covmark
Well-Known Member
We'd be 20pts better off at least.
2½ times our points deduction in the last 8 weeks. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dancers lance
- Start date
We'd be 20pts better off at least.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Genuinely think we would have been.
Part of it was the change of plan from Sisu taking the ACL loan to CCC taking it on instead, therefore giving no stake in the Ricoh.
If, as has been said, and not denied as far as I'm aware, the original plan between ACL/SISU was to deliberately withold the rent so that Sisu could buy out the YB loan cheap and then the club hold the lease on the Ricoh was reneged on, then all that has transpired since then can be traced back to that moment.
Sterling Archer
Well-Known Member
I actually think we'd have more chance of being taken over if SISU owned the Ricoh BUT I'm basing that on pure speculation and my own musings which go around in my head.
I could be wildly off the mark here but here are my thoughts:
- SISU are a hedge fund purely around to make money for their members;
- SISU bought into Coventry City Football Club because Ray Ranson convinced them a sweet buck or two could be made from owning a football club and getting a promotion to the promised land of the Premier League cash cow;
- Once we were in the Prem, they could sell us on for a tidy profit to some rich foreigner with a dodgy past who would end up in prison within 5-6 years;
- Unfortunately for SISU (and CCFC fans, I hasten to add), SISU have never run a football club before so along with Ranson, subsequent chairman and chief execs, made mistakes that combined with poor performances on the pitch saw us drop to League One;
- Their best chance of getting any money back on their disastrous investment (as they see it from their perspective) is to sell the club;
- The club is currently not worth a lot considering the lack of assets it has, of course the main one being the football stadium we don't own;
- SISU are good at making money in their other ventures and will now do everything within their power to make as much money as they can from the situation they now find themselves in;
- SISU now see the end game as get the Ricoh on the cheap by any means necessary and then selling off the club as a package including the ground to some foreign idiot with more money than sense.
Again, for the sake of attempting to avoid people taking this out of context, I could be wildly off the mark but if someone asked me what I think is going on and based on the little knowledge and lack of facts that all of us have subjected to, that would be my attempt at a guess of the situation.
I reckon deep down SISU probably want rid of this football club just as much as us fans crave new owners.
I could be wildly off the mark here but here are my thoughts:
- SISU are a hedge fund purely around to make money for their members;
- SISU bought into Coventry City Football Club because Ray Ranson convinced them a sweet buck or two could be made from owning a football club and getting a promotion to the promised land of the Premier League cash cow;
- Once we were in the Prem, they could sell us on for a tidy profit to some rich foreigner with a dodgy past who would end up in prison within 5-6 years;
- Unfortunately for SISU (and CCFC fans, I hasten to add), SISU have never run a football club before so along with Ranson, subsequent chairman and chief execs, made mistakes that combined with poor performances on the pitch saw us drop to League One;
- Their best chance of getting any money back on their disastrous investment (as they see it from their perspective) is to sell the club;
- The club is currently not worth a lot considering the lack of assets it has, of course the main one being the football stadium we don't own;
- SISU are good at making money in their other ventures and will now do everything within their power to make as much money as they can from the situation they now find themselves in;
- SISU now see the end game as get the Ricoh on the cheap by any means necessary and then selling off the club as a package including the ground to some foreign idiot with more money than sense.
Again, for the sake of attempting to avoid people taking this out of context, I could be wildly off the mark but if someone asked me what I think is going on and based on the little knowledge and lack of facts that all of us have subjected to, that would be my attempt at a guess of the situation.
I reckon deep down SISU probably want rid of this football club just as much as us fans crave new owners.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well there would be no relegation thread for a start and we'd be 4 points of the play offs though according to ccfc way we are not really because its only the sixth placed team we could have caught. That doesn't count apparantly.
If we did get relegated it would ONLY be as a consequence of the points reduction and yet there would still be idiots on here bigging up ACL and they're council puppet masters.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don't think anyone was expecting SISU to just roll over. I think people were expecting a more tranparent administration process and where needed the FA / FL stepping in to make factual statements about player registrations, league share etc.
What do you think would have happened if we hadn't gone into administation? SISU hadn't paid the rent for a year and a court had ruled that they had no valid cause to withhold the rent and had to pay it. There was a lease in place with decades to run. What move would SISU have made next?
What do you think would have happened if we hadn't gone into administation? SISU hadn't paid the rent for a year and a court had ruled that they had no valid cause to withhold the rent and had to pay it. There was a lease in place with decades to run. What move would SISU have made next?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
4 points off 6th place at this point in the season is better than virtually all of our seasons. How far we are off 5th place is irrelevant.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Disagree with some of that, because even with the 10 point deduction we were in a very comfortable position and scoring goals for fun before the transfer window. Everyone said we would have a blip or drop in form but it has been for 3 months so the 10 point deduction is not the the reason for relegation. If we would have been hovering around the relegation zone or just above all season then I could see your thinking but we were on the verge of the playoffs not too long ago and that has got sod all to do with the 10 points. Lastly, how do you know we would have started off like we did and maintained that form for so long when we only usually last till the end of August before slipping into mediocrity. I do believe the -10 points at the start was a very big motivating factor for the manager and players.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The 10 point deduction was a detriment, why it may have been a motivating factor earlier on, as the season has progressed it's probably had the adverse affect, as in the players had played so well and worked so hard yet were still quite a few points outside of the play offs.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Disagree mate, being just a couple of points outside the playoffs would make you try that little bit harder. As I have said before on here, I used to play at a decent level and whenever we were on the verge of something, that in itself was always a motivating factor, regardless of what had gone on before. The fact that the form has dropped so markedly is as a direct result of real lack of investment and signs of naivety on Pressley's part not being able to change things. Now that in itself can also be as a result of the club not backing like he wanted bearing in mind we supposedly had 7-8 targets prior to the transfer window, but considering where we are now and where we were a few months ago has nothing to do with the 10 point deduction.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Try and remember, the 10 point deduction you refer to wasn't as a function of going into administration; it was the way we came out - and ACL's view on the process. Which included the shuffling of assets, ambiguity with regards the Golden Share, and player contracts.
They were left with a worthless contract with an entity seemingly devoid of assets. You're surprised they weren't over the moon with that?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
They would have been happy enough apparently with all of that if the JR was dropped though?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Exactly any reasons other than that is conjecture
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
The directors have a fiduciary duty to represent the best interests of their buisness. Again, you know that.
The administration process left them with a worthless contract, with no income and shall we say - a 'complex' - movement of assets between one party and another. So, nothing.
The other offer - drop the Judicial Review and a short term deal to stay at the Ricoh with lower rents (don't forget the latter) - would have given the directors opportunity to take a view on what was in the best interests of their business at that time and therefore fulfill their obligations in company law. That's why they could have agreed to it.
If the latter was on the table, as reported, and it was turned down by SISU; well, who sits culpable now?
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I think everyone can see this debate is being aired at a level you are unable to contribute toward; so best, perhaps, you go put the kettle on, huh?
I'm sure there's someone, somewhere, you'd like to label a 'dickhead' whilst the grown-ups chat...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh yes grown ups who think 6th place doesn't count for promotion.
The comment they have a duty to the business is hogwash and you know it. PWKH admitted that they decided to reject based on two conditions. as it happens the an illegal offer in a meeting that no one could agree a deal. If your going to quote process such as duty to the company then how by rejecting the offer have the company benefitted financially or otherwise. They have not benefitted at all. It was another clumsy ham fisted attempt to outwit the hedge fund and it failed in its purpose.
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Despite who is cuplable for the point's deduction it is the reason we are thinking 4 points off the relegation zone with a nervous outlook, where as we could be thinking 4 points off the play-off's and the possibility of success could truly be on, confidence and morale would be higher and the demand not to make a mistake.
All parties are to blame this for mess, but I would rather people stop pointing the finger and pull their fingers out there backsides to get us back to the Ricoh, a Ricoh Arena that see's a play-off push would be a huge incentive for the players and manager, the 12th man as it were.
All parties are to blame this for mess, but I would rather people stop pointing the finger and pull their fingers out there backsides to get us back to the Ricoh, a Ricoh Arena that see's a play-off push would be a huge incentive for the players and manager, the 12th man as it were.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Just people who call others names such as 'dickhead'. If they can't take it; they shouldn't dish it out, should they?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Oh dear. Did you type that by banging two sausages against a keyboard and hope for the best?
They have a duty to their business, as is enshrined in company law. One option - rejection - would have given them zero way forward. To reject gave them a chance. They has to pursue the latter.
Just because it doesn't work out doesn't make the ambition wrong, does it? I see you're wearing your Captain Retrospective Wisdom cape again, and being smart after the event. Shame it was at the dry cleaners to days you predicted your mates wouldn't leave the Ricoh, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Next time ccfc way makes his usual contribution - namely pie money, teams in 6th don't get promoted or pie money - ill just say to him "well dear fruit I do think this forum may be of a far too challenging nature for someone of your intellectual limitations. Why not put the kettle on and make a pot if tea for the adults in the room. Two sugars in mine dear boy"
Is that nicer?
That they would be happy having the lease broken, but the JR dropped is pure conjecture. I don't think they are happy at all, but wanted to open negotiations by dropping their non acceptance of the CVA. SISU then preferred the point deduction to keeping the 10 points and doing a short term deal to stay at the Ricoh. Now we are in the mire and waiting for the unnecessary, but time consuming and expensive litigation. I would prefer to follow a football team than a company run by someone who majored in real estate.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Strangely dear chap you have missed the salient point. The duty to a business has to evaluate the benefits commercially of rejecting over acceptance. What is the benefit in this instance of rejection. How has the business benefitted?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Incorporate some commas, or rudimentary punctuation; and yes, much more agreeable than 'dickhead'
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I disagree and I think if you adopted that approach on real life you'd count your number of friends by the reflection in the mirror.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I've typed it twice.
You are asking 'how has the business benefited'? That's a retrospective judgment. The choice they had at the time was one scenario that left them with nothing, and no chance to change that situation. Or a choice that could give rise to the process being revisited, or for SISU to agree to conditions that would have sat outside the scope of the administration process, but could have been engrossed into a side-agreement - which would have benefited the business. That's why - at the time - not now looking back, they could have taken the decision they did.
Indeed, if the deal was totally as reported - namely dropping of the JV and a short term deal at the Ricoh - it would have benefited all parties; and indeed us the supporters, wouldn't it? As such, your question would have been worthless as we'd all see the benefit.
If the deal was a short term deal at the Ricoh, and the dropping of the JV - it would have benefited the business clearly. But tell me, what's SISU's advantage in rejection, and how do you weigh up the net effect?
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I apologise for the term used as it seems to be offending both you and our thespian colleague.
However I suggest you read the content of your post and understand why it would frustrate rationally minded individuals.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Next season it is up to SISU to support the club as they see fit.
If we go down, as seems likely in my opinion it will be all their doing.
If we go down, as seems likely in my opinion it will be all their doing.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
As I alluded to earlier though, does not the whole admin/points reduction etc all stem from a possible renegeing on an agreement between Sisu/ACL/CCC to enable Sisu to take over the Ricoh lease because they wanted force some sort of "regime change"?
If that is the case, then all culpability would lie with those who reneged on it, if proved to be so.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Can you explain the 'regime change' thing to me? I've never understood it.
If that was ACL's only agenda, why didn't they apply the coup de grâce earlier?
How about in August 2012, when it won at Birmingham High Court? Why not press home it's advantage then?
Or how about in December 2012, when ACL issued a statuary demand, which gave the club 21 days to satisfy the court-ordered sum? And still nothing happened. Why not then?
Why wait until May 2013 (almost 10 months after the original High Court case), for administration if the ambition was regime-change; or was it instigated by Fisher going on about liquidating the club in The Guardian? What, I wonder was the real driver?
And if you look back, do you know what SISU's response was in December 2012, when hit with the statuary demand? It was "disappointed" by ACL's decision to issue a statutory demand, rather than "negotiate a level of rent which the club can afford and which is in line with the rent paid by other clubs".
Why wasn't the 'secret deal' you now allude to mentioned in the Birmingham Court case? SISU didn't even contest, did they? Where does the potential agreement quoted above now sit against today's demand for unfettered freehold of the Ricoh?
Was not the deal in question to deliberately distress ACL and then tell the YB the had to accept 5 million or get nothing back from their loan? ( I think that was the gist of it ). In that case there may have been other factors involved in the decision to "renege" e.g. legality or potential future borrowing problems for CCC. I also think the Haskell plan was a red herring anyway - similar to the SISU stadium. Would never have happened...
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
This pretty much covers the whole thing.
Believe or disbelieve as you like, but you can't deny that there is some plausibility to the whole thing.
All come out in the wash in the JR, which, fidiciary responsibilty or not, was something that ACL wanted dropped.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-accused-trying-3312579
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Think possibly scuppered by Martin Reeves moving from ACL to Yorkshire Bank, but does not mean that the plan was not agreed in the first place.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Labovich stated something along the lines of two companies working together against another was illegal. Is that actually true?
If so going to court and saying your company, SISU, and another company, CCC, were trying to decieve a third company, Yorkshire Bank, into thinking their customer, ACL was in financial trouble would not be the best route to go down would it?
You'd be going to court to complain that your plans to do something illegal hadn't worked as the other company had changed their mind about breaking the law and pulled out.