Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Which why launching the process towards admin in the first place was strange from ACL. Surely they would have known a) the lease would be broken and b) they would have never got back what they were owed.
Rent Money owed to ACL rumour (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bennets Afro
- Start date
Which why launching the process towards admin in the first place was strange from ACL. Surely they would have known a) the lease would be broken and b) they would have never got back what they were owed.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
A benifit? As apposed to playing in Northampton while incurring huge losses? How exactly has the club benefitted from braking the lease? if they had returned to the ricoh under a much improved arrangement we would have benifited from breaking the lease.
the club has not benefitted in any shape or form from breaking the lease, our position has only got worse.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So Your agreed then that Sisu cost us the 10 points, they put ccfc into admin !!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
A heavy burden yes but one that could have been avoided without admin.
70 million debt is also a heavy burden !!
Nick
Administrator
Yes they got in there first before acl did it so they could pick administrator didn't they?
Negotiation was not taking them anywhere. As long as the lease was in place ACL felt in a strong position. With that gone - and with their anchor tenant gone - ACL's position is a lot weaker. Should ACL be forced to refinance their loan their position may be catastrophic.
In the mean time the club is paying peanuts while either waiting to get ACL cheap or build their own stadium. Whichever will be financial desirable in the long run. Short term the club will lose a lot of income - sure, but try multiply 42 by £1.2m and you may find there's room for quite a heavy short term loss if the club end up owning the stadium they play in.
Astute
Well-Known Member
You are trying to make out that SISU negotiate. How many things have they tried negotiating so far? Their idea of negotiating is telling what they want and nothing else will do. And if they do get what they are after they decide it is still not good enough and ask for more.
Yet it is the other sides fault for not negotiating :facepalm:
Astute
Well-Known Member
And that means it isn't the fault of SISU although they were threatening our club with liquidation at the time.
Not wishing to be dismissive Godiva, but the latter part of the post appears to be almost hoping with fingers crossed that Sisu's massive high risk gamble will pay off; and what about the impact on the fan base - there may not be enough there in the long run.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
I guess it depends if we were going to go into admin if ACL hadn't started the ball rolling, we won't know.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
when did sisu attempt to negotiate? i must have popped out to the loo when that happened.
the club isn't paying peanuts, its making catostrophic losses at sixfields. by that example we are being ripped off more by NTFC than we were by ACL, rent to turn over at the ricoh is by far the better prospect even if £ 1.2M a year was the best offer on the table, which, as you know isn't the case.
the club will end up owning its own stadium? are you sure? you know this how? is it from the detailed statement from sisu outlining what the arrangements of any sisu stadium will be to the club? no, because no such statement exist.
Are we to believe that sisu are so inept that they are not capable of working this out in the 12+ months they've been going on about it.
you and others are championing sisu ownership of a stadium with no idea of what it actually means for the club, you are either doing this with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed. unless you're just plain stupid.
Last edited:
I hope that the club and stadium will be united under SBS&L. I have said so for three years or more. It was a key point in the three FAQ's that were made sticky for a long time.
A rental deal going forward should not be on the table, the club need to benefit from all revenue streams.
I don't care if this happens with sisu as owners, but they are here and so I hope they succeed with their gamble.
Reading the court case Higgs vs sisu there is nothing really to counter JS/TF's claim, that CCC decided to go alone in bailing out ACL. That was a massive gamble too. And with what purpose? To starve the club from income and hope the owners would give up?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
So ok, apart from the £1.3m rent (because this payment has nothing to do with that according to you..), the £10k per match match day costs (we were paying them), the F&B's (they were still getting that as we were still playing there), the stand sponsorship, etc (which they would have still been getting because we were still playing there) are you suggesting that rather than the lack of rent being paid by the club that ACL lossed another £500k earnings from the club which is not at all connected to the non payment of rent?
So in affect then ACL were gaining around:
£1.3m
~£250k matchday costs
£1.1m F&B's
£500k 'extra earnings' (this is what you're suggesting ACL claimed from McGinnity and Robinson)
Plus stadium & stand sponsorship
So £3.1m+ income per annum All on behalf or off the back of the club?
Or is it more likely that this £500k (£300k after negotiation) relates to the unpaid rent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I don't really care if Sisu are owners of CCFC, as long as they put the best interests of the club first. There is little evidence to suggest that this is the case, but we are stuck with them. The new stadium line simply doesn't stack up - it has always been pie in the sky for me. I would say that building a 32,000 seater stadium in Coventry in the first place was indeed a massive gamble for all concerned.
For as long as I can remember, the whole shabang has been a right royal ocean going fuck up of the highest order!
(sorry for missing the FAQ sticky - may not have been a member then, and may have disagreed with a lot of it anyway)
For as long as I can remember, the whole shabang has been a right royal ocean going fuck up of the highest order!
(sorry for missing the FAQ sticky - may not have been a member then, and may have disagreed with a lot of it anyway)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So ok, apart from the £1.3m rent (because this payment has nothing to do with that according to you..), the £10k per match match day costs (we were paying them), the F&B's (they were still getting that as we were still playing there), the stand sponsorship, etc (which they would have still been getting because we were still playing there) are you suggesting that rather than the lack of rent being paid by the club that ACL lossed another £500k earnings from the club which is not at all connected to the non payment of rent?
