Yes, even at the original revised £400k a year offer, that is three years at the Ricoh.
SISU and 'value for money' don't belong together in the same sentence.
I hope that ACL disclose how much they've spent engaging lawyers and a PR firm for the last few months. It'd be also interesting to read what the associated costs are to the council loan. Banks don't lend money without fees.
I hope that ACL disclose how much they've spent engaging lawyers and a PR firm for the last few months. It'd be also interesting to read what the associated costs are to the council loan. Banks don't lend money without fees.
What is with this strange fascination with the club's ex-landlords?
Rightly or wrongly, the club's owners were unhappy with the lease terms and set in chain a course of events that, ultimately, has effectively severed the link between the club and the stadium.* Therefore ex-landlords are of little relevance to the club now - unless the club's owners change their mind and decide they want to use the stadium again. If so, they will have to try to negotiate that. Have they done so? Not that I'm aware of; I seem to remember them saying they have moved on and will be building a new stadium. Unless the club's owners change their mind, why worry about an organisation that is no longer connected with the club?
*Assuming nothing new dramatically alters the legal course being navigated by the liquidator.
By that logic, we should forget the past entirely, and cheer them on to their new ground...
:laugh::laugh: Well, it's my analogy so I'll give myself whatever car I want - though I must admit I did imagine I was driving a Mark VI Mini with an 'M' number plate (i.e. one of the old-style ones)... and you're right, Fernando couldn't use it on Saturdays.The only problem with your analogy is that you don't have a Mini, it's a Lada and Fernando only gets to drive around in it when you don't need it
Without getting into it, wasn't it £1.2m we were paying at the Ricoh?
So what were the continuing Contracts, if CCFC Ltd never did or has held any players contracts ? How does PA or TF explain that away?
it reads in the report
"the benefit (sublect to burden) of any continuing Contracts £466,742"
So would the bomb squad all have been in there still?
The point is that legal costs are unavoidable. What if ACL had put the club directly into administration as intended? Would that have been OK?What is with this strange fascination with the club's ex-landlords?
Rightly or wrongly, the club's owners were unhappy with the lease terms and set in chain a course of events that, ultimately, has effectively severed the link between the club and the stadium.* Therefore ex-landlords are of little relevance to the club now - unless the club's owners change their mind and decide they want to use the stadium again. If so, they will have to try to negotiate that. Have they done so? Not that I'm aware of; I seem to remember them saying they have moved on and will be building a new stadium. Unless the club's owners change their mind, why worry about an organisation that is no longer connected with the club?
*Assuming nothing new dramatically alters the legal course being navigated by the liquidator.
- Otium paid £1,500,004 for the following
What was the last £3 spent on, btw?
Sorry I missed that bit off
it was spent on
£1 the benefit of all and any actual potential or contingent rights, claims and causes of actions
£1 the benefit of any licences (excluding property licences)
£1 all other property rights and assets owned
Basically anything they could think of .....................
So basically I think this means is they've not transferred any contracts, but any new contracts or contract renewals were done in the name of holdings and SISU spent a year or so shedding any contracts CCFC Ltd held.. and the FL screwed up royally by allowing all this to happen underneath their very noses.
Wonder if there is any chance of ACL suing the FL?
How are you allowed to just pick up the bits you want and leave the liabilities?
This is what I don't understand, how can you take everything but the lease to play at the Ricoh? What's the tipping point for it being asset stripping rather than legitimate business?
Because the assets were sold (not transferred) on the basis of an open and defined bidding process it would be hard to show that any asset stripping took place. All the administrator has done is to convert to cash any assets he may have in CCFC Ltd at a value set by an open bidding process that Otium won.
To settle creditors he has to realise the assets (convert to cash) usually by selling them so that leaves all creditors behind not just the lease. Although we can reasonably assume that the main one to leave behind was the lease (a lot of the other creditors remain elsewhere in the group)
The other thing is who would be most greatly affected by any alleged asset stripping..... the biggest creditors ............. who are the ones that some accuse of alleged wrong doing (asset stripping).
We might not like the process but so far there is nothing to show any part of the process (plan?) is outside the law as far as i can see. It might be clever or sharp use of the law but is there any evidence available to us of any wrong doing?
had something been illegal surely that evidence would have been reported by now wouldnt it?
ok thanks OSB; so not a bidding process in the true sense, just a sham transfer.
No, because any interested party (inc PH4) could still and did bid for those assets
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
I hope that ACL disclose how much they've spent engaging lawyers and a PR firm for the last few months. It'd be also interesting to read what the associated costs are to the council loan. Banks don't lend money without fees.
The point is that legal costs are unavoidable. What if ACL had put the club directly into administration as intended? Would that have been OK?
What bank are we talking about here and why, I thought the council loan was from the Public Works Loan Board not a bank.
I thought it sounded more like a preferential loan rate from a financial institution. I'd be surprised if bailing out a private company met the criteria for a loan from the PWLB.
I can't find a loan to Coventry City Council from 2013 or the last 2 months of 2012
http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=PWLB/PWLB_Monthly_Loans_Report
Here are the problems I have with all this JR stuff
The loan wasnt from central government it was from the Public Works Loan Board at a favourable rate of interest - nothing I have seen from that body says they can not make the loan
Certainly the PWLB doesnt seem to be acting outside its powers
The Council with unanimous support of the councillors approved the deal in a meeting where you would assume full details were provided
Councillors on both sides represent the local taxpayers
The loan to ACL is at a higher rate of interest than the Council is paying - so in theory no loss to the tax payer
ACL is not just a stadium operator (in the sense that football comes first in terms of turnover or share of turnover) and forms part of a clear documented plan to regenerate North Coventry ie there is more at stake for them than the interests of a League1 football club
The reduction in loan repayments reduced ACL cashflow and increased profits to enable them to pass on the benefits to the club in their reduced rent offer
ACL did not go bust as could have happened under the old loan arrangement - if had there was a minimum £2m loss to the tax payer
CCFC still had a good opportunity to improve their arrangement and finances because of it
So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?
I was going on what OSB58 said in this post (and possibly some others but this was the one that I remembered first)
Odd that it doesn't appear on that list then isn't it
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?