What happened to Haskell? (7 Viewers)

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
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 :)

Good idea Nick.

May I suggest the venue for such an image as "The Bullshitters Saloon"

Other drinkers to include Fisher, Byng, Dihnsa, Hoffman, Ranson, Richardson, McGin&T, Hoover, Elliot....

.....Barman serving them all....Richard Keys
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
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.

I cannot agree or disagree on this. I honestly don't know or have enough reliable facts to hand Grendel. But have you scrutinised SISU's accounts equally? Why couldn't they publish accounts on time. Why did the clubs debt double in the space of a week during administration? Also nothing to do directly with our club, but why were they fined for tax evasion?

They just don't breed confidence do they? I accept neither do Byng or Haskell! But their whole business strategy seems bonkers. Their PR is farcical.

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?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Going to Sixfields to support Coventry City isn't "buying" into anything. It's simply supporting your team.

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?
 
Last edited:

Noggin

New Member
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Going to Sixfields to support Coventry City isn't "buying" into anyway. It's simply supporting your team.

Well there are arguments on either side about going or not going can be seen as supporting your team Torch.

But if someone has bought into them as owners why wouldn't they go?
 

Moff

Well-Known Member
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:
 

Noggin

New Member
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
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
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 enjoy Grendel posts especially on ex players history. On the ACL/SISU debate a little entrenched at times but not alone.

I think what winds some posters up is he is deliberately confrontational and also delights in shunting some threads off topic. He knows it too.

He is not the only one either.
 

Moff

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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.

They were paid the full one years rent owed - you know it and I know it. You also know the club had to scrap its rebate claim for £400,000 as part of this process leasing to fishers £10,000 a point quote. The additional year is an irrelevance to the amount owed. You also know that the rejection (in stark contrast to Higgs) was done for no financial reason whatsoever.

The difference between you and me is I couldn't give a flying fuck about ACL. The charity or the council its very very clear the likes of you, duffer and MMM clearly operate with another agenda in mind.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call you a liar.

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
 

Noggin

New Member
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.

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.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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"

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.
 
Last edited:

Hobo

Well-Known Member
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?
 

mark82

Super Moderator
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!
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Tax evasion is a strong accusation. Hope you have proof for your sake!

They were fined mate a few years ago. Nothing to do with our club but it is open knowledge.
 

The Gentleman

Well-Known Member
"A Share in something is better than a share in nothing"

Hope that clears it up for you.

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?
 

mark82

Super Moderator
They were fined mate a few years ago. Nothing to do with our club but it is open knowledge.

Fair enough, wasn't aware of that. Not a surprise really. A lot of companies seem to be into tax "avoidance" these days.
 

Matty_CCFC

New Member
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)

Probably got a legal letter from SISU to piss off or they will take every penny he has.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member

mark82

Super Moderator
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?

Depends if that is a reasonable figure to balance the books I guess.
 

Noggin

New Member
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.

you mean you have disagreed with my facts that I backed up, by saying they are wrong with no evidence. The Paul Appleton report to creditors offers acl 553k which he states is 25.95% in the pound of compensation for the lease+what is left over in debt for not paying rent once you take off the escrow money.

If you want to suggest Paul Appleton is a liar. well lets say I certainly won't be jumping to his defence.

Not sure what you mean by your second sentence, I haven't commented on why acl rejected the cva so im not sure what you think I'm pretending about. I do think the 10 point deduction is completely sisus fault and that is the case however legitimate or not acls reasons are for rejecting the cva, the fact we got to the point of a cva was completely sisus fault and thus even if acl were just being spiteful it would still be completely sisu to blame.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
even if acl were just being spiteful it would still be completely sisu to blame.

I think that says it all - thanks.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
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.

Love it how Sisu sit back and let others fight their corner :thinking about:
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Nick

Administrator
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.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Moff

Well-Known Member
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.

Your pomposity holds no bounds.

I am not wrong for defending Grendel as I can do what I want, regardless of what you write, or do I have to play by your rules? Oh and the Haskell post you responded to was an ironic piss take, but thanks for spending the time defending your upset honour.
 
Last edited:

Hobo

Well-Known Member
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.

No it's not it is not like an individual tenant. You are running a business so fan base, customers, location, and footfall have to be taken into consideration.

If you are going to move, when, to where and how need consideration, you have to convince your customers to move with you, itis vital....this is where SISU have really messed up. Unless those people don't count in the long term and your actions are for the short term?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
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?

But they have looked at lowering other costs too like player salaries, bonus, player transfer fees, agents fees, as well as background functions.

As we haven't had a recent set of accounts we don't know whether management fees have also been cut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
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?

£400,000 a year? That is way to much IMO, the last deal on the table at £100,000 and access to revenues would be much more suitable.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
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?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Or landlord rents premises to Business A who want to buy some of the property but the landlord doesn't like them so decides go behind their back to sell part of the property to Business B instead. Business A aren't happy and it blows up big time.

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?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top