Rent Money owed to ACL rumour (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bennets Afro
- Start date
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
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.
No one likes Sisu.
No one likes Robinson or McGuinity.
All three of them deserve to get their arses kicked.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
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
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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
Dunno then. Maybe it was foreseen at the time that the only reason the club wouldn't pay rent would be some kind of cataclysmic event.
I suppose it's a bit like taking out insurance.
why only £300k? Bit of a strange figure.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
But some LOVE AC fucking L.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
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?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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
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.
Also: hypocrisy alert: are ACL now being accused of simultaneously bullshitting about being not too out of pocket and being too much out of pocket?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
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
Nothing to have stopped former chairmen Laurel and Hardy from announcing it was there?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
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.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Although Tony is adamant the payment had nothing to do with ccfc's non-payment of rent. The payments are intrinsically linked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
But no one loves sisu?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Despite what Grendel says no one loves ACL.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Without sidetracking the conversation, you could say exactly the same about the CVA rejection. No one benefitted from it, so why do it??
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Under normal circumstances I would be CCFC all the way. Its Sisus tactics that has so many, including me against them.
If two years ago they had publically come out and asked for help off ACL, Higgs, and CCC, and not gone on a rent strike, then I would have supported them 100%.
As it is they took up a confrontational manner, and acted as though they had a god given right to things they (CCFC) sold the rights to a long time ago. Its for this reason that I couldn't support their actions.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Michael Appleton.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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
Not quite true. I said it wasn't connected to the money SISU have agreed to pay ACL as a condition of receiving the golden share from the FL. You assumed I said that there was no link between the MM & GR payment to ACL and the non payment of rent and I continued to let you think that while winding you up.
Sorry for winding you up, it was childish but it was also a slow day at work.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Why do people to feel the need to keep trying to make it out like it is some battleground between CCFC and ACL. Common sense should prevail then neither would go bust. I don't like seeing anything go bump and why people feel the need to keep trying to highlight that CCFC fans would rather see ACL prosper rather than CCFC is just plain ridiculous. We are all CCFC and would love to see us playing at the Ricoh, whether that was under ACL or Sisu/Otium then right now I wouldn't give a shit. To me this sort of talk is divisive too.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
CCFC went bust last summer. No-one really noticed.
If you mean the club going out of existence, I'll happily wager you that there is not one person on this forum who holds that view.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think I said that too in the same reply, pointing out that that's what administrator's do so that's a given. But who else benefited?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That's what I was thinking.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
not long till we see if this was a sensible decision !
No future with SISU
New Member
Who were the creditors, "YES IT WAS A SISU COMPANY". As you can see it is the big letters as you seem to have a problem reading the facts.
No future with SISU
New Member
The club is with out a home, how is that a benefit. The smart company would have got a new rent deal.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Sorry grendull. You are right on this occasion. The request to re run came after the leaked documents came out which was after the rejection of the CVA. My bad, I got my time frame mixed up.
No future with SISU
New Member
£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.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
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
Last edited:
No future with SISU
New Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes you did. The theory behind the land purchase is the same as that of the Ricoh - namely it becomes self funding by the sale of part of it as real estate to create shopping outlets.
Did your "invester" friend (is that rhyming slang for Leicester?) have to pass a series of fitness tests with all major finance houses before you spoke to him Mr Billy Bullshit?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
They have already said some of the finance will be equity. So let's say a third is equity
So £20m over 40 years at 10% is £81.8m
But you can also get say £1.5m income per annum at least by F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc. so that's £60m. So that's net of £21.8m
Or
£1.3m x 40 years with no addition income from F&B's, stand sponsorship, etc = £52m.
Again I'm not advocating a new stadium but it isn't as simple as rent vs mortgage costs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors