Mean while back in court

[TheRoyalScam]

Looking at Sisu QC's arguments today, could anyone be blamed if they thought that relegation to L1 and the subsequent move to Northampton was just a cunning plan to maximise any future potential compensation award through the courts?

 

[Nick]

Looking at Sisu QC's arguments today, could anyone be blamed if they thought that relegation to L1 and the subsequent move to Northampton was just a cunning plan to maximise any future potential compensation award through the courts?

Surely a judge would see right through it straight away though? Like punching yourself in the face to make something worse to get more compo.

 

[clint van damme]

Christ, really? They really do deserve to lose this.

wouldn't that depend on what the sliding scale of the rent was? I have no idea, but just because the rent is adjusted according to league position still doesn't make it a good deal.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Looking at Sisu QC's arguments today, could anyone be blamed if they thought that relegation to L1 and the subsequent move to Northampton was just a cunning plan to maximise any future potential compensation award through the courts?

Surely a judge would see right through it straight away though? Like punching yourself in the face to make something worse to get more compo.

But would you blame anyone (not just the judge) for thinking this way?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Doesn't cost any more though does it?

 

[dongonzalos]

Christ, really? They really do deserve to lose this.

That deal was done pre SISU and SIU bought the club with that contract in place. I assume they weren't too concerned as they intended promotion as well

 

[kapowaz]

That deal was done pre SISU and SIU bought the club with that contract in place. I assume they weren't too concerned as they intended promotion as well

Aren’t all contracts and obligations usually void once a company goes into administration? I would have assumed the new owners would have to agree to those terms too?

 

[Nick]

Aren’t all contracts and obligations usually void once a company goes into administration? I would have assumed the new owners would have to agree to those terms too?

Nobody went into administration then.

 

[Grendel]

Aren’t all contracts and obligations usually void once a company goes into administration? I would have assumed the new owners would have to agree to those terms too?

Lol need a better briefing about the facts old chum, best go and create another account.

 

[kapowaz]

Lol need a better briefing about the facts old chum, best go and create another account.

Apparently so! Like I said, I’ve kind of stopped paying attention to the whole court case over the last few months.

 

[dongonzalos]

Aren’t all contracts and obligations usually void once a company goes into administration? I would have assumed the new owners would have to agree to those terms too?

No administration, but if the rent was an issue then when you purchase you renogotiate before you sign the dotted line.
However I believe SISU were intent on a quick profit, so the long term rent deal back then was probably not high on their agenda.

 

[matesx]

It's all too clever for the likes of me.

No interest whatsoever.

When it's all done would somebody clever do a brief wrap up of events in lay mans terms please?

ta

 

[Brylowes]

Surely the lawyer should have compared it to rent in the leagues above? I am pretty sure Championship and maybe a couple of Prem teams pay less than £1.3 million per year for matchday only rent.

Doesn't really work the same when you compare it to Yeovil or Cralwy somebody like that who was in L1 then..

No expert, but the judge seems to be picking him apart.

Can anyone tell me why some teams in the prem & championship are renting there grounds. Everyone knows the only way
to get to that level is to own your own ground, isn't it

 

[fernandopartridge]

Christ, really? They really do deserve to lose this.

The sliding scale included a £2m rent if promoted from the championship.

 

[Nick]

Can anyone tell me why some teams in the prem & championship are renting there grounds. Everyone knows the only way
to get to that level is to own your own ground, isn't it

It depends who they pay the rent to and how much doesn't it? As well as what the rent includes, whether it is all year round or a couple of hours for matchday.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Looking at Sisu QC's arguments today, could anyone be blamed if they thought that relegation to L1 and the subsequent move to Northampton was just a cunning plan to maximise any future potential compensation award through the courts?



But would you blame anyone (not just the judge) for thinking this way?

Illogical argument. You're saying they made a loss so as to get compensation for that loss. How does it tally with the subsequent accounts?

 

[stupot07]

The club were offered s sliding scale rent but said no. It would go up if they were promoted. That's where they believed they were heading. They asked for fixed.

