Actually the choice was a lump sum 21m or an annual rent for use of the freehold i believe. Hard to argue that over 50 years of the lease that the citizens of Coventry have been overly rewarded.
Never said the citizens had been rewarded.
Just pointing out that people are being missled by this story.
We do not paid rent to the council.
The rent is up to date (ok the escrow isn't).
The council did not receive any money from last years £1.2m rent.
The coventry taxpayers have to date not been effected by the escrow account payments.
The taxpayers recieved £21m from ACL Ltd.
The taxpayers recieved all the money from the sale of land to tesco even when the deal was done by the club.
The arena has already been mortgaged - by ACL (council/higgs).
I wonder who the SISU rep will be...... Onye?
Strange that CCFC were not represented in court. What are these invoices (£607K) for? They can't be rent, because that's been paid from escrow, and the invoices can be paid 'when CCFC can', as opposed to the money owed to the escrow account which must be paid immediately. I'm confused.
CCFC weren't represented at Birmingham High Court.
Invoices totalling £607,000 are owed to ACL
The judge ordered CCFC to repay monies owed "when they can" and also ordered CCFC to top up the reserve account immediately.
Adjournment until another day.
No, technically the invoices have not been paid.
The escrow account is there to provide security against non paid invoices.
If ACL has taken the rent from escrow (thus making a top up necessary) and we pay the invoices, they will have had the rent twice.
If ACL has taken the rent from escrow (thus making a top up necessary) and we pay the invoices, they will have had the rent twice.
Well no, surely he'd say nothing at all?
I still don't get it. CCFC must top up the escrow to an agreed figure (£500K). The escrow does not hold £500K because ACL have been taking money out to cover the rent each month. So ACL have had their rent. Why do we need to pay it? By the way, I'm not arguing the case for Sisu, I really don't understand why ACL should get the rent twice - once from escrow and then again when the invoices are paid.
Strange that CCFC were not represented in court. What are these invoices (£607K) for? They can't be rent, because that's been paid from escrow, and the invoices can be paid 'when CCFC can', as opposed to the money owed to the escrow account which must be paid immediately. I'm confused.
To bring the case SBD they have to issue a writ based on the debt which is £607K the court would require specific amounts and proof. Yes part of that has been paid but from the Escrow account. The escrow account is not there for CCFC to use, and can only be used by ACL if CCFC defaults on the rent. The Escrow account is a contractual requirement to be held at £500k. It isnt a prepayment of rent just sitting there to be drawn it is a security against CCFC defaulting on the rent and must be at £500K.
The money from the escrow account runs alongside the debt owed from the rent. Legally you have to see it as two seperate items though. If the value of security is reduced (in this case the escrow acc) then ACL has the right under the contract to require the security to be rebuilt or even added to ........... this is a pretty standard clause in rent and loan agreements ..... if the security is not rebuilt then CCFC is in default of the agreement.
What it is not is paying rent twice ............ if the escrow is rebuilt to £500k then the monies already taken will be fully applied against the rent invoices. The whole idea is to protect the landlord from default by a major tenant ..... and topping up the escrow will restore status quo of deposit £500k and rent 100k pm
without seeing the judgement i cant be sure SBD but the sum owed is £607k which is much more than the escrow account. It could be that the "pay when you can" relates to the £107k left and ongoing rental payments, but that the escrow needs to be £500k at all times. No judge would order the invoices paid twice and you can rest assured TF & SISU wont be paying twice for certain ..... they hate paying most stuff once let alone twice
The club are 5 months in arrears. I'd imagine the judgement would be made against the rent owed rather than the requirement to top up the escrow account (once the club repays the rental debt ACL can reinstate the cash into the escrow themselves).
The club are 5 months in arrears. I'd imagine the judgement would be made against the rent owed rather than the requirement to top up the escrow account (once the club repays the rental debt ACL can reinstate the cash into the escrow themselves).
was somewhat surprised that the club wasn't represented in court. Seems a bit dismissive to me. It also points to their being nothing going on behind the scenes from CCFC in terms of the rent other than "we are not paying it". I wouldn't be hopeful of a deal being done by Friday or that the money will be paid
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?