Council pays Sky Blues six-figure sum. ACL left to foot the bill (1 Viewer)

limoncello said:

Oh do fuck off, James. It's gone 11 and Tony's a fucking idiot.

Click to expand...

Oooooo. What an angry little person you are. You should get to bed earlier you wouldn't be so grumpy if you got enough sleep.

Yet another thread decending into petty arguments.

ccfcway said:

Yet another thread decending into petty arguments.

Click to expand...

Yes, my place of birth has now been deemed "Coventry area" because I was born at the Coventry Maternity Hospital like Grendel. It does say Meriden on the birth certificate tbf, but up until now I believed the boundary now included the Hospital/ Royal Court Hotel. Should I now be happy that "Coventry Area" is recognised by the Football League or sad that I am not a proper CCFC fan? Or is that not petty enough?

Is it for a thread on a ACL bill

ccfcway said:

Is it for a thread on a ACL bill

Click to expand...

Yes, certainly. Apparently the rates bill was wrongly aportioned from 2005 onwards and was fairly recently corrected, resulting in CCFC getting a rebate and ACL getting a bill for the falsely aportioned sum for the last 3 years. They don't agree with the new aportioning and are appealing against their bill. Perfectly normal when there is a difference of opinion. It will be settled by the appeal. However, there are people on here who want to make a meal of it by suggesting that the evil ACL and council have deliberately used this difference of interpretation for their greedy purposes. The place of birth of a certain poster has been used to explain his bias. By definition, I and thousands of Coventry kids are only "Coventry area" because we were Born in the same maternity Hospital and therefore potentialy biased against ACL and pro SISU. A logic that I don't follow.

15 pages of shit . Who gives a fuck . It wont change anything.

martcov said:

Yes, my place of birth has now been deemed "Coventry area" because I was born at the Coventry Maternity Hospital like Grendel. It does say Meriden on the birth certificate tbf, but up until now I believed the boundary now included the Hospital/ Royal Court Hotel. Should I now be happy that "Coventry Area" is recognised by the Football League or sad that I am not a proper CCFC fan? Or is that not petty enough?

Click to expand...

Dont worry Mart, No Future with SISU, clearly doesn't know Coventry as the hospital is well within the City Boundary.

I want even born in Coventry so I must be a glory hunter.....no wait a minute

No future with SISU said:

You could have picked a hospital in coventry, so i was right you are not from coventry. You have to go to solihull if you want your birth records and i think you are bullshitting about the hospital as my mum was there and I knew the name of it which you seem to have forgot, it was Keresley Hospital.

Click to expand...

You are clueless aren't you. Its within the City Boundary, but then people who make out you cant support the team if you weren't born within the city boundary are idiots anyway.

Moff said:

Dont worry Mart, No Future with SISU, clearly doesn't know Coventry as the hospital is well within the City Boundary.

I want even born in Coventry so I must be a glory hunter.....no wait a minute

Click to expand...

Yep it is. I strongly suspect he, along with a couple of others have never even been to a game.

Moff said:

Dont worry Mart, No Future with SISU, clearly doesn't know Coventry as the hospital is well within the City Boundary.

I want even born in Coventry so I must be a glory hunter.....no wait a minute

Click to expand...

Phew!
I was just going to change my user name to MartCovarea.

The whole thread is bollocks.
A non News story or red herring. The title should have read "local business gets rates rebate".
End of thread.

martcov said:

Phew!
I was just going to change my user name to MartCovarea.

The whole thread is bollocks.
A non News story or red herring. The title should have read "local business gets rates rebate".
End of thread.

Click to expand...

It has been a big stick to hit CCC with although they paid up when they found out they had to.

Best news some have had for ages

I think that sum just about covers the fees for Tim Fisher & Mark Labovich.

hahaha it seems some people on here are more hurt by this news than when cov got deducted 10 points...twice!

your hero council let you down.

The reality is that hardly anybody was born within the city walls. Anybody under the age of 40 was born in the outlying village of Walsgrave-on-Sowe.

Jack Griffin said:

I think that sum just about covers the fees for Tim Fisher & Mark Labovich.

Click to expand...

How much do they charge in fees annually?

fernandopartridge said:

How much do they charge in fees annually?

