Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

How much rent, fees and interest is acceptable ? (4 Viewers)

  • Thread starter sky blue john
  • Start date Nov 5, 2013
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #1
Just interested to find out how much fans think is acceptable ?
Some have used it as their whole argument that we have paid excessive rent for use of the Ricoh. I do not dispute this and agree !!
Say for every 10million the club turnover what is an acceptable amount for Sisu or one of its companies to take ?
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #2
0,0 and 0:wave:
 

blueflint

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #3
150/annum fees nil interest 0.5%
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #4
AS LONG AS DA COUNCEL DON OWN IT I DON CARE WHAT MUNEY DEY MAKE

Or another "For a better CCFC Future" related comment
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #5
The reason i mentioned this is that there seems to be about 20million unqualified debt on the latest accounts. This probably is all inter company transactions of which probably equates to 3million a year which Sisu can draw from ccfc tax free. At least when we were renting the Ricoh we had something tangible for the money we paid !!
What service have Sisu provided ?
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #6
sky blue john said:
the reason i mentioned this is that there seems to be about 20million unqualified debt on the latest accounts. This probably is all inter company transactions of which probably equates to 3million a year which sisu can draw from ccfc tax free. At least when we were renting the ricoh we had something tangible for the money we paid !!
What service have sisu provided ?
Click to expand...

dey are bringin us bak to cov aint u herd??
 
S

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #7
The illegall rent offer made to Appleton was a fair amount and in line with what we have have been told other league 1 clubs pay. However without income streams its useless.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #8
SkyBlueScottie said:
The illegall rent offer made to Appleton was a fair amount and in line with what we have have been told other league 1 clubs pay. However without income streams its useless.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify how it was illegal exactly?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #9
bigfatronssba said:
Could you clarify how it was illegal exactly?
Click to expand...

It wasn't legally allowed to be included as a condition of the CVA.
 
Last edited: Nov 5, 2013
B

_brian_

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #10
lewys33 said:
dey are bringin us bak to cov aint u herd??
Click to expand...

Can you make a bit of effort to type in English please mate?!?! I really struggle with street talk! Sorry! No doubt, this is 'my bad'!!!
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #11
SkyBlueScottie said:
The illegall rent offer made to Appleton was a fair amount and in line with what we have have been told other league 1 clubs pay. However without income streams its useless.
Click to expand...

Just remind me why it was illegal?
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #12
stupot07 said:
It was legally allowed to be included as a condition of the CVA.
Click to expand...

Yes - unless you want it done today !!!
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #13
SkyBlueScottie said:
The illegall rent offer made to Appleton was a fair amount and in line with what we have have been told other league 1 clubs pay. However without income streams its useless.
Click to expand...

And the income streams from being in Northampton has made up for the lack of attendance? Which was also a legal offer unless you listen to Timothy.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #14
Is the answer who cares as long as the Council are OK?
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #15
stupot07 said:
It wasn't legally allowed to be included as a condition of the CVA.
Click to expand...

Slightly emotive language being used then.

Illegal is generally once an unlawful act has been committed and proven in a court of law.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #16
torchomatic said:
Is the answer who cares as long as the Council are OK?
Click to expand...

Wrong answer !!!!!
Its who cares as long as ccfc are ok !!!
Is it better for ccfc to pay 1.3 million to the council to play in the Ricoh each year or 3 million to Sisu to play at sixfields each year ????????

I doubt if you will answer torch and if you do it will be sarcastic !!!!
 
Last edited: Nov 5, 2013

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #17
torchomatic said:
Is the answer who cares as long as the Council are OK?
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't mean who cares as long as SISU get their hands on the Ricoh?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #18
bigfatronssba said:
Slightly emotive language being used then.

Illegal is generally once an unlawful act has been committed and proven in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Yes, but apparently appleton had already told ACL that they couldn't legally include it as part of the CVA before the adjournment, and they still returned a week later insisting it had to be included or no CVA sign off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #19
Astute said:
Are you sure you don't mean who cares as long as SISU get their hands on the Ricoh?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #20
stupot07 said:
Yes, but apparently appleton had already told ACL that they couldn't legally include it as part of the CVA before the adjournment, and they still returned a week later insisting it had to be included or no CVA sign off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Click to expand...

I think the arguement here is over symantecs. Lets assume it is correct and it can't legally be included in the CVA. There's no reason whatsoever it can't be agreed before the CVA. Sign the rental agreement and once thats done ACL sign off the CVA. There's no way SISU can argue that can't happen as they agreed a rental deal with Northampton before the point the CVA would have been signed off if accepted.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #21
chiefdave said:
I think the arguement here is over symantecs. Lets assume it is correct and it can't legally be included in the CVA. There's no reason whatsoever it can't be agreed before the CVA. Sign the rental agreement and once thats done ACL sign off the CVA. There's no way SISU can argue that can't happen as they agreed a rental deal with Northampton before the point the CVA would have been signed off if accepted.
Click to expand...

We still don't know whether it was offered as a stand alone offer. Remember the JR was part of the deal. It will be a waste of time but Sisu believe they have a case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #22
stupot07 said:
We still don't know whether it was offered as a stand alone offer. Remember the JR was part of the deal. It will be a waste of time but Sisu believe they have a case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
Click to expand...

I don't think Sisu believe they have a case, more like a pretext to litigate.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #23
stupot07 said:
We still don't know whether it was offered as a stand alone offer.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine if the £150K offer was of any interest to SISU they would have stayed silent about it. Lets say ACL were insisting it be part of the CVA and not a standalone offer, Fisher would be all over CWR and the CT saying they refused to make the offer to them in a meaningful manner and if they had we'd be playing at the Ricoh this year. They may not be the brightest but there's no way they wouldn't capitalise on some easy PR if available. The only conclusion I can draw is that SISU would not accept the £150K rental offer no matter what manner the offer was made in.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #24
chiefdave said:
I can't imagine if the £150K offer was of any interest to SISU they would have stayed silent about it. Lets say ACL were insisting it be part of the CVA and not a standalone offer, Fisher would be all over CWR and the CT saying they refused to make the offer to them in a meaningful manner and if they had we'd be playing at the Ricoh this year. They may not be the brightest but there's no way they wouldn't capitalise on some easy PR if available. The only conclusion I can draw is that SISU would not accept the £150K rental offer no matter what manner the offer was made in.
Click to expand...

Like wise, if ACL had offered the deal as a standalone ACL's PR machine would have been all over it, especially as an appeasement to rejecting the CVA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #25
chiefdave said:
I can't imagine if the £150K offer was of any interest to SISU they would have stayed silent about it. Lets say ACL were insisting it be part of the CVA and not a standalone offer, Fisher would be all over CWR and the CT saying they refused to make the offer to them in a meaningful manner and if they had we'd be playing at the Ricoh this year. They may not be the brightest but there's no way they wouldn't capitalise on some easy PR if available. The only conclusion I can draw is that SISU would not accept the £150K rental offer no matter what manner the offer was made in.
Click to expand...

Has PWKH ever said on here the £150k offer was made to otium post liquidation?

If not, what is the answer really?
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #26
stupot07 said:
It wasn't legally allowed to be included as a condition of the CVA.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the JR not the rent offer.

The rent offer was made to the administrator whilst the club whilst in administration. As he was running the club?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #27
dongonzalos said:
I thought that was the JR not the rent offer.

The rent offer was made to the administrator whilst the club whilst in administration. As he was running the club?
Click to expand...

The administrator of a club which they were intending on liquidating anyway? Seems a bit pointless.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #28
fernandopartridge said:
The administrator of a club which they were intending on liquidating anyway? Seems a bit pointless.
Click to expand...

Not really the point.

I think people are suggesting that the rent offer was a stipulation of signing the CVA and that was illegal

Whereas I think the rent offer was made to the administrator so the club could continue to play at the Ricoh whilst the administration process panned out however it was going to.

I think the part that the administrator said he could not include was a drop the JR and we will sign the CVA part.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #29
The usual suspects trot out the 'offfer was illegal' misinformation again & again.. that's bollards really, if the will was there a long term low rent deal could have been done then as it could be done now..

The reality is that SISU would not & still will not deal with ACL, it is my belief they intend to kill them off & conduct a hostile takeover.. they may stop short of the freehold, but they won't allow ACL to continue in existence and occupy the Ricoh.

It is no coincidence that Joy Seppala sits oin the 'takeover panel'
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/structure/panel-membership
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #30
dongonzalos said:
Not really the point.

I think people are suggesting that the rent offer was a stipulation of signing the CVA and that was illegal

Whereas I think the rent offer was made to the administrator so the club could continue to play at the Ricoh whilst the administration process panned out however it was going to.

I think the part that the administrator said he could not include was a drop the JR and we will sign the CVA part.
Click to expand...

No as usual you are incorrect
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #31
Grendel said:
No as usual you are incorrect
Click to expand...

How was it then?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #32
Jack Griffin said:
The usual suspects trot out the 'offfer was illegal' misinformation again & again.. that's bollards really, if the will was there a long term low rent deal could have been done then as it could be done now..

The reality is that SISU would not & still will not deal with ACL, it is my belief they intend to kill them off & conduct a hostile takeover.. they may stop short of the freehold, but they won't allow ACL to continue in existence and occupy the Ricoh.

It is no coincidence that Joy Seppala sits oin the 'takeover panel'
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/structure/panel-membership
Click to expand...

Interesting. So are you saying Appleton is a liar? Hope he's not reading this.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #33
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE 4: ACL rent offer & signing off CVA to end #CCFC admin offered only IF owners Sisu scraps Judicial Review against council
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #34
dongonzalos said:
How was it then?
Click to expand...

The offer if a low rent was made as part of the process. It was a condition that could not be legally accepted -this is well documented.

ACL wanted the club to agree 2 conditions or they would not sign the CVA. These are not in the public domain but its not difficult to figure them out.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 5, 2013
  • #35
dongonzalos said:
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE 4: ACL rent offer & signing off CVA to end #CCFC admin offered only IF owners Sisu scraps Judicial Review against council
Click to expand...

Out of interest what was the rent deal? £150,000 in any league? What was the length of the deal?
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?