Don't really see what the issue is here.
No one likes Sisu.
No one likes Robinson or McGuinity.
All three of them deserve to get their arses kicked.
From the CT article:
Two former Sky Blues chairmen have been forced to pay out a total of £300,000 to the Ricoh Arena’s operators after the football club stopped paying its rent.
Arena Coventry Limited has called in £150,000 each from Geoffrey Robinson MP and Mike McGinnity after the two agreed to act as guarantors for the club following the move to the Ricoh Arena in 2005.
The original agreement saw the pair agree to guarantee a combined £500,000 if the club failed to fulfil its financial obligations to ACL.
Financial obligations = paying rent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Don't really see what the issue is here.
No one likes Sisu.
No one likes Robinson or McGuinity.
All three of them deserve to get their arses kicked.
Everything sisu have done is within the confines of the law and yet strangely their behaviour upsets people on here far more than good old ACL.
For me it's more the fact ACL have kept it quiet and the link between that the CVA and the settlement from CVA. It seems to me that it suits ACL to hide it as it makes them look more out of pocket than they were. Smoke and mirrors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
For me it's more the fact ACL have kept it quiet and the link between that the CVA and the settlement from CVA. It seems to me that it suits ACL to hide it as it makes them look more out of pocket than they were. Smoke and mirrors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Because strangely Sisus behaviour hasn't been in the best interests of their subsidiary CCFC.
ACL can argue that their actions are in the best interests of their company. You might not like that but surely you understand it?
What have ACL publicised?
They weren't owed money from CCFC because they were a bit skint, they owed it because of a contract. How well off they were is irrelevant.
But some LOVE AC fucking L.
It makes sense what you say, but then you just get the impression that people are more happy that ACL's actions protect their private company , at the detriment of CCFC.
Despite what Grendel says no one loves ACL.
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've made the second point somewhere today, may even have been in this thread. In regards to that the administration didn't benefit ACL because one way or the other, it didn't benefit the club because we're in as much debt as we were before. So the question is who did it benefit? Someone benefited otherwise there was no point in doing it.
If it came down to either CCFC or ACL going bust... See ya ACL. I'm sure it's the same for you too, but I don't believe everyone feels the same.
I've made the second point somewhere today, may even have been in this thread. In regards to that the administration didn't benefit ACL because one way or the other, it didn't benefit the club because we're in as much debt as we were before. So the question is who did it benefit? Someone benefited otherwise there was no point in doing it.
No not at all. Tony said there was no link to the non payment of rent. Regardless of the wording there clearly is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
If it came down to either CCFC or ACL going bust... See ya ACL. I'm sure it's the same for you too, but I don't believe everyone feels the same.
If it came down to either CCFC or ACL going bust... See ya ACL. I'm sure it's the same for you too, but I don't believe everyone feels the same.
Without sidetracking the conversation, you could say exactly the same about the CVA rejection. No one benefitted from it, so why do it??
Okay I'm curious as to why MM & GR didn't publicise this when they made the payment, and why they were still guarantors under Sisu. I'm not expecting anyone on here to know by the way.
Michael Appleton.
prob embarrased
Well, if you believe the ACL line it was floored meaning that the bidding process was floored meaning that they stood to gain nothing other than what they were going to get anyway. From that point of view it meant that they wanted the administration process re running so it wasn't floored meaning that the other parties bidding may have been willing to pay more meaning ACL stood to recover more money than they would have from the original CVA. In other words it would have been in their interest to accept the new CVA.
Would this have been the case? Who knows. We'll never know as it wasn't re run.
It is hard to say that the administration wasn't floored though, with the leaked documents of player's contracts that Appleton never found and that he never found the golden share and in the end the FL had to declare that it was in Ltd.
What are you on about? The CVA process gave them £590,000 - rejectimg it effectively at that time gave them zilch.
Its known the rejection of the CVA was because the club refused to accept two conditions imposed on them. Its pretty much accepted they are agreeing a rental deal and dropping the JR.
Seriously the amount of bullshit on here and denial is hilarious.
The club was issued with the order by ACL and Guilfoyle was lined up as administrator. The only reason the club was put in administration by its creditors was to ensure they got Appleton.
Denial is tiresome and pointless.
Yes - the club benefitted by being released from the 42yr lease. A quite heavy burden - 42 times £1.2m.
What are you on about? The CVA process gave them £590,000 - rejectimg it effectively at that time gave them zilch.
Its known the rejection of the CVA was because the club refused to accept two conditions imposed on them. Its pretty much accepted they are agreeing a rental deal and dropping the JR.
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.
£30m for a new stadium (15,000 seat) 10% interest each year over 42 years =£126m interest and CCFS still owe £30m on a stadium will need a major upgrade then. Rent deal £1.2m over 42 years =£52.4m in a 34,000 seat stadium and ACL will have to pay for the upgrade.Rent is a better deal.
1) how do you know it will be 10% interest and how do you know they would pay it over 42 years?
2) at least they would own an asset on paper
3) at least they would get additional income from owning their own stadium as opposed to rending for £1.3m and getting FA.
Btw I'm not advocating building a stadium but plucking imaginary figures in the air proves nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I spoke to a invester last week who said that to protect the value of your money, as inflation is between 2% and 3% you need a return of 5% to 6% just to protect the value of it. As they would then need a profit I added on 4%. They are charging CCFC 13% on a loan at this moment in time. So 10% seemed a low figure.As you can see I did not pluck an imaginary figure out of the air.
I spoke to a invester last week who said that to protect the value of your money, as inflation is between 2% and 3% you need a return of 5% to 6% just to protect the value of it. As they would then need a profit I added on 4%. They are charging CCFC 13% on a loan at this moment in time. So 10% seemed a low figure.As you can see I did not pluck an imaginary figure out of the air.
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?