Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
As to be expected really. ACL need to share the progress with fans. We're in meltdown. I want a statement from SISU.
Last edited:
ACL Statement, Saturday 23 March (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PWKH
- Start date
As to be expected really. ACL need to share the progress with fans. We're in meltdown. I want a statement from SISU.
thorn in my side
New Member
We know the history - the club was between a rock and a hard place at the time this was "negotiated", no matter how much you try to gloss over it now. ACL were a dominant position in the "negotiation" and take full advantage of that.
For PKWH to justify the rent on the basis there were no other comparisons is an utterly ridiculous statement.
And by the way PKWH statements you make on here are not in a personal capacity - they are in the capacity of your office. You cannot pick and chose given the office you hold and the fact you comment upon matters that are currently the subject of on-going litigation in which you represent one of the parties.
For PKWH to justify the rent on the basis there were no other comparisons is an utterly ridiculous statement.
And by the way PKWH statements you make on here are not in a personal capacity - they are in the capacity of your office. You cannot pick and chose given the office you hold and the fact you comment upon matters that are currently the subject of on-going litigation in which you represent one of the parties.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I.E. SISU bought into the deal - BUT in terms of the club...circumstances have changed. That's us agreeing isn't it?
Delboycov
Active Member
Totally agree with that Otis. The assertion that CCFC were somehow shafted by ACL in setting a rent doesn't really stack up if the club was represented on both sides of the negotiations.
RegisWinner
New Member
According to league rules SISU would have required permission from the football league in order to transfer the league rights to another entity. Did SISU notify the football league?
Black60sprey: the City Council do NOT ultimately control ACL. They are the freeholder and have a 50% stake in the company but they do not control it. There are two directors appointed by the Council and two by the Charity there are then three independent directors. (we have a vacancy for a permanent chairman at the moment) so they are not even in a majority on the Board. Whatever Cllr Mutton says is his view and not that of the company: he has similarly made statements about the Charity and Sisu, again his view not that of the Charity with which he has no connection. Robinson has also made comments about the Charity and Sisu again his view, for what it is worth.
Delboycov
Active Member
Welcome back to the forum Tim. Where you been hiding?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Aren't we led to believe that ccfc then went back to ACL 3 months later to renogotiate it as it was too high? I'm sure I've read that somewhere.
Then I had better make no more comments.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
I think this concept that CCFC should have a wider social responsibility of developing the rest of the area around the Ricoh has to be dropped. What other football clubs are saddled with this.
CCC benefitted from CCFC's failure to deliver the Gasworks stadium. The arena is a vibrant shopping complex, the olympics, conference facilities etc... but the without the club this would not have happened. CCFC was mismanaged but can't help thinking ACL took advantage of our vulnerability with the rent set so high.
CCC benefitted from CCFC's failure to deliver the Gasworks stadium. The arena is a vibrant shopping complex, the olympics, conference facilities etc... but the without the club this would not have happened. CCFC was mismanaged but can't help thinking ACL took advantage of our vulnerability with the rent set so high.
Black6Osprey
New Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought rent was £900k at HR and we got all pie money so it wasn't the same deal at all.
thorn in my side
New Member
Thank you for that.
I forgot I am not allowed to have an opinion that differs to yours.
Tell you what - go build a snowman or something and let the adults talk.
I forgot I am not allowed to have an opinion that differs to yours.
Tell you what - go build a snowman or something and let the adults talk.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
This was brought up in another thread, i should think Fl permission would be needed, and if it was granted, they would find it difficult to impose sanctions on that basis alone.
Delboycov
Active Member
I think that would be a real shame if that happened as most fans appreciate you coming on here and at least giving us one side of the story. We can make our minds up as to what we believe or not....please don't be put off from posting due to comments from someone who clearly is and has always been a SISU 'plant'.
Black6Osprey
New Member
Okay perhaps control is overstating it but I think you know what I mean, they have more than a passing interest.
Perhaps next time you see Cllr Mutton you can advise him that his ill judged comments and opinions do nothing to help in this situation.
well, maybe just another comment:
the reason that the development of the surrounding area is so important for CCFC is that it is vital, in my opinion, for CCFC to be part or wholly owners of the Ricoh. The income from the Ricoh at the present time is not enough to subsidise the ridiculous wages footballers seem to think they deserve. The whole thing needs to be grown. If it were owned by CCFC the FFP question would be solved and if the development was done it might become sustainable.
Is it really realistic to expect to find an Abramovic or a Qatari Sheikh who is prepared to fork out year after year to take over CCFC? Surely it is much better if we have an investor who will create more wealth in Coventry and build a sustainable football club?
"The ridiculous wages footballers seem to think they deserve" - a little bit of leakage of true self?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The statement in truth tells us little new about the situation. Although the golden share may have laid with the League when the accounts were filed that of course doesn't mean that it wasn't switched afterwards.
People have said that ACL's admin order forced SISU to do what they did pre-emptively. Others will point to ARVO's debenture last June which foresaw this situation unfolding and will ask whether this ever was just about the rent.
The bottom line is that it didn't have to come to this. It is unlikely now that ACL will get its arrears back with ARVO, effectively SISU, calling the shots on creditors. What I feel would be useful at this stage would be a full objective list of what was last offered to the club. Perhaps that will allow us to see whether Fisher really had any intent of co-operation.
People have said that ACL's admin order forced SISU to do what they did pre-emptively. Others will point to ARVO's debenture last June which foresaw this situation unfolding and will ask whether this ever was just about the rent.
The bottom line is that it didn't have to come to this. It is unlikely now that ACL will get its arrears back with ARVO, effectively SISU, calling the shots on creditors. What I feel would be useful at this stage would be a full objective list of what was last offered to the club. Perhaps that will allow us to see whether Fisher really had any intent of co-operation.
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
BSB - for details of what ACL put on table go to http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php?start=4
CCFC are still refusing to let us publish their answers
Yes, it was my opinion. I do believe that the game has been distorted by the television money allowing an explosion in footballer wages to unsustainable levels.
Expect an application from the Trust President on Monday.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Many thanks Jan.
Nick
Administrator
I was wondering if it was advertised at the job centre!
And with that in mind negotiations can re-open with ACL writing off the debts.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Which ccfc is that, holdings or limited, if it's limited just publish the answers as they said ccfc ltd are a dormant company with no employees or assets, by the way ashby i take it you have seen the answers will they be an interesting read ?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Reading ACL's answers they already were happy to write off £800k.
Still leaves some £500k.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which could be repaid over instalments so as to have minimal impact on finances. Even if not, we were the ones who kicked off this boycott in the first place.
coundonskyblue
New Member
No business would write off 100% of debt owed to it.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Would that be because they counted the escrow money they took then? Which you seemed to think didn't count?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Thanks to PWKH for this and trying to keep us all in the loop as best he can - much appreciated
That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12
It is a fairly factual statement but yes it puts its own spin on it ...... why wouldnt it ?
Far from settled and plenty of twists to come yet
That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12
It is a fairly factual statement but yes it puts its own spin on it ...... why wouldnt it ?
Far from settled and plenty of twists to come yet
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Could the football league have allowed the transfer if asked by the club?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If you read the answers, they were also happy to cut down the escrow obligation by £300k, so I don't think so.
Wrenstreetcarpark
New Member
"That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12"
If they shifted the golden share after June last year and the Football League allowed it, doesn't it make a nonsense of all the other administrations and points deductions etc? What is to stop any Club building up debts in company A, shift the golden share into company B and stick company A into admin and carry on as if nothing has happened. Have Sisu fooled the League or has the League just cocked up? Whichever it is there is going to be one hell of a noise from all the other clubs.
If they shifted the golden share after June last year and the Football League allowed it, doesn't it make a nonsense of all the other administrations and points deductions etc? What is to stop any Club building up debts in company A, shift the golden share into company B and stick company A into admin and carry on as if nothing has happened. Have Sisu fooled the League or has the League just cocked up? Whichever it is there is going to be one hell of a noise from all the other clubs.