So in affect then ACL were gaining around:
£1.3m
~£250k matchday costs
£1.1m F&B's
£500k 'extra earnings' (this is what you're suggesting ACL claimed from McGinnity and Robinson)
Plus stadium & stand sponsorship
So £3.1m+ income per annum All on behalf or off the back of the club?
Or is it more likely that this £500k (£300k after negotiation) relates to the unpaid rent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'd say it relates to lost revenue like it says in the article.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Is rent not a revenue stream for ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is rent not a revenue stream for ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Only if it's being paid.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
So when it's not being paid, it could be classed as a "loss in revenue" and in all probability the same "loss in revenue" that McGinnity and Robinson were made to pay whilst sisu were withholding rent causing a"loss in revenue"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
Hey, fair play to Bennett's Afro. The bloke in the canteen did have some inside info - I take it all back!
In fairness I'm not sure think this relates to the £590k - ACL have lost revenue of 40+ years with the breaking of the lease.
And with that, I'm off. I sense it's going to get lively hereabouts, and I've still got a ton of work to finish.
In fairness I'm not sure think this relates to the £590k - ACL have lost revenue of 40+ years with the breaking of the lease.
And with that, I'm off. I sense it's going to get lively hereabouts, and I've still got a ton of work to finish.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So when it's not being paid, it could be classed as a "loss in revenue" and in all probability the same "loss in revenue" that McGinnity and Robinson were made to pay whilst sisu were withholding rent causing a"loss in revenue"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I suggest you go back and re-read my original post as I'm bored of winding you up know.
A quick recap. One is a contract between 2men and a management company. The other is a contract between a company that makes up part of a football team and and the football league. One does not relate to the other because both are being paid by different entities and one being paid doesn't cancel or discount payment of the other. The fact that both payments are destined to the same recipient is neither here or there.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Hey, fair play to Bennett's Afro. The bloke in the canteen did have some inside info - I take it all back!
In fairness I'm not sure think this relates to the £590k - ACL have lost revenue of 40+ years with the breaking of the lease.
And with that, I'm off. I sense it's going to get lively hereabouts, and I've still got a ton of work to finish.
Perhaps the lesson is that we should all spend more time listening to gossip in canteens.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha the two contracts are intrinsically linked because Robinson and McGinnity were guarantors for if the club did not pay the rent. Default on 1 contract, means acting on another.
Are you sure you're not employed by ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha the two contracts are intrinsically linked because Robinson and McGinnity were guarantors for if the club did not pay the rent. Default on 1 contract, means acting on another.
Are you sure you're not employed by ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Otium defaulting on the payment they agreed to make to ACL on condition of receiving the golden share from the FL has nothing to do with MM & GR having to pay ACL £300K between them.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Quick someone tell SISU, they wouldnt have known this when entering into a contract with them when they took over CCFC.
The club should have some of this, but the way SISU went about it means we prob never will !
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No you are right. Given that the deadline for that payment is tomorrow I imagine ACL wouldn't have already claimed it from MM & GR.
However prior to the rejection of the CVA and Otium, CCFC weren't paying rent, some of this was paid by the escrow account and obviously a portion of the remainder was claimed back from MM and GR. Or are you suggesting that MM & GR paid for no reason connected to CCFC just that ACL were a bit skint and fancied a bit more money?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
We have MM, GR & BR to thank for that too. If anything why didn't they put a release clause in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
No you are right. Given that the deadline for that payment is tomorrow I imagine ACL wouldn't have already claimed it from MM & GR.
However prior to the rejection of the CVA and Otium, CCFC weren't paying rent, some of this was paid by the escrow account and obviously a portion of the remainder was claimed back from MM and GR. Or are you suggesting that MM & GR paid for no reason connected to CCFC just that ACL were a bit skint and fancied a bit more money?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'm struggling to see what your getting at. Are you saying that what ACL are doing isn't within the confines of the law?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Everything sisu have done is within the confines of the law and yet strangely their behaviour upsets people on here far more than good old ACL.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No not at all. Tony said there was no link to the non payment of rent. Regardless of the wording there clearly is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
But what earnings did they lose with the except of rent? From what I gather this is pre CVA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
maybe, just maybe, that like those who gave up their shares, they thought SISU would be good for the club ?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
From the CT article:
Two former Sky Blues chairmen have been forced to pay out a total of £300,000 to the Ricoh Arena’s operators after the football club stopped paying its rent.
Arena Coventry Limited has called in £150,000 each from Geoffrey Robinson MP and Mike McGinnity after the two agreed to act as guarantors for the club following the move to the Ricoh Arena in 2005.
The original agreement saw the pair agree to guarantee a combined £500,000 if the club failed to fulfil its financial obligations to ACL.
Financial obligations = paying rent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Two former Sky Blues chairmen have been forced to pay out a total of £300,000 to the Ricoh Arena’s operators after the football club stopped paying its rent.
Arena Coventry Limited has called in £150,000 each from Geoffrey Robinson MP and Mike McGinnity after the two agreed to act as guarantors for the club following the move to the Ricoh Arena in 2005.
The original agreement saw the pair agree to guarantee a combined £500,000 if the club failed to fulfil its financial obligations to ACL.
Financial obligations = paying rent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No I mean regardless of sisu, the original deal. They agreed massive rent but didn't negotiate a breakout clause.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors