Maybe somebody with a bit more time could get a Where's Wally image and open photoshop. It could have all the usual faces on it
Fine, you win, you convinced me to go to the effort to prove you wrong.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-agrees-write-32m-debt-4872430
Arena Coventry Limited, as an non-connected unsecured creditor, would get 25.95p in the pound back on its debts if it agrees to the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposed by Mr Appleton.
That would see £553,261 returned to it.
That figure is made up of a percentage of the debt it is owed in unpaid Sky Blues rent; and another year’s rent effectively as compensation for the lease agreement being broken between ACL and the Sky Blues, which has around 40 years remaining on it.
so there you go, I was off by 0.95 of a percent it was 25.95% of the money they were owned and 25.95% of compensation for breaking the lease, you were simply wrong. you can consider me trolled, you can now disappear from the thread or try and deflect like you always do.
Wrong - the Erscow account accounted for a other £500,000 payment and even if you accept the argument about a years additional rent (and lets face it only an ACL troll would) there is the small matter of the club being owed £400,000 so as I say the debt balance was about right and only an ACL troll would believe otherwise.
Let's face it Grendel, being a long time loyal supporter since 1971? If you had really bought into them you would be at Sixfields every week, surely?
Wrong - the Erscow account accounted for a other £500,000 payment and even if you accept the argument about a years additional rent (and lets face it only an ACL troll would) there is the small matter of the club being owed £400,000 so as I say the debt balance was about right and only an ACL troll would believe otherwise.
Going to Sixfields to support Coventry City isn't "buying" into anyway. It's simply supporting your team.
Why is it that when Grendel disagrees with some people, they accuse him of being a troll.
Why cant he have a different opinion and why cant people just accept that. It seems some protest far too fervently just because he dares to offer an alternative view.
I do not believe for a minute Grendel is a troll, as having viewed his posts on various forums for years, he is just another Coventry fan like the rest of us, so perhaps people should cut the crap about the troll stuff, as its more than a little pathetic, or should we just have a forum where everybody thinks the same :facepalm:
Why is it that when Grendel disagrees with some people, they accuse him of being a troll.
Why cant he have a different opinion and why cant people just accept that. It seems some protest far too fervently just because he dares to offer an alternative view.
I do not believe for a minute Grendel is a troll, as having viewed his posts on various forums for years, he is just another Coventry fan like the rest of us, so perhaps people should cut the crap about the troll stuff, as its more than a little pathetic, or should we just have a forum where everybody thinks the same :facepalm:
I posted a fact (there is no opinion on this topic this is one with a factual answer) he called me a liar and a troll
lol more proof you are trolling, I've just provided a link to show you that you are wrong and you still won't have it.
The escrow has already been taken into account, ACL were getting 550k which means they were owed 2.2million ish , which is the money they were owed by sisu after taking off the escrow money + the costs that sisu had paid for, + 1 years rent in compensation.
You are just confused because 25% of what they were owed + 25% of a years rent in compensation is quite similar in number to 100% of what they were owed after the escrow money is deducted and without any compensation for the lease.
if someone were on acl's side they would be saying that 25% of 1 years rent in compensation for the breaking of a 40 year lease is an absolute pitance and acl were very hard done too, but not sure what you mean about only an acl troll would belive it, thats from Paul Appletons report.
I posted a fact (there is no opinion on this topic this is one with a factual answer) he called me a liar and a troll
What there is no opinion on this subject and you know for a fact where Haskell is? Where is it then? I hope its factual
If you didn't answer that question, I would suggest you are wrong, there is lots of opinion on this topic, you know the one called 'What happened to Haskell' as we wonder where he may be.
I posted a fact (there is no opinion on this topic this is one with a factual answer) he called me a liar and a troll
I have disputed your "facts"
I would be interested on you thoughts around the questions I posted?
Non publication of accounts
Having a history of tax evasion
Their business strategy
Their Approach to PR
The validity of building a new stadium
The availability of suitable sites which give viable revenue streams
Or do you feel they are building on another front and they have a sting in their tail?
Tax evasion is a strong accusation. Hope you have proof for your sake!
"A Share in something is better than a share in nothing"
Hope that clears it up for you.
They were fined mate a few years ago. Nothing to do with our club but it is open knowledge.
Just been thinking the last I heard of this guy he was trying to buy half the ground, then it never happened and it all went very quiet ! Did anyone ever hear anything after that! What could have been if Appleton chose him !! (Clown)
Fair enough, wasn't aware of that. Not a surprise really. A lot of companies seem to be into tax "avoidance" these days.
So if you agree with that philosophy then you would be ok with a rental agreement with access to revenues, say a 400k a year deal with access to revenues? otherwise why would you say it?
I have disputed your "facts"
The reality is the club owed back rent of £1.1 million the combination of Ercrow and creditor offer paid this debt. The subsequent year lease is irrelevant as the revised reduced offer had already been made and is offset by the unclaimed rent rebate.
I repeat - as you seem a bit hard of hearing - this rejection had nothing today with the money offered - so stop pretending it does.
even if acl were just being spiteful it would still be completely sisu to blame.
I have disputed your "facts"
The reality is the club owed back rent of £1.1 million the combination of Ercrow and creditor offer paid this debt. The subsequent year lease is irrelevant as the revised reduced offer had already been made and is offset by the unclaimed rent rebate.
I repeat - as you seem a bit hard of hearing - this rejection had nothing today with the money offered - so stop pretending it does.
Depends if that is a reasonable figure to balance the books I guess.
If you want to balance the books you can't look solely at the rent. You've got to look at all of the other things - player salaries, payments to other debtors, management charges, stuff like that.
As has been pointed out more than a few times, the rent was a relatively small part of the club's overheads. Given the way the club was being run, no amount of rent could ever have brought the club to break even.
Put it another way. If you gamble most of your wages away at the casino, and then tell your landlord that you can't afford the rent and he needs to bring it to down so that you can continue gambling, what response would you expect?
It isn't really like a house situation, if I was paying shed loads more than the market value I would ask him if I could have a lower rent the same as the average if he said no I would move to somewhere I could afford.
you know full well what is meant, He said ACL have been paid in full, I said they were offered 25% of what they were owed + 25% of a years rent, he said I was wrong, I was lying and making stuff up, I provided proof, he called me a liar and a troll. I didn't realise the only thing that could be considered a fact in a thread was if it was a specific answer to the title of the thread, what sort of bizarre logic is that? There is plenty of opinion in this thread, I've never suggested otherwise, there is no opinion involved in what the offer to acl was from the administrator, that is a subject with a right and a wrong answer, something that is a fact which I provided the correct answer to with proof and was called a liar and a troll. Then you criticised people beating up on poor old grendel.
So no I'm not wrong, you are wrong in defending him and yes he is a troll, that doesn't mean he doesn't care about ccfc or that some of his posts aren't good, but he does post to deliberately cause grief and to wind people up even to the point of saying things he clearly doesnt think which is exactly what trolling is.
as for the topic title, I think the most likely answer is that all the talk of him buying the ricoh after he had failed in his bid to buy the club was just paper talk, it doesn't make sence to buy the ricoh after failing to get the club.
I know. Why do people consistently use domestic landlords and houses as a comparison? Apples and oranges anyone?
It isn't really like a house situation, if I was paying shed loads more than the market value I would ask him if I could have a lower rent the same as the average if he said no I would move to somewhere I could afford.
If you want to balance the books you can't look solely at the rent. You've got to look at all of the other things - player salaries, payments to other debtors, management charges, stuff like that.
As has been pointed out more than a few times, the rent was a relatively small part of the club's overheads. Given the way the club was being run, no amount of rent could ever have brought the club to break even.
Put it another way. If you gamble most of your wages away at the casino, and then tell your landlord that you can't afford the rent and he needs to bring it to down so that you can continue gambling, what response would you expect?
So if you agree with that philosophy then you would be ok with a rental agreement with access to revenues, say a 400k a year deal with access to revenues? otherwise why would you say it?
It isn't really like a house situation, if I was paying shed loads more than the market value I would ask him if I could have a lower rent the same as the average if he said no I would move to somewhere I could afford.
Instead of house think more like a shop. Shop A has 15K customers a week spending £15 each and you have an offer to rent that for £150K a year. Shop B has 2K customers a week spending £10 each but they each buy a £3 pie that you get 50p profit from. Which shop would be better off with?
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?