hell will freeze over... (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

torchomatic said:
All well and good but it puts the Council's cash at risk, doesn't it? Why not let a private investor take the risk and protect the taxpayer?

I am guessing that the councillors looked at the risk against the reward of the interest payments boosting the council coffers; combined with their own agenda of maintaining a level of control over the continued successful development of that part of the city and voted accordingly. You're entitled to disagree with that. That's a valid view to hold.

But the legality or the loan, plus the health of ACL at the time of the loan, given the information available at the time of making the decision (January 2013, I think), has been considered and ruled upon by the judge

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

I don't really get that arguement, if ACL was performing well and YB were happy when was refinancing required quickly to protect the council's investment?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

chiefdave said:
Isn't the JR's only concern the validity of the original loan to ACL, and then only on the basis of information available at the time? Does that not mean any other action by CCC, such as the sale to Wasps, is not covered?

There's all sorts of other issues. For example the loan, to date, has been ruled legal. However the vote taken by CCC was not if ACL should be loaned money from CCC reserves yet that is what has happened. Isn't there an arguement that the vote is therefore invalidated? Same with the sale to Wasps, Lucas is claiming the information supplied by, presumably, Reeves and West was incorrect, a vote to sell based on that incorrect information could therefore be considered invalid. Certainly I think there is enough doubt there to warrant an investigation of some sort.

The state aid issue, and the financial health of ACL at the time of approving the loan are considered within the state aid case, and rulings there clear for all. This does also impact upon what Lucas said in 2013 with regards ACL's profitability, as she could be seen to be relying on the same information the judge has when he made his healthy '40 year' prognosis as above. That's why I think is is less relevant.

There are, I agree, questions relating to the Wasps sale. Where they money came from, and why; and also the 'forging trust' comments with regards the club's return to the Ricoh. On face value, that looks disgusting in light of recent events - and I too would like answers on such issues

lordsummerisle · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The state aid issue, and the financial health of ACL at the time of approving the loan are considered within the state aid case, and rulings there clear for all. This does also impact upon what Lucas said in 2013 with regards ACL's profitability, as she could be seen to be relying on the same information the judge has when he made his healthy '40 year' prognosis as above. That's why I think is is less relevant.

There are, I agree, questions relating to the Wasps sale. Where they money came from, and why; and also the 'forging trust' comments with regards the club's return to the Ricoh. On face value, that looks disgusting in light of recent events - and I too would like answers on such issues

If the judge was relying on the same information that Anne Lucas was when both making their "healthy" prognosis and that information was incorrect(as Anne Lucas has stated), surely that would be a cause for concern?

Though possibly not in law of course.

What matters in arcane ruling of the law can be a puzzle sometimes.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
If the judge was relying on the same information that Anne Lucas was when both making their "healthy" prognosis and that information was incorrect(as Anne Lucas has stated), surely that would be a cause for concern?

Though possibly not in law of course.

What matters in arcane ruling of the law can be a puzzle sometimes.

Wouldn't disagree with that. We've all noticed that convert bookings, from attracting reasonable names, seemed to go off a cliff. That would have an influence on the health of the company immediately.

Here's a conspiracy theory; maybe Wasps don't like concerts and started talking to ACL superstitiously telling them not to pursue this line of income during their protracted negotiations ? ACL ditch chasing concerts, knowing their incomes will take a nose-dive during one financial year, but assured that Wasps are the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? (I hasten to add, there's not much thinking to this theory...)

lordsummerisle · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Wouldn't disagree with that. We've all noticed that convert bookings, from attracting reasonable names, seemed to go off a cliff. That would have an influence on the health of the company immediately.

Here's a conspiracy theory; maybe Wasps don't like concerts and started talking to ACL superstitiously telling them not to pursue this line of income during their protracted negotiations ? ACL ditch chasing concerts, knowing their incomes will take a nose-dive during one financial year, but assured that Wasps are the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? (I hasten to add, there's not much thinking to this theory...)

To be fair, though obviously Wasps involvement goes back a bit further than we may have been told, don't think that could be as far back as that, as surely ACL(with Wasps involvement, even if publically undisclosed) would have managed to be named as one of the venues for the RWC?

Ian1779 · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The state aid issue, and the financial health of ACL at the time of approving the loan are considered within the state aid case, and rulings there clear for all. This does also impact upon what Lucas said in 2013 with regards ACL's profitability, as she could be seen to be relying on the same information the judge has when he made his healthy '40 year' prognosis as above. That's why I think is is less relevant.

There are, I agree, questions relating to the Wasps sale. Where they money came from, and why; and also the 'forging trust' comments with regards the club's return to the Ricoh. On face value, that looks disgusting in light of recent events - and I too would like answers on such issues

I'm not disputing the findings of the JR. They are clear to see.

However the fact is that Lucas has said one thing when it transpires that quite another occurred. I think it is worth a body (does it have to be CCFC/SISU pushing it?) investigating more thoroughly about what she did know as opposed to what she said.

She is at the end of the day a public servant and her actions should be scrutinised in this instance.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
To be fair, though obviously Wasps involvement goes back a bit further than we may have been told, don't think that could be as far back as that, as surely ACL(with Wasps involvement, even if publically undisclosed) would have managed to be named as one of the venues for the RWC?

True. So, you're leading to cull any long-term conspiracy theories with regards Wasps' involvement? ;-)

Eastwood certainly has sway. An ex-RFU man and very well though of there - his tenure was very, very successful.

If anyone's unaware of his background, it's worth at least taking 20 seconds to read this precis:

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29663&Itemid=558

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

Ian1779 said:
I'm not disputing the findings of the JR. They are clear to see.

However the fact is that Lucas has said one thing when it transpires that quite another occurred. I think it is worth a body (does it have to be CCFC/SISU pushing it?) investigating more thoroughly about what she did know as opposed to what she said.

She is at the end of the day a public servant and her actions should be scrutinised in this instance.

Ah, that's a bit tricky. You're looking at the accuracy of what she said then; with the retrospective hindsight of the knowledge of that we have now.

What we do know is that the '40 year' rosy comments were made by a judge (in January 2014, looking back at the inspiration that gave rise to the council making the decision to loan in January 2013) span the time in 2013 when Lucas made the comments she did.

My point being, he doesn't fundamentally disagree with her. In fact he quite agrees. That's why I see this as being less of any issue than the, say 'building trust' comment; which appears to be incredulous given what was evidently happening. It appears a disgrace. And does need explaining.

All I'm saying is choose your battles; otherwise she's already got a Get Out Of Jail card

lordsummerisle · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
True. So, you're leading to cull any long-term conspiracy theories with regards Wasps' involvement? ;-)

Eastwood certainly has sway. An ex-RFU man and very well though of there - his tenure was very, very successful.

If anyone's unaware of his background, it's worth at least taking 20 seconds to read this precis:

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29663&Itemid=558

Sure I read somewhere that Derek Richardson was looking into buying the Ricoh Arena, a couple of years before buying Wasps, so a chicken and egg thing possibly there.

torchomatic · Jan 22, 2015

What I was trying to get at in #163

lordsummerisle said:
If the judge was relying on the same information that Anne Lucas was when both making their "healthy" prognosis and that information was incorrect(as Anne Lucas has stated), surely that would be a cause for concern?

Though possibly not in law of course.

What matters in arcane ruling of the law can be a puzzle sometimes.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

torchomatic said:
What I was trying to get at in #163

But during legal cases I've been involved in, and I'm guessing JRs aren't that much different; both sides prepare a bundle which are then exchanged ahead of the hearing. If SISU didn't like anything relating to ACL's finances, or wanted further information or clarity provided - remember, this is what was known at the time - that it's challenged at this point so that the judge can take this into account. Presumably this process was followed, and the judge ruled as he did. Again a view not so different from that Lucas was claiming at the time (in broad terms).

Thats why I think the 'building trust' angle is much more compelling and seemingly clear evidence of duplicity

tisza · Jan 22, 2015

I can't believe for one minute that the judge in the JR didn't have the actual published accounts and source of the loan etc. presented as written evidence. I'm pretty sure both sides would have presented the finances in order to try and prove their case albeit with their own interpretations of the data.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

tisza said:
I can't believe for one minute that the judge in the JR didn't have the actual published accounts and source of the loan etc. presented as written evidence. I'm pretty sure both sides would have presented the finances in order to try and prove their case albeit with their own interpretations of the data.

Is I were SISU's legal representation (and I'm positive I'm nowhere near as savvy), given the distress situation we all know was happening, I would have asked for the last set of audited accounts, plus monthly management accounts for the current trading year to give the biggest picture imaginable

Grendel · Jan 22, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
Sure I read somewhere that Derek Richardson was looking into buying the Ricoh Arena, a couple of years before buying Wasps, so a chicken and egg thing possibly there.

He had already approached Rossborough with a view to merging CRFC with wasps - I doubt he was looking at moving them to the Butts.

tisza · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Is I were SISU's legal representation (and I'm positive I'm nowhere near as savvy), given the distress situation we all know was happening, I would have asked for the last set of audited accounts, plus monthly management accounts for the current trading year to give the biggest picture imaginable

my actual point was that being a JR the judge himself would have said that he wanted all available data.

Ian1779 · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Ah, that's a bit tricky. You're looking at the accuracy of what she said then; with the retrospective hindsight of the knowledge of that we have now.

What we do know is that the '40 year' rosy comments were made by a judge (in January 2014, looking back at the inspiration that gave rise to the council making the decision to loan in January 2013) span the time in 2013 when Lucas made the comments she did.

My point being, he doesn't fundamentally disagree with her. In fact he quite agrees. That's why I see this as being less of any issue than the, say 'building trust' comment; which appears to be incredulous given what was evidently happening. It appears a disgrace. And does need explaining.

All I'm saying is choose your battles; otherwise she's already got a Get Out Of Jail card

To be fair... IMO This is not a battle for the club to get into at all.

I would like to see pressure put on Lucas from the electorate to have her actions scrutinised. If this is what Les Reid appears to be pushing for in his articles... I don't think it's such a bad thing.

martcov · Jan 22, 2015

Ian1779 said:
To be fair... IMO This is not a battle for the club to get into at all.

I would like to see pressure put on Lucas from the electorate to have her actions scrutinised. If this is what Les Reid appears to be pushing for in his articles... I don't think it's such a bad thing.

It's not such a bad thing, but so long there is a JR against the council, the council will remain united. The job of the opposition is to hold AL to account, but that may cost the city a lot of money if they do. So, let's hope the JR gets finally quashed ( and the next JR and any other crap SISU throw in ).

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
If SISU didn't like anything relating to ACL's finances, or wanted further information or clarity provided - remember, this is what was known at the time - that it's challenged at this point so that the judge can take this into account.

Obviously SISU wouldn't have had the most recent set of accounts as they've only just appeared but how much do we know about what they did have? Remember the went to the judge, might even had been twice, requesting access to information held by the council and were refused access both times. Do we know what they did and didn't have to rule out that this wasn't what they were attempting to gain access to?

tisza · Jan 22, 2015

the judge isn't going to deny them access to financial information in a case like this.
i seem to remember at the time it was about ACL & council officials internal emails and other information about their meetings but i stand to be corrected.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

chiefdave said:
Obviously SISU wouldn't have had the most recent set of accounts as they've only just appeared but how much do we know about what they did have? Remember the went to the judge, might even had been twice, requesting access to information held by the council and were refused access both times. Do we know what they did and didn't have to rule out that this wasn't what they were attempting to gain access to?

The judge was specifically asked to comment on the affordability issue, and did so in the element I have quoted here. Even if SISU hasn't requested the most recent financials (which I can't believe), the the judge would; and as above, this would include audited accounts, plus monthly management accounts for the current year. There is absolutely no way, impossible, that this would be denied the court. Absolutely incredible to even think so

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The judge was specifically asked to comment on the affordability issue, and did so in the element I have quoted here. Even if SISU hasn't requested the most recent financials (which I can't believe), the the judge would; and as above, this would include audited accounts, plus monthly management accounts for the current year. There is absolutely no way, impossible, that this would be denied the court. Absolutely incredible to even think so

But the audited accounts presented in the JR wouldn't cover the timeframe of the dispute of Lucas claims of profitability. So we're left with monthly management accounts, which raises a couple of questions you can apply your legal expertise to.

Wasn't the case against CCC not ACL, in which case can we be certain they were included in the JR?

The monthly management accounts wouldn't have been audited. Lucas has claimed she was given incorrect information by council officers on behalf of ACL, presumably Reeves and West, so how can we be 100% certain the misleading information wasn't the management accounts?

If accounts showing ACL making a loss whilst it was being claimed they were making a profit were made available back in June 2014 why has it taken until the audited accounts have been released to identify the inconsistency.

The point I'm making is not regarding the judge or the JR, merely that there is clearly information which falls outside of that JR so because a judge has ruled one way or the other on one particular part of the mess doesn't mean it follows that which ever party he ruled in favour off then has a free pass.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

chiefdave said:
But the audited accounts presented in the JR wouldn't cover the timeframe of the dispute of Lucas claims of profitability. So we're left with monthly management accounts, which raises a couple of questions you can apply your legal expertise to.

Wasn't the case against CCC not ACL, in which case can we be certain they were included in the JR?

The monthly management accounts wouldn't have been audited. Lucas has claimed she was given incorrect information by council officers on behalf of ACL, presumably Reeves and West, so how can we be 100% certain the misleading information wasn't the management accounts?

If accounts showing ACL making a loss whilst it was being claimed they were making a profit were made available back in June 2014 why has it taken until the audited accounts have been released to identify the inconsistency.

The point I'm making is not regarding the judge or the JR, merely that there is clearly information which falls outside of that JR so because a judge has ruled one way or the other on one particular part of the mess doesn't mean it follows that which ever party he ruled in favour off then has a free pass.

Please look at #166, ACL were the scrutinised party.

You are correct, monthly management accounts are not audited, and can be incorrect; but a Director of the business would be in very hot water if found falsifying data for the purposes of misrepresentation. And let's be honest, SISU aren't shy in coming forwards, are they? I would have thought they'd pick up on this.

And Lucas' claims with regard profitability were made in 2013; weren't they? So accounts produced some time later wouldn't be anything she could draw a conclusion from?!?

Grendel · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Please look at #166, ACL were the scrutinised party.

You are correct, monthly management accounts are not audited, and can be incorrect; but a Director of the business would be in very hot water if found falsifying data for the purposes of misrepresentation. And let's be honest, SISU aren't shy in coming forwards, are they? I would have thought they'd pick up on this.

And Lucas' claims with regard profitability were made in 2013; weren't they? So accounts produced some time later wouldn't be anything she could draw a conclusion from?!?

She was asked about the current financial position live on cwr at the time of the takeover and said the organisation was at that time not making losses. Not 2013 - here and now.

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You are correct, monthly management accounts are not audited, and can be incorrect; but a Director of the business would be in very hot water if found falsifying data for the purposes of misrepresentation. And let's be honest, SISU aren't shy in coming forwards, are they? I would have thought they'd pick up on this.

That's exactly the point isn't it? Lucas is claiming the council were supplied with false information yet a lot of people are saying don't worry about that it's all in the past. I'm sure if SISU knew about it at the time they would have acted or found a way to leak it out - you could even go so far as to say the fact they didn't implies they didn't know about it at the time, or at least didn't have proof - if you recall we had Fisher claiming they were losing money with Lucas and ACL saying he was talking rubbish.

If, as has been suggested on here many times, new evidence can't be entered in the JR and this has only just been confirmed to be the case then are we looking at a whole new JR? A few more years of court cases is just what we need.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And Lucas' claims with regard profitability were made in 2013; weren't they? So accounts produced some time later wouldn't be anything she could draw a conclusion from?!?

It's been made over and over again throughout the whole mess. Lucas made the claim as recently as early October last year, around the time of the sale to Wasps. So either she had false information, which raises the question of where it was sourced from and what decisions were made based on false information, or she is being untruthful about being supplied with false information, which raises it's own questions as it means she was outright lying.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

Grendel said:
She was asked about the current financial position live on cwr at the time of the takeover and said the organisation was at that time not making losses. Not 2013 - here and now.

What take-over? The Wasps one? Whilst that would have been factually incorrect (and make her a fool), it's irrelevent, as CD is claiming that the 'profitability' claims were made in order to shape events during 2013 and into 2014.

In that context, it's what she said in 2013 that's intetesting - specifically as to why the loan was agreed by CCC

skybluetony176 · Jan 22, 2015

Grendel said:
She was asked about the current financial position live on cwr at the time of the takeover and said the organisation was at that time not making losses. Not 2013 - here and now.

Have the accounts been filed yet for the period that covers the takeover?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

Into 2014, Lucas would be reliant upon and quoting this sort of data, no?

http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2...able-despite-football-club-turmoil-98783.html

Rusty Trombone · Jan 22, 2015

Lucas may have been given incorrect figures. She may have been given correct figures, but then told lies about it. She may have been figures that were correct at the time, but then as part of the audit the figures were changed. The accounts were signed on 1st Dec, her comments were early Oct.

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What take-over? The Wasps one? Whilst that would have been factually incorrect (and make her a fool), it's irrelevent, as CD is claiming that the 'profitability' claims were made in order to shape events during 2013 and into 2014.

No I'm not. I'm saying it is possible that when the bail out occurred in Jan 2013 the vote was based on false information. At that point we had not being paying rent for approx 10 months, instead money was being drawn down from the escrow. I would suggest that at the very least when making projections for ACL it should have been done on the basis of not receiving £1.2m a year from CCFC. Surely if that had been factored in it would have been hard, if not impossible, to state the loan was being made to a company that had no risk of running at a loss, that suggests that if Lucas is correct in her claims that CCC were being supplied false information it could have already been happening at the point the bail out occurred.

More importantly by the time the sale to Wasps was agreed and the loan transferred to them it should have been 100% clear that ACL were not making a profit without CCFC. Lucas was publicly stating it was, and has since claimed this was based on false information, so was the sale of ACL and transfer of the loan voted for on the basis of false information?

This is why I am keen for the whole thing to be looked into. Lucas is making very serious claims yet we have heard nothing of any internal council disciplinary action.

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
Lucas may have been given incorrect figures. She may have been given correct figures, but then told lies about it. She may have been figures that were correct at the time, but then as part of the audit the figures were changed. The accounts were signed on 1st Dec, her comments were early Oct.

That's the point, there is doubt and where there is doubt and a lack of openness (everything being replied to as confidential) it seeds doubt. Something isn't right, even Lucas herself has admitted that so surely, as a publicly accountable body there should be some sort of investigation or enquiry?

That's all there is to it really, there is doubt so lets get everything looked at so we all know the truth.

I'm not sure why people are finding that such a hard concept to grasp or seeking to go through the minutiae of everything ever said to try and ensure no questions are asked of CCC.

Rusty Trombone · Jan 22, 2015

chiefdave said:
That's the point, there is doubt and where there is doubt and a lack of openness (everything being replied to as confidential) it seeds doubt. Something isn't right, even Lucas herself has admitted that so surely, as a publicly accountable body there should be some sort of investigation or enquiry?

That's all there is to it really, there is doubt so lets get everything looked at so we all know the truth.

I'm not sure why people are finding that such a hard concept to grasp or seeking to go through the minutiae of everything ever said to try and ensure no questions are asked of CCC.

That all sounds reasonable to me. I still think that £392k in neither here or there though, and that seems to be the small difference between being a lier or a bit wrong to some people (not saying that's you).

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 22, 2015

chiefdave said:
No I'm not. I'm saying it is possible that when the bail out occurred in Jan 2013 the vote was based on false information. At that point we had not being paying rent for approx 10 months, instead money was being drawn down from the escrow. I would suggest that at the very least when making projections for ACL it should have been done on the basis of not receiving £1.2m a year from CCFC. Surely if that had been factored in it would have been hard, if not impossible, to state the loan was being made to a company that had no risk of running at a loss, that suggests that if Lucas is correct in her claims that CCC were being supplied false information it could have already been happening at the point the bail out occurred.

More importantly by the time the sale to Wasps was agreed and the loan transferred to them it should have been 100% clear that ACL were not making a profit without CCFC. Lucas was publicly stating it was, and has since claimed this was based on false information, so was the sale of ACL and transfer of the loan voted for on the basis of false information?

This is why I am keen for the whole thing to be looked into. Lucas is making very serious claims yet we have heard nothing of any internal council disciplinary action.

Dave. Have you read the link I put above, noted the date on it, and considered this is the position after the CCC loan?

stupot07 · Jan 22, 2015

bad mouth ACL and here come's MMM :claping hands:

chiefdave · Jan 22, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
That all sounds reasonable to me. I still think that £392k in neither here or there though, and that seems to be the small difference between being a lier or a bit wrong to some people (not saying that's you).

The amount isn't huge but it introduces doubt and you start to wonder if major decisions have been made based on dubios information. That's not helped when the council respond to every question stating its confidential!

hell will freeze over... (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency