No Surrender ACL (1 Viewer)

duffer · Jun 16, 2013

crowsnest said:
ACL paid nothing towards the build of the Ricoh.

CCFC paid £2m

Sisu came in after it was built

(Figures taken from official council documents.)

Erm... I don't think that's quite right. If ACL paid nothing, why was there a £21m mortgage (now 14m)? And the council put in £10m, and at the time of the build had to vouch for a total debt of about £30m.

Then Higgs had to step in to buy the half-share that the club couldn't afford for £6.5m (partly written off debt, partly cash).

To be honest this is old news and has been well covered elsewhere - but the one thing that is certain is that ACL/Higgs have put a fair lump of money into the Arena build one way or another, and CCFC put in a whole lot less.

Had it been the other way around things would be very different now, I suspect.

skybluegaz2 · Jun 16, 2013

crowsnest said:
ACL paid nothing towards the build of the Ricoh.

CCFC paid £2m

Sisu came in after it was built

(Figures taken from official council documents.)

What official documents are these then? If CCFC paid £2m (maybe) who paid the balance - the tooth fairy?

lordsummerisle · Jun 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
A good post.

One thing is for sure, the last set of accounts for ACL, filed at a time when the rent dispute was ongoing and therefore the fragile relationship with the club would have been taken into account; shows that ACL is a going concern. The auditors would have factored this into their thinking.

However, CCFC without the Ricoh makes no sense. Much less sense than the Ricoh without the club. The reduced crowds, and low turnover would have a disastrous influence on squad funding after the first season; and relegation would be a real concern. That would be 4th tier football before any new stadium, and all these fabled F&B's and sponsorship opportunities present themselves. By which time, there are no customers to enjoy this supposed yield from.

The accounts filed don't go past a date when they haven't been receiving rent from the club, so that would have to be taken into account.

Also not sure if the £4million from Compass went into the ACL coffers with the setup of IEC Experience, which would obviously skew the figures somewhat.

Not that clear from what OSB filed(though of course that may be the idea as putting a good spin on things with ACL accounts would be part of his job).

crowsnest · Jun 16, 2013

duffer said:
Erm... I don't think that's quite right. If ACL paid nothing, why was there a £21m mortgage (now 14m)? And the council put in £10m, and at the time of the build had to vouch for a total debt of about £30m.

Then Higgs had to step in to buy the half-share that the club couldn't afford for £6.5m (partly written off debt, partly cash).

To be honest this is old news and has been well covered elsewhere - but the one thing that is certain is that ACL/Higgs have put a fair lump of money into the Arena build one way or another, and CCFC put in a whole lot less.

Had it been the other way around things would be very different now, I suspect.

The higgs paid £6m to ccfc for the share of ACL, the higgs put nothing into the build of the Ricoh.

crowsnest · Jun 16, 2013

skybluegaz2 said:
What official documents are these then? If CCFC paid £2m (maybe) who paid the balance - the tooth fairy?

As you said yourself, you don't know how much it cost do you.

duffer · Jun 16, 2013

crowsnest said:
The higgs paid £6m to ccfc for the share of ACL, the higgs put nothing into the build of the Ricoh.

Indeed - and what did ACL need the money for if not to part fund the build? CCFC had agreed to do that and then when the time came they didn't have the money.

And then there's the mortgage, and the council's ten million?

You're right about the £2m that CCFC put in, but if you think the stadium gets built without the Council and ACL, then I'm afraid I think you're dead wrong. Just over £115m the whole development cost, and by the time work started CCFC didn't even own the land.

lordsummerisle · Jun 16, 2013

duffer said:
Indeed - and what did ACL need the money for if not to part fund the build? CCFC had agreed to do that and then when the time came they didn't have the money.

And then there's the mortgage, and the council's ten million?

You're right about the £2m that CCFC put in, but if you think the stadium gets built without the Council and ACL, then I'm afraid I think you're dead wrong. Just over £115m the whole development cost, and by the time work started CCFC didn't even own the land.

The council were immediately paid back £21million pound by ACL for the 50 year lease, that's what the loan was for.

Nicely in profit for them.

wingy · Jun 16, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The council were immediately paid back £21million pound by ACL for the 50 year lease, that's what the loan was for.

Nicely in profit for them.

The lease was implemented as a secondary measure .The Council were exposed for the £21M. during construction ,and recouped it once ACL took the 5o yr lease ,prior to that they worked on the basis of a £1.9M. rent.

crowsnest · Jun 16, 2013

duffer said:
Indeed - and what did ACL need the money for if not to part fund the build? CCFC had agreed to do that and then when the time came they didn't have the money.

And then there's the mortgage, and the council's ten million?

You're right about the £2m that CCFC put in, but if you think the stadium gets built without the Council and ACL, then I'm afraid I think you're dead wrong. Just over £115m the whole development cost, and by the time work started CCFC didn't even own the land.

I didn't say the council put nothing in. I was replying to the previous poster about ACL.

lordsummerisle · Jun 16, 2013

wingy said:
The lease was implemented as a secondary measure .The Council were exposed for the £21M. during construction ,and recouped it once ACL took the 5o yr lease ,prior to that they worked on the basis of a £1.9M. rent.

But money that that have recouped, and more since.

Should bring your daughter out of retirement wingy to protest against the council!

wingy · Jun 16, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
But money that that have recouped, and more since.

Should bring your daughter out of retirement wingy to protest against the council!

We've lost her I'm afraid Lord ,would you believe to another team.

Me I'm more cynical than ever at the way we are all taken for Granted and used.

lordsummerisle · Jun 16, 2013

wingy said:
We've lost her I'm afraid Lord ,would you believe to another team.

.

I blame the parents!

stupot07 · Jun 16, 2013

wingy said:
We've lost her I'm afraid Lord ,would you believe to another team.

Me I'm more cynical than ever at the way we are all taken for Granted and used.

Another team????? I couldn't imagine loving another team..

James Smith · Jun 16, 2013

Greggs said:
Monster trucks...........

Strangely I quite like the idea of watching Monster Trucks at the Ricoh.

James Smith · Jun 16, 2013

hutch1972 said:
With the sale of ltd back to sisu ( if indeed the FL sign it off ) the only way we will ever see the back of sisu is by them buying at least a half share of the stadium and selling on.
Nobody is going to buy this club as it stands because its just a way of pouring money down the drain, we will continue to go around in circles on this issue untill the club owns at least a half share , and in my opinion if sisu are the ones to get this moving so be it.
As painful as it might seem i just can't think of any other way round it.
Sisu have shown they cannot run a football club, ACL have shown they have little expertise in running what should be a world class venue, and the council are just interested in saving their own skins.

But SISU had the option to buy a half share, agreed terms and then the Higgs heard nothing from them again. SISU may need to be starved out to get rid of them and they can't have a bottomless pit of money and that will run out eventually. They've right royally pissed off the council and if this hedge fund lark is all about gambling then they should know when to quit and take their alleged debts with them. We do need to get rid of them sooner rather than later or our club is doomed.

wahey!! · Jun 16, 2013

skybluegaz2 said:
to all you morons thinking acl should go begging to sisu to get them to use the ricoh - springsteen at the ricoh! Muse at the ricoh ! Snooker at the ricoh ! Olympics at the ricoh ! Etc etc.

Acl only want class at the ricoh and certainly don't need sisu's halfpenny contributions when they are quite nicely surviving on their own.

No surrender acl :claping hands:

Utter garbage gazza#2. Support the football club, not ACL.

Sky Blue Pete · Jun 16, 2013

wahey!! said:
Utter garbage gazza#2. Support the football club, not ACL.

Acl cannot trust Sisu can they ??

Would you?

Jack Griffin · Jun 16, 2013

Tim says himself that the council spent between £13M and £18M to buy the contaminated land and sold a portion of it on to Tesco for a large profit, that entire profit was ploughed into the stadium construction.. in addition the council put in another £10M grant and backed a £22M loan to complete the project (which is being paid back by ACL to the council).

Listen to Tim Fisher say it himself here from 1m 30s in.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA

The minimum the council put in therefore was £23M, maybe up to £28M and it also did not take any profit out of the Tesco sale. This probably explains the £24M figure Daniel Gidney is alleged to have given SISU in the early days of negotiation.

letsallsingtogether · Jun 17, 2013

support the club yes support sisu NO.

as for ACL they did not cause the majority of the debt no way we had that much debt from paying rent.

People forget it would cost hundreds of thousands to keep the Ricoh just ticking over then there's the repairs etc etc so what would the final cost be who pays for all??

that

wahey!! said:
Utter garbage gazza#2. Support the football club, not ACL.

Grendel · Jun 17, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
support the club yes support sisu NO.

as for ACL they did not cause the majority of the debt no way we had that much debt from paying rent.

People forget it would cost hundreds of thousands to keep the Ricoh just ticking over then there's the repairs etc etc so what would the final cost be who pays for all??

that

So you say support the club but then spend 95% of the post defending the landlords position.

That is why our fans are the laughing stock of football. Council first club second.

Sky Blue Pete · Jun 17, 2013

Grendel said:
So you say support the club but then spend 95% of the post defending the landlords position.

That is why our fans are the laughing stock of football. Council first club second.

Where are you now my friend??

Do you really think acl are going to partner with Sisu after what's gone on??

I can't believe Ccfc will not be playing home games at Ricoh. Will you travel to another stadium?

Hobo · Jun 17, 2013

Grendel said:
So you say support the club but then spend 95% of the post defending the landlords position.

That is why our fans are the laughing stock of football. Council first club second.

No it isn't Grendel. ACL stepped in to prevent a threat of liquidating the club. Fisher also said we can't keep kicking an empty can down the road. SISU's accounts are a sham. They have moved assets around. They have split the structure of the club and put obstacles in the way to put potential buyers off.. Actually illegal in company law. They never even mentioned a plan about building a stadium until after administration. It will never get built because they are after the Ricoh on the cheap. CCFC might be loosing money SiSu aren't, that's why they won't sell!

Skybluesquirrel · Jun 17, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Tim says himself that the council spent between £13M and £18M to buy the contaminated land and sold a portion of it on to Tesco for a large profit, that entire profit was ploughed into the stadium construction.. in addition the council put in another £10M grant and backed a £22M loan to complete the project (which is being paid back by ACL to the council).

Listen to Tim Fisher say it himself here from 1m 30s in.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA

The minimum the council put in therefore was £23M, maybe up to £28M and it also did not take any profit out of the Tesco sale. This probably explains the £24M figure Daniel Gidney is alleged to have given SISU in the early days of negotiation.

The council bought the land, sold a part to Tesco for £42,5m in cash and £17m in kind. They then obviously had £42.5 million. Did they take that in management fees? Did they award themselves a whopping bonus? Did they decorate the mayors office? Buy library books with it? No. It was fully invested in the regeneration project.

Therefore, they INVESTED £42.5 million from that deal.

They also arranged a grant from an external body - around £10 million. Non-profit making companies do this all the time. They would be one of the only bodies in the city that could have applied for it. They invested their time and expertise in winning the award. That would be restricted income - only available to spend that on the project.

They, along with ACL also funded the overspend of £2.9 million.

If they were a hedge fund, they would most definitely be including it as part of their investment...

And thats just off the top of my head, taken from the completion project in 2008, that is available somewhere to view. Too late to find the link...

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 17, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The accounts filed don't go past a date when they haven't been receiving rent from the club, so that would have to be taken into account.

Also not sure if the £4million from Compass went into the ACL coffers with the setup of IEC Experience, which would obviously skew the figures somewhat.

Not that clear from what OSB filed(though of course that may be the idea as putting a good spin on things with ACL accounts would be part of his job).

Don't forget dear chap, the last set of filed accounts span the period to May 31 2012, and were filed in March of 2013. It's the auditor's job not just to review the trading term, but also to make comment on the viability of the business moving forward. Both with regards the trading date and filing date, the rent dispute would have had to have been front-and-centre of his thinking before he would sign off.

He was happy with it. I don't think you'd get an auditor to sign off a business plan with regards the club moving out of town, for an unknown term, to an unknown destination. As I have explained, after the first year - when Fisher benefits from last year's 'higher' turnover at the Ricoh, which was a benefit he didn't even pay for - the reduced crowds would present a turnover so low that, given FFP, expenditure on the squad would be dangerously low.

In essence, a deal to stay at the Ricoh has to be struck; but the point I was making is that if anyone thinks that for the club to depart leaves ACL weakened critically, whilst gives CCFC a rosy future is sadly misjudged

Sub · Jun 17, 2013

didnt tim also say the books were incorrect and have been for a number of years ? if this is te case how can appleton say they are the right bidders for the club ?
:facepalm::facepalm:

Hobo · Jun 17, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Don't forget dear chap, the last set of filed accounts span the period to May 31 2012, and were filed in March of 2013. It's the auditor's job not just to review the trading term, but also to make comment on the viability of the business moving forward. Both with regards the trading date and filing date, the rent dispute would have had to have been front-and-centre of his thinking before he would sign off.

He was happy with it. I don't think you'd get an auditor to sign off a business plan with regards the club moving out of town, for an unknown term, to an unknown destination. As I have explained, after the first year - when Fisher benefits from last year's 'higher' turnover at the Ricoh, which was a benefit he didn't even pay for - the reduced crowds would present a turnover so low that, given FFP, expenditure on the squad would be dangerously low.

In essence, a deal to stay at the Ricoh has to be struck; but the point I was making is that if anyone thinks that for the club to depart leaves ACL weakened critically, whilst gives CCFC a rosy future is sadly misjudged

I thought the accounts due last March still haven't been submitted by SISU!! Hence the transfer embargo!

lordsummerisle · Jun 17, 2013

Hobo said:
I thought the accounts due last March still haven't been submitted by SISU!! Hence the transfer embargo!

We're talking ACL accounts.

lordsummerisle · Jun 17, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Don't forget dear chap, the last set of filed accounts span the period to May 31 2012, and were filed in March of 2013. It's the auditor's job not just to review the trading term, but also to make comment on the viability of the business moving forward. Both with regards the trading date and filing date, the rent dispute would have had to have been front-and-centre of his thinking before he would sign off.

He was happy with it. I don't think you'd get an auditor to sign off a business plan with regards the club moving out of town, for an unknown term, to an unknown destination. As I have explained, after the first year - when Fisher benefits from last year's 'higher' turnover at the Ricoh, which was a benefit he didn't even pay for - the reduced crowds would present a turnover so low that, given FFP, expenditure on the squad would be dangerously low.

In essence, a deal to stay at the Ricoh has to be struck; but the point I was making is that if anyone thinks that for the club to depart leaves ACL weakened critically, whilst gives CCFC a rosy future is sadly misjudged

The auditor didn't sign off the accounts with there being no club at The Ricoh though, it was something only mooted once the club went into admin.(Not that i think that there has ever been the slightest intention in reality of ground-share or new stadium).

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 17, 2013

Hobo said:
I thought the accounts due last March still haven't been submitted by SISU!! Hence the transfer embargo!

ACL's accounts. Hence the auditor making a judgement on ACL's finances moving forward

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 17, 2013

Grendel said:
So you say support the club but then spend 95% of the post defending the landlords position.

That is why our fans are the laughing stock of football. Council first club second.

Our club is the laughing stock of football. Those left still going to games need medals.

duffer · Jun 17, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The council were immediately paid back £21million pound by ACL for the 50 year lease, that's what the loan was for.

