Lying - Part 2 (1 Viewer)

MichaelCCFC · Dec 31, 2013

The original Lying thread has had 140 replies and nearly 7k views but immediately descended into the usual arguments, rumours, personal opinions etc

So to try again - can we put down some specific, concrete markers which can help determine the honesty or otherwise of acl-sisu claims? Original suggestions were forthcoming acl accounts and establishing a date by which if a site has not been identified it can be said that promises of a new stadium aren't true. But there must be other FACTUAL benchmarks that can be set too

Jack Griffin · Dec 31, 2013

Interesting, Les Reid reported this in July..

Sources believe Ms Seppala will be highly reluctant to enter into any partnership in the Ricoh, or return to being a tenant with ACL or the council as owner.

It is thought she will want 100 per cent ownership of the Ricoh, and that ACL will not want to sell on those terms.

So it looks like he was being briefed by SISU that far back..

Jack Griffin · Dec 31, 2013

This statement form Ann Lucas based in info from ACL will be tested in a few months. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-leader-ann-lucas-5677830

She told BBC Coventry and Warwickshire: “ACL have got a business plan, and they’re telling us they can manage without the club.”

italiahorse · Dec 31, 2013

Only TF can contribute to this thread.
Is he bluffing with his single high card or does he have a prial of 3's.
We do know however the stake is the future of our club.

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Back to OP, (just for you Michael) The next ACLs accounts will have the £500k escrow money and matchday costs (potentially some profit from those?), potentially their share of F&B's plus the Olympics, so I don't think they will show a true reflection of how well ACL can do with out the club there. It will be 2013-14 accounts released April/may 2015 that will give us a better understanding of ACLs sustainability without ccfc there.

Will the final payoff when Ltd is liquidated be shown in the 2012/13 or 2013/14 accounts?

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

italiahorse · Dec 31, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
This statement form Ann Lucas based in info from ACL will be tested in a few months. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-leader-ann-lucas-5677830

I think Sisu know this so need to question the financing of ACL at the JR.

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
This statement form Ann Lucas based in info from ACL will be tested in a few months. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-leader-ann-lucas-5677830

They're hardly going to publicly admit that they may struggle without the club as anchor tenants, especially in the middle of a conflict with the club.

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

Jack Griffin · Dec 31, 2013

Fisher said.. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-considering-land-5710823

Mr Fisher said: “If we say we’re going to build a stadium, then we will. We have provided clear evidence to the League on our ability to deliver on those plans. It’s not, and never will be, our intention to mislead, filibuster or posture.

I'm not sure what the deadline for this should be.. shall we say 2 1/2 years from now and no site having an application for planning permission.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 31, 2013

It's a brand new Americanism set up by Septic.........Lying is the new Truth.

bigfatronssba · Dec 31, 2013

Because published accounts are so far back, either side can claim that the published acl accounts are no longer the current situation.

If they show the business is doing well, sisu will say that is no longer the case, if they show the business doing badly, acl will claim that is no longer the case.

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
They're hardly going to publicly admit that they may struggle without the club as anchor tenants, especially in the middle of a conflict with the club.

What happened to sticking to the truth?

ACL are not in the middle of a conflict with CCFC. It is SISUE that is in conflict with anyone that don't let them get their own way or do as they say.

Some incomes might be down. Like how many would want to get married or have a reception in the ex home of their football club against where is their home? Lots of free advertisements every weekend during the football season. So yes more money would be made if we had our club back at the Ricoh. But without football being played there they have more dates to have other events. Like for instance would they have a circus parked up outside the stadium during the season......with no sign of SISUE about

There is only one side in the battle for the Ricoh that has shown their accounts. Yet this is the side that gets questioned on struggling for cash :thinking about:

Como · Dec 31, 2013

There was an article in the Guardian today about Bolton and the financial mess they are in.

They are looking at alternative funding structures to support the club, despite owning their ground etc etc.

With a few exceptions you do not invest in a Football Club to make money. CCFC is not one of those exceptions and the chances of it ever becoming one is too small to measure.

I guess I just do not understand from a purely investment perspective why you would build a new ground etc etc and expect to make money out of it. Do they expect to get planning permission for a raft of non football related development that would not be available without a ground being involved?

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Fisher said.. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-considering-land-5710823

I'm not sure what the deadline for this should be.. shall we say 2 1/2 years from now and no site having an application for planning permission.

The bit I don't understand is that the person in charge of the FL says he hasn't seen any proof of funding or plans of a stadium being built. Everything was seen by accountants. And he won't guarantee that a stadium will be built or we will end back up in the Coventry area. The reason given was that we would have had no club if they hadn't agreed to SISUE's proposal. They agreed that we would have had nowhere to play. But when they have the proof that SISUE could take our club back for free this season and then less than they are paying to be in Northampton they say they can't force SISUE to move us back.

So they now know they were wrong to let them move our club to Northampton but are so toothless they won't do anything about it.

Specs WT-R75 · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
Will the final payoff when Ltd is liquidated be shown in the 2012/13 or 2013/14 accounts?

I wouldn't worry. The CVA proposal was 25.95 pence per pound owed, essentially funded by a SISU "write-off" of paper debt. The alternative to the CVA was liquidation at a value of approx 0.5 pence in the pound... in other words about £10k. They will get this once all the assets etc are disposed of... so could be this year, might not necessarily be next year tho...all depends.

So yeah the council rejected half a million plus for what purpose? Either way the club had broke the lease agreement. Inexcusable actions regardless of the fault (which is of course Sisu's)....

source: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-agrees-write-32m-debt-4872430

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Specs WT-R75 said:
I wouldn't worry. The CVA proposal was 25.95 pence per pound owed, essentially funded by a SISU "write-off" of paper debt. The alternative to the CVA was liquidation at a value of approx 0.5 pence in the pound... in other words about £10k. They will get this once all the assets etc are disposed of... so could be this year, might not necessarily be next year tho...all depends.

So yeah the council rejected half a million plus for what purpose? Either way the club had broke the lease agreement. Inexcusable actions regardless of the fault (which is of course Sisu's)....

source: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-agrees-write-32m-debt-4872430

I'm pretty sure the FL made it a condition that ACL get the same payment on rejecting the CVA that they would have done through accepting it, as part of awarding Otium the golden share - so about £550k.

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

Grendel · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
I'm pretty sure the FL made it a condition that ACL get the same payment on rejecting the CVA that they would have done through accepting it, as part of awarding Otium the golden share - so about £550k.

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

Correct it was I think £576k which was about 90% of what they were owed - and more than Haskell offered I would suggest.

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Astute said:
What happened to sticking to the truth?

ACL are not in the middle of a conflict with CCFC. It is SISUE that is in conflict with anyone that don't let them get their own way or do as they say.

Some incomes might be down. Like how many would want to get married or have a reception in the ex home of their football club against where is their home? Lots of free advertisements every weekend during the football season. So yes more money would be made if we had our club back at the Ricoh. But without football being played there they have more dates to have other events. Like for instance would they have a circus parked up outside the stadium during the season......with no sign of SISUE about

There is only one side in the battle for the Ricoh that has shown their accounts. Yet this is the side that gets questioned on struggling for cash :thinking about:

What happened to sticking to the truth? Don't we have many threads and posts saying that NOPM is working and that sisu won't/can't fund the club indefinitely? Does no one question their ability to do so?

Of course they are in conflict, yes sisu are the main aggressors, but ACL aren't going to admit of they are struggling or not when a company is 'distressing' then whilst taking them to court over the legitimacy of their mortgage, which if withdrawn could significantly comprise their feasibility to continue.

Alternatively, sisu/TF aren't going to admit they can't/won't fund the club indefinitely, or that they can't afford to build a stadium. Ofcourse no ones questioned whether they can afford it.....

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

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
Correct it was I think £576k which was about 90% of what they were owed - and more than Haskell offered I would suggest.

£575,999 more than SISUE paid for our club IIRC. If only they had done their due diligence properly and had a clue about football though.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2013

Astute said:
£575,999 more than SISUE paid for our club IIRC. If only they had done their due diligence properly and had a clue about football though.

They settled debts of around £8 million.
If they had done due dillegence we wouldn't have a club. No one would have bought on the terms in place.

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

And you could easily have the circus during the season, you quite often have a 2 week break between home games.

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

ccfcway · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
They settled debts of around £8 million.
If they had done due dillegence we wouldn't have a club. No one would have bought on the terms in place.

Disagree, a new CCFC would have been set up by now, maybe a few leagues lower down, but in COVENTRY

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
What happened to sticking to the truth? Don't we have many threads and posts saying that NOPM is working and that sisu won't/can't fund the club indefinitely? Does no one question their ability to do so?

Of course they are in conflict, yes sisu are the main aggressors, but ACL aren't going to admit of they are struggling or not when a company is 'distressing' then whilst taking them to court over the legitimacy of their mortgage, which if withdrawn could significantly comprise their feasibility to continue.

Alternatively, sisu/TF aren't going to admit they can't/won't fund the club indefinitely, or that they can't afford to build a stadium. Ofcourse no ones questioned whether they can afford it.....

Nobody has come out with any evidence that ACL are struggling for cash. Yet the question keeps getting asked.

ACL are in conflict with SISUE. They are not in conflict with CCFC.

I also can't see what judge would say that a hedge fund would be able to put a council owned property into a distressed state so it could be bought for a fraction of the price by the hedge fund. There are laws in place to stop this happening.

SISUE are not funding our club. They don't own our club. Although 99.9% of our fans seem to think they do own it. It is owned by their investors and funded by them as well. Otherwise the names like Joy would be known as owners as we would have owners that own more than 10%.

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Astute said:
Nobody has come out with any evidence that ACL are struggling for cash. Yet the question keeps getting asked.

ACL are in conflict with SISUE. They are not in conflict with CCFC.

I also can't see what judge would say that a hedge fund would be able to put a council owned property into a distressed state so it could be bought for a fraction of the price by the hedge fund. There are laws in place to stop this happening.

