Grendel
Well-Known Member
Is PWKH an insolvency expert then?
This is disputed by PWKH. Cant find the post, my Google-fu deserts me on SBT.
Still doesn't help though.
Why can't acl offer to sell Alan Higgs share for the agreed amount and offer a reasonable deal for the CCc share?
I really am changing my opinion of how much CCc could do to bring about ccfc a return to Coventry, even with sisu as owners
Under no pressure? Ask Greg Dyke if he agrees. The truth came out because of the relentless questioning. Once the CVA was rejected there was no chance of hiding it any more. Which is what a lot of us wanted.
But it wasn't hidden in the first place, SISU in a rare burst of honesty have been saying that the players are registered in holidings since the beginning and it was on that basis that they claimed beneficial ownership of the Golden Share. All the league have done is confirm something that we all knew to be the case anyway.
Is that the same honesty they showed when they signed off the accounts for the last 5 years with all the players registered in CCFC? Accounts which the creditors relied upon!
Is PWKH an insolvency expert then?
Still doesn't help though.
Why can't acl offer to sell Alan Higgs share for the agreed amount and offer a reasonable deal for the CCc share?
I really am changing my opinion of how much CCc could do to bring about ccfc a return to Coventry, even with sisu as owners
Higgs did agree to sell the shares, Sisu got greedy any decided to make a play for the Ricoh freehold instead.
CCCs shares have never been up for sale, the Ricoh was always a joint venture.
It has yet to be confirmed whether the council would (have) veto(ed) such a deal or not however.
And this is the best argument for, whoever ownes the club, them building their own ground. Clubs split from stadiums simply don't work as entities. Forget SISU, assume they've gone... the option *must* be there for the club to own all of its own stadium (or stadium management company on a long lease) at a price fairly agreed.
Otherwise what's the point, it's always building on sand.
You missed the "forget SISU, assume they've gone" bit I assume?
As an aside, nowt wrong with investors building a stadium, it's what Arsenal have done with Ashburton Grove after all, and are now paying the loan off.
As ever, it's the terms that are important.
No they dontMost on here see the club paying back £62m over 50 years in rent as being an acceptable return on the Council's £10m investment
Most on here see the club paying back £62m over 50 years in rent as being an acceptable return on the Council's £10m investment.
Forget PFI, the club have signed a PFI, it's a Public Finance Initiative.
Landlord makes profit shocker
Yes, it is shocking. Especially when the landlord is effectively the city council, and the tenant the most important community asset this fucking city has.
Yes, it is shocking. Especially when the landlord is effectively the city council, and the tenant the most important community asset this fucking city has.
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rent.
They have really made no effort to change the rent agreement they have backed out of negotiations to purchase when a price had been agreed.
If this dispute about the Ricoh is really about the high rent and the F/B benefiots then why would you move the club to Northampton to resolve it? Lose more money, more fans and be a lot worse off.
The arguements that the council should hand over the ACL business for nothing or evengive away a community asset are a joke. CCC did not force CCFC out CCFC burnt the bridges and then tried a strong arm tactic.
The rent issue is a non entity and CCFC havent paid any for the last year anyway
No its not so stop bleating on about it.
The two parties agreed to the rent.
SISU could and should have renegotiated the rent.
They have really made no effort to change the rent agreement they have backed out of negotiations to purchase when a price had been agreed.
If this dispute about the Ricoh is really about the high rent and the F/B benefiots then why would you move the club to Northampton to resolve it? Lose more money, more fans and be a lot worse off.
The arguements that the council should hand over the ACL business for nothing or evengive away a community asset are a joke. CCC did not force CCFC out CCFC burnt the bridges and then tried a strong arm tactic.
The rent issue is a non entity and CCFC havent paid any for the last year anyway
Do you even read what you type any more? You used to be quite a good troll.
Higgs did agree to sell the shares, Sisu got greedy any decided to make a play for the Ricoh freehold instead.
CCCs shares have never been up for sale, the Ricoh was always a joint venture.
You don't seem to get that Sisu don't want to buy in. They don't want to pay a reasonable price. They will only deal on their terms. The only way anyone other than Seppala can fix this is by handing assets to Sisu for nothing.
Who is 'bleating on'? It was my first comment on the matter.
Nobody is suggesting they get it for nothing either. That would be absurd. And they did not back out of the deal to purchase a stake, that is the opposite of what happened. Stop making stuff up in an attempt to prop up your flimsy argument.
But it wasn't hidden in the first place, SISU in a rare burst of honesty have been saying that the players are registered in holidings since the beginning and it was on that basis that they claimed beneficial ownership of the Golden Share. All the league have done is confirm something that we all knew to be the case anyway.
.....the other half of the landlord is a not for profit charity
Most on here see the club paying back £62m over 50 years in rent as being an acceptable return on the Council's £10m investment.
They backed out of the deal. It was agreed with higgs and they walked away.
He tends to only do simplistic
Say, for the sake of argument, you take out a £21m loan at 5.5% interest over 50 years: A loan calculator tells me you will pay back £61.7m - or £1.23m a year.
I don't know what the terms were on the old Yorkshire Bank Loan taken out to complete the stadium and I'm not sure which year the loan was taken out, but if it was 2005 then banks loaned money to each other at 4.77% on average that year - so it does not take a great leap to imagine a rate of 5.5% for a non-bank customer.
The basic point is: It is too simplistic to multiply the rent CCFC used to pay by 50, deduct the council's £10m equity investment and suggest it has made a £52m profit.
Again, stop making stuff up.
In fairness to ACL they pay a lease to the council of around that amount (as well as repaying the loan). Essentially the club are paying ACL's lease costs while ACL repay their loan.
The council meanwhile recoup the money from CCFC indirectly and pass the liability for the loan on to ACL, nice work if you can get it.
Which bit is he making up?
There has been a lot suggested ref- SİSU 'toxic debts' being placed in Cov's accounts. Can these accounts be examined to see where the reported '60 million pounds debts' have come from?
Surely Auditors' reports are published somewhere?
There has been a lot suggested ref- SİSU 'toxic debts' being placed in Cov's accounts. Can these accounts be examined to see where the reported '60 million pounds debts' have come from?
Surely Auditors' reports are published somewhere?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?