Here comes the crunch! (4 Viewers)

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

Nicki Sinclaire review

ACL can not afford to refuse the CVA. They either accept the CVA and get £590k or they refuse and get nothing.

They(ACL) were in so much financial trouble at the end of last year that Yorkshire bank (nearly) foreclosed their mortgage. In their last accounts for 11-12 when the full £1.3m rent was received from CCFC they made only £1m profit.

I also believe that they received £4m from sale of shares in IEC in that same year.

imp:

Bluegloucester · Jul 29, 2013

Yorkshire Bank did not foreclose.

Noggin · Jul 29, 2013

I still dont see a situation where ACL get nothing and Otium buy limited, I dont see how it's possible.

duffer · Jul 29, 2013

grego_gee said:
Nicki Sinclaire review

ACL can not afford to refuse the CVA. They either accept the CVA and get £590k or they refuse and get nothing.

They(ACL) were in so much financial trouble at the end of last year that Yorkshire bank foreclosed their mortgage. In their last accounts for 11-12 when the full £1.3m rent was received from CCFC they made only £1m profit.

I also believe that they received £4m from sale of shares in IEC in that same year.

imp:

I'm not sure your analysis of ACL's business is quite right there. Regardless, ultimately I can't see how the council/ACL will lose out if CCFC go, because of the value of the land and facilities they're sitting on. Of course they don't want CCFC to go, because it was built to be a stadium rather than a housing/commercial development.

I think the MEP has got it wrong too, fwiw. If ACL sign the CVA and let SISU get out of the lease, then all future rent is lost, as is the possiblity of a proper investigation into CCFC Ltd's missing assets. Who knows where that investigation might lead but he fact that SISU are keen to avoid it is telling, imho. As a fan, and as a taxpayer, I want to know what's really gone on here.

I see every chance that a proper investigation leads to both CCFC and ACL being in a better position in the long run. I hope ACL see it that way too, though I doubt what anyone says here (or Ms Sinclaire's soundbite analysis of a complex situation) will much influence that decision.

stupot07 · Jul 29, 2013

duffer said:
I think the MEP has got it wrong too, fwiw. If ACL sign the CVA and let SISU get out of the lease, then all future rent is lost.

If they don't sign it, ltd will liquidated and all future rent is lost too.

Diehard Si · Jul 29, 2013

It's clear all along that SISU's plan is to drive ACL to the wall and then aquire the Ricoh on the cheap, new stadium my arse.

torchomatic · Jul 29, 2013

Odd that Martin Reeves didn't attend the meeting on Thursday.

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

Noggin said:
I still dont see a situation where ACL get nothing and Otium buy limited, I dont see how it's possible.

As I understand it, Otium only buy Ltd if the CVA is accepted (and the proceeds of the sale are distributed to the creditors).

If the CVA is not accepted, Ltd is liquidated i.e. ceases to exist (in this event there is no sale and no proceeds to distribute).

nb this does not mean "the club" is liquidated, the club will continue as Holdings. We may still incur a points penalty however if a company associated with the club is liquidated!

imp:

Noggin · Jul 29, 2013

grego_gee said:
As I understand it, Otium only buy Ltd if the CVA is accepted (and the proceeds of the sale are distributed to the creditors).

If the CVA is not accepted, Ltd is liquidated i.e. ceases to exist (in this event there is no sale and no proceeds to distribute).

nb this does not mean "the club" is liquidated, the club will continue as Holdings. We may still incur a points penalty however if a company associated with the club is liquidated!

imp:

If that happens then Holdings or Otium don't have the golden share. Also if that happens ACL get nothing, no one is saying ACL get nothing they are saying they get 0.5p in the pound. I don't see any numbers where what is being suggested is possible.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 29, 2013

grego_gee said:
As I understand it, Otium only buy Ltd if the CVA is accepted (and the proceeds of the sale are distributed to the creditors).

If the CVA is not accepted, Ltd is liquidated i.e. ceases to exist (in this event there is no sale and no proceeds to distribute).

nb this does not mean "the club" is liquidated, the club will continue as Holdings. We may still incur a points penalty however if a company associated with the club is liquidated!

imp:

What if ACL refused to sign the CVA, which precluded SISU's plans; but they signalled to the administrator that they would be prepared to do so with another buyer? Wouldn't the administrator have to follow this route and deliver some value back to the creditors, rather than liquidation - which would deliver nothing?

If they had assurances another buyer would serve them better, aren't the directors compelled to persue this route?

Matty_CCFC · Jul 29, 2013

Can someone explain to me why we have a tranfer embargo?
holdings where the players are registerd is not in Administration so why can we not buy or sell players?

chiefdave · Jul 29, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What if ACL refused to sign the CVA, which precluded SISU's plans; but they signalled to the administrator that they would be prepared to do so with another buyer? Wouldn't the administrator have to follow this route and deliver some value back to the creditors, rather than liquidation - which would deliver nothing?

If they had assurances another buyer would serve them better, aren't the directors compelled to persue this route?

The whole agree the CVA or we liquidate has never made sense to me as there were other offers on the table for Ltd. I don't understand how the administrator can allow assets to be moved from Ltd to Holdings while in administration when there is no guarantee Otium will be the eventual owners of Ltd.

chiefdave · Jul 29, 2013

Matty_CCFC said:
Can someone explain to me why we have a tranfer embargo?
holdings where the players are registerd is not in Administration so why can we not buy or sell players?

I would guess a deal has been made with the FL (as it's their cock up that has allowed players and the golden share to be split between two companies) along the lines of they will allow Otium to takeover as long as everything ends up back in one company. Remember when ACL were going to challenge the club being in administration but decided not to at the last minute, something must have happened to make them change their mind.

Sub · Jul 29, 2013

why is the club not being offered forsale again why would you liquidate if somebody else wants to buy it~? they should not sign the CVA and then hopefully we can have a full investigation into how poorly and how badly our club has been run and what is going on behind closed doors!!

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 29, 2013

Matty: looking at the Southampton administration; two parties were described as being "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and therefore mandatory penalty applied. I guess that applies here too

Jack Griffin · Jul 29, 2013

I don't think ACL's options are as limited as that article suggests and SISU has it's own dilemma.

If SISU do not come to an agreement then we're not talking about just £0.5M taxpayers money, the stakes go up to £50M additional funding over 7 years before SISU/CCFC before could complete their soundbite plan to relocate.

Meanwhile ACL are free to pursue other options.

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

Diehard Si said:
It's clear all along that SISU's plan is to drive ACL to the wall and then aquire the Ricoh on the cheap, new stadium my arse.

Its hardly SISU's plan! its the Councils plan!

The council devised the complex company structure around the Ricoh putting ACL in control.
in that plan ACL only exist by taking a cut from the clubs revenues (and from all the other business in the Ricoh that the club (or its owners) would like to see as club revenues).

ACL's Financial difficulties in 2012 were before the CCFC rent strike, they had enough problems paying their own salaries and overheads even with all the outside concerts and Olympics!

In any case SISU's plan cannot be to acquire the Ricoh from ACL because ACL do not own it - ACL only have the remaining 40 years of a lease on it.

imp:

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

duffer said:
I'm not sure your analysis of ACL's business is quite right there. Regardless, ultimately I can't see how the council/ACL will lose out if CCFC go, because of the value of the land and facilities they're sitting on. Of course they don't want CCFC to go, because it was built to be a stadium rather than a housing/commercial development.

I think the MEP has got it wrong too, fwiw. If ACL sign the CVA and let SISU get out of the lease, then all future rent is lost, as is the possiblity of a proper investigation into CCFC Ltd's missing assets. Who knows where that investigation might lead but he fact that SISU are keen to avoid it is telling, imho. As a fan, and as a taxpayer, I want to know what's really gone on here.

I see every chance that a proper investigation leads to both CCFC and ACL being in a better position in the long run. I hope ACL see it that way too, though I doubt what anyone says here (or Ms Sinclaire's soundbite analysis of a complex situation) will much influence that decision.

ACL will loose out by not getting the offer on the table from Otium to the value of £590k!
Whatever other assets they may have or hold are not effected!

imp:

SuperCov · Jul 29, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Matty: looking at the Southampton administration; two parties were described as being "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and therefore mandatory penalty applied. I guess that applies here too

I thought the embargo was not filing the accounts intially, rather than being in administration? :/ I can't remember which happened first now...

oldskyblue58 · Jul 29, 2013

Ms Sinclaire said: “I am fully aware of the complicated, multi-faceted nature of this story. However, in the case of the CVA meeting tomorrow, I must look at this from a purely political perspective.
"In times of cut backs to local public services, can the council really afford to throw away taxpayers' money by blocking the CVA agreement?
"The deal on the table will see ACL, obviously half owned by the council, receive around £590,000. Rebuffing the CVA will mean that the council receives nothing”.

Why is this a political thing now ?
The council, aside from rates, takes nothing from ACL so the local taxpayer as it stands has a capital not revenue asset.
Most that the council interest could lose is the decrease in the value of the shares it owns in North Coventry Holdings Ltd which owns 50% of ACL. It certainly does not lose £590K directly so neither can the taxpayer even in these times of austerity. In any case if it did lose the CVA money directly it would accrue only 50% of that loss (but that isnt the actual situation in any case )
What does the £590k actually represent current or future income?

clearly not as fully aware as it might seem Nicki

Would be interested to see what people think ACL have potentially lost by the rent not being paid (leaving aside legal fees)

italiahorse · Jul 29, 2013

Matty_CCFC said:
Can someone explain to me why we have a tranfer embargo?
holdings where the players are registerd is not in Administration so why can we not buy or sell players?

Due to SISU not filing the accounts again. Happens every season. Administration is a side issue.

duffer · Jul 29, 2013

torchomatic said:
Odd that Martin Reeves didn't attend the meeting on Thursday.

Even more surprising that Seppala did (if true). I think it's fair to say that the ACL side aren't likely to dismiss an agreement because Reeves wasn't there in person to sign off on it. SISU however have already shown that it's only JS who calls the shots.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 29, 2013

SuperCov said:
I thought the embargo was not filing the accounts intially, rather than being in administration? :/ I can't remember which happened first now...

True. You're correct. I guess I overlooked it's significance as it's an annual event!

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What if ACL refused to sign the CVA, which precluded SISU's plans; but they signalled to the administrator that they would be prepared to do so with another buyer? Wouldn't the administrator have to follow this route and deliver some value back to the creditors, rather than liquidation - which would deliver nothing?

If they had assurances another buyer would serve them better, aren't the directors compelled to persue this route?

We are talking here about a court procedure pretty much like bailiffs taking goods to sell to settle an outstanding debt.
If ACL reject the £590k from Otium its like telling the court they don't want the money the bailiffs have collected.
There is no negotiation with other bidders it was sold to the highest bidder - Otium

its a purely take it or leave it option left!

imp:

italiahorse · Jul 29, 2013

Sub said:
why is the club not being offered forsale again why would you liquidate if somebody else wants to buy it~? they should not sign the CVA and then hopefully we can have a full investigation into how poorly and how badly our club has been run and what is going on behind closed doors!!

It's a mess. You are bidding for Ltd which has no players and all the debts.
IMO Everything should be in the same pot (possibly FL rules as well).
Have the FL cocked up by thinking the same and are now running scared :thinking about:

duffer · Jul 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
If they don't sign it, ltd will liquidated and all future rent is lost too.

I don't think either of those things is necessarily true, and neither does one of necessity follow from the other.

I think ACL could challenge the administrator's decision to liquidate to start off with.

Even then, liquidation proceeds and it turns out via a thorough investigation (for example) that some of the asset transfers were illegal. Then there's the possiblity of reversal of those transfers or even of finding CCFC Ltd's directors personally liable for the things done improperly. At that point there's the chance of finding further assets for the creditors, or even of the FL or FA stepping in with regard to our current owners.

I'm not saying that any of this will happen, but there's clearly the possiblity that it could happen. There's a lot to play for here and it's not as cut and dried as some portray.

oldskyblue58 · Jul 29, 2013

just my opinion but the only part worth reading in that article is this bit.

