Why the 14million 'loan; is an illegal measure (1 Viewer)

paulw · Jun 10, 2014

The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 10, 2014

How would a loan from the council to the football club's landlord, 'bully' the tenants owners into administration? I don't follow you

letsallsingtogether · Jun 10, 2014

So am I missing something when have CCC ever been load on this and when have they said they hoped that Sisu would fail therefore ccfc folding?

Or is this someething you think (hope) they have said?

paulw said:
The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

letsallsingtogether · Jun 10, 2014

Because it fits their purpose.

So hoping by not paying your bills you break a company is OK but by loaning your own Company money to survive is not OK?

Some real strange laws / people out there

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
How would a loan from the council to the football club's landlord, 'bully' the tenants owners into administration? I don't follow you

paulw · Jun 10, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
How would a loan from the council to the football club's landlord, 'bully' the tenants owners into administration? I don't follow you

They, CCC, are so un-professional it is almost a foregone conclusion.

They first said SISU owe them £1million but that changed week by week so how much do they actually owe?
Then, ACL charge next to nothing to CCFC ladies team, or free for other matches. So how much does it 'actually' cost to rent the Ricoh?
On more than one occasion CCC stated they would 'never' work or sell the Ricoh to SISU. What right do council employee have to say this? The council runs for the people NOT private individuals.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 10, 2014

paulw said:
They, CCC, are so un-professional it is almost a foregone conclusion.

They first said SISU owe them £1million but that changed week by week so how much do they actually owe?
Then, ACL charge next to nothing to CCFC ladies team, or free for other matches. So how much does it 'actually' cost to rent the Ricoh?
On more than one occasion CCC stated they would 'never' work or sell the Ricoh to SISU. What right do council employee have to say this? The council runs for the people NOT private individuals.

No. Sorry, you're avoiding my question. The football club is the tenent. ACL is the landlord. Whoever the landlord uses to finance his equity is irrelevent to the tenant, unless the change fundamentally changes the terms of their tenancy. Which didn't happen.

So, how can the landlord changing his lender have any baring on the daily business of the tenant; let alone encourage it toward administration?

Rusty Trombone · Jun 10, 2014

How were ACL failing? They have always made a profit haven't they? What evidence have you to suggest that there was no security (insurance as you term it)? How is it a hand out, are loan repayments not being made?

letsallsingtogether · Jun 11, 2014

So when I book a holiday at last minute.Com and get a better room then you at half the price is that un-professional. So what do a majority of council payers think of this situation well most don't give a fuck. In fact the survey shows a large majority agree with the council not to do deals with sisu. Funny that just like a majority of the fans they have alienated.

paulw said:
They, CCC, are so un-professional it is almost a foregone conclusion.

They first said SISU owe them £1million but that changed week by week so how much do they actually owe?
Then, ACL charge next to nothing to CCFC ladies team, or free for other matches. So how much does it 'actually' cost to rent the Ricoh?
On more than one occasion CCC stated they would 'never' work or sell the Ricoh to SISU. What right do council employee have to say this? The council runs for the people NOT private individuals.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
They first said SISU owe them £1million but that changed week by week so how much do they actually owe?

I can't believe I'm indulging this folly, but there was an on going contract with SISU seemingly refusing to pay. As such, in a 'rent strike' situation, isn't the amount owed going to grow, daily? As such, it is - by its very definition - going to change week by week. In fact, if the value owed hadn't changed as it accrued, you'd accuse 'CCC' (although it's ACL) of being unprofessional for not keeping updated with the size of the increasing debt, no?

No future with SISU · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

Are you a Judge out of work and know a bit about the law.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 11, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I can't believe I'm indulging this folly

tbf, it's the one question we will at least know the answer on soon enough, so indulging even more careless than usual!

paulw · Jun 11, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I can't believe I'm indulging this folly, but there was an on going contract with SISU seemingly refusing to pay. As such, in a 'rent strike' situation, isn't the amount owed going to grow, daily? As such, it is - by its very definition - going to change week by week. In fact, if the value owed hadn't changed as it accrued, you'd accuse 'CCC' (although it's ACL) of being unprofessional for not keeping updated with the size of the increasing debt, no?

Sorry MMM we have known each other for many years on other sites and threads. I am not proud but maybe under my old name I am accountable for SISU doing this. Unfortunately, I studied law for many years only to be humiliated at many points.
I don't look at this situation as me, I look at this situation through politician's eyes. CCC have funded ACL directly, at a given price even though they constantly change that amount.
If I'm a judge I'd seriously question ACLs ability to recoupe they loan. They have had tenants on the pitch, in the hotel and in other olaces but they have lost money. Why?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 11, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
tbf, it's the one question we will at least know the answer on soon enough, so indulging even more careless than usual!

I just never have understood this line if reasoning. I simply cannot see the link?!?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
Sorry MMM we have known each other for many years on other sites and threads. I am not proud but maybe under my old name I am accountable for SISU doing this. Unfortunately, I studied law for many years only to be humiliated at many points.
I don't look at this situation as me, I look at this situation through politician's eyes. CCC have funded ACL directly, at a given price even though they constantly change that amount.
If I'm a judge I'd seriously question ACLs ability to recoupe they loan. They have had tenants on the pitch, in the hotel and in other olaces but they have lost money. Why?

Neah. Sorry dear chap. Still can't see the forced administration connection. Maybe I'm too stupid?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 11, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I just never have understood this line if reasoning. I simply cannot see the link?!?

Eh?!?

We'll know soon enough if said loan complied with the rules and regulations, without even needing to bother concluding after day one of three thrilling days of CCFC website updates, babyfaced teens turning up at court, and blondes in dark glasses being castigated over their choice of magazines.

It's the one question we will know the answer to, if nothing else!

paulw · Jun 11, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Neah. Sorry dear chap. Still can't see the forced administration connection. Maybe I'm too stupid?

True, haha.

Present councillors have stated, as well as past, they wouldn't sell the Ricoh to SISU, is this an act the council should follow? Are they representing the people of Coventry or their own agenda?

MMM, ACL was on the point of going into administration and used the 'rent' issue with SISU as the reason for their plight. SISU have treated the fans with such contempt they can never mend the problems that now exist between owner and fans but that does not detract from the fact ACL & CCC acted in a 'forced out' manner towards our club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
True, haha.

Present councillors have stated, as well as past, they wouldn't sell the Ricoh to SISU, is this an act the council should follow? Are they representing the people of Coventry or their own agenda?

MMM, ACL was on the point of going into administration and used the 'rent' issue with SISU as the reason for their plight. SISU have treated the fans with such contempt they can never mend the problems that now exist between owner and fans but that does not detract from the fact ACL & CCC acted in a 'forced out' manner towards our club.

If they don't want to sell the freehold, it's up to them. My understanding is that CCC sees freeholds as central to their policies in areas of redevelopment. It wasn't on the cards or offered when SISU rolled into town, why should it be four years later? If the council dont want to sell, to SISU, Pope John Paul II or ET for that matter; it's not prejudicial. They just don't want to.

Anyway, I've feeling emotionally drained after a few malts. I shall bid you good evening and leave you with your thoughts

shmmeee · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
True, haha.

Present councillors have stated, as well as past, they wouldn't sell the Ricoh to SISU, is this an act the council should follow? Are they representing the people of Coventry or their own agenda?

Nice double bind you've got there? When did you sotp beating your wife?

If the council didn't think that selling to Sisu was in the best interests of the city, then they are representing the people of Coventry. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it illegal, that's not how representative democracy works. For all intents and purposes in a representative democracy, their agenda is your agenda. If you don't agree, and enough people are on your side, someone you do agree with gets elected. You may have an issue with the system, but it's the one we've got.

MMM, ACL was on the point of going into administration

Says you.

and used the 'rent' issue with SISU as the reason for their plight.

No need to quote marks, that line of argument has been dismissed by the judge.

SISU have treated the fans with such contempt they can never mend the problems that now exist between owner and fans but that does not detract from the fact ACL & CCC acted in a 'forced out' manner towards our club.

Who forced Sisu to not pay rent?

If this was all a great council ploy, why not just start paying the rent? Why not go pubilc about how you've been shafted?

Can you even explain what acting in a "forced out manner" means? Did they change the terms of rent? Did they refuse to discuss a cheaper deal? Did they kick the club out when they stopped paying? No on every count. So what exactly did they do?

bigfatronssba · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
They, CCC, are so un-professional it is almost a foregone conclusion.

They first said SISU owe them £1million but that changed week by week so how much do they actually owe?
Then, ACL charge next to nothing to CCFC ladies team, or free for other matches. So how much does it 'actually' cost to rent the Ricoh?
On more than one occasion CCC stated they would 'never' work or sell the Ricoh to SISU. What right do council employee have to say this? The council runs for the people NOT private individuals.

Erm the council have every right to say this. It is a democratic organisation that (in theory) reflects the views of the people of Coventry. If you or sisu have an issue with this then they need to put someone up for election (oh wait, they did).

Are you saying that if someone wants to buy a council property then the council has to accept the offer? Strange view of ownership you have.

Do you have a nice house? If so I might instruct you to sell it to me.

sky blue john · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
Sorry MMM we have known each other for many years on other sites and threads. I am not proud but maybe under my old name I am accountable for SISU doing this. Unfortunately, I studied law for many years only to be humiliated at many points.
I don't look at this situation as me, I look at this situation through politician's eyes. CCC have funded ACL directly, at a given price even though they constantly change that amount.
If I'm a judge I'd seriously question ACLs ability to recoupe they loan. They have had tenants on the pitch, in the hotel and in other olaces but they have lost money. Why?

You say Acl have lost money ?
The accounts up to now tell a different story.

Jack Griffin · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

There were no Councillors on the board of ACL*!
The company posted profits in every year of its existence. $
A commercial bank was prepared to loan a similar sum %

* There may however have been senior Council Officers.
$ Profitability in past years is no guarantee of profitability in future years.
% It has emerged Yorkshire Bank would have agreed to loan ACL £15.5m on the basis of restructuring the loan. (Simon Gilbert)

Hobo · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

Nice try but I think I will wait for the Judges interpretations on a complex piece of legislation.

tisza · Jun 11, 2014

Surely the key to this is has ACL made its loan payments since they received the new loan? If they have then the loan is sustainable etc.

shmmeee · Jun 11, 2014

tisza said:
Surely the key to this is has ACL made its loan payments since they received the new loan? If they have then the loan is sustainable etc.

But super business geniuses Sisu say they won't. And Sisu know more than everyone about running a company and that's why it's state aid because everyone knows Sisu do things better than others.

And if you think that's a silly argument, I'd agree with you, but it's basically the contents of their skeleton argument for the JR.

martcov · Jun 11, 2014

paulw said:
The council, who have(had) two recognised councillors on the board of ACL gave a loan of £14million to a company who were failing. They had no insurance to recoupe this loan and the way ACL was(is) being run only shows this 'loan' is in fact a 'hand out'. It may be assumed that ACL wanted this money for reasons outside of football but the timing was (is) unfortunate as it was at the same time that ACL was suing CCFC owners (SISU) for unpaid rent.
It matters not that ACL was needing this cash for funding of their long term future, it happened when they were trying to get funds that was owed to them.
If the court sees ACL were receiving these funds for future investment then they will have no problem. But if the court see these funds as being 'used' in an appropriate way of 'bullying' SISU into administration then they must (should) be held accountable.

Unfortunately CCC have been quite loud in their opposition to SISU so the judgement will probably favour SISU. They have said on more than one occasion they hope SISU fail and voiced their opposition on working with SISU. SISU could not return to the Ricoh because of this issue.

My heart and prayers are with my club CCFC I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but the outcome will favour SISU

Utter drivel.

Why the 14million 'loan; is an illegal measure (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency