Search results

And a share of the income if it wins.

I am happy to be corrected by anyone with proper legal knowledge, but it looks to me that JR2 is not really linked at all to JR1, surely JR2 is just about the new loan terms to ACL, and would concentrate on how that particular decision was made. Looks to me though that a loan at 5% is a...

I believe the 'new ground' (no, not that one) was considered, havent listed all the reasons, but the conclusion is below. Link to the JR here http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/judgement-judicial-review-coventry-city-1707531.aspx MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM Approved Judgment R (Sky Blue Sports &...

3 goals a season in his last 3 full seasons, none this year, not sure I saw him make a tackle in his last season with us. However he does run a lot, and I do think he's better than Thomas and Barton.

They have a lease from the freeholder for the full term, it will be full of rights, restrictions, and responsibilities.

Well to be fair to Reid his stories do contain facts, but certainly in his latest report he hasn't attempted to give a full picture of events, and the bit where he goes on about the Council not denying something, when they said they weren't commenting, well that's just playground stuff.

He's planning on reporting it as an exclusive in a few months time.

Craig Bellamy.

Robert Rosario (just for you Grendel).

£708k of interest was also paid. Simon Gilbert posted a link to the accounts the other day. https://www.facebook.com/TheSimonGilbert/timeline/story?ut=43&wstart=0&wend=1422777599&hash=5499880748835478146&pagefilter=3

The 13/14 accounts for ACL show that £112k has been paid off the capital.

The lease will have restrictions and responsibilities for the whole term, all leases do (apart from the ones in Joy's imagination).

The wording from Les Reid's report was 'clean restriction-free long lease', not sure they exist, it was a non offer at this point. Now of course the overall point about them being prepared to accept a long lease is beyond doubt, of course they were, in fact the principle of giving them 125...

You're playing in goal on Saturday.

A lot of any ACL success will down to the stadium naming rights, the timing of the renewal and obviously the amount involved. I don't think anyone has confirmed when the actual renewal year is.

ACL made a loss, I suspect they are making a profit again now, just as much a guess though as saying they are loss making now. If the loan is still there, and the security is deemed sufficient, I'd rather they keep the loan as it is, gets some money into the Council. Certainly it would be neater...

Not suggesting it's your argument Chief, apologies if you read it that way.

The judge said it was the profit amount, copied again below. I guess he's saying the loan interest charged is 5%, and the Council gets 1% on its reserves. The Council’s net interest return whilst it uses its cash balances to fund the loan (estimated to be for at least 3-5 years) would be about...

If they still have the loan in place I reckon they will have done one. In all probability they will have security over the lease, maybe other things too. I also suspect ACL will be trading profitably now with the extra custiomers its getting, so doesn't look that risky to me. SISU were willing...

If it were my decision I'd keep the loan and take the £500k profit each year, that's surely better than using the whole loan balance to fund one years shortfall, you're just postponing the pain for a year.