Found this on the Council Website (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

just a question or two

But what is more important right now buying the ground or buying the income streams ? (assume a new rent of no more than £400k)

is buying the ground only necessary if you have plans either to (a) sell on at a profit (b) develop the site further so need control or (c) to borrow against it ?

what is the potential financial finance cost to buy the ground compared to paying the rent at say £400k?

is having 50% of the shares in ACL available to buy going to attract investors?

is there potential in the site ?

does the potential of the site far out way the losses you could limit if you owned the club?

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

my own opinion on administration is that it is never good for any company but it is better than liquidation. It doesnt however mean that liquidation is not the conclusion to administration.

So do I rejoice in the fact that the club is now under threat of administration - No. However i do feel a strange sense of relief that after all these months of stalemate a step has been taken to resolution one way or another. That a bottle neck has broken to relieve one kind of pressure even if it creates a different one It simply could not be left to meander on, that was no good for any of the parties concerned not least the fans.

I choose to keep hopeful that a resolution where the club remains (in whatever division), and that it can be run on basis of a viable football club - not as a tool to other things. Can that be done, yes I believe so but I think our expectations of what constitutes success for the next couple of years will need to be kept in check.

just an opinion

 

[grego_gee]

CCFC & the Ricoh

CCFC are not wedded to the Ricoh.
It is not a comfortable home.
They don't own it, they don't even lease it, they rent use of parts of it on a day by day basis.
What powers does an administrator have to dissolve existing rent agreements?
Is it possible an administrator might see advantage in moving to another ground?


imp:

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Partly correct however several pitfalls await;

We need a new buyer -- there is not likely to be many looking at the state the club is in and the ground cannot form part of negotiations
ACL now will not get any back payments - will they insist now to the administrator they receive the original monthly rent agreement out of available funds? Can they? Will they get anything when in administration?
Admin laws are complex - the ACL recommended administrators have a poor track record -- Luton and Leeds ended up with massive point reductions due to the way they exited administration -- we have a similar admin issue to Southampton in that ACL are actually not putting CCFC into admin but CCFC Holdings. This ended up protracted and a
Administrators have a duty to ensure the players receive payments -- they have no duty to find a buyer.

Interesting Grendel....What would you do? What do you think is the best way out of this?

 

[grego_gee]

CCFC are not wedded to the Ricoh.
It is not a comfortable home.
They don't own it, they don't even lease it, they rent use of parts of it on a day by day basis.
What powers does an administrator have to dissolve existing rent agreements?
Is it possible an administrator might see advantage in moving to another ground?


imp:

I just tried to look up details of title for the Ricoh on the Land registry site but found that council properties seem to be excluded.
a search to find why led me to a page on Bury councils website
saying
" Council land and property

For enquiries about Council land and property ownership, our Land Record (Terrier) is open to public inspection from 9am to 4.45pm at: Property Services 3 Knowsley Place, Duke Street, Bury, BL9 0EJ.

Our land records consist of a computerised system of large scale ordnance survey maps showing the boundaries of all land owned by us. Also shown are details of all acquisitions and disposals together with leases, lettings, licence easements and rights of way and individual garage plots except trader information which are separately managed."

Would anybody like to pop in to the council house and ask to view the terrier?

imp:

 

[Covstu]

CCFC are not wedded to the Ricoh.
It is not a comfortable home.
They don't own it, they don't even lease it, they rent use of parts of it on a day by day basis.
What powers does an administrator have to dissolve existing rent agreements?
Is it possible an administrator might see advantage in moving to another ground?


imp:

Personally think that the ricoh is the only option for city going forward, it is not realistic to build a new stadium that serves no purpose to any parties here. We haven't had much joy at the ricoh I agree but it has sadly coincided with our downfall from the premier league and has subsequently seen as an anchor around our necks. We need to own part of this to gain access to revenue streams and more that ACL were originally suggesting. The new owners (or SISU if they settle) need to be masters of their own destinies and not need to be reliant on ACL or anyone.

 

[oldskyblue58]

an insolvency Administrator has the power to:

• dismiss directors, managers and employees

• close down outlets

• negotiate the sale of the business of the company

• put forward re-structuring proposals to creditors

My understanding is that they are appointed to get the best deal for the creditors - which may include all or some of the above actions

During the appointment the administrator will seek to operate on a break even basis. That means they will not create new or greater creditors. The administrator will seek to reduce costs where ever possible - which could well see messrs Fisher & Labovitch dismissed from office for example. He must seek to maximise income or asset disposals (main assets are the players..... not worth a lot ..... but outside of transfer window.... although special dispensation to sell could be sought from the League). I understand he is bound by the contracts in place unless he can negotiate/agree something different with the creditor (so pays the old rent ?)

Administration doesnt make CCFC's position any less perilous...... but it does force a resolution without going straight to liquidation (which was suggested by the owners as almost inevitable)

Any one know if the Administration or liquidation breaks the 3rd Party debtor orders? Also on liquidation I assume ARVO charge not the 3rd party debtor orders comes first?

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Does this help?

The Insolvency Act 1986 priority list
1. Fixed charge holders
2. Insolvency practitioner fees and expenses, s176ZA
3. Preferential creditors, ss 40, 115, 175, 386 andSch 6
4. Ring fenced fund for unsecured creditors, s 176Aand SI 2003/2097
5. Floating charge holders
6. Unsecured creditors, s 74(2)(f
7. Interest on debts proved in winding up, s 189
8. Money due to amember under a contract to redeem or repurchase shares not completed beforewinding up, CA 2006 s 735
9. Debts due to members under s 74(2)(f)
10. Repayment of residual interests to preference,and then ordinary shareholders.
Sources: Insolvency Act 1986 and Companies Act 2006

My source Wikipedia

 

[Grendel]

The problem is football administration has it's own rules in that football creditors have to be paid first. Football creditors effectively are the players and they actually take precedent over The Revenue.

So ACL by this action will not get paid as almost certainly the club will now be run as near as possible on a break even basis until (or if) a buyer is found.

Begs a question why this has been done. Surely ACL could have agreed a FOC rent until end of season and wiped the debt as this action means they will now receive nothing anyway.

 

[bamalamafizzfazz]

Harry Shaw. May choose to drive away. Rick is ready to step in though.

Everyone seemed to miss this. Didn't get the credit it deserved. I just spat tea all over myself reading it!! Brightened up my Friday afternoon :laugh:

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Any one know if the Administration or liquidation breaks the 3rd Party debtor orders? Also on liquidation I assume ARVO charge not the 3rd party debtor orders comes first?

As far as I can see it would appear not however the Administrator could apply for the Order to be lifted as part of a negotiated agreement with the secured creditors.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

The problem is football administration has it's own rules in that football creditors have to be paid first. Football creditors effectively are the players and they actually take precedent over The Revenue.

So ACL by this action will not get paid as almost certainly the club will now be run as near as possible on a break even basis until (or if) a buyer is found.

Begs a question why this has been done. Surely ACL could have agreed a FOC rent until end of season and wiped the debt as this action means they will now receive nothing anyway.

If you read the various statements from ACL you will see that their primary intention is prevent liquidation and they are also 'hoping' that there might be a 'White Knight' in the wings waiting to step in. It is also highly likely that they have written the rent off as a bad debt in this year's accounts. Giving into to the blackmail and bullying by offering a FOC rent would not have solved the problem, just delayed any resolution.
Going down this route may mean they something back in the long term even if it is only an honourable owner!

 

[chiefdave]

During the appointment the administrator will seek to operate on a break even basis. That means they will not create new or greater creditors.

What happens if there's not enough money coming in to cover costs? To use 100% made up figures lets say outgoings are £1m a month but income is £0.5m (and I assume over the close season income is very low and presuambly we won't be selling season tickets anytime soon). SISU aren't going to cover losses, the above from OSB would suggest the administrator can't cover losses so what happens?

Speaking to Pompey supporters they are saying they've only been able to survive admin thanks to parachute payments and even then have needed local businessmen to donate money to the club to cover the shortfall.

 

[grego_gee]

What happens if there's not enough money coming in to cover costs? To use 100% made up figures lets say outgoings are £1m a month but income is £0.5m (and I assume over the close season income is very low and presuambly we won't be selling season tickets anytime soon). SISU aren't going to cover losses, the above from OSB would suggest the administrator can't cover losses so what happens?

Speaking to Pompey supporters they are saying they've only been able to survive admin thanks to parachute payments and even then have needed local businessmen to donate money to the club to cover the shortfall.

Don't worry, Coventry City Council have assured us that they have our best interests at heart. They stepped in and provided a low interest loan for ACL in their hour of need. They will do the same for CCFC. Why wouldn't they?

imp:

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

I just tried to look up details of title for the Ricoh on the Land registry site but found that council properties seem to be excluded.
a search to find why led me to a page on Bury councils website
saying
" Council land and property

For enquiries about Council land and property ownership, our Land Record (Terrier) is open to public inspection from 9am to 4.45pm at: Property Services 3 Knowsley Place, Duke Street, Bury, BL9 0EJ.

Our land records consist of a computerised system of large scale ordnance survey maps showing the boundaries of all land owned by us. Also shown are details of all acquisitions and disposals together with leases, lettings, licence easements and rights of way and individual garage plots except trader information which are separately managed."

Would anybody like to pop in to the council house and ask to view the terrier?

imp:

If you use the Land Registry site, then 'map search', locate the Arena, zoom in to 50ft on the map and then switch the search function on you will get the freehold for the site and two leasehold contracts......will cost you £3 each though (Just tried it and it works OK). By why the problem, I thought it was a matter of record that the Council own the freehold and ACL have a 50 year lease with about 40 years to run?

 

[grego_gee]

If you use the Land Registry site, then 'map search', locate the Arena, zoom in to 50ft on the map and then switch the search function on you will get the freehold for the site and two leasehold contracts......will cost you £3 each though (Just tried it and it works OK). By why the problem, I thought it was a matter of record that the Council own the freehold and ACL have a 50 year lease with about 40 years to run?

thanks I've not seen the map search before, but I think the result coming up is for the land adjacent to the arena. I don't think the land registry hold data on council owned sites.
Interest was in possibly seeing detail of the rental agreement between ACL & CCFC - I wonder how it is limited - its not for the whole of the site and its not for the whole of the time! Its just possible some detail might be revealed on the land terrier at the council house.

imp:

 

[grego_gee]

I just realised what I'd said above - "I don't think the Land registry hold data on council owned sites". If that is the case and there is data on the land adjacent to the Arena that would imply the council don't own it.....!! is this a shock?
unfortunately there seems to be a glitch in the Land registry site and land at Pheonix way is listed 3 times (I suspect maybe for the same piece of land)
A lot seems to be said about the council expecting SISU to develop the area around the Ricoh.... but where is it? it looks all developed on the Ariel shots on maps. And I scanned the City planing site and didn't see any mention of development plans for this area.....
What is going on?

imp:

 

[Jack Griffin]

There were some traffic studies online as submission for additional hotel development in area, think to do with using car park C.

 

[grego_gee]

There were some traffic studies online as submission for additional hotel development in area, think to do with using car park C.

the feeling I have picked up is that Council/ACL wouldn't play ball with SISU because SISU were expected t develop surrounding area/land....
I'm surprised that "additional hotel" would not seem to fill that bill, and I would have thought SISU wouldn't be shy to fit in with that.....
Is there more to it?

imp: