can somebody clear up a genuine question? (6 Viewers)

philmcc · Jul 10, 2013

Just a quick genuine question and sorry if this is old ground, I have read a number of threads but not all so it may have passed me by.... would just like to know if ACL/PWKH/CCC have ever refuted Tim Fisher's repeated claims that groundshare is the only option, as there is no deal on the table for Holdings to play at the Ricoh?

I understand that both parties are blaming each other for breaking off negotiations, going back on deals and all the rights and wrongs etc. I would just like to know if its true that ACL are only prepared to let Limited play at the Ricoh, and that same offer has not been extended to Holdings ..? *

shmmeee · Jul 10, 2013

This all hinges on the ownership of the club.

ACL's stance has long been: "We will talk to the owners of CCFC Ltd as they are the club and who we have a lease with"
Fisher/Sisu's position has long been: "ACL won't talk to us so we can't negotiate"

This is still not resolved as the club is tsill in admin and the takeover hasn't been completed. Once the takeover is completed then ACL will talk to Otium (I assume) as they are the owners of the club.

ACL have said they are willing to talk to the owner of the club (currently Paul Appleton) but he is refusing.

rupert_bear · Jul 10, 2013

Yes, I think if ACL/CCC got into dialect with sisu/opium that would be admitting ccfc ltd and Holdings are one of the same. I don't think Paul Appleton can talk either until the result of the creditors meeting is known

grego_gee · Jul 10, 2013

philmcc said:
Just a quick genuine question and sorry if this is old ground, I have read a number of threads but not all so it may have passed me by.... would just like to know if ACL/PWKH/CCC have ever refuted Tim Fisher's repeated claims that groundshare is the only option, as there is no deal on the table for Holdings to play at the Ricoh?

I understand that both parties are blaming each other for breaking off negotiations, going back on deals and all the rights and wrongs etc. I would just like to know if its true that ACL are only prepared to let Limited play at the Ricoh, and that same offer has not been extended to Holdings ..? *

Yes that is true.
ACL have offered to let CCFC Ltd play at the Arena (at cost only) - but only while CCFC Ltd is still in administration.
Since CCFC Ltd and the administrator expect to be out of administration shortly, that offer is seen as somewhat hollow.
So there is currently no deal on the table for Holdings to play at the Arena.
It is possible that negotiations could take place if all parties agree.
A deal could still be made before or after we start playing at Northampton.

imp:

philmcc · Jul 10, 2013

Thanks for the replies guys.... if its all still up in the air until we exit admin and otium take over ....why get involved in a 3 to 5 year groundshare deal? Especially if there is the possibility of ACL negotiating with Otium?

Seems to me that there will never be a deal done to play at the Ricoh...and the motives for this are to try and push ACL into oblivion.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 10, 2013

To me it is as simple as acl have spoken to administrator and until admin is finalised there is no other party to deal with.

Don't know why fisher was talking about February 2013 yesterday morning. He needs a slap

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

philmcc said:
Thanks for the replies guys.... if its all still up in the air until we exit admin and otium take over ....why get involved in a 3 to 5 year groundshare deal? Especially if there is the possibility of ACL negotiating with Otium?

Seems to me that there will never be a deal done to play at the Ricoh...and the motives for this are to try and push ACL into oblivion.

ACL need to make an offer to the club (In administration or not) to use the Ricoh at cost for one season.

This will have one of two results ...

1. If accepted it will give one years grace to both parties to sort out a deal or continue with their plans. SISU in effect cannot refuse on financial grounds and will enable them proceed with the details of the new stadium. ACL have a further year to sort out alternative uses for stadium and in effect tread water.

2. If not accepted by SISU it can only be for one reason. They do not really have a plan for a new stadium and are trying to stress ACL into selling cheaply.
The reason being is that in the coming season they would need to progress their plan past the stage of just talking about it. Land would need to be bought and plans started if they are serious.
The FL would have evidence of the real intentions if progress is not made.

Overall all fans would be happy for at least another year, income would be substantially more and promotion this year would be the goal.

Lets talk football .................

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 10, 2013

Can they legally do that though italia?

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

Sky Blue Pete said:
Can they legally do that though italia?

