Search results

It would appear that CCFC are the lucky ones at having their rates reduced, but unfortunately they have probably left it too late to get it back-dated to the start. They think they may have a chance to get it back-dated, but there is normally a Limit to how far you can go back.

ACL are liable for the shortfall to the council who are collecting the whole rates for the government - whatever that sum may be after their appeal. The government are liable for the money that CCFC overpaid via CCC and have paid it back via CCC. So ACL are not directly liable to CCFC for any...

ACL are also appealing and we don't know their grounds for appeal. Maybe the whole ratable value was wrong and ACL will not have to pay so much. It doesn't look like a deliberate ploy by ACL, but they will now have to find money that they hadn't budgeted for. In terms of the Ricoh dispute, I...

I will stop being rude if you stop. No problem there.

What I meant, is that no-one questioned the valuation for a long period. The accountants may have had reason to ask why the rates were so high when the facility was only being used on certain days. They may have suggested an appeal. The accounts would of course have been legally correct, but I...

The council did not give illegal state aid as far as we know. Until now the JR looks like being thrown out as all Joy's evidence has been classed as irrelevant. For SISU to drop the JR would not only be a first step towards negotiations, but would also - possibly - save them a lot of money...

I agree entirely. It would help if SISU could appoint a new figurehead who grabs the bull by the horns... Drop the JR, drop the jibes, announce a willingness to negotiate a way out of this mess. Makes a joint statement with the council that CCFC and CCC are open for business - together. New...

I assume it wasn't covered as CCC paid the bill as requested by the VOA on appeal. No news. Don't some people have anything better to do? ;-)

Yes, but how does CCC get stick? They didn't set the value, they didn't profit from the payments directly and they only acted as a collecting agent. The VO set the value of the business rates for the bowl and the government got the money. The government don't care if CCFC paid too much and ACL...

Phew! I was just going to change my user name to MartCovarea. The whole thread is bollocks. A non News story or red herring. The title should have read "local business gets rates rebate". End of thread.

Yes, certainly. Apparently the rates bill was wrongly aportioned from 2005 onwards and was fairly recently corrected, resulting in CCFC getting a rebate and ACL getting a bill for the falsely aportioned sum for the last 3 years. They don't agree with the new aportioning and are appealing against...

Yes, my place of birth has now been deemed "Coventry area" because I was born at the Coventry Maternity Hospital like Grendel. It does say Meriden on the birth certificate tbf, but up until now I believed the boundary now included the Hospital/ Royal Court Hotel. Should I now be happy that...

Just guessing. A possibilty?

Probably that they couldn't rent the pitch out during the football season and therefore it was de facto CCFC's stadium bowl for 9 months a year.

According to Godiva, Otium bought the assets of CCFC Ltd. so get the rebate. I thought the delay was caused by a dispute over Appleton's fee,

Strange. Not explained in the article and not noticed by anyone for years.

Yes, but the point is that ACL have to cover the shortfall to the council. Can you explain why?

Well that is handy then, that will cover some of the money still due to ACL by the end of the month. Strange though that no-one noticed for so long.

Why didn't SISU claim the money back in 2007? Have you irrefutable evidence that the council desire to rip the club off? Last I heard the club, CCFC Ltd., was in liquidation for non payment of rent - ripping off the landlord. Otium has no dealings with the council, so you can't be referring to them.