Grendel
Well-Known Member
I would normally apologise but this is Sky Blue John someone who makes even less sense than you.
Resorting to calling someone you've never met a moron.
Hmmmm what a nice person you are.
No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.And it doesn't make it £15.6million unless Wingy is doubling the CCFC income?
Which would then give the same percentage as you did previously!
But its what you wanted just because its the wrong way round!If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;
One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off
They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.
It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.
But its what you wanted just because its the wrong way round!
Grendal I don't see your view prevailing .TBH if SISU run us for 6 more months we could equally be Liquidated.
If ACL get to buy the Club someone elses money is Involved as they can't use public money and in that scenario they can't exert the control you suggest .
Im just saying you wanted the club and acl together told you to be carefull what you wished forI want it to benefit the football club not the council.
You want it the other way round then?
If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;
One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off
They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.
It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.
Now theres a question. Compass/Higgs.In that case why would anyone give them the money? The other party may as well purchase first hand.
No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.
If ACL turned over £7.8M. so did compass so Stu's 28%0f turnover becomes !4% .
The 25% stake of Compass in IEC was another joint venture to raise income for improvements @ a Cost of £4M.
I would normally apologise but this is Sky Blue John someone who makes even less sense than you.
No what I'm saying is the 10 yr deal signed between ACL and Compass in circa March 2008 was valued at £125M. meaning overall anticipated turnover each yr was £12.5M. now £15.6M.
If ACL turned over £7.8M. so did compass so Stu's 28%0f turnover becomes !4% .
The 25% stake of Compass in IEC was another joint venture to raise income for improvements @ a Cost of £4M.
I reckon you must have forum Tourettes
Casino has it's own lease. Compass has no direct deal with CCFCIs the ccfc (and casino?) rent a seperate from the compass 50:50 partnership with ACL? ACL was definitely mentioned as a creditor in the admin report but I can't remember compass being mentioned.
Fucking hell PKWH, is that you?
Far more likely that they're bidding for the information they would get as potential buyers of Ltd. Don't forget that according to Tim no-one is bidding for the club (it's not for sale remember) just Ltd which merely holds the lease. Therefore as CCFC have left the Ricoh "for good", ACL might be bidding just to get the lease back. Maybe they have a tenant for the stadium lined up and no longer need CCFC as one. I think it should be possible to discout this though because they said the doors were still open to the club, unless that's changed recently. Hope Tim hasn't taken his bluff too far.If ACL bought the club this would be for two reasons;
One - to stop a rival bidder taking over and trying to dictate terms of the lease. This would be to avoid a new company buying and demanding a low rent and control of ACL. They would worry that this new company would have public support (though Sky Blue John clearly doesn't want a low rent -- he wants the council to keep shafting us but he is a fool as we all know) so they could buy and try and sell with a high lease. Will fail as no one will be interested especially as the football club will fail a volunatary CVA and be minus 15 points at kick off
They will try and run the club themselves. They would have no means of loaning the club the type of money needed to fund it to be anywhere near competitive. The wage budget would be tiny and the history of council owned institutions making a commercial success of anything is at best dubious. ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.
It is bizarre that some people seem excited at this prospect given other potential suitors. Actually its not bizarre just typical of some of the people on here.
Far more likely that they're bidding for the information they would get as potential buyers of Ltd. Don't forget that according to Tim no-one is bidding for the club (it's not for sale remember) just Ltd which merely holds the lease. Therefore as CCFC have left the Ricoh "for good", ACL might be bidding just to get the lease back. Maybe they have a tenant for the stadium lined up and no longer need CCFC as one. I think it should be possible to discout this though because they said the doors were still open to the club, unless that's changed recently. Hope Tim hasn't taken his bluff too far.
Fuck me! ACL, can't think of anything worse, unless they sell it on immediately to someone else.
Don't think ACL would need to 'get the lease back' in such a way, would they? They could prove the club to be n breach and tear the contract up at much lower cost
No Sisu/ACL bias here, but the bottom line is between these two parties that we are faced with;.
1. Sisu owning us, taking us away from the city for at least 3 years on the promise of a new stadium
or
2. ACL owning us and us staying in Coventry at the Ricoh, bringing the ownership together.
Squirm squirm, loving it. Make sure you are first in line for a season ticket Mr Cov City !!! LoL !!
ACL would have folded years ago without the rent from the club and would have last year but for the council loan arrangement.
grendal that is utter tripe and you know it a million profit last year proves that.
and if they had known city wouldn't be paying rent they could of arranged more concerts etc and made even more
Must confess that I didn't see that one coming. I wouldn't be much behind ACL running the club in the long term, but it's hard to see how they could do a worse job than SISU (who have somehow managed to load £60m of debts onto a non-trading subsiduary).
I would imagine the strategy is to finally unite the club and the stadium, either in total or in part, and then look to offload to a buyer without all of the smoke and mirrors SISU bullsh*t. If we're already attracting attention despite all of the muddy water that SISU and Fisher have slung around, then consider how much more attractive we'll look as a straightforward deal.
One thing seems likely, whoever 'wins' the bid, this won't be over quickly...
Considering what we know about the other interested parties, it beggars belief that people seem genuinely excited by the prospect of ACL owning the football club. The only consolation is that they haven't a hope in hell of being selected as preferred bidders.
There is a contradiction here I cannot get my head around. On the one hand people are talking about uniting the club and the stadium, but then the same people go on to say that ACL would sell the club on, so which is it? Of course, by selling the club on to a third party they could dictate the terms of the lease - and they would surely engineer a deal that was in their best interests first and foremost.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.
So what is the point of bidding for it? Would there time not be better uses working alongside a deal for Haskell/Byng to run the club and own the arena?We shouldn't be excited. Would rather new owners entirely came in.
But if it was a choice between ACL with remaining in Coventry against Sisu and leaving Coventry then it has to be a no brainer doesn't it?
And as others have said, it would only be ACL for them then to sell on to someone else. It wouldn't be ACL for any length of time you would have thought.
And as others have said, it would only be ACL for them then to sell on to someone else. It wouldn't be ACL for any length of time you would have thought.
Under no circumstances should we be supporting the idea of ACL having control of the club and thus the ability to dictate the terms of a sale to a third party.
There is a contradiction here I cannot get my head around. On the one hand people are talking about uniting the club and the stadium, but then the same people go on to say that ACL would sell the club on, so which is it? Of course, by selling the club on to a third party they could dictate the terms of the lease - and they would surely engineer a deal that was in their best interests first and foremost.
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?