Football League legally or against the law ?

I assume if they could do it in admin they could do it anytime.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 10, 2013

I suppose acl want to continue to suggest that Ccfc ltd is the club and so won't rather than can't talk to Sisu

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

Sky Blue Pete said:
I suppose acl want to continue to suggest that Ccfc ltd is the club and so won't rather than can't talk to Sisu

They need to rise above it and just extend the offer. It's in everybodys interests.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 10, 2013

italiahorse said:
They need to rise above it and just extend the offer. It's in everybodys interests.

Is it really in their interests though??

psgm1 · Jul 10, 2013

Legal & sisu don't go together in my mind.

Everything sisu is doing is illegal, as they have a legally binding contract with ACL.

However

This is a civil rather than criminal illegality. The police simply will not get involved in anything to do with finance disputes, unless they have given deliberately false information (which would be fraud then it would become a criminal matter them).

As for the league doing what they are doing, whilst it is true that they have certain criteria, if you look closely at the regs, there are exceptions on a temporary basis and/or extraordinary circumstances/

This is what they are doing now. Technically they aren't breaching their rules, but they have broken the spirit of the rules. As a layman, for me them betraying the spirit of the rules is just as bad, if not worse, because of all the rhetoric they came out about football being a community etc etc.

Sisu can only be expecting ACL to cave in the long run. The figures simply do not add under the current set up. Indeed trying to get rid of the fans and ultimately end the club could well be part of the strategy - they want the ricoh, they do not want a struggling league 1 club!

There should be no compromise by ACL. The only thing they have done wrong, is assume sisu had the best interests of the club in mind! Unfortunately in reality sisu have used the club as a weapon!

They are a disgrace

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

Sky Blue Pete said:
Is it really in their interests though??

I can't see any downsides unless they also know for definite that SISU are bluffing.
Whether there's another twist in this from ACL I can't see it.
Maybe challenge CVA forces the administrator to look at other bids and they have Haskell in the wings.
Can't get my head round it but it may answer the question why they are quiet.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 10, 2013

psgm1 said:
Legal & sisu don't go together in my mind.

Everything sisu is doing is illegal, as they have a legally binding contract with ACL.

However

This is a civil rather than criminal illegality. The police simply will not get involved in anything to do with finance disputes, unless they have given deliberately false information (which would be fraud then it would become a criminal matter them).

As for the league doing what they are doing, whilst it is true that they have certain criteria, if you look closely at the regs, there are exceptions on a temporary basis and/or extraordinary circumstances/

This is what they are doing now. Technically they aren't breaching their rules, but they have broken the spirit of the rules. As a layman, for me them betraying the spirit of the rules is just as bad, if not worse, because of all the rhetoric they came out about football being a community etc etc.

Sisu can only be expecting ACL to cave in the long run. The figures simply do not add under the current set up. Indeed trying to get rid of the fans and ultimately end the club could well be part of the strategy - they want the ricoh, they do not want a struggling league 1 club!

There should be no compromise by ACL. The only thing they have done wrong, is assume sisu had the best interests of the club in mind! Unfortunately in reality sisu have used the club as a weapon!

They are a disgrace

We are deep in the brown stuff then aren't we??

No scenario where Ccfc has a future in coventry??

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

psgm1 said:
Legal & sisu don't go together in my mind.

Everything sisu is doing is illegal, as they have a legally binding contract with ACL.

However

This is a civil rather than criminal illegality. The police simply will not get involved in anything to do with finance disputes, unless they have given deliberately false information (which would be fraud then it would become a criminal matter them).

As for the league doing what they are doing, whilst it is true that they have certain criteria, if you look closely at the regs, there are exceptions on a temporary basis and/or extraordinary circumstances/

This is what they are doing now. Technically they aren't breaching their rules, but they have broken the spirit of the rules. As a layman, for me them betraying the spirit of the rules is just as bad, if not worse, because of all the rhetoric they came out about football being a community etc etc.

Sisu can only be expecting ACL to cave in the long run. The figures simply do not add under the current set up. Indeed trying to get rid of the fans and ultimately end the club could well be part of the strategy - they want the ricoh, they do not want a struggling league 1 club!

