Take The Offer Or Face The Legal Consequences. - Carter (1 Viewer)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

ACL Chairman issues ultimatium
Arena Coventry Limited Chairman Nicholas Carter has told the Coventry Telegraph that all negotiations are at an end unless Coventry City accept their final offer to solve the Ricoh Rent row.
Speaking to the Coventry Telegraph, Mr Carter said: "The board of ACL made a fair, reasonable and generous best and final offer to Coventry City Football Club.
All negotiations are now at an end unless the offer is accepted by CCFC.
“The situation is quite simple. CCFC owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect. Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC has made none.
“CCFC’s owners can now either take the offer which is on the table or face the legal consequences. "It is entirely their decision.”


Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/02/26/92746-32882712/#ixzz2M06PwaYZ

Ironically, it's the 'poor old council' and 'poor old charity' that are bullying the club to accept a rent agreement that they neither should or want to accept.

 

---

[ccfcway]

and when they dont accept the offer, ACL will then consider their position and the revloving door starts again

 

[dadgad]

SISU should meet their obligations.
This is the law......after which they may have clawed back a bit of credibility and trust.......though I doubt it.

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Well whats the offer, as it didnt seem clear when explained by the club.....

Also does this only mean the rent, or does it involve the revenue streams?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Lmfao...Probably one of the "Biggest Bully's" in the financial world, finally getting bullied?
ACL have been bullied for 12 months. Now the mouse has turned, and suddenly ACL are the bad guys?
SISU say they can build a new stadium for £30m....Buy the Ricoh and be done with it ffs!

 

[OyJimmy]

I don't think ACL will back down, what makes anyone think they would?

 

[dongonzalos]

Is this getting discussed anywhere else?

 

[Warwickhunt]

09:00 My 2nd they all walk into court SISU will give them a cheque and the Magistrate will close down the order, more sabre rattling very little progress, we ground share with birmingham next season. ACL cannot find a tenant for the RICOH, sponsers not forthcoming because of no football team,ACL goes tits up, what a wonderfull story we could weave! lets turn it into a best seller of a book as it will be filed under fiction because i am bolloxed if i can diffrentiate reality with fiction over all of this damn affair:facepalm:

By the way Mr Council thank you for cutting the budget by £29 million so that my rates are not increased - why did you not utilise the £14 million that you used to prop up ACL and we would'nt need to cut so deep on the services:facepalm:

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Ironically, it's the 'poor old council' and 'poor old charity' that are bullying the club to accept a rent agreement that they neither should or want to accept.

Bullying? For God's sake, forgive me the hyperbole. They obtained a legal order before Christmas that they've sat back on in order to try and negotiate a solution. SISU's reneging the latest round of agreed negotiations is what's bought this about.

Do you know, ACL and/or the council have run rings around SISU on this one. Makes me laugh how people talk in terms of a council and it's ineptitude and inefficiencies not being able to handle something lie the Arena, as they've taken a Mayfair-based hedge-fund and it's dandies and dealt with their unlawful and morally-bereft stance quite perfectly

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

By the way Mr Council thank you for cutting the budget by £29 million so that my rates are not increased - why did you not utilise the £14 million that you used to prop up ACL and we would'nt need to cut so deep on the services:facepalm:

Because they're not allowed to by law. That a good enough solution for you?

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Is this getting discussed anywhere else?

:claping hands:

 

[Danceswithhorses]

why did you not utilise the £14 million that you used to prop up ACL and we would'nt need to cut so deep on the services:facepalm:

That £14m the council used to buy ACL's mortgage from Yorkshire Bank, effectively making them ACL's banker, will in the long term return more than the £14m invested...seems a reasonably sound investment as inspite of SISU's witholding of the rent, the arena is a profitable conference and concert venue.

 

[grego_gee]

I can see where all this is going.
Any rent deal has to be acceptable to a tenant or they simply won't go on paying.
If it was a fair deal both sides would be content and there would not be a problem.

ACL are backing CCFC into a corner. The only way out is winding up and starting again.Then ACL will have a different attitude if ever asked back to the table.

Your last dollar might be a good bet on SISU being best placed to bail CCFC out and start again. After all the council have already done that for ACL.

but then again they might not be asked back to the table, (I'm sure Rugby is in the Coventry conurbation.)

