My understanding is FA paid in 500k when Ricoh project was in early stages. It was an FA contribution to new stadium.
After that, the club was legally responsible for keeping it topped up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My understanding is FA paid in 500k when Ricoh project was in early stages. It was an FA contribution to new stadium.
After that, the club was legally responsible for keeping it topped up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I assume it kept getting mentioned because the club wanted to show that during the rent strike ACL receivedpdt of the rent which makes the claim the rent strike was making ACL financially unstable invalid.
Yeah that's how I understood it. So in affect it's the clubs money not the FA's.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
And was another legally binding contract that the club broke.
We couldn't afford the rent, that was the purpose of the account.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
We couldn't afford the rent, that was the purpose of the account.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Luckily we can afford to pay our masters £1.8m a year interest fees though.
After all, who needs a stadium in Coventry?
Its all about priorities.
The thing is, we haven't actually paid any of this interest, added to the "bill" sure enough, but not actually paid.
Besides if the Council can apparently make around £19million in interest, half of it from a local charity, then why shouldn't other loans incur fees?
The thing is, we haven't actually paid any of this interest, added to the "bill" sure enough, but not actually paid.
Besides if the Council can apparently make around £19million in interest, half of it from a local charity, then why shouldn't other loans incur fees?
The thing is, we haven't actually paid any of this interest, added to the "bill" sure enough, but not actually paid.
Besides if the Council can apparently make around £19million in interest, half of it from a local charity, then why shouldn't other loans incur fees?
No issue with interest on loans. However to suggest that £!.8m a year is sustainable and affordable, but £1.3m is killing the club, looks a little absurd.
Surely that £19m is spread over the 40 year term of the loan, which equates to £47.5k per year interest. Not much really in the grand scheme of things
No issue with interest on loans. However to suggest that £!.8m a year is sustainable and affordable, but £1.3m is killing the club, looks a little absurd.
Stop it. We could afford the rent with better cost control on player contracts. Why do you keep doing this?
Luckily we can afford to pay our masters £1.8m a year interest fees though.
After all, who needs a stadium in Coventry?
Its all about priorities.
Because we couldn't afford the rent. We couldn't afford the players contracts either. If you're looking for efficiency savings, you look to make the savings from every possible cost centres. Why are you in denial?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
There's a significant difference between "I can't afford that" and "I'd like to spend less on that if possible".
Not really? Did we not lose £7.2m last season without paying rent? We've been a going concern and on the edge of insolvency for years. I don't get why you and others are in denial that the rent wasn't a affordable (or players wages, etc)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Stop putting words into other people's mouths Stu. No-one's said the rent was a good deal, what we've said is the timing of stopping paying was entirely a calculated decision by Sisu and not a case of the club suddenly running out of money to pay. Hence no pressing need for a rent strike, despite the pressing need for rent negotiations.
To put it another way: our losses in the penultimate year of the Ricoh (before we started the strike) were not our biggest ever. So why did we need to stop paying then and not any time in the previous 5-6 years?
Because we couldn't afford the rent. We couldn't afford the players contracts either. If you're looking for efficiency savings, you look to make the savings from every possible cost centres.
They didn't stop paying until relegation was pretty much a certainty, I can only guess that that was the straw that broke the camels back, knowing that they were going to lose £4-5m turnover.
Again saying the rent was unaffordable is different from agreeing with sisu's tactics. And as it came out the pre-admin offer wasn't as good as it first looked on paper.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Try doing the sum again bud..
PS I make the interest rate about 5.15%.
The thing is, we haven't actually paid any of this interest, added to the "bill" sure enough, but not actually paid.
Besides if the Council can apparently make around £19million in interest, half of it from a local charity, then why shouldn't other loans incur fees?
Is it really "making" that much interest or is that what its making from ACL?
It's what was claimed in court yesterday, of course not mentioning that half the "profit" is from the CCC owned bit, and not taking into consideration whatever interest fees they are paying themselves for the loan they took out to give the loan to ACL.
Belongs in the "Spin" thread with the other stuff.
It was a shitty deal, no doubting that. But what the club did get in return was the opportunity to sell 10000+ tickets for most if not every home game. So in that sense it was paying for itself.
You can't say the same about suxfields. In terms of un affordability suxfields is the worse rent deal this club has ever had by far. Hence a huge chunk of cash had to be injected as share issues to comply with FFP.
Yet you don't seem concerned about this and this is a current danger to the clubs future.
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?