Search results

Really? Most of £35m has been spent on administration, legal and stadium consultancy fees?

You sent your auntie packing?

Isn't the JR run and paid by sisu themselves? Whereas the club is only managed by sisu and funded by outside investors. So the clubs finances will have no impact on sisu's decision to take this all the way to Luxembourg if necessary.

Yes, and thus making ACL richer (increases their assets). It should be making ccfc richer, but sadly it doesn't. And don't forget - the money spent by the club at the Ricoh comes not only from sisu, but also from the fans.

Look here: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php Says for league 1 (and 2) '60% of turnover' and 'monthly projection'.

I don't know. As OSB says - not all the facts are known. There's no transparency.

Of course it is business. I just point out that the money could/should benefit the club.

Think of that £7m as money (or increased assets) not benefitting the club. Add to that the proceeds from their cost reductions scheme and you could argue the club has missed out on some £10m+.

I would prefer ACL was owned 100% by SBS&L.

I believe the club has to send in revenue/cost reports every month and if cost is more than 60% (or is it 65%?) of the revenue then transfer embargo kicks in immediately.

sisu going after ccc for damags wouldn't impact on ACL. But if ACL will have to replace the £14m loan the increased interest rate will have an impact on their profitability. Forget the morality phrases - it's just spin. They are after the Ricoh, not moral satisfaction.

Isn't it more about FFP? With the low gates the club is very likely to produce a lower than budgeted revenue and so operate under this strange version of transfer embargo.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!

If sisu win the JR one outcome will be that ACL will have to repay the loan. This mean they would have to get a replacement loan from a bank. If ACL have really improved their business and is capable of making a profit without the football club then it will be possible but more expensive. If...

If you mean 'bring the club back to the Ricoh', then it will take two parts agreeing a price.

None of that can be argued at the JR. It may or may not be 'good business' - but the issue is: Did CCC buy out the mortgage at a price unfair to other interested private parties? If sisu can prove that is the case, then they will win

It's not about the taxpayers - it's about the use or mis-use of public funds. But - paying £6-8m above market value for the mortgage only served the interests of shareholders of YB. Do you think that money could have been used for better purposes in the public sector?

No, ccc paid the outstanding amount. That's different to its 'true' value. If ACL at that time were in distress (no matter the reason), then the mortgage would be worth much less than the outsanding value. If CCC paid more than the mortgage was worth, then it's unfair business practice by a...

... and when people say it's ok to spend public money to save employment, that may be true. But paying too much for the mortgage didn't save any jobs - it only saved the shareholders at YB for a loss of some £8m.

The issue is not about CCC providing ACL with a loan (even on sub-market interest). The issue is they bought the Yorkshire mortgage for more than its market value.