Click to expand...

Maybe they don't get paid and working for free, maybe they have sky blue blood ?

sky blue john said:

Maybe they don't get paid and working for free, maybe they have sky blue blood ?

Click to expand...

I think that's unlikely John!!!!!!!!!

Interesting, read the article here - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-council-pays-six-figure-sum-7140178

Then read the comments and then look at the ratings to the right.

Getting past a joke now, all this.

James Smith said:

Yes as I said earlier as our club wasn't renting the bowl pitch etc. full time ACL are quite rightly responsible for it when we weren't. That makes them liable for the rates for the rest of the time - simple really.

Click to expand...

So what about the rates for the shit office and Shop do they not pay rates on these for the full year

It would seem to me to be a re apportionment of the rates liability between CCFC and ACL. From what has been said it doesn't appear to be an appeal against rateable value.

My understanding is ACL nor CCC doesn't set the valuation & bill. Every 5 years or so businesses receive a valuation letter from the Valuation Office. There is a legal requirement to complete the form and with in a set period return it. That form is completed by the rate payer and includes details of the lease, licence and usage or restrictions. From that the Valuation Office establishes a rateable value for the site. That is supplied to the Council who using a national multiplier supplied to them raises the Business Rates demand. Who established the split between CCFC usage and ACL usage and what that split was is unclear. There are reliefs/discounts available to some rate payers some of which can relate to sports usage. There being a lease/licence at the site or not affects the rate valuation as the amount paid is disclosed to the valuation office and used in its calculations.

The valuation dates relevant are 2005 and 2010 however these are the figures based on details in 2003 and 2008. It looks to me like the original valuation was based on a period when the intentions as to who owned what were different to what actually happened and it was never corrected. You might think that this being a significant cost to the businesses there it would have been challenged as circumstances changed through out the period. You would also think that ACL would challenge the current rateable value of the stadium bowl with no tenant, perhaps they have. What disappoints me is that it seems that neither business has been that sharp in dealing with this major cost.

I am curious about the claim that it will cost ACL £1m potentially. Is that including or excluding the £399k already calculated (ACL owe CCC ..... CCC have already repaid CCFC <Otium>)? From what I can work out on the brief details it doesn't seem to add up

The rates rebate could not be offset against the ACL claim for £590k. Rates rebate owed by CCC to CCFC Ltd (otium purchased the rights to receive the refund) the settlement that is part of the Golden Share agreement is owed by Otium to ACL ......completely different relationships and entities with no legal right of set off.

In the administration process Otium purchased the right to the rates refund as part of the £1.5m they paid for CCFC Ltd assets. I am just guessing but the fact Otium are trying to go back to earlier years is that the reason why the CCFC ltd liquidation hasn't taken place and that the CCFC H winding up has been suspended. If those two companies were struck off I would guess any claim for rates refund dies. In which case the name on the rates bill was CCFC, which means it wasn't billed to ACL who then passed it on.

You can take a look at rateable values & multipliers for the various years here http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic the Ricoh post code is CV6 6GE

That shop and dingy office premises by the way had a rateable value of £130,000 ...... hardly what I would call back street and run down

fernandopartridge said:

Yes. The RV was based on 365 day use. ACL didn't apportion it between them and the club they just passed it all on.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Simon's explained perfectly clearly what happened, but because it doesn't suit an anti-ACL agenda it seems you're trying to spin it as something else.

This was between the Council/VOA and CCFC Ltd. When it was determined upon appeal to the VOA that CCFC were paying rates for periods that they weren't using the stadium, the Council/VOA came after ACL for the shortfall (as I understand it on the basis that ACL have the use of stadium in those periods rather than CCFC).

The argument now will be between ACL and CCC/VOA as to whether the rates are correct - the argument between VOA and CCFC is done and dusted, rebate paid.

There's no direct contact between ACL and CCFC with regard to rates, at least in the story and SG's detailed explanation here - so there's no scope for one side to 'rip-off' the other. Fair enough?

Astute said:

It has been a big stick to hit CCC with although they paid up when they found out they had to.

Best news some have had for ages

Click to expand...

