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.
- North Stand
Words cannot describe ..........
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 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?
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.
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.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?
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?
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.
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.
- North Stand
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.
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?
The club have already received the original rebate.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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?