There should be no compromise by ACL. The only thing they have done wrong, is assume sisu had the best interests of the club in mind! Unfortunately in reality sisu have used the club as a weapon!

They are a disgrace

Won't a further deal as I mentioned above force SISU to put up or shut up?
At least we stay at the Ricoh for another 12 months.

grego_gee · Jul 10, 2013

philmcc said:
Thanks for the replies guys.... if its all still up in the air until we exit admin and otium take over ....why get involved in a 3 to 5 year groundshare deal? Especially if there is the possibility of ACL negotiating with Otium?

Seems to me that there will never be a deal done to play at the Ricoh...and the motives for this are to try and push ACL into oblivion.

The dispute is really between the Council and the football club.
Although it was a joint venture the council wound up with the freehold of the whole development.
ACL is only a management company set up to run the arena for the council & the football club.
ACL was originally meant to be in the joint ownership of the council and the football club.
ACL were sold a 50 year lease to the whole development which was mortgaged to part finance the development.
Before the stadium was completed the football club sold its 50% interest in ACL to the Higgs Charity because of Financial pressure but retained an option to repurchase.
CCFC Ltd Leased the Stadium only (less than half of the value of the whole development) for 50 years from ACL at a rent of £1.3m pa (£65m over the full term) although only having access to the stadium on match days.
(£65m was the full cost of the construction contract for the whole development which included casino, hotel and exhibition spaces not used by CCFC)
ACL were in difficulty meeting the mortgage repayments and YB were threatening to recall the mortgage.
In August 2012 SISU had offered to buy back the Higgs charity share of ACL and also buy the mortgage from YB and discharge it in return for an extended 125 year lease. Heads of terms were agreed and signed by the council but the council subsequently reneged and bought the mortgage themselves from Yorkshire bank (YB) for 14m+.
Since this point communication between SISU and the Council has been strained.
SISU have been forced to continue without the arena and have found the 3-5 year deal with Northampton to demonstrate that they can exist without the arena.
Whether the arena can exist without the football club remains to be seen.
The possibility of negotiations starting again before the deal with Northampton was done were slim or non-existent, even now it is only a hope!

imp:

bigfatronssba · Jul 10, 2013

<p>

italiahorse said:
They need to rise above it and just extend the offer. It's in everybodys interests.

Acl's argument would be that they have a binding agreement with ccfc ltd for exclusive use of the playing area during the season.

If they were to negotiate with another company then they could be seen as the ones breaking the lease.

italiahorse · Jul 10, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
<p>

Acl's argument would be that they have a binding agreement with ccfc ltd for exclusive use of the playing area during the season.

If they were to negotiate with another company then they could be seen as the ones breaking the lease.

If we are still in administration then CCFC Ltd can use it anyhow. The offer needs to be made that says when it comes out of administration the first year continues to be cost only. It does not seem impossible to word.

orig skyblue87 · Jul 10, 2013

The Northampton fan on here suggested the groundshare deal was heavily weighted in there favour and Fisher said no going back and its a done deal , so unless there is a cooling off period for both Sisu and NTFC, if sisu were to go back to the Ricoh wouldnt they then owe rent to NTFC ?

chiefdave · Jul 10, 2013

orig skyblue87 said:
The Northampton fan on here suggested the groundshare deal was heavily weighted in there favour and Fisher said no going back and its a done deal , so unless there is a cooling off period for both Sisu and NTFC, if sisu were to go back to the Ricoh wouldnt they then owe rent to NTFC ?

according to Les Reid no deal has yet been signed, it's just an agreement in principle.

Jack Griffin · Jul 10, 2013

grego_gee said:
In August 2012 SISU had offered to buy back the Higgs charity share of ACL and also buy the mortgage from YB and discharge it in return for an extended 125 year lease. Heads of terms were agreed and signed by the council but the council subsequently reneged and bought the mortgage themselves from Yorkshire bank (YB) for 14m+.

Since this point communication between SISU and the Council has been strained.

Yet the rent strike started some time before this, so I'd hardly say that was where the strained relationships started.. I'd like to hear CCC/ACL's version of these events, clearly there is more to it.

can somebody clear up a genuine question? (6 Viewers)

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency