Rent Money owed to ACL rumour (5 Viewers)

What I don't understand is why the 590K is not sitting with Appleton? Is it?

If ACL had accepted the CVA then surely the monies would have been due immediately?

I can't see how the idea of it being used as a bargaining tool is possible. They have to pay it, and I can't see how they would get out of it.

"This, however, will be ignored even though its far more relevant and worth discussion."

So is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Peter Kropotkin and Colin Ward.

Marty and The Lord bring up good points surely this is the agreement of a guarantor?

That being said has CCFC Ltd even been Liquidated yet? Surely if it hasn't then the guarantor is liable to paying the arrears?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lets just wait till end of may and the deadline passes and then wait for silly reason why it hasn't been paid and then await the new deadline.

Kingokings204 said:

Lets just wait till end of may and the deadline passes and then wait for silly reason why it hasn't been paid and then await the new deadline.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm? I can't tell it's to early in the morning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 said:

Sarcasm? I can't tell it's to early in the morning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

A hint I guess Robo. I have just become to as a ccfc nothing going smoothly and when the deadline is set at end of may then you know something is going to come up. I would just like it paid and then we can all shut up about a payment that should be paid easily and unfortunately wont get us back to the Ricoh which is my most important issue.

Not sure I understand the obsession on here with the club's former landlords, but maybe this will help:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-deal-mp-geoffrey-robinson-2822995

Based on Mr Reid's words that "Geoffrey Robinson could stand to lose £250,000 if the club does not pay its Ricoh stadium rent debts" it would seem to me that the situation is rather simple: If Sisu/Otium pay, he doesn't and if they don't, he might be liable. I guess Mr Robinson is currently hoping Sisu/Otium comply with the requirements set down by the Football League.

Of course this was more than a year ago, so things might have changed since this was written.

It looks like the debt has legally been reduced to 590k. For SISU to guarantee the golden share and not lose points or other sanctions they must pay the 590k. And it looks like it must be done by the end of this month. If the 590k is paid it should mean that the debt will have been paid in full.

Sky Blues said:

Not sure I understand the obsession on here with the club's former landlords, but maybe this will help:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-deal-mp-geoffrey-robinson-2822995

Based on Mr Reid's words that "Geoffrey Robinson could stand to lose £250,000 if the club does not pay its Ricoh stadium rent debts" it would seem to me that the situation is rather simple: If Sisu/Otium pay, he doesn't and if they don't, he might be liable. I guess Mr Robinson is currently hoping Sisu/Otium comply with the requirements set down by the Football League.

Of course this was more than a year ago, so things might have changed since this was written.

Click to expand...

I found this a good read and something I wasn't really aware of. Fat chance of Robinson saving his 250k if sisu don't pay but im sure sisu will pay their due debts.

Interesting what he says about the football club and ACL. He is right about one thing the council and a local charity shouldn't be running the Ricoh.

Maybe Robinson is only liable once all attempts to get the club to pay have been exhausted?

bigfatronssba said:

Maybe Robinson is only liable once all attempts to get the club to pay have been exhausted?

Click to expand...

Which would have been when they took them to court for the money and then attempted to put the club into administration wouldn't it?

Astute said:

It looks like the debt has legally been reduced to 590k. For SISU to guarantee the golden share and not lose points or other sanctions they must pay the 590k. And it looks like it must be done by the end of this month. If the 590k is paid it should mean that the debt will have been paid in full.

Click to expand...

I think Labovitch said it is due to be paid when the administration is finished. This is being strung out at the moment by Appleton to the advantage of Sisu. My guess is loose the JR and they liquidate and don't have to pay this debt either with any new owner looking at loosing 20 points before a ball is even kicked.

is it not possible that when sisu purchased CCFC that someone connected to Sisu or some part of Sisu took over this duty from GR, hence why the FL insisted Otium paid it in return to for the Golden share?

skybluetony176 said:

is it not possible that when sisu purchased CCFC that someone connected to Sisu or some part of Sisu took over this duty from GR, hence why the FL insisted Otium paid it in return to for the Golden share?

Click to expand...

Not according to the CET report and quotes from Jacky Isaac.

Senior Vick from Alicante said:

My guess is loose the JR and they liquidate and don't have to pay this debt either with any new owner looking at loosing 20 points before a ball is even kicked.

Click to expand...

lordsummerisle said:

Not according to the CET report and quotes from Jacky Isaac.

Click to expand...

just read the story in the link in sky blues post, is this the story you're talking about?

its an old story, perhaps SG could do some digging to find out if this is still relevant follwing the administration of ltd. Is Jacky Isaac still at ACL? is her opinion still relevant too? Is this an old quote too>

there may be some legs in this story. it sounds like Mr Gilbert could do some digging to see if the situation has changed given that the deadline is looming.

whoever pays it though i think the FL's instructions are clear, Otium need to pay it as part of recieving the Golden Share. If they dont, they run the risk of breaking that contract (i'm assuming there was a contract but it is the FL we're talking about so who knows) and loosing the Golden share. If GR and the other liable person pays it the club is likely to lose out.

It's not technically the rent that is owed is it? The FL instructed Otium to make a payment equivalent to that offered in the CVA but it's not actually paying the CVA, as it was rejected, so is it still classed as rent? If it isn't then how would Robinson be liable?

I think everyone seems to be looking at this as if it was one contract or deal and calling it all rent, it isn't. There are a number of different contracts between different parties.

1) The lease and licence between CCFC Ltd and ACL. Under this deal CCFC ltd stopped paying the rent and owed ACL according to their claim £1.4m when CCFC Ltd went in to administration.

2) The contract for the guarantee of the Escrow. This is between ACL and Robinson/McGinnity. Although connected to it is not part of the lease & licence and is a separate contract. So long as CCFC Ltd paid the rent then there was no potential liability. Once the club stopped paying then ACL could draw a sum equivalent to the amount owed from the Escrow account. The Club was supposed to replenish the Escrow account to keep it at £500k if it did not the then the guarantors liability kicked in and they were liable to put the money in. The liability to keep the Escrow was open ended so that ACL could keep drawing to pay the amounts they were owed and the guarantors would have to keep paying in. I suspect that the guarantors would have been advised not to put the money in so that they forced a settlement of the arrangement, but there are no real details so just what I am surmising. As such the liability legally for GR/MM was not for rent but to replenish the deposit held in the Escrow account.

Question: if CCFC and its owners deliberately withheld the rent and triggered the Escrow mechanism would GR/MM have a claim against them for the amount they may have had to pay out (if anything)

3) The CVA. Parties involved are the administrator and all the creditors. Well we all know this did not happen but it would have been a separate contract. The figure quoted of £590k was not actually just rent, in fact rent was a minority of it. ACL claimed £1.4m as the debt owed to it when CCFC Ltd went in to administration. However the administrator only accepted a claim of £636k because he deducted the escrow account £536k and the match day expenses approx. £230k. What the administrator also did in the CVA calculation was to value the compensation due to the landlord (ACL), this was the administrators estimate of the time it would take for ACL to find a tenant to replace CCFC. In many cases that estimate is three years or so in this case less than 18 mths. His estimate of the value of that was £1.724m. That meant that the total for ACL included in the CVA calculation was £2.36m, the amount the creditors in the CVA were to get was approx. 25p in every £ which results in £590k (that figure being made up of rent £156k and compensation £434k). Of course that deal never happened and the figure of £590k is just a calculation bearing no resemblance to anything.

4) The amount due under the Golden share agreement. Parties involved in this contract are Otium & Football League. The payment of compensation to ACL is a term included in the contract between the FL and Otium in order for Otium to be awarded the golden share. As such I do not think that ACL has any contractual right to enforce the payment from Otium. Nor do ACL have any contract with the FL by which they can enforce payment. If there is no contractual agreement then I can not see that it is actually rent being paid particularly as Otium is not party to the lease, and the lease is now null and void after being disclaimed by the liquidator in December 2013.


So taking all that above
- ACL claim was for £1.4m but administrator accepts only less the Escrow £536k less the match day fees £230k = shortfall on rent £634k
- Contractual liability under lease to terminate it is anything up to approx. £55m but the administrator valued the correct compensation in his opinion at £1.734m
- Total amount due to ACL per the administrators CVA workings £2.368m
- Amount ACL received under the CVA = Zero the CVA never happened
- Amount expected to be paid to ACL under agreement between Otium & FL = £590k (compensation not rent imo)
- Amount paid by GR/MM, if they have paid anything then it would have been part of a settlement to remove any future liability in my opinion. Max that could be claimed at any one time would be £500k

Not going to get in to the wrongs or rights of the amounts but I think the above process/contracts is what actually happened. As such there is nothing that is legally the double payment of anything.

chiefdave said:

It's not technically the rent that is owed is it? The FL instructed Otium to make a payment equivalent to that offered in the CVA but it's not actually paying the CVA, as it was rejected, so is it still classed as rent? If it isn't then how would Robinson be liable?

Click to expand...

He was liable(with McG?) for £500,000 of rent arrears before any court action to recover it from the club should have taken place though.

chiefdave said:

It's not technically the rent that is owed is it? The FL instructed Otium to make a payment equivalent to that offered in the CVA but it's not actually paying the CVA, as it was rejected, so is it still classed as rent? If it isn't then how would Robinson be liable?

Click to expand...

to add to that, surely Robinson was liable under the old rent agreement which no longer exist because of the admin process?

Personally I don't care if this amount gets paid or not. A more interesting question is why did GR guarantor this arrangement ?
I may or may not be right on this but didn't GR lose a lot of money on CCFC ?
Did he have an arrangement with Sisu that some of this would be recouped if CCFC returned to the prem ?
Is GR sisu's inside man on the council ?

skybluetony176 said:

to add to that, surely Robinson was liable under the old rent agreement which no longer exist because of the admin process?

Click to expand...

Then it should have been claimed under the old rent agreement before the administration surely?

Senior Vick from Alicante said:

I think Labovitch said it is due to be paid when the administration is finished. This is being strung out at the moment by Appleton to the advantage of Sisu. My guess is loose the JR and they liquidate and don't have to pay this debt either with any new owner looking at loosing 20 points before a ball is even kicked.

Click to expand...

If they liquidate then we don't have a club?

I can't for the life of me understand why the liquidation comment keeps coming up. The club is not going to get liquidated.

lordsummerisle said:

Then it should have been claimed under the old rent agreement before the administration surely?

Click to expand...

if OSB's post is right (or at least somewhere near the truth) i think we've all got the wrong end of the stick, including LR.

Bennets Afro said:

i spoke to my friend again who says that the outstanding rent was paid during the admin process by robinson/ Mcginnity and should never formed part of the CVA calculations. It only was because appleton wasn't notified of the payment, it was in there

Click to expand...

so my question would be ........... considering every tom dick and harry knew about the Escrow and the guarantees given by GR/MM why didn't the administrator know and account for it? Especially when the accounts for all the group companies mention the Escrow account

GR and MM didn't pay the rent though if they paid anything it was to top up the Escrow account. It might seem like playing with words but you have to look at the legal contracts in place. GR & MM had no legal liability to pay the rent. They were guarantors to the rental deposit Escrow account.

Does your friend know how much was actually paid by GR or MM?

Ian1779 said:

I can't for the life of me understand why the liquidation comment keeps coming up. The club is not going to get liquidated.

Click to expand...

i think you're right Ian. However, i would be alot more solid in this conviction if sisu had never used liquidation as a threat in the not so distant past.

skybluetony176 said:

i think you're right Ian. However, i would be alot more solid in this conviction if sisu had never used liquidation as a threat in the not so distant past.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was a direct threat as such. Poorly advised phrase given the context of the problem here, but there is no logic financially or otherwise for SISU to liquidate a business with no assets. The golden share would be irrelevant.

Ian1779 said:

I don't think it was a direct threat as such. Poorly advised phrase given the context of the problem here, but there is no logic financially or otherwise for SISU to liquidate a business with no assets. The golden share would be irrelevant.

Click to expand...

A very poorly chosen phrase, reminds me of a quote from a film:
"Wars have begun that way, Mr Ambassdor".

James Smith said:

A very poorly chosen phrase, reminds me of a quote from a film:
"Wars have begun that way, Mr Ambassdor".

Click to expand...

Ferrero Rocher: The Movie?

Ian1779 said:

I don't think it was a direct threat as such. Poorly advised phrase given the context of the problem here, but there is no logic financially or otherwise for SISU to liquidate a business with no assets. The golden share would be irrelevant.

Click to expand...

same as there was no logic financial or otherwise in the move to suxfields. yet we're facing a 2nd season there.

skybluetony176 said:

same as there was no logic financial or otherwise in the move to suxfields. yet we're facing a 2nd season there.

Click to expand...

Don't think you can make quite as direct a comparison - but I get the point.

Am I right in saying that the FL refused a groundshare at the Butts? What was the reasoning behind that, as that's in Cov?

Might have made this all a bit easier.

James Smith said:

A very poorly chosen phrase, reminds me of a quote from a film:
"Wars have begun that way, Mr Ambassdor".

Click to expand...

I don't know why, but I'm thinking 'Hunt for Red October'?

(Coming soon, the sequel, 'Hunt for the Golden Share').

With regard to the mention of liquidation, it wasn't a "poorly chosen phrase", it was a direct threat posed by Fisher and SISU in the press and also in meetings when the roadmap was proposed. I'd agree though that I can't see the logic of liquidating something that you can sell, even if not for very much. (I appreciate others differ - the point being, I think, that liquidation shows how ruthless you are to other businesses that you might have to deal with in the future).

As for the suggestion here that ACL have somehow double-charged for the £590k, I think OSB has nailed that. The £590k doesn't relate directly to the rent, or the escrow, and it hasn't yet been paid by anybody.

How do rumours like this start, I wonder, and who are they designed to benefit...

Ian1779 said:

Don't think you can make quite as direct a comparison - but I get the point.

Am I right in saying that the FL refused a groundshare at the Butts? What was the reasoning behind that, as that's in Cov?

Might have made this all a bit easier.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that with you its everyone else's fault you never accuse or hold Sisu accountable for anything ?