Yes, but how does CCC get stick? They didn't set the value, they didn't profit from the payments directly and they only acted as a collecting agent. The VO set the value of the business rates for the bowl and the government got the money. The government don't care if CCFC paid too much and ACL too little, they just tell CCC to give the overpayment of the CCFC portion back and then CCC take it from ACL. No effect on the government or CCC ( directly).

ACL have as much right as SISU to appeal the amount of their portion as CCFC, and it will be decided on appeal how much ACL have to pay or not to pay.

If there is fault, it is with the apportioning of the valuation in 2005 and then with all accountants who have signed off CCFC's accounts as correct until recently.

This is not news. The rates rebate has been around for some time and was paid out without huge headlines in January. No headlines were justified as the story is simply " local business gets rates rebate" and another "local business gets new rates demand and wants to appeal decision".

Nothing unusual- except that it took so long to be noticed by all parties. TF claimed that when he took over as CEO, the accounts of CCFC were "messy" and that for years CCFC business practice had been "sloppy". Presumably this rate discrepancy came to light as SISU tried to sort out CCFC's books ( I am guessing ).

What is interesting, is who jumps on ACL and the council. Simon thanked Nick for the "prod". Grendel jumps in insulting posters and saying such ( obvious ) things as ACL don't like paying... Unlike SISU of course.

Why would Nick prod Simon over an old story ( rebate was paid out in January )? Why unleash the dogs over a non news story? Who prodded Nick to prod Simon?

This spin reminds me of ML's tactics. Repeat crap enough times and dig at every opportunity and you may win people over to the "SISU victim" line. All in line with the "help me reunite the club with the stadium" plea currently in play.

duffer said:

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Simon's explained perfectly clearly what happened, but because it doesn't suit an anti-ACL agenda it seems you're trying to spin it as something else.

This was between the Council/VOA and CCFC Ltd. When it was determined upon appeal to the VOA that CCFC were paying rates for periods that they weren't using the stadium, the Council/VOA came after ACL for the shortfall (as I understand it on the basis that ACL have the use of stadium in those periods rather than CCFC).

The argument now will be between ACL and CCC/VOA as to whether the rates are correct - the argument between VOA and CCFC is done and dusted, rebate paid.

There's no direct contact between ACL and CCFC with regard to rates, at least in the story and SG's detailed explanation here - so there's no scope for one side to 'rip-off' the other. Fair enough?

Click to expand...

Yes. The RV was based on 365 day use. ACL didn't apportion it between them and the club they just passed it all on.

Click to expand...

Didn't you just say what he said but in different wording? They were paying rates for when they weren't using the stadium so have claimed them back?

martcov said:

Yes, but how does CCC get stick? They didn't set the value, they didn't profit from the payments directly and they only acted as a collecting agent. The VO set the value of the business rates for the bowl and the government got the money. The government don't care if CCFC paid too much and ACL too little, they just tell CCC to give the overpayment of the CCFC portion back and then CCC take it from ACL. No effect on the government or CCC ( directly).

ACL have as much right as SISU to appeal the amount of their portion as CCFC, and it will be decided on appeal how much ACL have to pay or not to pay.

If there is fault, it is with the apportioning of the valuation in 2005 and then with all accountants who have signed off CCFC's accounts as correct until recently.

This is not news. The rates rebate has been around for some time and was paid out without huge headlines in January. No headlines were justified as the story is simply " local business gets rates rebate" and another "local business gets new rates demand and wants to appeal decision".

Nothing unusual- except that it took so long to be noticed by all parties. TF claimed that when he took over as CEO, the accounts of CCFC were "messy" and that for years CCFC business practice had been "sloppy". Presumably this rate discrepancy came to light as SISU tried to sort out CCFC's books ( I am guessing ).

What is interesting, is who jumps on ACL and the council. Simon thanked Nick for the "prod". Grendel jumps in insulting posters and saying such ( obvious ) things as ACL don't like paying... Unlike SISU of course.

Why would Nick prod Simon over an old story ( rebate was paid out in January )? Why unleash the dogs over a non news story? Who prodded Nick to prod Simon?

This spin reminds me of ML's tactics. Repeat crap enough times and dig at every opportunity and you may win people over to the "SISU victim" line. All in line with the "help me reunite the club with the stadium" plea currently in play.

