Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Butts Park Arena is new home (12 Viewers)

  • Thread starter Glen
  • Start date Nov 12, 2015
Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • …
  • 44
Next
First Prev 35 of 44 Next Last

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,191
italiahorse said:
No, without ACL and anything operating underneath it.
For you ...... empty !!
Click to expand...

You don't really need to not have ACL in place as you would own ACL and use them as your prop co. Once you've got ownership you don't need to keep a single person there if you don't want them.

I suspect it was more about the existing contracts, especially if any of them were front loaded so ACL had already had the benefit from them.

Seems odd that it was out of the question yet since Wasps took over the hotel operators have been binned and you don't hear mention of Compass while ACL have signed three new F&B deals. As everything is top secret for all we know Wasps wanted the same thing and got it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,192
italiahorse said:
Still can't understand how a business being liquidated and owes money can bid for a share in ACL?
Surely if there is money available it should be used to pay the debts?

The Skybluetalk finance course has failed?
Click to expand...

I would imagine the company in administration had the right to bid. SISU, Otium or whatever they are called this week could make a bid via that company by saying they would give the administrator a token payment for that right to bid. Essentially then the administrator would be doing the right thing, selling an asset of the company to raise capital, just that the nature of the asset required him to place the bid on the buyers behalf.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,193
Ha, ha. I actually LOL'd at that line. Coming from you of all people. So, it's not 2264 thanks to the Council then?

martcov said:
lying or bending over?
Click to expand...
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,194
oldskyblue58 said:
Think everyone knew the rent was too high. Wouldn't dispute that it was. Hardly a vindication of TF though

The bank was getting twitchy and yet sent a letter saying they were not willing to discount a settlement figure to 12m because they felt there was a viable business there in view of the restructuring being done.

Yes they were over reliant on CCFC and yet still kept going when CCFC moved to Sixfields. Trouble is in doing that it attracted others. Yes cash flow was tight but they survived 2.5 years after CCFC stopped paying the contractual rent

It was all about creating a public perception to apply pressure to sell up cheaply to the apparently only game in town............ except it wasn't the only one
Click to expand...

I'm talking about when he first turned up before it all kicked off.

As much as we all agree now that there was a problem with the rent at the time there were lots of comments that the club had agreed to it and there shouldn't be a problem. We even had PWKH come on here to tell us it was only the same as what we were paying at HR, conveniently leaving out details like it was the final rent at HR which contained huge penalties for moving out late.

There was clearly a concern about the bank loan, if there wasn't an eventual bail out wouldn't have been needed.

Point being if on day 1 when Fisher said the rent is too high, the bank are concerned and your over reliant on CCFC the Council and Higgs had agreed and come to the table to negotiate on that basis then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Of course we'll never know that but it can't be easy to negotiate when the other side keeps saying we don't need you, our business is fantastic when you know that's not the case.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,195
Grendel said:
I think it's the 3 line Whip that you are slavishly following that's boring.
Click to expand...

Really? Any news on my quotes? And Joy's letter?
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,196
chiefdave said:
I'm talking about when he first turned up before it all kicked off.

As much as we all agree now that there was a problem with the rent at the time there were lots of comments that the club had agreed to it and there shouldn't be a problem. We even had PWKH come on here to tell us it was only the same as what we were paying at HR, conveniently leaving out details like it was the final rent at HR which contained huge penalties for moving out late.

There was clearly a concern about the bank loan, if there wasn't an eventual bail out wouldn't have been needed.

Point being if on day 1 when Fisher said the rent is too high, the bank are concerned and your over reliant on CCFC the Council and Higgs had agreed and come to the table to negotiate on that basis then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Of course we'll never know that but it can't be easy to negotiate when the other side keeps saying we don't need you, our business is fantastic when you know that's not the case.
Click to expand...

if you know that the business so bad is, then it is easy, you say we'll take our business elsewhere and the other side collapses.... Err no, the other side has enough financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. Miscalculation.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,197
martcov said:
if you know that the business so bad is, then it is easy, you say we'll take our business elsewhere and the other side collapses.... Err no, the other side has enough financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. Miscalculation.
Click to expand...

