lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??
I'll stay out of any argument you're having with Jack. The statement is certainly being clever with words, something you are usually a fan of. Lord has misstated the QC, something he may wish to recognise, but that is up to him of course.
Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??
Are you saying that interest charged on loans isn't profit??
The point is easy. Interest charged to council - Interest charged to ACL - what is the difference. Do you need OSB to help you cross the road?
The difference between what acl pay ccc and what ccc pay central government is the profit. That seems clear from the court transcript printed in the CET, as does that the ccc qc clearly said £ 19odd million in interest, no mention of profit. So no spin that I can see.
So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.
So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.
So next time you wheel out the 'AVRO charging £1.8m interest pa' - just remember SISU/AVRO aren't making a profit... it's just interest.
You've clearly misinterpreted what was said in court as well then.
The £19m is interest, the difference is the profit. Some on here are trying to say the ccc qc said it was all profit and picking this apart when he never said anything like that, he said it was interest. No mention of profit or a mention of what percentage might be profit. The paranoid androids on here did that all by themselves. Your membership card is probably in the post.
Why not find out what rate the loan is charged at and loaned out for? Ask Alan if he will let you do some journalism.
For the hard of understanding, a higher rate than it would have got if the money was left in a holding account, though with higher risks.
I guess what you are really saying is that the council shouldn't be allowed tot use its funds to protect its own assets unless it makes a huge wad., that is of course nonsense.
Perhaps you can go & teach SISU how to manage their money, because it seems to me that they're blown a lot of cash in a very ineffective manner, in a display of remarkable fiscal incompetence (if not incontinence, LOL).
For the hard of understanding, a higher rate than it would have got if the money was left in a holding account, though with higher risks.
I guess what you are really saying is that the council shouldn't be allowed tot use its funds to protect its own assets unless it makes a huge wad., that is of course nonsense.
Perhaps you can go & teach SISU how to manage their money, because it seems to me that they're blown a lot of cash in a very ineffective manner, in a display of remarkable fiscal incompetence (if not incontinence, LOL).
Nope not saying that I am saying the statement bought a flood of posters on assuming this meant that money was available for the taxpayers. Without knowing how much they are paying for the loan we don't know. Could be £1 a year and if ACL default during those 40 years could be a whacking great tax bill.
Its asset is protected. It owns the Ricoh Arena. Somebody on here also pointed out that if the leaseholder became insolvent the lease reverts back to the council.
What are they protecting apart from a company?
So you are happy to see a charity lose millions.. to profit a hedge fund.
So it was a pointless statement then. Why mention it? Why did some posters immediately state it was a good deal? You are saying its just a statement on interest. Are those posters confused?
You seemed confused earlier and wanted OSB to hold your hand yet now its crystal clear. How very strange.
Here we go, the emotive argument gets rolled out. The charity bought the shares at its own risk as anybody would. I have sympathy with them especially as they were ripped off themselves by the council for the lease in the first place. It's arguable that the £6m for 50% of ACL was also a rum deal based on scotch mist.
At least you agree they're protecting a company and not an asset.
Are shares in a company not assets then? Show me where shares are defined as not being assets?
Are shares in a company not assets then? Show me where shares are defined as not being assets?
Here we go, the emotive argument gets rolled out. The charity bought the shares at its own risk as anybody would. I have sympathy with them especially as they were ripped off themselves by the council for the lease in the first place. It's arguable that the £6m for 50% of ACL was also a rum deal based on scotch mist.
At least you agree they're protecting a company and not an asset.
What would you like to happen?
I think the misnomer is that people actually care who owns and runs the Ricoh aside form it being someone with the club's best interests at heart. People don't (rightly or wrongly) believe that of Sisu.
Personally I think the mistake was getting us relegated first. If they'd been asking this on the back of a promotion season things would be very different. As always Sisu show they don't understand football fans.
Of course shares are assets. And if ACL go bust, the shares are worthless, but then someone else come in and buys a new lease. The money they will receive are also assets.
Maybe even worth more than the current value of the shares?
I'd like my football team to play at the stadium that was purpose built for it and have full access to all revenue its presence generates.
They're assets but are they worth the risk the council took?
I'd like my football team to play at the stadium that was purpose built for it and have full access to all revenue its presence generates.
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?