Click to expand...

Nobody prodded me to do anything, I just asked Simon how come it hadn't been covered when there was outrage about that bill needed to be paid by the end of the month but no mention of this story at all as it is quite old news.

Duffer, martcov et al, some people just don't want to understand.

Those offices are available for rent apparently, you can view them via a link on the ACL website. I'll post it when I get a moment, still on my way into work.

Nick said:

Nobody prodded me to do anything, I just asked Simon how come it hadn't been covered when there was outrage about that bill needed to be paid by the end of the month but no mention of this story at all as it is quite old news.

Click to expand...

I assume it wasn't covered as CCC paid the bill as requested by the VOA on appeal. No news. Don't some people have anything better to do? ;-)

martcov said:

If there is fault, it is with the apportioning of the valuation in 2005 and then with all accountants who have signed off CCFC's accounts as correct until recently.

Click to expand...

The implication that the auditors signed off accounts incorrectly because of this rates refund is simply wrong. The rates demand was legally valid and there was no successful appeal until sometime in 2012. The outcome was therefore not clear or even certain. No accounts for the rate payer CCFC Ltd were ever prepared and signed off for the period after 31/05/11 (ie 2012 or 2013)

James Smith said:

Those offices are available for rent apparently, you can view them via a link on the ACL website. I'll post it when I get a moment, still on my way into work.

Click to expand...

Here. I'm sorry, to call those 'dingy' is ridiculous. Such wording from ML simply detracts from any worth in what he has to say. Why can't he just keep it measured?

http://www.holtcommercial.co.uk/images/stories/ricohofficesuitesphoenixwaycoventry.pdf

martcov said:

I assume it wasn't covered as CCC paid the bill as requested by the VOA on appeal. No news. Don't some people have anything better to do? ;-)

Click to expand...

I think it may have been OSB that pointed it out last year sometime, I just asked if it had been paid and Simon did some digging.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Here. I'm sorry, to call those 'dingy' is ridiculous. Such wording from ML simply detracts from any worth in what he has to say. Why can't he just keep it measured?

http://www.holtcommercial.co.uk/images/stories/ricohofficesuitesphoenixwaycoventry.pdf

Click to expand...

You have to wonder about ML, don't you. Maybe it's just his nature, to whine and spin everything.

What does he say to his wife after dinner - "Some of the individual components were quite nicely cooked, but as a dish I'm afraid it didn't really work for me I'm afraid. Overall, fail."

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Here. I'm sorry, to call those 'dingy' is ridiculous. Such wording from ML simply detracts from any worth in what he has to say. Why can't he just keep it measured?

http://www.holtcommercial.co.uk/images/stories/ricohofficesuitesphoenixwaycoventry.pdf

Click to expand...

MMM, A few of us have already mentioned this. He needs to engage brain before mouth, as the accusatory comments dont help the situation.

Although he comes accross as more pathetic than many of the others, many of the main protagonists from both sides need to take a hard look at themselves about whether they have acted either professionally or appropriately throughout this whole crappy soap opera.

duffer said:

What does he say to his wife after dinner - "Some of the individual components were quite nicely cooked, but as a dish I'm afraid it didn't really work for me I'm afraid. Overall, fail."

Click to expand...

Or "I am not actually part of this marriage and am just an adviser. The fish was crap by the way"

duffer said:

You have to wonder about ML, don't you. Maybe it's just his nature, to whine and spin everything.

What does he say to his wife after dinner - "Some of the individual components were quite nicely cooked, but as a dish I'm afraid it didn't really work for me I'm afraid. Overall, fail."

Click to expand...

I know. It's evident that so many personalities play a part in this; you'd hope that SISU could have found a figurehead who'd bring measure and balance to the table; which is sadly lacking in comments such as this. And this being the latest in a long list of such toxic jibes.

I have very little time for Cllr Mutton, and I think his belligerence probably played significant part in where we now are; but when he was removed from the scene, and old Dierdre Barlow came in - at the same time Fisher melted into the background - was hoping for a fresh approach from the SISU side too with regards their CEO/lead negotiator role. This guy - with comments such as this - just gets my back up

they over charged. no spin necessary.