Alan Limb, CCFC fan and insolvency expert of BRI (Business, Recovery and Insolvency), which has offices in Coventry, said: "If the CVA is approved in its current form, ACL has no tenant.
"If it is rejected, CCFC Ltd would probably go into liquidation. I think it would still result in Otium being allowed to have the golden share transferred to it and play at Northampton.
"The Football League's previous statements suggest that would be preferable to the club not being able to fulfil its fixtures.
"I expect that Otium would still be the most attractive bidder if CCFC Ltd's assets were offered for sale again (Mr Appleton has said that will not happen).
"If the CVA is approved, Otium proceed as planned, and acquire the rest of the club's assets from CCFC (Holdings) Ltd.
"If CCFC Ltd goes into liquidation, the liquidator has a duty to investigate the assets. Any action would have to be funded by creditors, and ACL would be the most likely candidate, if it has the money.
"In the meantime, I believe Sisu has no incentive to reach agreement with ACL. The impact of the strategy on the club's fans has not caused them to change their mind. I am happy to be proved wrong."

lordsummerisle · Jul 29, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Why is this a political thing now ?
The council, aside from rates, takes nothing from ACL so the local taxpayer as it stands has a capital not revenue asset.
Most that the council interest could lose is the decrease in the value of the shares it owns in North Coventry Holdings Ltd which owns 50% of ACL. It certainly does not lose £590K directly so neither can the taxpayer even in these times of austerity. In any case if it did lose the CVA money directly it would accrue only 50% of that loss (but that isnt the actual situation in any case )
What does the £590k actually represent current or future income?

clearly not as fully aware as it might seem Nicki

Would be interested to see what people think ACL have potentially lost by the rent not being paid (leaving aside legal fees)

So are you saying that ACL(and therefore the Council and Higgs) have not really lost any money at all then? Or that you think that £590k is a small amount?

Would wonder why they wanted to put the club into administration at all then in that case.

TheRoyalScam · Jul 29, 2013

The situation is finely balanced.

If ACL don't agree to the CVA then the Northampton deal is null and void, we remain under a transfer embargo and face a 15 point deduction (at least) before we kick a ball in anger.

CCFC Ltd would most probably be liquidated, and SISU would hope that the FL will give them the Golden Share (probably to CCFC (Holdings)) so that the 'integrity' of the league is maintained and we are able to fulfil our fixtures.

What is interesting is it would appear that these fixtures would be held at the Ricoh. The £590k on offer from Otium is chicken feed compared to the moneys available through rent paid by CCFC (in whatever guise) over the coming years.

For me, it appears imperative that ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil look at the bigger picture and refuse to sign the CVA. Liquidation would mean a more thorough examination of CCFC Ltd's accounts, and how a multi-million pound business with 108 employees and involved in 'running a professional football club' mysteriously metamorphosed into a lease and property management subsidiary with no real assets. Then the alleged asset stripping will be out in the open and we might finally see some clarity.

If they do sign the CVA, then we can expect years more of the downward spiral, playing at Northampton, dwindling gates and revenue, resulting in a progressively weaker squad and further relegation(s).

All this talk and bluster about signing the CVA so we can sign players is a smokescreen - even if it was signed tomorrow our company accounts remain unaudited (they were due on February 28th, some 5 months ago), and the transfer embargo would remain in force.

Hold your nerve ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil - don't sign the CVA.

Sky Blue Kid · Jul 29, 2013

@ chiefdave..........................I would guess a deal has been made with the FL (as it's their cock up that has allowed players and the golden share to be split between two companies) along the lines of they will allow Otium to takeover as long as everything ends up back in one company. Remember when ACL were going to challenge the club being in administration but decided not to at the last minute, something must have happened to make them change their mind.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Sky Blue Kid says...........What happened was SISU "Beat ACL to the punch" and put "Ltd" into Admin, therefore being able to choose their own Administrator.

Paxman II · Jul 29, 2013

TheRoyalScam said:
The situation is finely balanced.

If ACL don't agree to the CVA then the Northampton deal is null and void, we remain under a transfer embargo and face a 15 point deduction (at least) before we kick a ball in anger.

CCFC Ltd would most probably be liquidated, and SISU would hope that the FL will give them the Golden Share (probably to CCFC (Holdings)) so that the 'integrity' of the league is maintained and we are able to fulfil our fixtures.

