lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Thought Larry Grayson was back for a minute..
I've never licked you so much in one thread, Godiva. Sorry, liked. Slip of the tongue...
"The savings suggested by Deloitte are indicative and illustrate scope to achieve savings to produce a sustainable business going forward."
Here's another myth busted by the council QC.
We have constantly been told how profitable and successful ACL are. That they were never in any danger.
Council QC reading from a report on possible cost savings (and with the premises that the club paid rent and drafted in punters to the Arena):
So he give evidence that ACL were failing and even with the club playing (and paying) it still needed substantial cost savings to secure the business going forward.
I think that now the club is gone, the revenue is down more than the cost savings (including £800.000 less loan payment) can counter.
Then there's the rebate issue - this could mean paying some £300.000 back to the council.
Add a lot of legal costs.
OSB may know differently, but I think it's not unthinkable that ACL could be out of cash sooner rather than later.
There's also stuff which questions the loan repayments and whether they are sustainable. ACL are described as a drowning man who's head pops up above water every now and then.
Oh, mentioning the rates issue crosswired a few neurons in my brain (yes, I have neurons - plural!).
Didn't I read somewhere in day 1 transcript that the loan was made £14.4m (not £14m) to include the issue of the rebates?
If that's the case - it was a known issue back in 2012 and not a complete surprise to ACL/CCC in 2014!
Oh, mentioning the rates issue crosswired a few neurons in my brain (yes, I have neurons - plural!).
Didn't I read somewhere in day 1 transcript that the loan was made £14.4m (not £14m) to include the issue of the rates?
If that's the case - it was a known issue back in 2012 and not a complete surprise to ACL/CCC in 2014!
The rates rebate was known ages ago yes years ago for sure. The rebate was always coming.
What was meant to happen was the rate rebate was to be offset against the rent that sisu weren't paying. That was the problem. Sisu "unlawfully" judges word he used, didn't pay the rent so the rates rebate couldn't be set against it. Hence ACL paying 399k on jan 30th 2014 and receiving nothing back.
Where is this 590k btw?
Wow, you're well informed! Do you have a link to that?
I know I miss a lot, so please excuse my ignorance.
The rates rebate was known ages ago yes years ago for sure. The rebate was always coming.
What was meant to happen was the rate rebate was to be offset against the rent that sisu weren't paying. That was the problem. Sisu "unlawfully" judges word he used, didn't pay the rent so the rates rebate couldn't be set against it. Hence ACL paying 399k on jan 30th 2014 and receiving nothing back.
Where is this 590k btw?
If that is the rebate I think it was confirmed it was paid in January.
Oh - was the rate rebate paid to Otium by ACL? I didn't know.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-council-pays-six-figure-sum-7140178
The rates rebate was known ages ago yes years ago for sure. The rebate was always coming.
What was meant to happen was the rate rebate was to be offset against the rent that sisu weren't paying. That was the problem. Sisu "unlawfully" judges word he used, didn't pay the rent so the rates rebate couldn't be set against it. Hence ACL paying 399k on jan 30th 2014 and receiving nothing back.
Where is this 590k btw?
There's also stuff which questions the loan repayments and whether they are sustainable. ACL are described as a drowning man who's head pops up above water every now and then.
The rebate was business rates rebate from the last 3 years. Ccfc wanted it to go back longer but 3 years is the cut off point.
Joy said herself the rebate was to be set off against the outstanding rent that was to be paid leaving an amount due. If memory serves me she said the rent arrears were 600k that ccfc owed but they were entitled to a rates rebate of 400k so left 200k balance to pay.
From what I read in CET.
Regardless, whilst pulling apart the case and trying to get to the bottom of it all is quite good sport, I'm a bit more interested in how we move forward. All of the other arguments relate to the past, and are mostly done to death - imho.
Yeah it may take me that long at this rate given the fact that I have to go back to work tomorrow and the interruptions todaySee you back on Friday then.
Don't worry, we won't go away.
And more importantly - the parties need to actually agree what went on for them to build a new common ground.
I would like to agree, but I can't.
We need to deal with all the myths and the spin and the PR we have been the target of before we can move on.
And more importantly - the parties need to actually agree what went on for them to build a new common ground.
I would like to agree, but I can't.
We need to deal with all the myths and the spin and the PR we have been the target of before we can move on.
And more importantly - the parties need to actually agree what went on for them to build a new common ground.
And the £10,000 per match was not an interim rent agreement; it was simply the minimum sum that ACL required the claimants pay in order to open the stadium on match days, failing which ACL would not have opened the stadium at all.
I am still reading - now day 3.
I come across references to the 10K per match that the club paid during the rent strike.
Originally I thought it was an agreed match day fee set by sisu in the roadmap, but was corrected during the Higgs trial that ACL never agreed to an interim payment and that it was removed from the roadmap and subsequently the HoT with ACL.
Now I find my self reading the council QC:
So it wasn't a suggestion from TF - it was a demand from ACL as otherwise the club wouldn't have been allowed to play.
Maybe it's old material known to most, but to me it was first time I saw it in writing and even admitted by ACL themselves.
Tell me again - who was playing hard ball?
Look everybody knows that it was only sisu that moved us out, ACL never kicked us out, etc,etc.
I think you'll find the new catchphrase is "let's not dwell on the past" - I wonder why.
It'd be a good deal for the taxpayer, wouldn't it...
It is really hard for the council to offer the charity anything like the SISU price when any independent valuation is likely to show ACL as having nil or negative value at present while the loan remains.
Apparently not...
Look everybody knows that it was only sisu that moved us out, ACL never kicked us out, etc,etc.
I think you'll find the new catchphrase is "let's not dwell on the past" - I wonder why.
But the only way out is by not dwelling on the past..otherwise it's another bitter Middle East or Northern Ireland conflict.
Too much raking the ashes, too many what if scenarios, too many trying to pick the pockets of the dead.
Failed deals, past valuations...they don't mean jot!
I am still reading - now day 3.
I come across references to the 10K per match that the club paid during the rent strike.
Originally I thought it was an agreed match day fee set by sisu in the roadmap, but was corrected during the Higgs trial that ACL never agreed to an interim payment and that it was removed from the roadmap and subsequently the HoT with ACL.
Now I find my self reading the council QC:
So it wasn't a suggestion from TF - it was a demand from ACL as otherwise the club wouldn't have been allowed to play.
Maybe it's old material known to most, but to me it was first time I saw it in writing and even admitted by ACL themselves.
Tell me again - who was playing hard ball?
I am still reading - now day 3.
I come across references to the 10K per match that the club paid during the rent strike.
Originally I thought it was an agreed match day fee set by sisu in the roadmap, but was corrected during the Higgs trial that ACL never agreed to an interim payment and that it was removed from the roadmap and subsequently the HoT with ACL.
Now I find my self reading the council QC:
So it wasn't a suggestion from TF - it was a demand from ACL as otherwise the club wouldn't have been allowed to play.
Maybe it's old material known to most, but to me it was first time I saw it in writing and even admitted by ACL themselves.
Tell me again - who was playing hard ball?
Really? Refusing to be out of pocket is now "hardball"?
The rhetoric gets more ridiculous as we go on.
From reading what you have put on this thread you would think that all comments in the court were very good for SISU and ACL/CCC are to blame for everything. You haven't posted one single point that went against SISU if not pointed out to you. Anyone could do the same the other way round but why add to the shitfest?
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?