanding this mess better.
Last edited:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
It may well be an idle threat, but surely it can't just be ignored.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is about as much chance of that happening as me investing in a Cyprus bank account.
Given you believe they were serious about liquidating the club it is very hard to perceive a situation where they agree to this if these claims were genuine.
The recommended administrators also have a less than successful record in this area.
It is inconceivable to think that the club will not at already suffer a 15 point penalty next season. It is also (as your if and if remark implies you know) the club is likely to fall into administration not immediately but in the close season.
This means 25 points next season. However and I am far from certain of this if the club were promoted I think 10 points can be excercised this season.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Good point, Matty. It seems OK for one side (ACL) to threaten liquidation, but not the other:
The Board of ACL has already issued a Statutory Demand for payment, the deadline for which has long since passed, and is now looking at its legal options. These legal options include petitioning the courts to grant an order to wind up CCFC and starting off the process of placing the Club into compulsory liquidation.
Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...gs-charity-view-92746-32606542/#ixzz2NuV9bY5V
The Board of ACL has already issued a Statutory Demand for payment, the deadline for which has long since passed, and is now looking at its legal options. These legal options include petitioning the courts to grant an order to wind up CCFC and starting off the process of placing the Club into compulsory liquidation.
Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...gs-charity-view-92746-32606542/#ixzz2NuV9bY5V
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Are you an insecure teenager?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
There's hypocrisy all over the ACL camp's argument. I would guarantee if it were not SISU negotiating, the owners would not have faced such opposition, even if they went with the renegade tactics SISU did, and ultimately, people like PWKH would be heard by deaf ears. It stinks of hypocrisy.
I, and others, get called 'pro-SISU', it simply isn't the case, I'm pro-CCFC as I would completely support the club in this struggle whoever was our owners, whether it be Hoffman, the SBT, anyone, whereas ACL are supported (well the majority) by blinded by their hatred of SISU, their ability to make a clear judgement on this issue. I'm speaking generally here, so please, whoever replies, don't be pedantic.
I knew PWKH was the user's initials! What about the 'W' though? Such a posh name to.
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
yes your right, the reason fans like myself, acl, higgs and the council have our opinions is because its sisu were dealing with. They've been a disaster for the club, bully and discredit whoever stands in their way and would destroy ccfc if it was in their financial interest.
Also there is no need for the personal insults, I.e. Posh name. Why do you discriminate against people because of their background?
yes your right, the reason fans like myself, acl, higgs and the council have our opinions is because its sisu were dealing with. They've been a disaster for the club, bully and discredit whoever stands in their way and would destroy ccfc if it was in their financial interest.
Also there is no need for the personal insults, I.e. Posh name. Why do you discriminate against people because of their background?
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Thanks... Even posher! I take PWKH isn't a local?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
We have plenty of hat doffers amongst our supporters.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I think from now on I'll start every post I make with "beggin' yer pardon, Sir", just in case.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The fact he glibly over the colossal points reduction we are likely to receive speaks volumes to me.
But least we'd still have a club to support, if SISU continue to play with gambles CCFC could be no more. Teams like Southampton took the admin and come out stronger for it as have Palace and Leeds.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yes, interesting.
The reason we are given by ACL for putting the club into Administration (if that happens) and backed-up by many on here is the "threat" of liquidation by SISU, yet ACL threatened the same thing a few months ago. Doesn't really make sense, does it?
The reason we are given by ACL for putting the club into Administration (if that happens) and backed-up by many on here is the "threat" of liquidation by SISU, yet ACL threatened the same thing a few months ago. Doesn't really make sense, does it?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He gives answers some on here want to hear. His ultimate interest is not in the football club and nor should they be.
If a company owes a million and are refusing to pay then admin is the only option from what I can see. It seems the threatening made no difference to SISU first time round so now it comes to a head! Both parties are to blame IMO however SISU believe for me to be invisible and can do what they like when they like.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
And your telling me SISU have had this club best interests through all this?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Apologies, I made a mistake. I meant to say that ACL threatened liquidation. I've now edited my original post.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Where have I said that?
Then ACL are not faultless in this which I said above. Both parties are to blame but I firmly believe SISU have brought this situation upon themselves for the club and ACL like any company would, protecting themselves and believe they are owed money which is rightly there's. it does put our club in danger however this is SISU own doing imo
So you agree SISU have caused this loggerhead too?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Both sides are culpable.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
At least one side's representative has tried to offer clarity; I wonder if we tried the same of Fisher whether he'd be prepared to explain why he's acted as he has?
