Not absolutely true, but can be an option. All parties at that creditors meeting can request a 28 day what they call cooling off period. That will take us passed the Bristol match, the FL won't sanction any ground share while we are in administration, so that's when the fun begins probably from the 23rd of July. There are battles on a number of fronts in this issue, at the moment the crucial one is not going to Sixfields, what a bloody nose that will be for Mr Fisher.It seems everyone missed it. If ACL do not sign the CVA then ltd is liquidated and still CCFC are retained under holdings as the share has been agreed in principal to be transferred.
Given that ACL must consider its shareholders (as we are always told) I cannot see any conclusion that means they will not agree to it.
But Young Timothy reportedly said could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012 at the CCLSG. I assume that position has now changed, and if ACL did go back to these terms it would still be no deal?Any talk about an interim deal to play at the RA will start from scratch - they will not just pick up where they left half a year ago.
So forget all previous figures and addons, they are not relevant.
But Young Timothy reportedly said could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012 at the CCLSG. I assume that position has now changed, and if ACL did go back to these terms it would still be no deal?
That is errant nonsense old bean, the club have already been offered ACL's cut of matchday F&B, which is 77% thereof.. Compass only get 23%
I wouldn't even grace that with an answer now
No they haven't, they have offered a mechanism of cross invoicing which would allow the club to put the income on paper towards ffp but ACL get the actual money.
Grace what with an answer? I remembered him saying he had done some work for, I thought, ACL. I was wrong - it was Higgs. I wasn't that far off. I was purely asking to gauge whether OSB had any inside knowledge of what was going on. He confirmed it was a one off so obviously not. Not exactly an accusation.
The cross invoicing was for the total income to assist turnover and FFP.
ACL also offered a meeting with the Compass JV to look at income splitting, which Fishet didn't take up
Yes turnover and ffp, but we wouldn't see a penny. Saying acl offered ccfc their share of F&b's is slightly disingenuous.
No. They offered cross invoicing in its totality to augment turnover and help with FFP.
They also, desperate issue, agreed to share the proceeds of their margin so that SISU would genuinely earn cash, not just turnover credit. They offered to establish a meeting with the Compass JV to negotiate what this could be.
Fisher refused. It's recorded on one of the forums. I'm sure he mentioned a figure of 10%, which he considered negligible. I think he said something like 'why bother?' to Linnel. The point is, he never even looked at what it could be.
Nothing disingenuous with either this, or my previous statement
No. They offered cross invoicing in its totality to augment turnover and help with FFP.
They also, desperate issue, agreed to share the proceeds of their margin so that SISU would genuinely earn cash, not just turnover credit. They offered to establish a meeting with the Compass JV to negotiate what this could be.
Fisher refused. It's recorded on one of the forums. I'm sure he mentioned a figure of 10%, which he considered negligible. I think he said something like 'why bother?' to Linnel. The point is, he never even looked at what it could be.
Nothing disingenuous with either this, or my previous statement
That is errant nonsense old bean, the club have already been offered ACL's cut of matchday F&B, which is 77% thereof.. Compass only get 23%
I refer back to Jack's post to with I originally quoted/responded to:
As I said, no they haven't and to say they have is disingenuous. Whether or not they offered a meeting with compass is a different argument....I would question whether ACL and compass know what they are doing, given that they only made £100k profit against £1m spent on f&B's.
The Club still has the right to gain access to the revenues at the Ricoh. This comes with ownership of shares in ACL. This was agreed from the start. When they sold their shares to the Higgs Charity they got the money they needed to avoid administration and start the next season along with the right to buy back their shares. Nobody has told them they couldn’t buy back those shares: they have chosen not to.
Back in 2008 and 2009 I had two meetings with Onye Igwe when he told me that the Charity had to sell their shares to the Club and he would tell me how much they would pay. He also told me of the Club’s exciting plans to expand the supporter base in Nigeria and China. It was an odd way to approach the matter but I said nothing but waited for him to come back with a price. He was, I suspect, ignoring the option which gave the Club the right to buy for a fixed sum. I heard nothing more and then he was removed. Ken Dulieu then appeared and I met him in London for him also to say that the Club was going to buy the shares. Nothing happened and he disappeared.
Tim Fisher talks about the need to increase the revenues of the Club. He suggests that the Club has a right to them. He is correct. They have a right to buy them back. Only the Club has an Option to buy them.
The Charity paid the Club for those shares. The Charity must hope to make a return, either through an increase in value or through an income, from those shares. There has, of course, been no income at all from those shares yet. Tim Fisher now wants some of that income simply to be given to the Club because it needs it. It is clear that the Club needs more income and ACL had offered to give up some income: the food and beverage revenues everyone refers to.
I fear that just as that offer is now withdrawn the possibility of the Club now buying back into ACL has receded.
To make the businesses at the Ricoh work efficiently they have to work together in harmony and with trust. That began to happen under Ray Ranson and the Club was able to make savings and increase its income. Perhaps if his influence had been strong enough to stop the Club being distracted by ideas of business expansion in Nigeria and China and he had kept the owners concentrated on buying back into ACL we would not all be locked into this destructive spiral.
Yes turnover and ffp, but we wouldn't see a penny. Saying acl offered ccfc their share of F&b's is slightly disingenuous.
Just done a search and found this which seems to say ACL were offering F&B revenues or at least some of them in this thread http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...mp-A-email?p=377297&highlight=FOOD#post377297
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/27281-Tom-Fisher-Q-amp-A-email?p=377297&viewfull=1#post377297
I thought we only needed it due to FFP
No they haven't, they have offered a mechanism of cross invoicing which would allow the club to put the income on paper towards ffp but ACL get the actual money.
Yet, in the Q and A with the trust, their official answer was:
ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations
11: Have there been detailed discussions regarding match day income and what revenues CCFC want access to?
ACL: Yes
CCFC: Yes
12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations?CCFC: CCFC would have to negotiate with ACL partner Compass but if after 3 months Compass would not agree access to this level of revenue indicated by ACL, we would ask that the rent be reduced by £100k
It is clear that the Club needs more income and ACL had offered to give up some income: the food and beverage revenues everyone refers to.
I may be wrong but I read points 11 and 12 from the Q&A together.
And assumed that the fact they are willing to go open book, is just to prove that ACL aren't trying to get one over on SISU by being 'inaccurate' with the F&B figures in relation to those matchday revenues that ACL were willing to cede to SISU/CCFC that were under discussion in the negotiations. I may be totally wrong on this but that was my interpretation based on the Q&A and what PWKH posted,
Happy to be proved wrong and corrected though.
Just wanted to clear up something
TF went on about Compass owning the catering rights and having paid 4m for them
THE ACTUAL SITUATION IS
ACL own 77% of a company called IEC Experience Limited which operates the stadium for ACL. ACL sold the other 23% to Compass for 4m.
So ACL because it owns more than 75% of IEC is deemed to control that company and its operations. Yes ACL would talk to its fellow shareholder about a change in operations (say to let CCFC have a share of the income, declare the sales as CCFC 's but be reinvoiced etc) but ACL has outright control and could sanction a deal.
The FFP figure btw was not going to be 100k it was going to be somewhere over £800k which would be the F& B turnover on match days. CCFC would take a commission/profit of £100k on the deal, all costs of supply being met by IEC
just as an aside the lease provides the club with 900 car park spaces and a potential income of £207k
But we're getting a better deal at NTFC so that's all right then. :facepalm:Found this as well..oldskyblue58 said:Just wanted to clear up something
TF went on about Compass owning the catering rights and having paid 4m for them
THE ACTUAL SITUATION IS
ACL own 77% of a company called IEC Experience Limited which operates the stadium for ACL. ACL sold the other 23% to Compass for 4m.
So ACL because it owns more than 75% of IEC is deemed to control that company and its operations. Yes ACL would talk to its fellow shareholder about a change in operations (say to let CCFC have a share of the income, declare the sales as CCFC 's but be reinvoiced etc) but ACL has outright control and could sanction a deal.
The FFP figure btw was not going to be 100k it was going to be somewhere over £800k which would be the F& B turnover on match days. CCFC would take a commission/profit of £100k on the deal, all costs of supply being met by IEC
just as an aside the lease provides the club with 900 car park spaces and a potential income of £207k
You can't call someone crooked without proof. A judge did make some damning remarks about the woman who runs SISU (the lovely Joy) but you can't say someone is a crook without proof. I would suggest in strong terms that you alter your post.
That's fine for you then but they could drag Nick into it as Publisher of the site which is less good.I am very comfortable with my definition of the term in the context it was applied and would more than welcome the exposure of certain behaviours that a court case would bring.
That's fine for you then but they could drag Nick into it as Publisher of the site which is less good.
That's fine for you then but they could drag Nick into it as Publisher of the site which is less good.
Look at it through the eyes of ACL. Do you honestly think they will offer a cheap deal on a three year contract? Why would they?
To be fair to you at least you are consistent. I think NLHWC has made potentially defamatory statements and those posts should be removed preferably with a statement of retraction from him.
You're right, we don't have financial losses pretty much every season. We don't need any actual profit to feed back into the business.
Read the definition of crooked, prick.
Read the definition of crooked prick.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?