No I meant sisu sign to come back to the Ricoh, and then ACL say ****off we're not signing the CVA. Problem is PWKH was on the radio last week saying that Higgs want to refuse the CVA because they want the investigation, so from sisu's pov ACL's default is reject the CVA.
I wouldn't say ACL have bent over backwards, they have offered a sensible and attractive rental deal that's all.
Stu, where do you get this idea that Sisu have any intention of coming back to the Ricoh from?
I've had a look at some of the recent quotes from Fisher and co in print and the best I kind find is this briefing to the Telegraph which is not attributed to a named individual:
Sources told the Telegraph Sisu/Otium, headed by Joy Seppala and whose club directors are Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch, will not consider any Ricoh negotiations unless the CVA is signed.
That only says they will consider Ricoh negotiations, not what kind of negotiations. Even if their consideration came down in favour of negotiation, for all we know their interpretation of Ricoh negotiations might mean: "We'll only play at the Ricoh if you give us ownership of the ground lock, stock and barrel."
I also looked at this statement on the club website:
Joy Seppala would of course be delighted to meet with Ann Lucas. Indeed, Joy and the directors of the football club were disappointed that neither Ann nor her deputy attended the important meeting with her last week - and instead left it to directors of ACL who admitted that they did not have the authority to take some of the key decisions needed to bring about a resolution.
What does "the key decisions needed to bring about a resolution" mean? You and I might think it means doing a deal to play at the Ricoh, Sisu might think it means sign the CVA so we can get on with moving to Northampton. Of course, they might not mean that, but the phrase is so vague it is open to all sorts of interpretation.
So what about the most recent words from Tim Fisher?
"They've run us up against a cliff edge of liquidation and they've moved to tip us over," Fisher said. "All I can say is that it is the biggest crying shame."How can a public body not accept a complete CVA where they will get the money that they are owed, instead of a liquidation where they will get a fraction of that, potentially one-sixtieth of what they would have got?
"This isn't a financial situation of our making; there is no financial gain. Actually there is economic and financial wreckage at the club. I'm not sure we could have done anything differently."
"An unreserved apology to the fans that we've had to go down this route," he said. "We think it's regrettable and the off-field has completely overshadowed the on-field, now we need to redress the balance. The economic damage incurred to this club is huge."
Nope, I'm not seeing any desire to return to the Ricoh there.
What about the long interview Tim Fisher gave to the Telegraph earlier this month?
“We accept the uncertainty surrounding the creditors meeting and its outcome,” said Fisher. “We fully understand – as do the unsecured creditors ACL and Higgs – both that a CVA gives a route to creditors to get paid but that liquidation of Football Club Ltd will lead to little or no cash return for the creditors but can lead to sporting sanctions such as penalty points deduction.
“We cannot second guess what the council and Higgs Charity will decide to do at the creditors meeting. However, be clear their decision will impact the playing side of the club.
“We are working with the Football League to agree a policy on players out and in, while staying within the Financial Fair Play rules.
“We do not underestimate the unhappiness of the fans and of course we are very respectful of their feelings. Neither should our determination to succeed be underestimated. This is a position none of us wanted to be in but we have had to move to secure the future of the club.
“We are working now to make keep the cost of following the club to Sixfields as low as possible because there are fans who want to come to matches. We hope, in time, more will follow but our planning and budgeting facilitates a competitive team on the pitch.
“The team will get 60p for every pound of relevant income.
“We have invested heavily off the pitch to ensure that we have a platform for success this season. For example, all the training pitches have been upgraded to the highest specification.
"The strength and conditioning facilities have been expanded and we are currently searching for a new head of recruitment plus a further £500,000 commitment to our recently secured Category 2 status Academy.”
Fisher maintains that Sisu had no choice but to quit the Ricoh Arena and build their own stadium and despite the revelation that their groundshare agreement with Northampton Town could extend to five years he expects to be re-homed in three.
“Our consultants have advised us that, all being well, a stadium can be built in less than three years,” he said. “The further two years simply reflects a contingency in the event of project slippage – to be clear, our objective is to return to the Coventry area as soon as possible to our own stadium.
“We were forced out of the Ricoh Arena. It is not our plan to force a sale of the Ricoh Arena – either in part or in whole. By their own admission, the council and Higgs have a stadium operating model which has failed. A club cannot be decoupled from stadium revenues.
“As a club, we wanted to access to matchday revenues but now, with plans to build our stadium, it opens up even more opportunities around sponsorship and non-matchday revenues –all of which will have a positive impact on what we can do on the pitch. Assertions that we are distressing or attempting to distress ACL are nonsense.”
Fisher also refuted suggestions that Sisu have been showing signs of triumphalism in recent statements.
“We are in a sombre mood,” he said. “How can anyone possibly be happy in this situation?
“There are no winners in this – be clear, the financial cost and economic damage to the club has been huge.
“We moved to protect the club and sought and received the full support of the Football League. The club comes first.
“We don’t feel like we’ve won but the prospect of not fulfilling our fixtures would have had massive implications on the club so we had to act.
“I don’t underestimate how unhappy the fans are at the ground-share idea but we will try to develop packages that are very compelling from a price point of view.
“Of course it’s a commercial risk, but the risk of staying at the Ricoh without any access to long-term revenue streams would be far greater.”
Now, yes, here Mr Fisher does set out what he says the club wanted - access to long term revenue streams. But notice he used the word
wanted, not
want. If he was hoping a deal could be done to bring the club back wouldn't he have said "want"? The rest of the sentence I have highlighted just goes on to show that they think, for whatever reason, they have found a better way forward, which suggests they don't plan to return to negotiation.
This was just a quick run through of some recent statements in print. Maybe I have missed something on the radio or a statement elsewhere - if so I'd be delighted to see it or hear it.