No one paid off the loan.

Lucas will soon be reigning you in. You've become too obvious.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,198
Grendel said:
No one paid off the loan.

Lucas will soon be reigning you in. You've become too obvious.
Click to expand...

did Wasps have to pay the Yorkshire Bank loan off? Or did the council pay it off? Or, is it as you say, not paid off?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,199
martcov said:
did Wasps have to pay the Yorkshire Bank loan off? Or did the council pay it off? Or, is it as you say, not paid off?
Click to expand...

Wasps found investors to pay it off. Wasps did not pay it off.

It is still not yet determined if moonstone have actually not invested in the bond. Where is the bond liability out if interest

It is also of interest the passion displayed by you when wasps are challenged in here. A passion that is never apparent at 3 PM on a Saturday afternoon.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,200
martcov said:
did Wasps have to pay the Yorkshire Bank loan off? Or did the council pay it off? Or, is it as you say, not paid off?
Click to expand...

Wasps paid the council off who had taken over the YB loan..
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,201
Grendel said:
Wasps found investors to pay it off. Wasps did not pay it off.

It is still not yet determined if moonstone have actually not invested in the bond. Where is the bond liability out if interest

It is also of interest the passion displayed by you when wasps are challenged in here. A passion that is never apparent at 3 PM on a Saturday afternoon.
Click to expand...

Are the investors not investing in Wasps?
I'd better check my documents
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,202
Grendel said:
Wasps found investors to pay it off. Wasps did not pay it off.

It is still not yet determined if moonstone have actually not invested in the bond. Where is the bond liability out if interest

It is also of interest the passion displayed by you when wasps are challenged in here. A passion that is never apparent at 3 PM on a Saturday afternoon.
Click to expand...

Did Wasps investors pay the Yorkshire Bank off? I thought the council paid it off and Wasps paid the council off. Don't know who bought Wasps' bonds - not interested in Wasps. My passion would have been apparent if you had have been in my Pub in Kiel on Sunday during the game, but you were probably too busy annoying people via your keyboard.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,203
martcov said:
if you know that the business so bad is, then it is easy, you say we'll take our business elsewhere and the other side collapses.... Err no, the other side has enough financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. Miscalculation.
Click to expand...

Except they didn't have the financial power to pay off the loan. CCC had to bail them out.

CCC loaned them the money to pay off YB, originally stated to be money they had borrowed on ACL's behalf which turned out to be untrue as it was from council reserves. They made a big deal of what a fantastic deal it was for the taxpayer due to the millions that would be made in interest.

Wasps then borrowed £35m to pay their owner back and pay back the loan so it still hasn't in reality been paid back.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,204
Grendel said:
Please provide a link that shows they have to have paid cancel contracts.
Click to expand...

Put that in proper English and I will answer it.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,205
chiefdave said:
Except they didn't have the financial power to pay off the loan. CCC had to bail them out.

CCC loaned them the money to pay off YB, originally stated to be money they had borrowed on ACL's behalf which turned out to be untrue as it was from council reserves. They made a big deal of what a fantastic deal it was for the taxpayer due to the millions that would be made in interest.

Wasps then borrowed £35m to pay their owner back and pay back the loan so it still hasn't in reality been paid back.
Click to expand...

I thought Mutton said they had enough reserves to fund the loan at the beginning. The loan has been paid back. The council is owed nothing. What Wasps do with their bonds and investors is not relevant to the council. All joint stock companies are funded by shareholders, if they buy something like vehicles, would you say they haven't really bought the vehicles because the money really belongs to the shareholders? Technically the vehicles do belong to the shareholders but for all intents and purposes they belong to the legal entity representing the shareholders interest. It is the same with the company which paid off the loan. It is financed by the Bondholders, but the company paid off the loan.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,206
oldskyblue58 said:
They wanted the Ricoh without ACL that's what they meant by unencumbered and that applied to freehold or leasehold. They didn't need ACL because they were bringing in AIG ...... so they were not going to pay for ACL if at all possible and if they did it would be an absolute minimum. Trouble with that was because of all the interlinking contracts they also knew CCC/AEHC couldn't do that it would have cost a fortune to unravel ACL and neither CCC or AEHC wanted administration and the losses that would bring. All part of applying pressure which would have worked had there been no other option
Click to expand...

I think I have worked out what you was trying to say. So here you go.

So does everyone believe someone that talks sense and knows what they are saying. Or do they listen to Grendel
 

Calista

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,207
Here are two links which might help to clarify all these freehold/leasehold questions, or (more likely) just start another series of abusive arguments. These confirm my recollection i.e. that SISU made clear that they were OK with a long lease, but that it had to be unencumbered / unfettered. That involved ACL and the contracts being cleared out of the way – which was up to the Council and Higgs to sort out at their expense. I had a strong recollection of a much more direct statement from Fisher to that effect (maybe at an SCG meeting?), but I can’t trace it and I really must go and do something better with my life

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/buying-land-new-coventry-city-6404266
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/39920-Shareholder-s-meeting
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,208
chiefdave said:
Except they didn't have the financial power to pay off the loan. CCC had to bail them out.

CCC loaned them the money to pay off YB, originally stated to be money they had borrowed on ACL's behalf which turned out to be untrue as it was from council reserves. They made a big deal of what a fantastic deal it was for the taxpayer due to the millions that would be made in interest.

Wasps then borrowed £35m to pay their owner back and pay back the loan so it still hasn't in reality been paid back.
Click to expand...

Ccc paid off the mortgage at the YB. ACL then had to pay the council back. Wasps bought ACL and ACL paid the loan back to the council.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,209
Astute said:
Put that in proper English and I will answer it.
Click to expand...

Oh you have. It's another astute fact.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,210
Astute said:
I think I have worked out what you was trying to say. So here you go.

So does everyone believe someone that talks sense and knows what they are saying. Or do they listen to Grendel
Click to expand...

"What you was trying to say" - wonderful
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,211
Grendel said:
Oh you have. It's another astute fact.
Click to expand...

Back to Grendel facts...... Where are the posts which I supposedly made? Where is the letter where Joy drops unencumbered? Which is the question that you answered?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,212
martcov said:
I thought Mutton said they had enough reserves to fund the loan at the beginning.
Click to expand...

Think you might be getting Mutton and Matton mixed up. It was first claimed it had been borrowed from some (central government?) fund, that turned out to be untrue and it had been paid from council reserves. When that became apparent Matton claimed it was a cashflow issue.

martcov said:
if they buy something like vehicles, would you say they haven't really bought the vehicles because the money really belongs to the shareholders?
Click to expand...

Not really the same thing is it. It would be like a company who was losing money wanting to buy a £14m private jet they can't afford so they take out a massive loan. While you could say they own the jet they also now have a debt to pay.

martcov said:
did Wasps have to pay the Yorkshire Bank loan off? Or did the council pay it off? Or, is it as you say, not paid off?
Click to expand...

So to go back to your original point

martcov said:
if you know that the business so bad is, then it is easy, you say we'll take our business elsewhere and the other side collapses.... Err no, the other side has enough financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. Miscalculation.
Click to expand...

As I said the other side, ACL, didn't have the financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. They had to be bailed out by CCC.
 
B

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,213
Grendel said:
Wasps found investors to pay it off. Wasps did not pay it off.

It is still not yet determined if moonstone have actually not invested in the bond. Where is the bond liability out if interest

It is also of interest the passion displayed by you when wasps are challenged in here. A passion that is never apparent at 3 PM on a Saturday afternoon.
Click to expand...

Certainly not for early round cup game or an evening jpt game eh Grendel?
 
B

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,214
Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Certainly not for early round cup game or an evening jpt game eh Grendel?
Click to expand...

Or for that matter an away game
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,215
Norman Lockhart said:
Here are two links which might help to clarify all these freehold/leasehold questions, or (more likely) just start another series of abusive arguments. These confirm my recollection i.e. that SISU made clear that they were OK with a long lease, but that it had to be unencumbered / unfettered. That involved ACL and the contracts being cleared out of the way – which was up to the Council and Higgs to sort out at their expense. I had a strong recollection of a much more direct statement from Fisher to that effect (maybe at an SCG meeting?), but I can’t trace it and I really must go and do something better with my life

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/buying-land-new-coventry-city-6404266
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/39920-Shareholder-s-meeting
Click to expand...

Extract from the Les Reid article in your link.

"Mr Fisher re-iterated Sisu boss Joy Seppala was calling for a sale of the “unincumbered freehold” owned by Coventry City Council."

Presumably when Grendull says this is "fabricated nonsense" he's accusing Les Reid of fabricating it. Its now been found in one of his old CT articles and in an old Twitter post of his.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,216
chiefdave said:
Think you might be getting Mutton and Matton mixed up. It was first claimed it had been borrowed from some (central government?) fund, that turned out to be untrue and it had been paid from council reserves. When that became apparent Matton claimed it was a cashflow issue.



Not really the same thing is it. It would be like a company who was losing money wanting to buy a £14m private jet they can't afford so they take out a massive loan. While you could say they own the jet they also now have a debt to pay.



So to go back to your original point



As I said the other side, ACL, didn't have the financial power to pay off the loan and sit it out. They had to be bailed out by CCC.
Click to expand...

ACL through their 50% shareholder obviously did have the power to pay the mortgage and sit it out. Which is why SISU are squealing JR. They obviously were of the same opinion as you. The game changer was the loan. Hence the miscalculation and subsequent disaster.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,217
skybluetony176 said:
Extract from the Les Reid article in your link.

"Mr Fisher re-iterated Sisu boss Joy Seppala was calling for a sale of the “unincumbered freehold” owned by Coventry City Council."

Presumably when Grendull says this is "fabricated nonsense" he's accusing Les Reid of fabricating it. Its now been found in one of his old CT articles and in an old Twitter post of his.
Click to expand...

Grendel is contradicting Les Reid whenever he can - without knowing it.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,218
martcov said:
Grendel is contradicting Les Reid whenever he can - without knowing it.
Click to expand...

I think the only thing that was fabricated nonsense was grendull stating that it was fabricated nonsense. It was clearly said and then repeated and in this case was attributed to Joy Seppala herself.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,219
I think the Sisu deflectors have gone to bed.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,220
skybluetony176 said:
I think the only thing that was fabricated nonsense was grendull stating that it was fabricated nonsense. It was clearly said and then repeated and in this case was attributed to Joy Seppala herself.
Click to expand...

Joy has remained constant throughout. Unencumbered and litigation.
 
B

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,221
Can't we just stop this thread now after all it's all going to kick off again in February?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,222
martcov said:
ACL through their 50% shareholder obviously did have the power to pay the mortgage and sit it out. Which is why SISU are squealing JR. They obviously were of the same opinion as you. The game changer was the loan. Hence the miscalculation and subsequent disaster.
Click to expand...

Nobody doubts it was a bail out do they? Thought that was pretty clear. Isn't the JR more to do with if the council were allowed to bail out ACL with SISU's argument being it distorted the market and CCC's being they were protecting their investment.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,223
chiefdave said:
Nobody doubts it was a bail out do they? Thought that was pretty clear. Isn't the JR more to do with if the council were allowed to bail out ACL with SISU's argument being it distorted the market and CCC's being they were protecting their investment.
Click to expand...

Distorting the market- screwed their plan to distress ACL. Total miscalculation is most accurate.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,224
So as usual Grendel is proven to be wrong so he makes a sharp exit from a thread.

Oh dear......
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 15, 2015
  • #1,225
Grendel said:
Please provide a link that shows they have to have paid cancel contracts.
Click to expand...

Grendel said:
"What you was trying to say" - wonderful
Click to expand...

 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • …
  • 44
Next
First Prev 35 of 44 Next Last
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?