We have no really details of what levels the rents would have been and it would have likely still been £1.3 pa in the championship (ACL needed that much in order to make the loan repayments). So regardless is relegation £1.3m for matchday only no access to matchday revenues was a very poor deal. Swansea pay around £500k in the PL.

It's difficult to big up this phantom deal as we no none of the detail for all we know the sliding scale could have been £5m PL, £1.3m Champ, £1m League One, £750k league two.....or could have been considerably cheaper.

 

[torchomatic]

Christ, really? They really do deserve to lose this.

Not the current owners though...and three months after we moved in they tried to renegotiate.

 

[Brylowes]

As a note, it was different owners who agreed to that...

But SISU still completed their deal for the club after,Due-diligence and were in agreement with all previous deals done.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It depends who they pay the rent to and how much doesn't it? As well as what the rent includes, whether it is all year round or a couple of hours for matchday.

We keep hearing that but how many clubs actually make a lot of money from non matchday events even the Ricoh made nothing?
So maybe a good job we didn't get it we would be even more in debt?

 

[dongonzalos]

We have no really details of what levels the rents would have been and it would have likely still been £1.3 pa in the championship (ACL needed that much in order to make the loan repayments). So regardless is relegation £1.3m for matchday only no access to matchday revenues was a very poor deal. Swansea pay around £500k in the PL.

It's difficult to big up this phantom deal as we no none of the detail for all we know the sliding scale could have been £5m PL, £1.3m Champ, £1m League One, £750k league two.....or could have been considerably cheaper.

I have bigged up anything, the club were offered a sliding scale rent and rejected it as they believed they were coming straight back up. So why sign to something that will cost more.
SISU should have renegotiated the rent when they bought the club as a fail safe in case their plan A failed and they didn't.
You would have to assume the rent if promotrd was more than 1.3 as that's the point of a sliding scale.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Early days in this round of court hearings. I wouldnt read anything in to Judges questions or that one side or other is winning. Best chances anyone gets in court is 50:50. So far we are only hearing one side of the argument

I would think in this particular JR then compensation if awarded at all would go to SBS&L or ARVO. The third claimant is CCFCH which no longer exists. Those are the three parties that brought this case not as some have suggested CCFC. The football club CCFC is nothing more than a name in legal terms, the name under which Otium trades. Otium was not named in these documents as far as I know, but was on the JR2.

With that in mind I would think any compensation will end up with ARVO and SBS&L investors.

Interesting that SISU are not looking to unwind the transactions. In practical terms I would think it would be pointless as the loan has been repaid. Their focus is on compensation which I think points to where the benefit of that may well end up.

I am pleased to see that at least one judge specialises in financial law so he should be able to cut through the layers of disguise by both or either side.

I do wish that the QC 's would make clear what each of the valuations relates to not mix up the value of lease's for security with the value of ACL (which would include all the assets but all the liabilities too <including the loan> and could be expected to be much lower than just valuing the assets). Were either the YB or CCC loans secured on ACL or were they secured on the assets only of ACL there is a big difference in terms of valuing security pretty sure it is the latter.

This is going to be decided on a point of law the facts as presented are already in court. Not some staggering new information.

Find it hard to believe that the YB preference was to liquidate ACL, especially when there are letters from YB saying that after restructuring they saw a decent business

This private investor rule is the test. At the level of clients I have then I have seen very rational individuals invest in companies to protect and make that investment out of balance with other shareholders, even not take any income from it. So it does happen, but did the council provide an advantage to ACL against its competitors or not or even provide some benefit to the Charity by doing so. Is the fact that the Charity transferred its interest in car park C to CCC recognition and even payment of this supposed advantage?

For their own purposes to discount a loan for settlement would a bank have to issue a default notice to get it done? is it turning the screw or procedure?

They keep coming back to the deal being done in December 2012 - but surely that relies on there being a deal with the charity for its shares doesn't it? ........ that had died in July 2012 according to the judge and that judgement has never been challenged

Will wait see what the next couple of days bring

 

[dongonzalos]

Early days in this round of court hearings. I wouldnt read anything in to Judges questions or that one side or other is winning. Best chances anyone gets in court is 50:50. So far we are only hearing one side of the argument

I would think in this particular JR then compensation if awarded at all would go to SBS&L or ARVO. The third claimant is CCFCH which no longer exists. Those are the three parties that brought this case not as some have suggested CCFC. The football club CCFC is nothing more than a name in legal terms, the name under which Otium trades. Otium was not named in these documents as far as I know, but was on the JR2.

With that in mind any I would think any compensation will end up with ARVO and SBS&L inverstors.

Interesting that SISU are not looking to unwind the transactions. In practical terms I would think it would be pointless as the loan has been repaid. Their focus is on compensation which I think points to where the benefit of that may well end up.

I am pleased to see that at least one judge specialises in financial law so he should be able to cut through the layers of disguise by both or either side.

I do wish that the QC 's would make clear what each of the valuations relates to not mix up the value of lease's for security with the value of ACL (which would include all the assets but all the liabilities too <including the loan> and could be expected to be much lower than just valuing the assets). Were either the YB or CCC loans secured on ACL or were they secured on the assets only of ACL there is a big difference in terms of valuing security pretty sure it is the latter.

This is going to be decided on a point of law the facts as presented are already in court. Not some staggering new information.

Find it hard to believe that the YB preference was to liquidate ACL, especially when there are letters from YB saying that after restructuring they saw a decent business

This private investor rule is the test. At the level of clients I have then I have seen very rational individuals invest in companies to protect and make that investment out of balance with other shareholders, even not take any income from it. So it does happen, but did the council provide an advantage to ACL against its competitors or not or even provide some benefit to the Charity by doing so. Is the fact that the Charity transferred its interest in car park C to CCC recognition and even payment of this supposed advantage?

For their own purposes to discount a loan for settlement would a bank have to issue a default notice to get it done?

They keep coming back to the deal being done in December 2012 - but surely that relies on there being a deal with the charity for its shares doesn't it? ........ that had died in July 2012 according to the judge and that judgement has never been challenged

Will wait see what the next couple of days bring

Reference your first point.....
I think the Judges read it over their prawn sandwiches and glass of Red.

 

[Brylowes]

It depends who they pay the rent to and how much doesn't it? As well as what the rent includes, whether it is all year round or a couple of hours for matchday.

But apparently it's no good at the Ricoh,even on a low rent (200,000 per annum wasn't it) and share of f&b

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

SISU QC said we got relegated from PL in 2002, and was told by Judge it was 2001.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

SISU QC said we got relegated from PL in 2002, and was told by Judge it was 2001.

Not significantly important in the scheme of things, but not very impressive from the SISU QC

 

[chiefdave]

Can anyone tell me why some teams in the prem & championship are renting there grounds. Everyone knows the only way to get to that level is to own your own ground, isn't it

We were paying £1.2m for which we got use of the ground on matchdays, offices and the club shop & ticket office. We recieved no revenues generated by our being at the ground or any benefit from any other events held there.

Bournemouth rent Dean Court. Don't they pay £15K a month or something low like that? So £180K a year but they get everything from the stadium. They have also said if the current stadium owner won't sell it to them they will move. They don't own it now as when they were in financial trouble they sold it and leased it back.

Man City now pay £3m a year previously they paid half of ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000. The change is an increase of approx £1m and the new deal gives them more revenues (ie: stadium naming rights).

Swansea City pay a peppercorn rent.

Hull pay the council a percentage of profit from the stadium management company makes which since the stadium opened has been £50K in total. They have said they will move if they can't have the freehold.

Ipswich pay £110K a year, was incresed from £15K in 2004 which caused them to go on a rent strike for nearly 7 years.

Think they're the only teams in the top two divisions who rent.

 

[shmmeee]

Fuck me, has someone bumped this thread from 2012?

 

[hill83]

We were paying £1.2m for which we got use of the ground on matchdays, offices and the club shop & ticket office. We recieved no revenues generated by our being at the ground or any benefit from any other events held there.

Bournemouth rent Dean Court. Don't they pay £15K a month or something low like that? So £180K a year but they get everything from the stadium. They have also said if the current stadium owner won't sell it to them they will move. They don't own it now as when they were in financial trouble they sold it and leased it back.

Man City now pay £3m a year previously they paid half of ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000. The change is an increase of approx £1m and the new deal gives them more revenues (ie: stadium naming rights).

Swansea City pay a peppercorn rent.

Hull pay the council a percentage of profit from the stadium management company makes which since the stadium opened has been £50K in total. They have said they will move if they can't have the freehold.

Ipswich pay £110K a year, was incresed from £15K in 2004 which caused them to go on a rent strike for nearly 7 years.

Think they're the only teams in the top two divisions who rent.

I don't think he wanted actual answers pal. He was windmilling rhetorical questions.

 

[dongonzalos]

West Ham will be paying
2m to £2.5m rent annually as part of a 99-year lease.

 

[Brylowes]

We were paying £1.2m for which we got use of the ground on matchdays, offices and the club shop & ticket office. We recieved no revenues generated by our being at the ground or any benefit from any other events held there.

Bournemouth rent Dean Court. Don't they pay £15K a month or something low like that? So £180K a year but they get everything from the stadium. They have also said if the current stadium owner won't sell it to them they will move. They don't own it now as when they were in financial trouble they sold it and leased it back.

Man City now pay £3m a year previously they paid half of ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000. The change is an increase of approx £1m and the new deal gives them more revenues (ie: stadium naming rights).

Swansea City pay a peppercorn rent.

Hull pay the council a percentage of profit from the stadium management company makes which since the stadium opened has been £50K in total. They have said they will move if they can't have the freehold.

Ipswich pay £110K a year, was incresed from £15K in 2004 which caused them to go on a rent strike for nearly 7 years.

Think they're the only teams in the top two divisions who rent.

But what we were paying pre rent strikes is now irelavent isn't it. I'm no expert but £200.000 a year for Ricoh & share
of F&B doesn't sound to bad

 

[chiefdave]

West Ham will be paying
2m to £2.5m rent annually as part of a 99-year lease.

The West Ham deal isn't particularly straightforward as they pay out but then get things you would normally expect them to be paying for like stewards, ticketing, undersoil heating and all sorts of random things.

The crucial thing for them will be to avoid relegation. If they go down they may well end up in a mess.

 

[chiefdave]

But what we were paying pre rent strikes is now irelavent isn't it. I'm no expert but £200.000 a year for Ricoh & share of F&B doesn't sound to bad

But think of what we are actually getting. For a start its £200K plus matchday costs which equates to around £450K. The details of F&B haven't been released. Is it a % of revenue or profit? Is it a % of everything or a % of what ACL recieves from IEC?

All we get is the ground for a few hours on matchday. We're even paying for things like parking spaces for the media! We no longer have our offices or club shop there so they are additional costs to add on to the rent when comparing.

It could be a good deal, irrespective of how it compares to others, it could be a bad deal. We won't know that until we see credible business plans worked up for various scenarios.

 

[italiahorse]

We were paying £1.2m for which we got use of the ground on matchdays, offices and the club shop & ticket office. We recieved no revenues generated by our being at the ground or any benefit from any other events held there.

Bournemouth rent Dean Court. Don't they pay £15K a month or something low like that? So £180K a year but they get everything from the stadium. They have also said if the current stadium owner won't sell it to them they will move. They don't own it now as when they were in financial trouble they sold it and leased it back.

Man City now pay £3m a year previously they paid half of ticket sales revenue from match attendances exceeding 35,000. The change is an increase of approx £1m and the new deal gives them more revenues (ie: stadium naming rights).

Swansea City pay a peppercorn rent.

Hull pay the council a percentage of profit from the stadium management company makes which since the stadium opened has been £50K in total. They have said they will move if they can't have the freehold.

Ipswich pay £110K a year, was incresed from £15K in 2004 which caused them to go on a rent strike for nearly 7 years.

Think they're the only teams in the top two divisions who rent.

It's not always clear.
Swansea also pay best part of a million to the running costs of the stadium.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Why do people always bring up match day costs you pay them whether you own lease or rent a stadium so they are irrelevant