Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Which why launching the process towards admin in the first place was strange from ACL. Surely they would have known a) the lease would be broken and b) they would have never got back what they were owed.
Yes - the club benefitted by being released from the 42yr lease. A quite heavy burden - 42 times £1.2m.
Yes - the club benefitted by being released from the 42yr lease. A quite heavy burden - 42 times £1.2m.
ACL had decided on their preferred administrator, he was on CWR a couple of days before. SISU beat them to the punch by putting Ltd into admin - that's when they chose Appleton.
Yes - the club benefitted by being released from the 42yr lease. A quite heavy burden - 42 times £1.2m.
So Your agreed then that Sisu cost us the 10 points, they put ccfc into admin !!
A benifit? As apposed to playing in Northampton while incurring huge losses? How exactly has the club benefitted from braking the lease? if they had returned to the ricoh under a much improved arrangement we would have benifited from breaking the lease.
the club has not benefitted in any shape or form from breaking the lease, our position has only got worse.
Negotiation was not taking them anywhere. As long as the lease was in place ACL felt in a strong position. With that gone - and with their anchor tenant gone - ACL's position is a lot weaker. Should ACL be forced to refinance their loan their position may be catastrophic.
In the mean time the club is paying peanuts while either waiting to get ACL cheap or build their own stadium. Whichever will be financial desirable in the long run. Short term the club will lose a lot of income - sure, but try multiply 42 by £1.2m and you may find there's room for quite a heavy short term loss if the club end up owning the stadium they play in.
Yes they got in there first before acl did it so they could pick administrator didn't they?
Negotiation was not taking them anywhere. As long as the lease was in place ACL felt in a strong position. With that gone - and with their anchor tenant gone - ACL's position is a lot weaker. Should ACL be forced to refinance their loan their position may be catastrophic.
In the mean time the club is paying peanuts while either waiting to get ACL cheap or build their own stadium. Whichever will be financial desirable in the long run. Short term the club will lose a lot of income - sure, but try multiply 42 by £1.2m and you may find there's room for quite a heavy short term loss if the club end up owning the stadium they play in.
And that means it isn't the fault of SISU although they were threatening our club with liquidation at the time.
Negotiation was not taking them anywhere. As long as the lease was in place ACL felt in a strong position. With that gone - and with their anchor tenant gone - ACL's position is a lot weaker. Should ACL be forced to refinance their loan their position may be catastrophic.
In the mean time the club is paying peanuts while either waiting to get ACL cheap or build their own stadium. Whichever will be financial desirable in the long run. Short term the club will lose a lot of income - sure, but try multiply 42 by £1.2m and you may find there's room for quite a heavy short term loss if the club end up owning the stadium they play in.
Not wishing to be dismissive Godiva, but the latter part of the post appears to be almost hoping with fingers crossed that Sisu's massive high risk gamble will pay off; and what about the impact on the fan base - there may not be enough there in the long run.
when did sisu attempt to negotiate? i must have popped out to the loo when that happened.
the club isn't paying peanuts, its making catostrophic losses at sixfields. by that example we are being ripped off more by NTFC than we were by ACL, rent to turn over at the ricoh is by far the better prospect even if £ 1.2M a year was the best offer on the table, which, as you know isn't the case.
the club will end up owning its own stadium? are you sure? you know this how? is it from the detailed statement from sisu outlining what the arrangements of any sisu stadium will be to the club? no, because no such statement exist.
Are we to believe that sisu are so inept that they are not capable of working this out in the 12+ months they've been going on about it.
you and others are championing sisu ownership of a stadium with no idea of what it actually means for the club, you are either doing this with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed. unless you're just plain stupid.
How?
So ok, apart from the £1.3m rent (because this payment has nothing to do with that according to you..), the £10k per match match day costs (we were paying them), the F&B's (they were still getting that as we were still playing there), the stand sponsorship, etc (which they would have still been getting because we were still playing there) are you suggesting that rather than the lack of rent being paid by the club that ACL lossed another £500k earnings from the club which is not at all connected to the non payment of rent?
So in affect then ACL were gaining around:
£1.3m
~£250k matchday costs
£1.1m F&B's
£500k 'extra earnings' (this is what you're suggesting ACL claimed from McGinnity and Robinson)
Plus stadium & stand sponsorship
So £3.1m+ income per annum All on behalf or off the back of the club?
Or is it more likely that this £500k (£300k after negotiation) relates to the unpaid rent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'd say it relates to lost revenue like it says in the article.
Is rent not a revenue stream for ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Only if it's being paid.
So when it's not being paid, it could be classed as a "loss in revenue" and in all probability the same "loss in revenue" that McGinnity and Robinson were made to pay whilst sisu were withholding rent causing a"loss in revenue"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Hey, fair play to Bennett's Afro. The bloke in the canteen did have some inside info - I take it all back!
In fairness I'm not sure think this relates to the £590k - ACL have lost revenue of 40+ years with the breaking of the lease.
And with that, I'm off. I sense it's going to get lively hereabouts, and I've still got a ton of work to finish.
I suggest you go back and re-read my original post as I'm bored of winding you up know.
A quick recap. One is a contract between 2men and a management company. The other is a contract between a company that makes up part of a football team and and the football league. One does not relate to the other because both are being paid by different entities and one being paid doesn't cancel or discount payment of the other. The fact that both payments are destined to the same recipient is neither here or there.
Ha ha ha the two contracts are intrinsically linked because Robinson and McGinnity were guarantors for if the club did not pay the rent. Default on 1 contract, means acting on another.
Are you sure you're not employed by ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So in affect then ACL were gaining around:
£1.3m
~£250k matchday costs
£1.1m F&B's
£500k 'extra earnings' (this is what you're suggesting ACL claimed from McGinnity and Robinson)
Plus stadium & stand sponsorship
Otium defaulting on the payment they agreed to make to ACL on condition of receiving the golden share from the FL has nothing to do with MM & GR having to pay ACL £300K between them.
Quick someone tell SISU, they wouldnt have known this when entering into a contract with them when they took over CCFC.
The club should have some of this, but the way SISU went about it means we prob never will !
No you are right. Given that the deadline for that payment is tomorrow I imagine ACL wouldn't have already claimed it from MM & GR.
However prior to the rejection of the CVA and Otium, CCFC weren't paying rent, some of this was paid by the escrow account and obviously a portion of the remainder was claimed back from MM and GR. Or are you suggesting that MM & GR paid for no reason connected to CCFC just that ACL were a bit skint and fancied a bit more money?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'm struggling to see what your getting at. Are you saying that what ACL are doing isn't within the confines of the law?
I'm struggling to see what your getting at. Are you saying that what ACL are doing isn't within the confines of the law?
As I read it, the money was compensation for "loss of earnings" not for rent. Though I've only been half paying attention.
We have MM, GR & BR to thank for that too. If anything why didn't they put a release clause in?
maybe, just maybe, that like those who gave up their shares, they thought SISU would be good for the club ?
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?