A llegal friend of mine (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter japandy
- Start date
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
It's rubbish. End the thread
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
'...a legal firm in Coventry is trying to take Coventry City Council to court...'
This doesn't make sense. I presume instead of 'a legal firm' you mean a firm of Solicitors, who would only act on instructions from a client. And just how are they 'trying' to take CCC to court - they either issue proceedings or they don't!
This doesn't make sense. I presume instead of 'a legal firm' you mean a firm of Solicitors, who would only act on instructions from a client. And just how are they 'trying' to take CCC to court - they either issue proceedings or they don't!
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Sounds like Chinese whispers. And I thought you said illegal friend
Yeah, me too! I must stop and actually read the title properly, after the Cody/Sheff flesh eating mix-up earlier, that's two I've got wrong tonight already..
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
It's more American friendly-fire Japandy old lad. Avoid it at all costs
grego_gee
New Member
Wouldn't surprise me at all, I thought that action by the council was very questionable from the start!...
imp:rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Been said before but ACL have taken out a mortgage with the council to pay off the #yorkshire bank loan and cut costs by reducing the interest rate, councils are allowed to do this, it makes them money, all long term but still makes them money
grego_gee
New Member
We looked into funding through the council in some detail a couple of years ago when during the worst days of dispute between fans and our owner he put our stadium up for sale. A vote took place in council around investigating further which was narrowly defeated as it was split along party lines with the lib-dems abstaining leading to the defeat.
Without going into great detail Councils are able to tap into funding at preferential rates for the purpose of funding regeneration projects or construction projects that bring benefit to the community. This is how a lot of regeneration projects that require a level of funding that Authorities would not otherwise be able to fund are delivered and is totally legal and normal.
however...
There are rules around what this can be used for, how things can and can't be structured etc.
Hedge funds basically look at opportunities where they can make a profit from both success or failure, hedging their bets. In the case of shares that may be taking up options to offset risk. In the case of operating a company any profit in the event of failure would most likely be realised by securing the assets of the company or any rights of the company at a discounted price elsewhere in the organisation.
From the outside whilst nothing can be proved an observer may come to the conclusion that SISU may have attempted.to drive ACL under to secure the purchase of the stadium at a greatly discounted value. If this was the case the financing from the council may have disrupted the plan.
In such an event an organisation accustomed to using legal process in order to achieve their goal may decide to try to force a judicial review around the legality of the council funding supplied which has presented the obstacle.
All hypothetical but would not be that unusual with the sort of organisations in question and simply taking the action could cause political trouble for politicians enough to make them chicken out and back down in a battle.
For background, research judicial challenges around public funding for the proposals in the battle to see who got the Olympic stadium after the games.
Link to part of the story below as a starter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...adium-could-face-another-legal-challenge.html
Would also suggest you start to ask questions about the real motives political or otherwise of any politician if they start to ask questions about any costs being incurred by the Council in continuing any battle around the dispute.
Without going into great detail Councils are able to tap into funding at preferential rates for the purpose of funding regeneration projects or construction projects that bring benefit to the community. This is how a lot of regeneration projects that require a level of funding that Authorities would not otherwise be able to fund are delivered and is totally legal and normal.
however...
There are rules around what this can be used for, how things can and can't be structured etc.
Hedge funds basically look at opportunities where they can make a profit from both success or failure, hedging their bets. In the case of shares that may be taking up options to offset risk. In the case of operating a company any profit in the event of failure would most likely be realised by securing the assets of the company or any rights of the company at a discounted price elsewhere in the organisation.
From the outside whilst nothing can be proved an observer may come to the conclusion that SISU may have attempted.to drive ACL under to secure the purchase of the stadium at a greatly discounted value. If this was the case the financing from the council may have disrupted the plan.
In such an event an organisation accustomed to using legal process in order to achieve their goal may decide to try to force a judicial review around the legality of the council funding supplied which has presented the obstacle.
All hypothetical but would not be that unusual with the sort of organisations in question and simply taking the action could cause political trouble for politicians enough to make them chicken out and back down in a battle.
For background, research judicial challenges around public funding for the proposals in the battle to see who got the Olympic stadium after the games.
Link to part of the story below as a starter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...adium-could-face-another-legal-challenge.html
Would also suggest you start to ask questions about the real motives political or otherwise of any politician if they start to ask questions about any costs being incurred by the Council in continuing any battle around the dispute.