SISUE are not funding our club. They don't own our club. Although 99.9% of our fans seem to think they do own it. It is owned by their investors and funded by them as well. Otherwise the names like Joy would be known as owners as we would have owners that own more than 10%.

That's all semantics. The whole OP is whether the next set of ACL accounts will show they don't need the club - we won't know because ccfc was there and so were the once-in-a-life-time-opportunity Olympics.

My point was that even if ACL were struggling, they wouldn't come out and admit it so quoting an ACL rep or Counsellor doesn't make it fact.

They may be going strength to strength and flourishing without the club, in which case sisu aren't distressing them. Who knows?! Not us until the 2013/14 accounts get released.

And in a way, the JR is about whether the loan was appropriate use of public funding or not, and little to do with whether sisu/ccfc are/where distressing them. Who knows what the outcome will be, whatever it is will have a big bearing on sisu's end game and the future of ccfc.

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

Grendel · Dec 31, 2013

ccfcway said:
Disagree, a new CCFC would have been set up by now, maybe a few leagues lower down, but in COVENTRY

We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

Jack Griffin · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

LOL, Sphinx is in tier 9.

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

Don't worry Grendull. The title has been yours for most of the year. You just keep making it more secure quite frequently.

ccfcway · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

most stupid post if the year ?

ointlaugh:

Tonylinc · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
That's all semantics. The whole OP is whether the next set of ACL accounts will show they don't need the club - we won't know because ccfc was there and so were the once-in-a-life-time-opportunity Olympics.

My point was that even if ACL were struggling, they wouldn't come out and admit it so quoting an ACL rep or Counsellor doesn't make it fact.

They may be going strength to strength and flourishing without the club, in which case sisu aren't distressing them. Who knows?! Not us until the 2013/14 accounts get released.

And in a way, the JR is about whether the loan was appropriate use of public funding or not, and little to do with whether sisu/ccfc are/where distressing them. Who knows what the outcome will be, whatever it is will have a big bearing on sisu's end game and the future of ccfc.

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

We don't really need the next set of accounts to tell us though do we? All we really need is to answer the question; why have ACL not already ripped up the playing surface and arranged for a roof to be fitted.

ccfcway · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.

I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,

AFC Wimbledon started in the 9th Tier.

Care to let me know why you feel we would have had to start in the 12th ?

Astute · Dec 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
That's all semantics. The whole OP is whether the next set of ACL accounts will show they don't need the club - we won't know because ccfc was there and so were the once-in-a-life-time-opportunity Olympics.

My point was that even if ACL were struggling, they wouldn't come out and admit it so quoting an ACL rep or Counsellor doesn't make it fact.

They may be going strength to strength and flourishing without the club, in which case sisu aren't distressing them. Who knows?! Not us until the 2013/14 accounts get released.

And in a way, the JR is about whether the loan was appropriate use of public funding or not, and little to do with whether sisu/ccfc are/where distressing them. Who knows what the outcome will be, whatever it is will have a big bearing on sisu's end game and the future of ccfc.

Appropriate use of public funding? CCC have secured a loan from elsewhere at a cheap rate whilst supposedly making a slight profit for themselves and securing the future of a property they own. In what way can you think of that SISUE can gain from the JR realistically?

What is the use of talking about ACL profits when you want to use if's and but's? The idea is for them to take every opportunity and make the most money. And I suppose an excuse can be found for previous years even if it amounted to more than was collected in rent.

cloughie · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
Correct it was I think £576k which was about 90% of what they were owed - and more than Haskell offered I would suggest.

there you go again you suggest plenty but most see through your suggestions

probably like most women

Grendel · Dec 31, 2013

cloughie said:
there you go again you suggest plenty but most see through your suggestions

probably like most women

Are you saying he'd offer more?

stupot07 · Dec 31, 2013

Astute said:
Appropriate use of public funding? CCC have secured a loan from elsewhere at a cheap rate whilst supposedly making a slight profit for themselves and securing the future of a property they own. In what way can you think of that SISUE can gain from the JR realistically?

What is the use of talking about ACL profits when you want to use if's and but's? The idea is for them to take every opportunity and make the most money. And I suppose an excuse can be found for previous years even if it amounted to more than was collected in rent.

So what question is the JR asking? What is the purpose of it?

What's the use of talking about anything we don't have the full facts for if it's all ifs and buts? We may as well close the forum because that's all we do, we have no real insider knowledge, PWKH and ACL tell us what they want us to hear as do TF/SISU, they're all spinning it so all we can do is hypothesise, but obviously we should do that if it's all ifs and buts.

And I was only say that if ACL were struggling (baring in mind they're in conflict with SISU) they're not going to publicly state it.

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

cloughie · Dec 31, 2013

Grendel said:
Are you saying he'd offer more?

you do like to fantasize did he or didn't he offer more

you don't know the FACTS anymore than I do, so shut up

Tonylinc · Dec 31, 2013

Of course ACL will struggle without CCFC BUT no more so than CCFC will struggle without ACL. They need each other and till they both realise that there can be no going forward.

Lying - Part 2 (1 Viewer)

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

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

Jack Griffin

Guest

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