SCG Minutes 29th May (1 Viewer)

[lewys33]

Minutes from SCG meeting can be found here:

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/scg_may_meeting_minutes_833793/index.shtml?

 

---

[lewys33]

• North Stand

This was raised at the last meeting by DD after season ticket holders had been told this stand would not be open next season. TS confirmed that after discussion with the club this decision has now been reversed. This was a triumph for the SCG.

Words cannot describe ..........

 

[lamtara2006]

• North Stand

This was raised at the last meeting by DD after season ticket holders had been told this stand would not be open next season. TS confirmed that after discussion with the club this decision has now been reversed. This was a triumph for the SCG.

Words cannot describe ..........

Next month, World Peace and curing all known diseases!

 

[ccfcway]

either side can appeal the JR ?

 

[Snozz_is_god]

"TF reiterated that a return to the Ricoh would be unlikely whatever the outcome of the JR given the situation with ACL’s intricate corporate set-up."

Are ACL based in the Cayman Islands then? .......Unbelievable.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Interested to read this section:

TF was asked about the business rates story which had appeared in the Coventry Telegraph. TF gave the background that back in 2012 they had reviewed all club business contracts, all invoices, and that they had found several issues and anomalies including council rates overcharging. TF said that Coventry City Council had finally refunded the £400k in business rates which the club had been overcharged over its last three years at the Ricoh. Initially the club was told it could only claim back for the last three years of council rates overcharging. However, after advice, the club has now applied for the refund for the overcharged balance due from the Council since the club moved to the Ricoh in 2005 and is vigorously pursuing monies owed to the club. TF said that in total the club has been overcharged rates by approximately £1m since 2005. Added to the £1.8m in overcharging across other ‘services’ at the Ricoh, then ACL had overcharged the Club to an amount of around £3m since 2005. TF is determined to recover from ACL and the Council all monies owed to the football club.

I would have thought that any such "overcharges" would have been from ACL to CCFC Ltd - which as we now know was the "property owning subsidiary". Given that CCFC Ltd is in administration and is, we understand, due to be liquidated, I'm not sure how the "overcharges" will be recovered.

 

[shmmeee]

Sounds like the post JR strategy is sorted then. Pursue the council for £3m.

This "sue someone every year" is at least more entertaining than the usual "sell someone every year" method of making ends meet.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

Interested to read this section:

TF was asked about the business rates story which had appeared in the Coventry Telegraph. TF gave the background that back in 2012 they had reviewed all club business contracts, all invoices, and that they had found several issues and anomalies including council rates overcharging. TF said that Coventry City Council had finally refunded the £400k in business rates which the club had been overcharged over its last three years at the Ricoh. Initially the club was told it could only claim back for the last three years of council rates overcharging. However, after advice, the club has now applied for the refund for the overcharged balance due from the Council since the club moved to the Ricoh in 2005 and is vigorously pursuing monies owed to the club. TF said that in total the club has been overcharged rates by approximately £1m since 2005. Added to the £1.8m in overcharging across other ‘services’ at the Ricoh, then ACL had overcharged the Club to an amount of around £3m since 2005. TF is determined to recover from ACL and the Council all monies owed to the football club.

I would have thought that any such "overcharges" would have been from ACL to CCFC Ltd - which as we now know was the "property owning subsidiary". Given that CCFC Ltd is in administration and is, we understand, due to be liquidated, I'm not sure how the "overcharges" will be recovered.

So who is holding up the admin....hmmm :thinking about:

 

[Ian1779]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

I think the question is what do you mean by "the club"?

If any money is due, I'd have thought it was due to CCFC Ltd, or perhaps CCFC Holdings Ltd.

I don't think that either of those are anything to do with SISU any more.

If that is correct then I can't see how SISU could sue anyone for money that they believe is due to a company that they used to own

 

[Snozz_is_god]

Sounds like the post JR strategy is sorted then. Pursue the council for £3m.

This "sue someone every year" is at least more entertaining than the usual "sell someone every year" method of making ends meet.

Trouble is SISU do both

 

[sky blue john]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

Can I be like the fans that go to sixfields on this one and say I don't care, just supporting the boys pusb !!!!

 

[Danceswithhorses]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

CovCC will not get any rebate.
The rate for the whole arena (set by the VOA) is unchanged-the appeal agreed that ccfc should only pay for the stadium part when used.
The remainder will fall on the leaseholder ie ACL.
The only correction therefore will be between ACL and SISU/Otium.
As duffer points out, should ccfc get the money for the period going back to 2005, if SISU/Otium have foolishly liquidated ccfc ltd?

 

[sky blue john]

CovCC will not get any rebate.
The rate for the whole arena (set by the VOA) is unchanged-the appeal agreed that ccfc should only pay for the stadium part when used.
The remainder will fall on the leaseholder ie ACL.
The only correction therefore will be between ACL and SISU/Otium.
As duffer points out, should ccfc get the money for the period going back to 2005, if SISU/Otium have foolishly liquidated ccfc ltd?

If CCFC ltd is not liquidated that would have implications regarding the lease ?

 

[Ian1779]

CovCC will not get any rebate.
The rate for the whole arena (set by the VOA) is unchanged-the appeal agreed that ccfc should only pay for the stadium part when used.
The remainder will fall on the leaseholder ie ACL.
The only correction therefore will be between ACL and SISU/Otium.
As duffer points out, should ccfc get the money for the period going back to 2005, if SISU/Otium have foolishly liquidated ccfc ltd?

So as someone has previously said - this could well be the reason that the liquidation hasn't occured.

Aside from that - if the club is owed the money, they should have it.. irrespective of who owns it. How anyone can make a case for the club not having it is beyond me.

 

[Monners]

I may well be a bit confused but: If CCFC Ltd isn't liquidated, then surely there is a legal obligation to publish accounts. Also, would the lease then NOT be broken.

 

[Ian1779]

I may well be a bit confused but: If CCFC Ltd isn't liquidated, then surely there is a legal obligation to publish accounts. Also, would the lease then NOT be broken.

I was under the impression the lease was broken with the admin. Didn't the club have to negotiate a deal for last 3 home games of that season?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

• North Stand

This was raised at the last meeting by DD after season ticket holders had been told this stand would not be open next season. TS confirmed that after discussion with the club this decision has now been reversed. This was a triumph for the SCG.

Words cannot describe ..........

"TF reiterated that a return to the Ricoh would be unlikely whatever the outcome of the JR given the situation with ACL’s intricate corporate set-up."

Are ACL based in the Cayman Islands then? .......Unbelievable.

How anyone can think the £3m would be seen by CCfc the club is beyond me. Fisher just piss off

 

[Monners]

I was under the impression the lease was broken with the admin. Didn't the club have to negotiate a deal for last 3 home games of that season?

You may well be right on that Ian in regard to the admin/lease. The accounts though would have to be published (I think).

 

[Danceswithhorses]

So as someone has previously said - this could well be the reason that the liquidation hasn't occured.

Aside from that - if the club is owed the money, they should have it.. irrespective of who owns it. How anyone can make a case for the club not having it is beyond me.

The club have already received the original rebate.
To try and claim further rebates for a company (ccfc ltd) you yourself put into admin/liquidation is plain stupid on SISU's part - you cant have it both ways.

 

[skybluetony176]

I was under the impression the lease was broken with the admin. Didn't the club have to negotiate a deal for last 3 home games of that season?

That cant be right Ian, the club cant negotiate with ACL. remember

 

[ccfcway]

Sounds like the post JR strategy is sorted then. Pursue the council for £3m.

This "sue someone every year" is at least more entertaining than the usual "sell someone every year" method of making ends meet.

we are doing that as well !, unless of course the Juke and Clarke money has been "reinvested" in the team !

 

[Astute]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

I have two questions.

1, There is time limits on tax rebates. They have been paid the amount in full. End of. What will they get from going for more? Just like if the tax man owes you money. You have no legal rights.

2, Overcharging on other amounts. This is an accusation from SISU. What is this all about? What will they get from it?


The answers are both the same. Our club will be stuck in Northampton whilst they just keep up with litigation. They are trying to bleed ACL dry with legal costs. They won't bring our club home whilst doing it. Are you happy for this constant litigation to try and get what they want instead of negotiating a return? This 590k needs paying otherwise the FL can put sanctions on our club. This is a decent size pot to go towards the ACL legal fees. So how much more debt will go onto our club whilst they keep up with what they are doing? But I suppose everything is OK as they make it sound that they are doing it for the benefit of our football club.

The only good point that I see coming from this is that it shows that they are more interested in litigation than bringing our club home so we know not to get our hopes up

 

[The Gentleman]

So the question is - if the club is legitimately owed the money, are SISU justified in trying to claim it back, or would people prefer ACL/CCC to have it because no one likes SISU?

But in the interests of balance because as you keep telling us that you hold all sides to account, your next post will be knocking Sisu/Otium (as they are now owners of us) for not paying back the money owed for the PSL seats?