Last edited:
Bluegloucester
New Member
I cannot see how Sisu can start proceedings against CCC. What is their interest? There is no nexus. They have no interest in the agreement between ACL and CCC. It would not get to court, it is vexatious.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
BUMP. Looks like Japandy was bang on the money & only a full 2 weeks ahead of Les....
good effort Japandy.
good effort Japandy.
So, absolute proof now that SISU's strategy is all about securing the Ricoh at a discounted price and this latest move is again about forcing it's sale by distressing ACL ( see my post above about legal presidents).
There will be a tendency for some to talk about how this would be a good thing as a football club needs to own it's own ground to compete; however I would offer a cautionary note here.
Hedge funds are all about looking for investments where you can make money whether the venture succeeds or fails. You could do well to talk to some Walsall fans about how you make money out of a football club.
When discussed on here about SISU seizing ownership of the Ricoh it is always assumed that this will then be used for the benefit of CCFC because that's our primary concern as football fans. A hedge funds's primary concern is making a return.
At Walsall both the stadium and the football club are owned by the same person; however they have not united the ground with the club instead holding the ground in their pension fund with the club paying rent to it in excess of the last offer made by ACL to SISU for the Ricoh.
Whilst Walsall are held up as a shining example of a club being financially well managed and never spending money they don't have many Walsall fans would say it is simply being used as a cash cow. The rent is always paid first, then operating costs and then the playing budget is whatever is left with the owner only injecting any money if there is a short fall which is done as loans which then have to be paid back resulting in a lower playing budget for the next couple of seasons.
This means that Walsall will always survive and is unlikely to go bump ( you don't kill the golden goose) but it always struggles to compete and in many ways it is financially less risky for the owner for it to just sit at a level player costs are a lot lower but the rent can be paid, with the occasional promotion before quickly coming back down than to chunk the amount of money needed to continue to progress with no guarantee of the return.
The level at which we play is a secondary consideration for the owner whether it is championship, L1, L2 or conference so long as it generates enough income to pay the rent. No further money is put in unless that income level is threatened. There is even accusation (backed up by comments from a reliable source who cannot be named) that a manager was told we must go down because player wages at championship level were too high.
One scenario that I don't think has been discussed on here is that SISU could do something similar. If they succeed in this action, force the sale of the Ricoh and manage to secure it you could find the Ricoh being held in a desperate company to CCFC with it paying rent for it's use with this being claimed as normal practice, that it is only right that SISU get a return on their investment, that CCFC is financially being well managed and has to live within it's means whilst you spend decades floating around the lower leagues with the odd season in the championship much like Walsall despite being a much bigger club who should be capable of competing at a higher level.
You could find yourself paying rents similar to the current ACL offer or even at a level above that only with it going to another SISU company instead of the council and a local charity where at least it goes back into your community.
After all why would they reduce the rent, reducing SISU's income? So that CCFC can benefit? Is that the primary concern of a Hedge Fund or a secondary one? Do they love CCFC like you to the extent that they would reduce their return like you would or is it about making money? ... and even if they did would their investors put up with that?
This latest move is again about seizing the jewel in the crown, the ground, and just be careful, having the ground and club under the same ownership isn't always the great thing people think it is. Remember CCFC will not own the ground , SISU will.
There will be a tendency for some to talk about how this would be a good thing as a football club needs to own it's own ground to compete; however I would offer a cautionary note here.
Hedge funds are all about looking for investments where you can make money whether the venture succeeds or fails. You could do well to talk to some Walsall fans about how you make money out of a football club.
When discussed on here about SISU seizing ownership of the Ricoh it is always assumed that this will then be used for the benefit of CCFC because that's our primary concern as football fans. A hedge funds's primary concern is making a return.
At Walsall both the stadium and the football club are owned by the same person; however they have not united the ground with the club instead holding the ground in their pension fund with the club paying rent to it in excess of the last offer made by ACL to SISU for the Ricoh.
Whilst Walsall are held up as a shining example of a club being financially well managed and never spending money they don't have many Walsall fans would say it is simply being used as a cash cow. The rent is always paid first, then operating costs and then the playing budget is whatever is left with the owner only injecting any money if there is a short fall which is done as loans which then have to be paid back resulting in a lower playing budget for the next couple of seasons.
This means that Walsall will always survive and is unlikely to go bump ( you don't kill the golden goose) but it always struggles to compete and in many ways it is financially less risky for the owner for it to just sit at a level player costs are a lot lower but the rent can be paid, with the occasional promotion before quickly coming back down than to chunk the amount of money needed to continue to progress with no guarantee of the return.
The level at which we play is a secondary consideration for the owner whether it is championship, L1, L2 or conference so long as it generates enough income to pay the rent. No further money is put in unless that income level is threatened. There is even accusation (backed up by comments from a reliable source who cannot be named) that a manager was told we must go down because player wages at championship level were too high.
One scenario that I don't think has been discussed on here is that SISU could do something similar. If they succeed in this action, force the sale of the Ricoh and manage to secure it you could find the Ricoh being held in a desperate company to CCFC with it paying rent for it's use with this being claimed as normal practice, that it is only right that SISU get a return on their investment, that CCFC is financially being well managed and has to live within it's means whilst you spend decades floating around the lower leagues with the odd season in the championship much like Walsall despite being a much bigger club who should be capable of competing at a higher level.
You could find yourself paying rents similar to the current ACL offer or even at a level above that only with it going to another SISU company instead of the council and a local charity where at least it goes back into your community.
After all why would they reduce the rent, reducing SISU's income? So that CCFC can benefit? Is that the primary concern of a Hedge Fund or a secondary one? Do they love CCFC like you to the extent that they would reduce their return like you would or is it about making money? ... and even if they did would their investors put up with that?
This latest move is again about seizing the jewel in the crown, the ground, and just be careful, having the ground and club under the same ownership isn't always the great thing people think it is. Remember CCFC will not own the ground , SISU will.
So, absolute proof now that SISU's strategy is all about securing the Ricoh at a discounted price and this latest move is again about forcing it's sale by distressing ACL ( see my post above about legal presidents).
There will be a tendency for some to talk about how this would be a good thing as a football club needs to own it's own ground to compete; however I would offer a cautionary note here.
Hedge funds are all about looking for investments where you can make money whether the venture succeeds or fails. You could do well to talk to some Walsall fans about how you make money out of a football club.
When discussed on here about SISU seizing ownership of the Ricoh it is always assumed that this will then be used for the benefit of CCFC because that's our primary concern as football fans. A hedge funds's primary concern is making a return.
At Walsall both the stadium and the football club are owned by the same person; however they have not united the ground with the club instead holding the ground in their pension fund with the club paying rent to it in excess of the last offer made by ACL to SISU for the Ricoh.
Whilst Walsall are held up as a shining example of a club being financially well managed and never spending money they don't have many Walsall fans would say it is simply being used as a cash cow. The rent is always paid first, then operating costs and then the playing budget is whatever is left with the owner only injecting any money if there is a short fall which is done as loans which then have to be paid back resulting in a lower playing budget for the next couple of seasons.
This means that Walsall will always survive and is unlikely to go bump ( you don't kill the golden goose) but it always struggles to compete and in many ways it is financially less risky for the owner for it to just sit at a level player costs are a lot lower but the rent can be paid, with the occasional promotion before quickly coming back down than to chunk the amount of money needed to continue to progress with no guarantee of the return.
The level at which we play is a secondary consideration for the owner whether it is championship, L1, L2 or conference so long as it generates enough income to pay the rent. No further money is put in unless that income level is threatened. There is even accusation (backed up by comments from a reliable source who cannot be named) that a manager was told we must go down because player wages at championship level were too high.
One scenario that I don't think has been discussed on here is that SISU could do something similar. If they succeed in this action, force the sale of the Ricoh and manage to secure it you could find the Ricoh being held in a desperate company to CCFC with it paying rent for it's use with this being claimed as normal practice, that it is only right that SISU get a return on their investment, that CCFC is financially being well managed and has to live within it's means whilst you spend decades floating around the lower leagues with the odd season in the championship much like Walsall despite being a much bigger club who should be capable of competing at a higher level.
You could find yourself paying rents similar to the current ACL offer or even at a level above that only with it going to another SISU company instead of the council and a local charity where at least it goes back into your community.
After all why would they reduce the rent, reducing SISU's income? So that CCFC can benefit? Is that the primary concern of a Hedge Fund or a secondary one? Do they love CCFC like you to the extent that they would reduce their return like you would or is it about making money? ... and even if they did would their investors put up with that?
This latest move is again about seizing the jewel in the crown, the ground, and just be careful, having the ground and club under the same ownership isn't always the great thing people think it is. Remember CCFC will not own the ground , SISU will.
There will be a tendency for some to talk about how this would be a good thing as a football club needs to own it's own ground to compete; however I would offer a cautionary note here.
Hedge funds are all about looking for investments where you can make money whether the venture succeeds or fails. You could do well to talk to some Walsall fans about how you make money out of a football club.
When discussed on here about SISU seizing ownership of the Ricoh it is always assumed that this will then be used for the benefit of CCFC because that's our primary concern as football fans. A hedge funds's primary concern is making a return.
At Walsall both the stadium and the football club are owned by the same person; however they have not united the ground with the club instead holding the ground in their pension fund with the club paying rent to it in excess of the last offer made by ACL to SISU for the Ricoh.
Whilst Walsall are held up as a shining example of a club being financially well managed and never spending money they don't have many Walsall fans would say it is simply being used as a cash cow. The rent is always paid first, then operating costs and then the playing budget is whatever is left with the owner only injecting any money if there is a short fall which is done as loans which then have to be paid back resulting in a lower playing budget for the next couple of seasons.
This means that Walsall will always survive and is unlikely to go bump ( you don't kill the golden goose) but it always struggles to compete and in many ways it is financially less risky for the owner for it to just sit at a level player costs are a lot lower but the rent can be paid, with the occasional promotion before quickly coming back down than to chunk the amount of money needed to continue to progress with no guarantee of the return.
The level at which we play is a secondary consideration for the owner whether it is championship, L1, L2 or conference so long as it generates enough income to pay the rent. No further money is put in unless that income level is threatened. There is even accusation (backed up by comments from a reliable source who cannot be named) that a manager was told we must go down because player wages at championship level were too high.
One scenario that I don't think has been discussed on here is that SISU could do something similar. If they succeed in this action, force the sale of the Ricoh and manage to secure it you could find the Ricoh being held in a desperate company to CCFC with it paying rent for it's use with this being claimed as normal practice, that it is only right that SISU get a return on their investment, that CCFC is financially being well managed and has to live within it's means whilst you spend decades floating around the lower leagues with the odd season in the championship much like Walsall despite being a much bigger club who should be capable of competing at a higher level.
You could find yourself paying rents similar to the current ACL offer or even at a level above that only with it going to another SISU company instead of the council and a local charity where at least it goes back into your community.
After all why would they reduce the rent, reducing SISU's income? So that CCFC can benefit? Is that the primary concern of a Hedge Fund or a secondary one? Do they love CCFC like you to the extent that they would reduce their return like you would or is it about making money? ... and even if they did would their investors put up with that?
This latest move is again about seizing the jewel in the crown, the ground, and just be careful, having the ground and club under the same ownership isn't always the great thing people think it is. Remember CCFC will not own the ground , SISU will.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I thought he was Welsh.
Sounds like Chinese whispers. And I thought you said illegal friend
grego_gee
New Member
That is a very good point WF
Their recent statement held out an olive branch to ACL and again invited a negotiated settlement, which seems at odds with the scenario that you paint. With the added pressure of a microscope on the legitimacy of the councils funding of ACL it seems conceivable that they may try to press for an agreement at a much lower rent than the £400k mooted before. But the scenario you paint seems very real!
Lets hope the council (through ACL) call their bluff and go back to the table.
As you say the rent of £400 looks good compared to the spectre of SISU owning the arena and them charging a rent spiralling back to millions!
But then again! isn't that what ACL were doing?
imp:No, not a council employee. I'm the owner of a company that provides project management and consultancy services, often trouble shooting for both public and private sector organisations. As such I've rescued/delivered projects and business change for various Local Authorities. I've also been involved in dealing with conflicts between fans and football club executives in the past and with a bid that involved trying to secure political backing for a stadium purchase by a Local Authority using prudential borrowing that is available to LA's. Also have worked for a very large venue and a company involved in the National Stadium bid.
That's my general background.
That's my general background.