What is interesting is it would appear that these fixtures would be held at the Ricoh. The £590k on offer from Otium is chicken feed compared to the moneys available through rent paid by CCFC (in whatever guise) over the coming years.

For me, it appears imperative that ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil look at the bigger picture and refuse to sign the CVA. Liquidation would mean a more thorough examination of CCFC Ltd's accounts, and how a multi-million pound business with 108 employees and involved in 'running a professional football club' mysteriously metamorphosed into a lease and property management subsidiary with no real assets. Then the alleged asset stripping will be out in the open and we might finally see some clarity.

If they do sign the CVA, then we can expect years more of the downward spiral, playing at Northampton, dwindling gates and revenue, resulting in a progressively weaker squad and further relegation(s).

All this talk and bluster about signing the CVA so we can sign players is a smokescreen - even if it was signed tomorrow our company accounts remain unaudited (they were due on February 28th, some 5 months ago), and the transfer embargo would remain in force.

Hold your nerve ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil - don't sign the CVA.

I have no idea why you would think like that.

grego_gee · Jul 29, 2013

TheRoyalScam said:
The situation is finely balanced.

If ACL don't agree to the CVA then the Northampton deal is null and void, we remain under a transfer embargo and face a 15 point deduction (at least) before we kick a ball in anger.

CCFC Ltd would most probably be liquidated, and SISU would hope that the FL will give them the Golden Share (probably to CCFC (Holdings)) so that the 'integrity' of the league is maintained and we are able to fulfil our fixtures.

What is interesting is it would appear that these fixtures would be held at the Ricoh. The £590k on offer from Otium is chicken feed compared to the moneys available through rent paid by CCFC (in whatever guise) over the coming years.

For me, it appears imperative that ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil look at the bigger picture and refuse to sign the CVA. Liquidation would mean a more thorough examination of CCFC Ltd's accounts, and how a multi-million pound business with 108 employees and involved in 'running a professional football club' mysteriously metamorphosed into a lease and property management subsidiary with no real assets. Then the alleged asset stripping will be out in the open and we might finally see some clarity.

If they do sign the CVA, then we can expect years more of the downward spiral, playing at Northampton, dwindling gates and revenue, resulting in a progressively weaker squad and further relegation(s).

All this talk and bluster about signing the CVA so we can sign players is a smokescreen - even if it was signed tomorrow our company accounts remain unaudited (they were due on February 28th, some 5 months ago), and the transfer embargo would remain in force.

Hold your nerve ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil - don't sign the CVA.

Its about as finely balanced as Humpty Dumpty!

From which particular fairy tale did you get "If ACL don't agree to the CVA then the Northampton deal is null and void"?

The FL agreed to the Northampton move to make sure the fixtures were fulfilled, it will go ahead regardless of the acceptance of the CVA or not.
The only thing that could prevent Northampton happening is if ACL/CCC chase SISU with a deal that they can't refuse!

imp:

fernandopartridge · Jul 29, 2013

TheRoyalScam said:
What is interesting is it would appear that these fixtures would be held at the Ricoh. The £590k on offer from Otium is chicken feed compared to the moneys available through rent paid by CCFC (in whatever guise) over the coming years.

If they do sign the CVA, then we can expect years more of the downward spiral, playing at Northampton, dwindling gates and revenue, resulting in a progressively weaker squad and further relegation(s).

Hold your nerve ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil - don't sign the CVA.

So, if ACL sign the CVA they'll get the chicken feed of £590k. If they don't they'll get years of rent from a tenant that doesn't exist and isn't prepared to pay it anyway.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 29, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
Why is this a political thing now ?

Unfortunately by its nature, the very moment the club pressured the council to get involved in building the thing, it became a political issue.

On a wider sense (and this is no fault of the council) it could also be argued this is where some of the problems lie. SISU are incapable or unable of understanding the wider remit of a political organisation, and the council are incapable or unable to understand the motivations of an entity with pure profit motive.

RPHunt · Jul 29, 2013

If Nikki Clarke is so concerned about wasting taxpayers money, she could make a start herself and not claim the £0.25m a year in expenses that she fritters away on, mostly, pointless causes.

Here comes the crunch! (4 Viewers)

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

New Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency