Question for PWKH (2 Viewers)

[ajsccfc]

That balloon thing was so silly. Mildly unprofessional sure, but they're people rather than automaton negotiating machines, silly can be good.

People getting their nose bent out of shape properly is along the same lines as when someone makes a thread here about the kit or an old goal we scored and someone wades in with WHY U WAIST UR TIME TALKING ABOUT DIS WEN CLUB IS DYING

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The offer was made in ML's presence but the administrator made the decision that it was an illegal offer so couldn't be offered. Therefore it was not offered. Just because PWKH has carefully worded his statement to say that he offered it doesn't mean an acceptable offer was actually made. I think PWKH is taking advantage of a lot of people's inability to read between the lines. I realise that statement will have a load of people chomping at the bit because it sounds a bit superior but seriously, I deal with cleverly-worded communications on a daily basis. Why has Peter not answered the question I and others have posed several times now - was a legally acceptable offer of £150k rent pa ever made? Have a think.

For someone who purports to deal with cleverly worded or loaded quotes regularly; your use of the word 'illegal' with regards ACLs proposals is an exercise in misleading hypobole. Just because it sits outside the scope of the administrators scope doesn't make it by default 'illegal'.

If your milkman delivers your milk and yoghurt and you ask him to deliver steak and kidney pies, but he tells you he doesn't stock them; you haven't broken the law in asking, you know

 

[torchomatic]

I haven't seen a milkman in years.

For someone who purports to deal with cleverly worded or loaded quotes regularly; your use of the word 'illegal' with regards ACLs proposals is an exercise in misleading hypobole. Just because it sits outside the scope of the administrators scope doesn't make it by default 'illegal'.

If your milkman delivers your milk and yoghurt and you ask him to deliver steak and kidney pies, but he tells you he doesn't stock them; you haven't broken the law in asking, you know

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I haven't seen a milkman in years.

Maybe they're too busy litigating against those who request they deliver pastry-encased snacks?

 

[Grendel]

For someone who purports to deal with cleverly worded or loaded quotes regularly; your use of the word 'illegal' with regards ACLs proposals is an exercise in misleading hypobole. Just because it sits outside the scope of the administrators scope doesn't make it by default 'illegal'.

If your milkman delivers your milk and yoghurt and you ask him to deliver steak and kidney pies, but he tells you he doesn't stock them; you haven't broken the law in asking, you know

You'll be talking about thorn and his wobbly sausages again soon

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You'll be talking about thorn and his wobbly sausages again soon

Now; that man had the physique of a sausage aficionado!

 

[Grendel]

Absolutely spot on. If these people are so bloody neutral, where are their posts criticising SISU/Otium as much as they do ACL/CCC? Every so often you'll get a post from them "admitting" that SISU are "partly to blame", but that's purely part of their defence to carrying on being massively biased 99.9% of the rest of the time and bolster their claim to be even-handed when they clearly aren't.


I find some people's attitude to PWKH pretty sickening, too. I like him because:

1) He wants the best for CCFC and their supporters.
2) He comes on here and tells us things when he doesn't have to-unlike anyone else involved in this mess.
3) He is IMO genuine and honest. He's a normal human being: compare and contrast with that c**t Fisher!
4) I agree with him on almost everything he says.
5) Everyone who criticises him on here is generally someone who I totally disagree with on everything.
6) I thought the balloon incident was funny. Only surpassed in hilarity by the hilarious over-reaction to it by people on here...I can't believe anyone really thinks that was a serious occurrence!

Mindless nonsense - your consistent ill give you that.

Point 5 is interesting. We had similar heated disagreements on the idiot thorn - wrong then and wrong now - do you ever get anything right?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm sure Cardiff care a lot about being owned by obscure businessmen and being up to their eyes in debt when they've got top flight football. The only difference with us is that we're two leagues lower-in general football fans don't start caring about who runs their club until it starts going wrong.

True enough.

Few care when you're signing players, fewer ask how they'll be paid for either.

 

[The Reverend Skyblue]

I have read a few articles on the Cardiff situation and if/when the owner does get bored or decides to leave they really could be up the creek financially.
Mr Tan does seem to get very easily upset and always retaliates with "well i'll take my money elsewhere if that how they feel". I think he will go in the next couple of years in my opinion

 

[fernandopartridge]

For someone who purports to deal with cleverly worded or loaded quotes regularly; your use of the word 'illegal' with regards ACLs proposals is an exercise in misleading hypobole. Just because it sits outside the scope of the administrators scope doesn't make it by default 'illegal'.

If your milkman delivers your milk and yoghurt and you ask him to deliver steak and kidney pies, but he tells you he doesn't stock them; you haven't broken the law in asking, you know

I think that's more to do with the connotations that surround the word 'illegal' than it being wrong to use in this case. It makes it sound like a crime rather than something contrary to law. I'd say it was an unlawful offer.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I think that's more to do with the connotations that surround the word 'illegal' than it being wrong to use in this case. It makes it sound like a crime rather than something contrary to law. I'd say it was an unlawful offer.

I'd say you are fond of pedantry...

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'd say you are fond of pedantry...

Wouldn't say fond...

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

The offer was made in ML's presence but the administrator made the decision that it was an illegal offer so couldn't be offered. Therefore it was not offered. Just because PWKH has carefully worded his statement to say that he offered it doesn't mean an acceptable offer was actually made. I think PWKH is taking advantage of a lot of people's inability to read between the lines. I realise that statement will have a load of people chomping at the bit because it sounds a bit superior but seriously, I deal with cleverly-worded communications on a daily basis. Why has Peter not answered the question I and others have posed several times now - was a legally acceptable offer of £150k rent pa ever made? Have a think.

Whilst you're pondering on the techinicalities of legality- dont forget to also consider this-as read the only illeagal act(proven by law) in this whole sorry affair.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/judge-throws-out-sky-blues-5667471

Here's a flavour

"Mr Justice Males has made the reasons for his judgment very clear. We note, in particular, his reference to the withholding of lawfully owed rent by SISU as a means of exerting pressure on ACL in commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment in the High Court in ACL’s favour.”

Whilst on any morality high horse- just guard against that horse rearing up and throwing you off the back?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Doesn't that just prove his point that both 'sides' should be challenged?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Mindless nonsense - your consistent ill give you that.

Point 5 is interesting. We had similar heated disagreements on the idiot thorn - wrong then and wrong now - do you ever get anything right?

The usual personal insults, I see. I suppose that's par for the course with you. You really should be banned. If I'm mindless, you're the most undeservedly smug condescending arse that I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

I haven't seen a milkman in years.

Too busy making sure that their milk float doesn't go below a certain speed..

 

[Moff]

I had a season ticket every season since it opened dickhead.

Was it at the Boro.....twat

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Doesn't that just prove his point that both 'sides' should be challenged?

And yet some only challenge one side?

 

[skybluefred]

That's right and I don't blame her. I don't think (and this is my personal view) a council should have any involvement in a football club.

My personal view is that no hedge fund should have any involvement with a football club. All they do is take every penny possible for their investors and invest nothing in the football team.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And yet some only challenge one side?

They do indeed...

 

[torchomatic]

My personal view is that no hedge fund should have any involvement with a football club. All they do is take every penny possible for their investors and invest nothing in the football team.

And I'll say the same to you as I said to TT. What sort of owners DO you want?

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I think that's more to do with the connotations that surround the word 'illegal' than it being wrong to use in this case. It makes it sound like a crime rather than something contrary to law. I'd say it was an unlawful offer.

I'd say 'unlawful offer' was still a touch strong. Outside the scope of the administrators remit would do. I agree with you it's all very much semantics, with different views from different sides having different takes.

But for the unsavoury end of the semantic options - ie 'illegal' - to be chosen by someone who in the same posts cites a familiarity with those who choose words carefully is a bit ironic, eh?

 

[skybluefred]

That's not the same as demanding her price or no price. That could easily mean not fannying around and making sure the right people are there that can make decisions, instead of having to wait for people to go back and ask.

No individual on the City Council can make a decision, It's the whole Council or nothing. Therefore surely the meetings
should be held in the Council House in front of all elected Councillors.You cannot beat doing things correctly.
:blue:

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'd say 'unlawful offer' was still a touch strong. Outside the scope of the administrators remit would do.

How aboput "proposals that did not comply with the law"?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How aboput "proposals that did not comply with the law"?

They didn't comply with the insolvency act, which was the administrators remit, but they would comply with other contract law.

As such 'illegal' is way, way too strong, misleading and disingenuous

 

[James Smith]

And I'll say the same to you as I said to TT. What sort of owners DO you want?

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Ideally I'd like owners who can buy ACL and make us self sufficient through the Ricoh revenues so that we don't have to rely on their continued input of cash.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They didn't comply with the insolvency act, which was the administrators remit, but they would comply with other contract law.

As such 'illegal' is way, way too strong, misleading and disingenuous

How about "proposals that did not comply with the law"?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How about "proposals that did not comply with the law"?

I don't know whether you're being pedantic on purpose here; but again, from what I have heard the proposals did comply with all laws. Some of the elements of the proposals sat outside that which the administrator was charged with handling. As such they couldn't be dealt with under the auspices of insolvency law.

However, they would have complied with 'the law' and wouldn't have been 'illegal'

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't know whether you're being pedantic on purpose here; but again, from what I have heard the proposals did comply with all laws. Some of the elements of the proposals sat outside that which the administrator was charged with handling. As such they couldn't be dealt with under the auspices of insolvency law.

However, they would have complied with 'the law' and wouldn't have been 'illegal'

I'm just wondering if, when the administrator said the proposals did not comply with the law, you choose to call him a liar?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Actually, liar is a bit strong

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I'm just wondering if, when the administrator said the proposals did not comply with the law, you choose to call him a liar?

I'm sure that what he said was factually (if predantically) correct.

I'm equally sure that it would have been very simple to construct a "legal" way of reaching the same result using a conditional contract.

 

[TurkeyTrot]

Ideally I'd like owners who can buy ACL and make us self sufficient through the Ricoh revenues so that we don't have to rely on their continued input of cash.

I'd add to that owners that have the interests of the football club at heart and not just seeing it as a way of making money for its investors. One that listens to the fans and response accordingly. One who's head is not afraid to face the fans and not do it by proxy. A sensible owner who will make Coventry City a sustainable football club for the future fans.
Personally I think SISU have failed on all counts.

 

[skybluefred]

I have read a few articles on the Cardiff situation and if/when the owner does get bored or decides to leave they really could be up the creek financially.
Mr Tan does seem to get very easily upset and always retaliates with "well i'll take my money elsewhere if that how they feel". I think he will go in the next couple of years in my opinion

Wish I could say the same thing about sisu.
:blue:

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm sure that what he said was factually (if predantically) correct.

I'm equally sure that it would have been very simple to construct a "legal" way of reaching the same result using a conditional contract.

I would say it is as good an exemplar as anything of how both sides have chosen in the past to do their business in public, and be seemingly more concerned with public perception than the club itself.

Still, two people having a chat, resolution for one company at least to not do its business in public... the future's brighter from a dark start.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'd add to that owners that have the interests of the football club at heart and not just seeing it as a way of making money for its investors. One that listens to the fans and response accordingly. One who's head is not afraid to face the fans and not do it by proxy. A sensible owner who will make Coventry City a sustainable football club for the future fans.
Personally I think SISU have failed on all counts.

They have.

Although I would add that listening to the fans is maybe more complex than that.

After all the fans demanded big names.

We got Tim Sherwood as a result of the head listening to that desire.