Joy must never ever get her 60 million back (1 Viewer)

will am i · Oct 20, 2013

Nick said:
You said it takes two to tango so surely both are to blame?

Of course they are both to blame. Its beyond me why anyone on here defends either of them.

stupot07 · Oct 20, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Nobody's yet posed the questions in depth to ACL about what negotiations, if any, happened, and why any deal was rejected.

Part of the reason nobody's posed the questions is the straight ahead discourse of one side and one side only needing to be held to account.

There are a few other questions it would be nice to know the answers to...

Exactly NW. The 'sliding scale' rent proposition sounds good, but there's never been any detail about what it was. From the SBT Q&A

6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?

ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.

So we can assume the rent in the championship would still have been £1.2m, higher in the PL (perhaps. £1.5ish) but lower in league one and league two - that could have been £1m and £800k. (We don't know the exact levels)

Plus it mentions escalators on top of base rents related to attendance. This could have been similar to what they proposed in march:

CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.

Suddenly the sliding scale rent doesn't look so good...

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

mark82 · Oct 20, 2013

Snozz_is_god said:
So stop all this stupid talk about giving the Ricoh to SISU.

Here's a radical idea, rather than protest at the Council House on Tuesday, turn up and cheer them, because they still hold the key to busting SISU.

If CCC & ACL hold on to the Ricoh Arena and make even a small profit, enough to continue to pay the loan

SISU will be defeated as they will not throw good money after bad for any sustained period of time, mark my words.

Words fail me.

Grappa · Oct 20, 2013

stupot07 said:
Exactly NW. The 'sliding scale' rent proposition sounds good, but there's never been any detail about what it was. From the SBT Q&A

6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?

ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher.

So we can assume the rent in the championship would still have been £1.2m, higher in the PL (perhaps. £1.5ish) but lower in league one and league two - that could have been £1m and £800k. (We don't know the exact levels)

Plus it mentions escalators on top of base rents related to attendance. This could have been similar to what they proposed in march:

CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.

Suddenly the sliding scale rent doesn't look so good...

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

I've asked a few times but never seem to get an answer, can anyone from the Trust tell me who came up with the questions for the Q&A please? It's pretty much the best resource we have, a great piece of work. More stuff like this would be fantastic.

Astute · Oct 21, 2013

SISU have not put 60m into our club. This is just more propaganda that has been believed by some.

They have been with us for 70 months. For them to have put in 60m we would have to be losing nearly 1m a month. At the worse we were losing 500k a month. There was a debt at our club when they took over. But a lot of this got wiped out when they took over.

Stafford_SkBlue · Oct 21, 2013

Uptp March 2013 SISU had put in at least £8m of their own money + investors money (a few £m) early on. Probably around £10m.
If SISU wanted to walk away they would have done it last March, since then they have paid all the wages during the administration period, which has kept all the players together, unlike what happened at Portsmouth. And since administration financing Otium. I don't see them leaving in the short term.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Oct 21, 2013

will am i said:
Of course they are both to blame. Its beyond me why anyone on here defends either of them.

To paraphrase Orwell..... "All sides are to blame..some more to blame than others"

Astute · Oct 21, 2013

Stafford_SkBlue said:
Uptp March 2013 SISU had put in at least £8m of their own money + investors money (a few £m) early on. Probably around £10m.
If SISU wanted to walk away they would have done it last March, since then they have paid all the wages during the administration period, which has kept all the players together, unlike what happened at Portsmouth. And since administration financing Otium. I don't see them leaving in the short term.

None of us have a clue what they will do next. Neither will they. If they get the Ricoh freehold cheap they should make a good profit. The problem is would they keep the Ricoh and offload our club cheaply........or worse?

shmmeee · Oct 21, 2013

Stafford_SkBlue said:
Uptp March 2013 SISU had put in at least £8m of their own money + investors money (a few £m) early on. Probably around £10m.
If SISU wanted to walk away they would have done it last March, since then they have paid all the wages during the administration period, which has kept all the players together, unlike what happened at Portsmouth. And since administration financing Otium. I don't see them leaving in the short term.

WE WEREN'T IN ADMIN!!!

How many times FFS. Of course the players were paid, their contract was with Holdings, who were never in admin.

Would people stop comparing the pre-pack admin of Ltd with any football administration ever, they are nothing alike.

covcity4life · Oct 21, 2013

ahah VOR is funny.............in a dumb shit way.

1nilandwe... · Oct 21, 2013

Whilst the original post smacks of lunacy, the sentiment is one the whole football world should be hoping for. As soon as SISU start turning a profit on CCFC that will validate their previous actions. No football fan anywhere should be happy to see that.

rightumpty · Oct 21, 2013

Now here is a man I like. What wonderous foresight. I'm with you, SISU are here for the money, so starve them of income and watch them squirm.

GET THEM OUT>

Astute · Oct 21, 2013

covcity4life said:
ahah VOR is funny.............in a dumb shit way.

Better than being a dumb shit in an unfunny way imp:

covcity4life · Oct 21, 2013

Astute said:
Better than being a dumb shit in an unfunny way imp:

you would know.

thaiskyblue · Oct 21, 2013

RFC said:
Sorry Nick it was not a reply to your post just a general overview of what I read on this site. As for those who reply about SISU knowing about the rent when they took over I agree, they should have known but maybe so much to go through and attend to it was missed, I don't know but they've admitted (Tim Fisher) that they (SISU) did not complete their 'due diligence' correctly, long, long before any of the current participants were in charge.

they missed the price of the rent ?, should have gone to spec savers.

kevinleftpeg · Oct 21, 2013

rightumpty said:
Now here is a man I like. What wonderous foresight. I'm with you, SISU are here for the money, so starve them of income and watch them squirm.

GET THEM OUT>

HIGH FIVE! from me.

Astute · Oct 21, 2013

covcity4life said:
you would know.

Correct. I read enough of your posts

SonOfSnoz · Oct 22, 2013

"Her"? More like investors money!

sky blue john · Oct 22, 2013

Im baffled how some think its the councils fault for administration and the ten point deduction !!!
Yes the rent was high but this was set at a time the council had to reclaim build costs. Yes once the other sides of the Ricoh's income kicked in the rent should have been relaxed.
But come on the rent doesn't even amount to 10% of the ccfc so called inflated debt !!!
Maybe the big issue for Sisu is that its not debt owed to one of their own companies !!!
So Sisu stopped paying the rent they had over a year to negotiate. Plenty of time to stop the club going into administration !!
If Sisu didn't want administration they could have easily paid up the money owed. Some people on here conveniently forget this fact !!
So Sisu are responsible for administration and the ten point deduction that followed fact !!!

Joy must never ever get her 60 million back (1 Viewer)

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency