skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
who do you think overcharged who exactly?
they over charged. no spin necessary.
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
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).
who do you think overcharged who exactly?
I agree entirely. It would help if SISU could appoint a new figurehead who grabs the bull by the horns... Drop the JR, drop the jibes, announce a willingness to negotiate a way out of this mess. Makes a joint statement with the council that CCFC and CCC are open for business - together.
New sponsors sought, new business partners sought, regeneration of the area to be kick-started, offer made for the Higgs share etc..
we dont want ccfc to become councils bitch again though...............do we?
whislt i agree new sisu head would be good it would help if council could appoint a new figurehead who grabs the bull by the horns... admits to state aid, drop the jibes about never selling with an evil laugh, announce a willingness to negotiate a way out of this mess by giving up their greedy instincts. Makes a joint statement with SISU that CCFC and CCC are open for business - together.
The council did not give illegal state aid as far as we know. Until now the JR looks like being thrown out as all Joy's evidence has been classed as irrelevant. For SISU to drop the JR would not only be a first step towards negotiations, but would also - possibly - save them a lot of money should the JR be thrown out. The council don't have to admit anything.
The jibes are coming solely from SISU. The council are under legal advice not to comment. The only recent comment was that the door remains open...
"Greedy instincts" are usually associated with the remit of a hedge fund - to make money - , as opposed to a council - to provide services.
But, I doubt if you are capable of understanding these complicated things....
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)
why are you continuing to be rude? i agreed with your statement that sisu is to blame and should change their structure too. why do you take offence to me saying council should do the same?
Just cleaned this thread up, pathetic.
Duffer. I'm fairly sure that the whole complex was one assessment which has now been split. Whilst it was one assessment ACL were passing bills on to the club to pay. Like osb says it could be a hangover from when CCFC had a stake in ACL but I think that's unlikely. For a start the 2005 list valmmuation date is April 2003 but that doesn't mean the valuation took place then. Especially as the stadium foundations were only being dug at the time.
No they weren't - clearly CCFC were paying the rates directly to CCC, ACL weren't passing on the bills.
If ACL were paying the rates, then the appeal would have been from ACL, and the rebate would have gone to them. But as we know, it didn't. You can't spin this as ACL ripping off CCFC, I'm sorry.
ACL paid no rates then and felt there was nothing unusual about it. Fair enough.
No they weren't - clearly CCFC were paying the rates directly to CCC, ACL weren't passing on the bills.
If ACL were paying the rates, then the appeal would have been from ACL, and the rebate would have gone to them. But as we know, it didn't. You can't spin this as ACL ripping off CCFC, I'm sorry.
It's clear that the rates should have been paid by both ACL and CCFC. CCFC paid it all (including what ACL should have paid). So it might not be a case of ripping off, but CCFC were clearly owed money, which ACL is liable for.
It might not a big deal in terms of the dispute, buts it's a bill that ACL I'm sure could do without. And if CCFC were to appeal to have the rebate extended back further, it may be even more.
It's clear that the rates should have been paid by both ACL and CCFC. CCFC paid it all (including what ACL should have paid). So it might not be a case of ripping off, but CCFC were clearly owed money, which ACL is liable for.
It might not a big deal in terms of the dispute, buts it's a bill that ACL I'm sure could do without. And if CCFC were to appeal to have the rebate extended back further, it may be even more.
It's clear that the rates should have been paid by both ACL and CCFC. CCFC paid it all (including what ACL should have paid). So it might not be a case of ripping off, but CCFC were clearly owed money, which ACL is liable for.
It might not a big deal in terms of the dispute, buts it's a bill that ACL I'm sure could do without. And if CCFC were to appeal to have the rebate extended back further, it may be even more.
It's not that I'm pleased at all, i have said from the start that I don't think ACL is financially viable without a football club. Going forward they are now paying 100% rates on the Ricoh without anyone to help them pay it which is going to eat into that profit further. For me just shows even more that the two parties need each other to survive long term.
As for the 590K - They'll get it - they have to and the law says they are entitled to it. One way of looking at it is that this is as much of a non-story as the one about it not yet being paid.
Depends on your perspective I suppose...
ACL are not liable for this money at all get your facts right
Ricoh Arena operators ACL will now be liable to pay the shortfall to the council – but it is understood ACL will appeal.
It's not that I'm pleased at all, i have said from the start that I don't think ACL is financially viable without a football club. Going forward they are now paying 100% rates on the Ricoh without anyone to help them pay it which is going to eat into that profit further. For me just shows even more that the two parties need each other to survive long term.
As for the 590K - They'll get it - they have to and the law says they are entitled to it. One way of looking at it is that this is as much of a non-story as the one about it not yet being paid.
Depends on your perspective I suppose...
So are they liable or not? What are the facts?
It would appear that CCFC are the lucky ones at having their rates reduced, but unfortunately they have probably left it too late to get it back-dated to the start. They think they may have a chance to get it back-dated, but there is normally a Limit to how far you can go back.
They, they, they?
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!
sad times. not everyone here is a fan anymore, thats a fact now.
Sisu are not CCFC fact !!!!!
Sisu are not CCFC fact !!!!!
Sisu are not CCFC fact !!!!!
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?