Nicely in profit for them.

Right, £21m paid to the Council by ACL. Who are half owned by the Council.

Even if you took such an oversimplification to try to prove a point, wouldn't that actually be a net 10.5m. So taking the £10m that everyone accepts that they put into the pot, that's actually break-even (as long as you discount any of the surrounding infrastructure that the Council put in place, which will have cost a few bob too).

Fundamentally, I think your argument is that the Ricoh is some kind of cash cow for the council and ACL, this presumably to forward the idea that they can afford to give away the development to the club.

I've yet to see any figures that back that up, but I'm always happy to be proved wrong.

SkyBlueSwiss · Jun 17, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The auditor didn't sign off the accounts with there being no club at The Ricoh though, it was something only mooted once the club went into admin.(Not that i think that there has ever been the slightest intention in reality of ground-share or new stadium).

Actually Lord, they did.
As part of the subsequent events process that is required by any audit, the auditors must take into account all known facts before they sign off on the accounts.
The auditors were totally aware of the SISU rent strike and the possible outcome (conservative accounting principles means they must look at the worst case scenario), and had to make a judgement as to whether - given the circumstances occurring subsequent to the date of the accounts - ACL were a going concern without receiving rent from a football club. They signed off on the accounts as a going concern in full knowledge of the rent strike and the potential losses of incomes resulting from SISU's actions.
Now people can squirm and make unsubstantiated statements to their heart's content, but none of this will change the fact that the auditors signed off on the ACL audit report as a going concern in full knowledge of SISU's actions and the consequences thereof. Why do people keep on ignoring the facts of this matter? Why do people think they know better than the auditors who signed off on the accounts?

And by the way - if you have not read the Telegraph this morning; PH4 is bidding for the Ricoh despite the administrator handing our club back to SISU. If that goes through, let's see SISU try and stress PH4 to get the Ricoh on the cheap. Methinks that would throw a giant spanner into SISU' machinations.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 17, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The auditor didn't sign off the accounts with there being no club at The Ricoh though, it was something only mooted once the club went into admin.(Not that i think that there has ever been the slightest intention in reality of ground-share or new stadium).

I'm sure, with the relationship as fragile as it was, the auditor - in making a judgement on the forward viability of the business - would have struck any football-related income from his thinking. Auditors are vigorous like that; at least so in my experience.

The last accounts showed turnover at £7,782,519 with an operating profit of £1,086,886. Obviously, losing the club would place a huge strain on that, but to an extent, I think ACL acknowledge this, hence Nicholas Carter, chairman of ACL adding “We are by no means complacent and are carefully trying to grow our business. These accounts show us to be in a robust position. We’re operating in a very competitive market and have also faced some very particular business challenges".

Which could be interpreted as him admitting that they need to grow their non-football activity to compensate for the potential loss. They do have some cash behind them as a function of historical profitability, and with this and an active plan, I guess he and the auditor judge they would be okay.

Again, I don't want this to become an analysis of ACL's operation without a football club; as that one's been exhausted previously and none of us frankly know - but it does look, with pushes into new ventures, that they could be borderline break-even.

However, and to hark back to my initial point, I don't think the football club, operating away from the Ricoh, could state anything like the same

Hobo · Jun 17, 2013

The one thing ACL have in their favour is they have an asset. It can be sold or it could be redeveloped or both. What's the best asset SISU have Leon Clarke who they got on a free?

Or is it the fictitious debt we owe them, the interest and management fees! SISU are making money CC FC aren't!

Jack Griffin · Jun 17, 2013

Hobo said:
The one thing ACL have in their favour is they have an asset. It can be sold or it could be redeveloped or both. What's the best asset SISU have Leon Clarke who they got on a free?

Or is it the fictitious debt we owe them, the interest and management fees! SISU are making money CC FC aren't!

And its a buyers market for football players, not my words but Tim Fisher, so player assets such as they are are deprecating all the time.

No Surrender ACL (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New 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

wahey!!

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency