lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That's the argument that could win the JR for Sisu right there.
Because SISU had stopped paying rent, the terms of the YB loan had technically been broken. They didn't want to 'pull their loan in' - they wanted it restructured @ £15.5m.
You would have thought that it was the opposite of killing the Sisu state aid claim "stone dead" really.
That's the argument that could win the JR for Sisu right there.
I feel that the way the judge reads this very point is the crux of the JR ruling.
or ccc. You could argue it opened the doors for other lenders to come in. Possible sisu's tactic thinking that ARVO would be the only option, not expecting YB to be interested in restructuring and CCC to make their own arrangement.That's the argument that could win the JR for Sisu right there.
or ccc. You could argue it opened the doors for other lenders to come in. Possible sisu's tactic thinking that ARVO would be the only option, not expecting YB to be interested in restructuring and CCC to make their own arrangement.
I'd have thought it would be looked at that if there were commercial lenders willing to lend at commercial rates then there should have been no requirement for CCC to make a loan to ACL, unless of course it was at a "non-commercial" rate, which could then be classed as State Aid I'd have thought.
Bizarrely I think that if no commercial lender would have touched ACL with a bargepole then CCC would have had a more legitimate reason for loaning the money to ACL.
The other consideration is if SUSU acted illegally (broke contracts) aggressively tried to distress ACL and as a result CCC took the best option to protect their investment?
Then SISU try to hijack legislation for their own ends, when it is them that has tried to distort the market.
I think this is one of many options under consideration by the JR judge.
If YB, and possibly others if they'd bothered to shop around, were willing to lend ACL the money on new terms during the time that there was a rent dispute with the club and ACL had already initiated court action to recover the debt, then the argument that CCC had to lend the money to ACL is a non-starter.
Also with turnover reportedly doubling in the absence of rent, and indeed the club, then ACL cannot be said to be distressed in the slightest.
But SISU acting illegally by breaching a contract to try and distress them remains. Their claim they were forced to vacate the Ricoh is equally unsound, also are they still trying to hijack legislation when it was them that initiated the distortion of the market?
ACL are clear in their belief it does not constitute state aid. There are arguments for and against this. More importantly it is a test case as no clear stated cases exist. I think this is a key point with SISU's track record of chancing their arm in the court arena. They know it is worth a punt and I would agree, even if I don't agree with their stance or case.
The other consideration is if SUSU acted illegally (broke contracts) aggressively tried to distress ACL and as a result CCC took the best option to protect their investment?
Then SISU try to hijack legislation for their own ends, when it is them that has tried to distort the market.
I think this is one of many options under consideration by the JR judge.
Have to hope we don't get any breakdowns during the game so I can watch it.
If YB, and possibly others if they'd bothered to shop around, were willing to lend ACL the money on new terms during the time that there was a rent dispute with the club and ACL had already initiated court action to recover the debt, then the argument that CCC had to lend the money to ACL is a non-starter.
Also with turnover reportedly doubling in the absence of rent, and indeed the club, then ACL cannot be said to be distressed in the slightest.
As you know turnover don't mean profit. A few posters on here were in their element when they saw that during the Olympics the turnover went up but the profit didn't.
And you also say that ACL are not in a distressed state at all. This is maybe only because of the debt being restructured. And it was certainly the intent of SISU for them to end up in a distressed state. That is why we are playing in Northampton. But of course they wouldn't tell us that. They just put the blame on ACL/CCC. They may not have been paying the rent but they were not kicked out of the Ricoh. They just said all trust was gone. I suppose this was true, but the trust was lost a lot more from the side of ACL/CCC.
profit was down because your beloved Shitzu failed to live up to their contractual agreements.% of profit against turnover is a key measure of any business success in a normal industry. Why out of interest was the profit margin in the Olympic year less? What are you suggesting there.
profit was down because your beloved Shitzu failed to live up to their contractual agreements.
profit was down because your beloved Shitzu failed to live up to their contractual agreements.
That's a false statement isn't it?
Why is it a false statement?
% of profit against turnover is a key measure of any business success in a normal industry. Why out of interest was the profit margin in the Olympic year less? What are you suggesting there.
Having a part in the Olympics is all about kudos. Even the athletes taking part don't do it for the money, although winning an event is good for getting sponsorship. It put the Ricoh and Coventry in the spotlight.
Wow.......Shitzu did actually pay SOME rent!!!!!Because that year ACL received the rental money.
Wow.......Shitzu did actually pay SOME rent!!!!!
So what are the details of the arrangement then? As ACL I assume had the turnover paid to them what did they then pay back to the Olympic Committee. It seems odd they get the turnover anyway and don't just rent the premises for a fixed fee as they do for concerts. So out if interest what's the arrangement?
I like the way that you constantly go on about the Olympics at the Ricoh but then admit that you don't have a clue how well or bad they did out of it
It is a good job that you don't try and find fault with everything that SISU do like you do with ACL / CCC otherwise you would never have any time to sleep.
I like the way that you constantly go on about the Olympics at the Ricoh but then admit that you don't have a clue how well or bad they did out of it
It is a good job that you don't try and find fault with everything that SISU do like you do with ACL / CCC otherwise you would never have any time to sleep.
To be fair he knows that profits were down on doubled turnover so ACL probably didn't do that well out of it.
Sorry? You raised the issue of the Olympics not me and stated it had a lower profit ratio. As usual you just made up a comment with no clue as to its validity.
Astute fact number 568.
If all this is true, and ACL makes more money outside of the football revenue why has there not been a rent deal at levels that suits the club?
Bottom line, right now nobody is winning. ACL isn't going to get an anchor tenant that will justify a massive renewal from Ricoh, the council are losing out from loss of business revenues from the surrounding areas, the fans are losing out, the club is losing out, sisu are losing out...
If ACL is profitable without the stadium, then sell that part of the lease back to the council to reduce the mortgage, and then CCC has a lease they can sell the club. Yes the club cannot easily access catering revenues but these things are not unworkable... revenue the club brings is shared etc whatever.
It's just too depressing... come on England!
I do find it odd that we were only renting the place for at most 30 days a year and yet we were the anchor tenant. Is this awarded on space rented, profile of the tenant, length of lease? I suppose we were also renting the 'dingey' offices as well but even then we would hardly be using as much space as say the hotel per year. I'm guessing length of lease.
If ACL is worth net 6m now (20m Gross, less mortgage), and worth 19m with the club (33m, less mortgage).. you could argue that CCC (or ACL) should be paying the club to play at the Ricoh, or be given a stake in ACL to return. Access to revenue streams shouldn't even be a discussion it's just obvious.
There is no other anchor tenant that can add value to the company... just a shame all the parties involved can't do business with each other
You would have thought that a hedge fund full of intellectual financial whizzes would have thought of this already and used this to convince its paying customers to get on board with them. Unfortunately we got purchased by 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?