A promise is not really worth anything if it is underwritten by Otium. If sisu/ARVO walks away the club could go into liquidation (again). I hope th FL have made ARVOR or sisu sign on the dotted lines.
Key points from the final day of the Judicial Review on the offal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
A promise is not really worth anything if it is underwritten by Otium. If sisu/ARVO walks away the club could go into liquidation (again). I hope th FL have made ARVOR or sisu sign on the dotted lines.
I wouldn't put a bet on that!
The decision to keep the club afloat is made by just one person (it seems): Joy Seppala.
How many will need to agree to keep ACL afloat?
Think about that for a second.
Has it been mentioned but say Sisu lost the JR. Will opposing sides be awarded damages along with Sisu meeting costs ?
you say that (and you may well be right) but wouldn't she have to sell the idea of keeping the club afloat to her hoards off investors 1st? There may be more people involved in the decision making for the club than any off us could imagine, because sisu are under no obligation to inform the FL who is actually investing in or club we wll probably never know. its been suggested that its certain US based pension funds, if it is how many is there and how many people are involved in the decision making within these funds?
Last edited:
They may be rich now, but every year they get poorer. I don't think that was the plan of the investors. At what stage to they haul Joy before them and ask what's going on. Or do they they just get statements every year showing the interest they have earned - but apparently not received? The surprise comes later.......
That's the nature of 'secret' or 'undisclosed' - we don't really know who the investors are. For all we know it could be just JS and a number of straw men.
In court the sisu QC said ARVO have invested more than £50m. That implies that ARVO is also the initial 5 investment funds. I don't really think that is 100% true, but hey! It was said in court.
I could speculate that ARVO is JS. And that ARVO have bought the initial 5 investment funds at a huge discount. I can't prove it, but it makes sense to me.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That is where a council way of running things supports the argument it can be kept running, within the parameters they can operate in, anyway.
Councils don't make decisions quickly and, when they do, they like long lead-in times, so even if they did want to give up ACL, conceivably they set this time three years in the future.
Hmm - that's the general perception, but they acted quite quickly when they secured the ACL loan.
Next time won't be so quick though, as more councillors will ask questions and demand detailed information.
if i understand you correctly your saying its possible that sisu purchased ccfc with 5 investments from various institutions/people. when the investment failed the investors cut and run by selling their investments to arvo at a much discounted price from their initial investment?
that would make sense also but like you say, we'll never proove it.
You're going along with the Sisu assertion then? I'm not sure, outside a couple of small clusters of fans, that the appetite from the electorate, and therefore the council, has changed much TBH. Brian Patton seemed to be the only person against it, and he was against it from the start. Is there any evidence that the council would take a different decision today?
To be fair, it was your bright moment
But I hadn't considered the possibility that Joy has bought out the debt for far less than the headline figure. Meaning she wouldn't need such a high return. Good news because maybe someone will come in and make it worth her while, bad news because she can spend longer in Northampton to get a smaller reward than she'd otherwise need.
How much information did each of the councillors actually have? (I know it was raised by sisu QC, but I know I have written a post some time ago to the same tune).
No councillor can be an expert or posses all relevant knowledge to cast a personal vote in all cases. They usually receive an extract of information and then follow the party line. It's not criminal and it's not saying councillors are incapable of making up their own minds.
But after the JR I would put a bet on most councillors giving anything to do with funding ACL extra consideration.
Would the council take a different decision today? I don't know. That's for our resident star reporters to find out, isn't it?
I am speculating - not saying she has. But it does seem logical and possible.
And you're right, it would mean the selling price of the club could be much lower. Maybe that's why Byng is circulating?
On the other hand - it can also mean that JS has a lot more patience with the situation as she stands to win big time if she can obtain part of (or all of) ACL.
And here is where we come back to my post this morning that upset quite a few - the unencumbered freehold. If ACL goes bust - let's say starved out of business by sisu - then Byng (or A N Other) might actually be willing to offer more for the club (if he can secure the long lease at the Ricoh).
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I agree with your overall point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to imply that this issue wouldn't have popped up on people's radar earlier and that the JR made people look closer. It's been pretty much the biggest story in Coventry since it broke.
I don't doubt that's the plan, just not convinced it's a winner as of yet. I think what upsets people about the idea (well certainly in my case) is the idea that we are going to keep waiting around for ACL to go bust, I'm not sure I can take that TBH.
And there you have the support for my reasoning. Any councillor will demand information and think twice before casting his vote.
Sorry, think we're at cross purposes. My point was the financial state of ACL was a big story at the time of the council meeting that approved the loan, what with the rent strike. I think most will have been reasonably well briefed.
The problem, as we saw in court yesterday, is it's all one "expert"'s word on the future value against another's. These aren't hard facts that Sisu are accusing the council of hiding or misinterpreting, but the opinion of their selected experts. The only way anyone's really going to know, as much as we all like to argue here, whether the loan was worthwhile will be in the future when ACL either pay it back or go bust. Until then, it's anyone's guess.
Edit: I think what's interesting (as NW hinted at in another thread) is the clash of ideologies between UK politicians (especially left wing ones) and American business people. There is a genuine belief among the more rabid pro-business types that government can't do anything at all and private is always better. I'm not sure the UK courts see it the same way, but it might explain some of what drives Joy's conviction that comes across when you read the skeleton argument from Sisu. They're incredulous that a council could run something properly, it's stated as a plain fact.
As much as people like to play economics, politics is really about what you believe in. Any decision can be torn down or built up on selected statistics depending on what you want to do with it.
Last edited:
Ok - then let's stretch it a bit further. Say JS is happy to sell at £15-18m. What would happen if Byng approaches ACL/Higgs/CCC and ask for a price for all the shares in ACL?
Could he continue the 'road map' albeit adjusted a bit to include CCC's half?
And more importantly - would it make any financial sense to Byng?
God knows what makes sense to Byng, we really don't know enough of his plans for the club. Personally I'd like to know a bit as a fan before he turns up, but that's off this topic.
The other side of the coin is: Does Byng's plans for the arena dovetail better with CCC's plans than Sisu's did (if they had a plan at all)?
The one bright spark here might be that if Byng can bring more development to Coventry through his rail links, the Council will be more open to him owning the freehold.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We're back to my big fear though; I want who's best for the club to own the club (and the ground), not who's best for giving a nice rail station, decent hotel, and can do wonderful things with a car park!
They were in situ though. They left. If they claim is they were 'forced out' it's for the party making that claim to prove it. Without such proof, surely we should still be at the Ricoh?
As for those who attend Sixfields, I am wondering whether they now feel cheated by any sympathy they afforded SISU's position?
We obviously were not forced to play almost 40 miles away, and everyone can now see what SISU's end game is. Is there anyone left who still believes it's about anything other than levering advantage over ACL?
And as such, can anyone justify moving the club, and crippling it in so doing, to achieve this?
It's what I can't understand about the stance of people like Knowl on GMK. If you love the club; how can you be happy seeing it used as a bargaining chip? As that's all it is
Last edited:
Easy. I've spent a year or so building a persona on here and i dont want you pulling the rug from under my feet
SO....Any actual news or developments from this JR bullshit.....
No..thought not. Massive load of old cock as was always my expectation.
...I'm just glad I didn't waste hours & hours of my life following this crap.
So as things stand, the status quo remains: ie: Sisu are cunts, Acl are cunts, ccc are cunts & the fl are cunts. Well I never. who knew.
If anyone at the CT actually gave as much of a shit as they say they do, they would make this post Monday's front page.