The Companies Act says that directors have to act in the best interests of the company.
No one in their right mind can consider that playing in Northampton rather than accepting a cheap rent deal at the Ricoh is in the best interests of the company, They have purposefully sabotaged their own company meaning it's revenues are a fraction of what they should be. How are they following their first statutory duty to promote the success of the company?
Are Otium Evading Tax?
I would imagine the directors could successfully argue that they are acting in the best interests of the company in the long term, so this is just part of plan for future sustainability. Fisher used this argument at the forum in the summer.
Otium are likely to incur losses for the next year or two - largely due to a reduction in income. Costs are likely to be a lot lower than the costs for CCFC ltd though. As such no tax will be due.
Arvo provide most (if not all) of the loans to the club now and the interest charged last year was in the region of the rent due on the Ricoh. Certainly over a million. Where arvo get the investment from nobody outside of Sisu seems to know.
Are Otium Evading Tax?
Spot on. Close thread.
I would imagine the directors could successfully argue that they are acting in the best interests of the company in the long term, so this is just part of plan for future sustainability. Fisher used this argument at the forum in the summer.
Otium are likely to incur losses for the next year or two - largely due to a reduction in income. Costs are likely to be a lot lower than the costs for CCFC ltd though. As such no tax will be due.
Arvo provide most (if not all) of the loans to the club now and the interest charged last year was in the region of the rent due on the Ricoh. Certainly over a million. Where arvo get the investment from nobody outside of Sisu seems to know.
Was it?
For starters the tax bill was part of the ongoing liquidation.
I don't accept they can argue that successfully, they can only argue it when unchallenged, there is no way they can demonstrate that their actions are in the long term best interests of the club because they simply aren't. There is absolutely no legitimate argument against taking the free rent at the ricoh for this year and next.
I'm actually embarrassed for the op. Does he really believe this pile of shit?
I'm actually embarrassed for the op. Does he really believe this pile of shit?
There are a million business decisions made every day that may seem odd in the short term. I would not like to be the one paying to challenge them, would you?
I'm actually embarrassed for the op. Does he really believe this pile of shit?
Rather oddly he/she suggests on another thread that ACL would lower their asking price if the new buyers had the interests of the club at heart. Surely if ACL were to do this they would also be breaking the law?
no he doesn't I suggest you read what I said again.
I said I think the owners of ACL are sick of the entire situation and would love to be shut of it, this means acl is likely to be available an attractive price. However this is only going to be the case if the people buying have the best interests of the club and city at heart.
no he doesn't I suggest you read what I said again.
I said I think the owners of ACL are sick of the entire situation and would love to be shut of it, this means acl is likely to be available an attractive price. However this is only going to be the case if the people buying have the best interests of the club and city at heart.
There are a million business decisions made every day that may seem odd in the short term. I would not like to be the one paying to challenge them, would you?
Let's just assume for a minute that SISU do intend to build a new stadium in the next 3 - 5 years. That leaves them with 2 options:
1) play at the Ricoh for free this season and £150K a year after that until new stadium is ready. Crowds would be a minimum of 10K, probably more with the way we are playing. Other associated revenues, merchandise etc, would increase.
2) play at Sixfields for £180K (?) a year until new stadium is ready. Crowds around 2K despite greatly reduced ticket prices. Other revenues low.
Would love to hear what argument SISU put forward that this is in the companies best interest.
It will be more than 2 years at Sixfields, another 4 minimum.
More shit. Best interests at heart is by your own interpretation illegal as revenue is key. Attracting an alternative tenant would be the only thing they could do as they would have to maximise revenue. Free rent deals would, by your own assumption, be illegal. I assume you believe ACL were acting illegally by offering a free rent deal?
I know that, you know that. Labovich, Fisher and the FL all seem to think otherwise.
You're not suggesting that aren't being truthful with us are you?I doubt they are in any way naive about these things.
You're not suggesting that aren't being truthful with us are you?
This is all just nonsense.
People who invest in hedge funds are high risk speculators who look for high returns but accept the associated risk. The chances of any return at the Ricoh are slim. The club has had one bankruptcy since going their and has lost money every season. Hedge fund investors have no interest in this type of strategy.
We know nothing about the investors on this project. We do know sisu have looked on investments previously as 5 or 10 year projects. The first strategy clearly was to gain promotion and sell as a premier club hence No interest in ground purchase.
Clearly this now becomes a 10 year project with a different emphasis. We no nothing about what the investors promise is. It certainly will not be a return as tenants to a ground and then attempt a promotion push - its vague and will have no interest.
It could be a promise if they attain the freehold of the Ricoh a link to reward or it could be reward off the back of a new stadium. Whatever it is its not illegal and its not against hedge fund ethos. Doing the opposite - what you suggest - would be.
What I'm asking is nothing to do with a hedge fund, Otium is Coventry City Football club, the directors of Coventry City football club have to do what is in the best interests of Coventry City football club by Law, Their actions appear to everyone to be against the interests of Coventry city football club, so how are the directors fulfilling their most important obligation? Talk of investors and hedge funds is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.
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?