When it's empty, maybe the council could move their offices into the "Ricoh" to make some use of it at least. (Sorry I think they'd loose the naming royalties - lets call it the "ECHO"!

imp:

 

[CJparker]

ACL Chairman issues ultimatium
Arena Coventry Limited Chairman Nicholas Carter has told the Coventry Telegraph that all negotiations are at an end unless Coventry City accept their final offer to solve the Ricoh Rent row.
Speaking to the Coventry Telegraph, Mr Carter said: "The board of ACL made a fair, reasonable and generous best and final offer to Coventry City Football Club.
All negotiations are now at an end unless the offer is accepted by CCFC.
“The situation is quite simple. CCFC owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect. Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC has made none.
“CCFC’s owners can now either take the offer which is on the table or face the legal consequences. "It is entirely their decision.”


Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2013/02/26/92746-32882712/#ixzz2M06PwaYZ

Ironically, it's the 'poor old council' and 'poor old charity' that are bullying the club to accept a rent agreement that they neither should or want to accept.

Sorry SBT that is a bullshit response to a very reasonable position of ACL - they just can't allow SISU to not pay indefinitely, they have to bring this to a head. The law is entirely on ACL's side, SISU are in the wrong. End of.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I can see where all this is going.Any rent deal has to be acceptable to a tenant or they simply won't go on paying

A tenant should not sign up to a rent they cannot afford; as to simply stop paying is to break the law

 

[grego_gee]

I can see where all this is going.Any rent deal has to be acceptable to a tenant or they simply won't go on paying

A tenant should not sign up to a rent they cannot afford; as to simply stop paying is to break the law

Naughty tenant!...
the law does not stop them doing it!

imp:

 

[dadgad]

The bottom line is SISU will have to meet their legal obligation.
Carrying on as they have done - any excuse to delay paying their debts and painting ACL as "not caring for the club" etc. - is pathetic.:jerkit:
Doubly pathetic when clearly it is Sisu who do not care for the club as the last six years aptly demonstrate.
Vile people crying foul at every opportunity. Makes my heart bleed. :jerkit:

 

[chiefdave]

A tenant should not sign up to a rent they cannot afford; as to simply stop paying is to break the law

SISU didn't agree the rent and it seems that when the rent was agreed there were people on the board of both CCFC and ACL, surely a conflict of interest?

Now of course you can say SISU should have addressed this when they took over but Ray Ranson was running things then and SISU have said that with hindsight it would have been done sooner so what are the options for SISU? If they keep paying what they state is and unsustainable rent and it ends up putting the admin / liquidation people would be going mad saying why didn't the do something about it! You can say they aren't going the right way about it but I don't think you can really say it's an issue that doesn't need addressing.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I've believed for some time SISU are trying to kill ACL, not ACL are posturing to put the boot in on CCFC, it looks like it is a death match.

Is there any equation that allows ACL & CCFC as seperate entities to both be run at better than break-even and prosper?
Is there any equation that allows ACL & CCFC as one entity to be run at better than break-even and prosper?

If there is no solution to either above the future is very uncertain, how on earth could it work?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

SISU didn't agree the rent and it seems that when the rent was agreed there were people on the board of both CCFC and ACL, surely a conflict of interest

As you elude to in your second point, in completing due diligence, SISU take responsibility for all of the obligations of the business they purchased; and as such they did agree the rent

 

[chiefdave]

As you elude to in your second point, in completing due diligence, SISU take responsibility for all of the obligations of the business they purchased; and as such they did agree the rent

But they didn't make the original agreement is what I was getting at. Plenty of businesses need to renegotiate terms at some point and in the case of most other businesses if you couldn't afford your premises you would move, but this contract with ACL doesn’t' allow that as it seems to run for so long with no get out clause

So yes you could say they agreed to it and should stick to it but what happens when they say they won't cover the losses anymore, there's no one waiting in the wings to take over. Should they just pay it blindly even if it’s sending the company bust? If the worst was to happen and CCFC did go bust would people be happy saying “well at least they paid the rent they agreed"

 

[grego_gee]

Bullying? For God's sake, forgive me the hyperbole. They obtained a legal order before Christmas that they've sat back on in order to try and negotiate a solution. SISU's reneging the latest round of agreed negotiations is what's bought this about.

Do you know, ACL and/or the council have run rings around SISU on this one. Makes me laugh how people talk in terms of a council and it's ineptitude and inefficiencies not being able to handle something lie the Arena, as they've taken a Mayfair-based hedge-fund and it's dandies and dealt with their unlawful and morally-bereft stance quite perfectly

imp:
You left a k out of like
It looks like a lie now!...
You have a very biased view!
imp:

 

[dadgad]

But they didn't make the original agreement is what I was getting at. Plenty of businesses need to renegotiate terms at some point and in the case of most other businesses if you couldn't afford your premises you would move, but this contract with ACL doesn’t' allow that as it seems to run for so long with no get out clause

So yes you could say they agreed to it and should stick to it but what happens when they say they won't cover the losses anymore, there's no one waiting in the wings to take over. Should they just pay it blindly even if it’s sending the company bust? If the worst was to happen and CCFC did go bust would people be happy saying “well at least they paid the rent they agreed"

Bollocks. Utter Bullshit.
I'd be saying something along the lines of if they'd got one of King, Westwood, King, etc. on a decent contract we could have paid the rent for five years.
Just saying like.
I mean run the fucking football club properly - don't fight petty slanging matches in the press about pints, pies and who said what when.......unless of course your real plan is to actually run the club down into the ground. :facepalm::facepalm:

 

[Sick Boy]

Bollocks. Utter Bullshit.
I'd be saying something along the lines of if they'd got one of King, Westwood, King, etc. on a decent contract we could have paid the rent for five years.
Just saying like.
I mean run the fecking football club properly - don't fight petty slanging matches in the press about pints, pies and who said what when.......unless of course your real plan is to actually run the club down into the ground. :facepalm::facepalm:

It is a bit difficult when players refuse to sign contracts though, isn't it? Our moralist supporters were up in arms about Pompey, yet they seem to have expected our club to do exactly the same.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So yes you could say they agreed to it and should stick to it but what happens when they say they won't cover the losses anymore, there's no one waiting in the wings to take over. Should they just pay it blindly even if it’s sending the company bust? If the worst was to happen and CCFC did go bust would people be happy saying “well at least they paid the rent they agreed"

The rent isn't the issue. Let me give you an example.

Whatever you think of the rent level; put it aside for one moment. The agreement with ACL meant that - in broad terms - of every matchday ticket, £2 went to cover rent, and £13 (with the average ticket being just over £15) going to SISU/the club. SISU didn't have to worry about so many of the issues that distract a business; just taking ticket sales, plus profit on player sales, TV revenue, shirt sponsorship and steams such as the club shop to build a business case around.

It's pretty simple stuff - match expenditure against income. How, therefore, in their latest set of accounts, have they lost £6m+ in one year; with losses according to Fisher in excess of £40m since they took over?

Giving shares for free were meant to make us a success. Next came a rent reduction. Now matchday income streams that have never been on the cards.

The only constant being that SISU simply haven't been able to show they can run a football club

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

ChiefDave says.....But they didn't make the original agreement is what I was getting at. Plenty of businesses need to renegotiate terms at some point and in the case of most other businesses if you couldn't afford your premises you would move.


SISU didn't give a shit for 5 years. Suddenly we're relegated(Through lack of financial backing in the team) (Quick to sell, but slow as fook to buy)
They reneged on buying a half share in the stadium, when taking charge...Why? They continued to lie to all and sundry ever since.
Imho opinion, SISU were looking for a quick turnover, with immediate promotion to the Premier league..It bit them on the arse. Little or no investment since, see's us where we are now(L1)

 

[dadgad]

It is a bit difficult when players refuse to sign contracts though, isn't it? Our moralist supporters were up in arms about Pompey, yet they seem to have expected our club to do exactly the same.

It's only one example though.....how about the disclosed fee for Ben Turner? Nothing like his true worth.....a fee approaching his market value and he's about to become a PS player and we're left discussing F&B.
Anybody with any honesty must see that this and countless other similar decisions are why Sisu are selling us short, lying, etc.

 

[torchomatic]

How do you know what Turner's fee was? How do you know we got "nothing like his worth"? As you said, like 99% of fees, it was undisclosed.

Funny it's always SISU lying or being greedy. Never the players or the managers who decide to go.

It's only one example though.....how about the disclosed fee for Ben Turner? Nothing like his true worth.....a fee approaching his market value and he's about to become a PS player and we're left discussing F&B.
Anybody with any honesty must see that this and countless other similar decisions are why Sisu are selling us short, lying, etc.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ Torchy.....

WRONG again, Turner's transfer fee WAS DISCLOSED at £750k.......Well short of his(Grendelesque...Estimated fee) in the region of £3-3.5m.
Unless...that is...SISU were lying again!

 

[chiefdave]

The agreement with ACL meant that - in broad terms - of every matchday ticket, £2 went to cover rent, and £13 (with the average ticket being just over £15) going to SISU/the club. SISU didn't have to worry about so many of the issues that distract a business; just taking ticket sales, plus profit on player sales, TV revenue, shirt sponsorship and steams such as the club shop to build a business case around.

It's pretty simple stuff - match expenditure against income. How, therefore, in their latest set of accounts, have they lost £6m+ in one year; with losses according to Fisher in excess of £40m since they took over?

Giving shares for free were meant to make us a success. Next came a rent reduction. Now matchday income streams that have never been on the cards.

The only constant being that SISU simply haven't been able to show they can run a football club

So whats the answer. Either SISU are taking money out of the company in some form, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that, or the loss is genuine. If the loss is genuine where can they make £6m in savings? I can't see much inroad by making changes to the business operation or cutting back on office staff so you would have to cut the playing budget. By the looks of things you would need to cut that to zero and still be losing money!

Would be interesting to see what FL clubs are breaking even and how they are doing it as on the face of it there doesn't appear to pay a way to make CCFC a sustainable business. This has been my concern for a while that we've got so focussed on SISU, and to a lesser extent the rent row, that we're missing the bigger problem. Looks to me like any owner would face a huge task to make the club break even.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So whats the answer. Either SISU are taking money out of the company in some form, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that, or the loss is genuine. If the loss is genuine where can they make £6m in savings? I can't see much inroad by making changes to the business operation or cutting back on office staff so you would have to cut the playing budget. By the looks of things you would need to cut that to zero and still be losing money!

Would be interesting to see what FL clubs are breaking even and how they are doing it as on the face of it there doesn't appear to pay a way to make CCFC a sustainable business. This has been my concern for a while that we've got so focussed on SISU, and to a lesser extent the rent row, that we're missing the bigger problem. Looks to me like any owner would face a huge task to make the club break even.

That's my point. If the loss is genuine, given they had a 'debt free' start in 2007 and simply had to match expenditure against income; how can they get it so badly wrong? And what confidence - therefore - can you glean that they are fit to run our football club?

 

[torchomatic]

No, it wasn't disclosed, it was "reported" to be that amount. It was NOT disclosed. Still, you never let simple things like facts get in the way.

@ Torchy.....

WRONG again, Turner's transfer fee WAS DISCLOSED at £750k.......Well short of his(Grendelesque...Estimated fee) in the region of £3-3.5m.
Unless...that is...SISU were lying again!

 

[craigus12]

hardly any transfers get the fee disclosed, especially lower leagues where transfer budgets are so tight - if a team x knows we sold player y for 6m and we want to sign player z from team x, they'd bump up the price as they know that we have 6m in our kitty to spend. also, quite a lot of signings are down to clauses nowadays too.

 

[chiefdave]

That's my point. If the loss is genuine, given they had a 'debt free' start in 2007 and simply had to match expenditure against income; how can they get it so badly wrong? And what confidence - therefore - can you glean that they are fit to run our football club?

SISU are far from my first choice to own and operate the club but as noone is coming in to takeover what can we do?

If there was a clear way for CCFC to run at break even then probably the best bet would be to force CCFC into admin and have ACL takeover the club. That would be the only way, barring SISU buying the ground, that we will end up owning the ground. Clearly the council / Higgs aren't going to takeover the club if it's going to end up costing millions so we seem to be in a situation where we're hoping SISU will stick around until someone else is prepared to come in and lose millions.

Does anyone have a clear plan on how the club can be moved to a break even situation as without that, even if we do get taken over at some point, we'll have the same problem again a few years down the line. Seems we're just papering over the cracks and living year to year hoping for the best.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

SISU are far from my first choice to own and operate the club but as noone is coming in to takeover what can we do?

If there was a clear way for CCFC to run at break even then probably the best bet would be to force CCFC into admin and have ACL takeover the club. That would be the only way, barring SISU buying the ground, that we will end up owning the ground. Clearly the council / Higgs aren't going to takeover the club if it's going to end up costing millions so we seem to be in a situation where we're hoping SISU will stick around until someone else is prepared to come in and lose millions.

Does anyone have a clear plan on how the club can be moved to a break even situation as without that, even if we do get taken over at some point, we'll have the same problem again a few years down the line. Seems we're just papering over the cracks and living year to year hoping for the best.

Again, picking up on your last point I agree. When SISU arrived at the club, free shares were supposed to be enough. Next it's rent, then income streams. Whatever next?

We seem to be lurching from one disaster to another; but from the word go, from completing due diligence to current behaviour - and huge year-on-year losses en route - SISU haven't evidenced, for me, one single piece of accumen that proves they are capable of running our football club.

To come to your first point; most clubs entering administration come out the other side better off. However, due to the structure of our club now; administration is unlikely and liquidation the probable outcome.

So, is that the choice? To give-in to SISU's every demand, of you, I and our city's resources as they've pushed our football club to the edge of an abyss?