2½ times our points deduction in the last 8 weeks. (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
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

I'm aware of the sequence of events on the link, but I can't see how any of that was intended to change the ownership model of the football club?

Provided the club paid it's rent, CCC or ACL would have no leverage to do so, would it?

So, why not simply pay the rent whilst pursuing the Judicial Review with regards any potential clandestine deal?

Yes, it would mean the excessive rent was - potentially - being paid, but that 'loss' would be no more than the cost of the move to Sixfields.

Follow the above, and no ownership change can be foisted upon CCFC, can it? I just don't understand the 'change of ownership' angle

chiefdave · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Provided the club paid it's rent, CCC or ACL would have no leverage to do so, would it?

This is a key point. Pay the rent and their is no option for anyone to put you into administration.

When people talk about regime change and the likes of CCC, ACL and SBT trying to force a change, or at least assist others, what actual evidence is there?

Let's say I was interested in buying the club. If I requested a meeting with CCC, ACL or SBT (as a paid up member) I would expect them to agree and listen to my plans and maybe talk about what I would need from them in terms of rent agreements or anything else. They might like what I say and be thinking this chap would be a much better owner than SISU but they can't then engineer a situation for me to become owner.

If they really wanted rid of SISU they could have just locked the gates after the initial court case regarding non payment of rent. In the middle of a season with nowhere to play SISU would have had a big problem. Letting someone keep using the stadium for 12 months after they stopped paying rent isn't, on the face of it, the actions of someone trying to force SISU out.

torchomatic · Mar 12, 2014

What about Mutton (*edit: or someone from the council anyway) saying the Council will never sell the share to a CCFC owned by SISU yet showing a third party, PH4, around the ground and offering him the share?

*Thinking about it, not sure if it was Mutton.

chiefdave said:
When people talk about regime change and the likes of CCC, ACL and SBT trying to force a change, or at least assist others, what actual evidence is there?

lordsummerisle · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge;666490 Follow the above said:
If by then changing the plans and putting the club into administration, with a preferred new owner in place to pick it up after the administration has gone favourably for you then a change of ownership would have been successfully contrived.

The fact that they were then outflanked by Sisu and didn't achieve their desired aim doesn't change it.

In fact, all sides seeking to get one over the other just fucks everybody up.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
If by then changing the plans and putting the club into administration, with a preferred new owner in place to pick it up after the administration has gone favourably for you then a change of ownership would have been successfully contrived.

The fact that they were then outflanked by Sisu and didn't achieve their desired aim doesn't change it.

In fact, all sides seeking to get one over the other just fucks everybody up.

Sorry - no. If SISU fulfills it's obligation to the rent agreement, no change of ownership can be foisted.

If SISU elects to cease paying rent, get a ruling against them at court, ignore a statuary demand and then administration follows 10 months later - that's cause and effect. Not CCC or ACL starting the process with the notion of unilaterally changing the ownership model. And by the time of the administration order, of course, the landlord - being tied to such a belligerent, non-paying tenant, is ever liable to fancy the idea of something different. But that doesn't mean it started the process with the design of changing ownership. Indeed - and again - it doesn't press it's advantage at the time of the original court hearing, or the December statuary demand.

Again, SISU pay the rent, and pursue the JV if they feel they have a case. No change of ownership being leveraged from anywhere other than from outside their own boardroom

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

torchomatic said:
What about Mutton (*edit: or someone from the council anyway) saying the Council will never sell the share to a CCFC owned by SISU yet showing a third party, PH4, around the ground and offering him the share?

*Thinking about it, not sure if it was Mutton.

You're right mate it was Mutton.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

torchomatic said:
What about Mutton (*edit: or someone from the council anyway) saying the Council will never sell the share to a CCFC owned by SISU yet showing a third party, PH4, around the ground and offering him the share?

*Thinking about it, not sure if it was Mutton.

If that were true, and I'm not denying it; that point only pertains to the potential ownership of ACL. Whoever owns ACL - be that CCC/Higgs/PH4/The Krankies, this would not change the ownership model of the tenant football club. It simply wouldn't

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

chiefdave said:
When people talk about regime change and the likes of CCC, ACL and SBT trying to force a change, or at least assist others, what actual evidence is there?

Didn't ACL place an "Indicative bid" for the Club while it was in Admin and then both ACL/CCC were quizzed on where the financing for the Club would come from?

lordsummerisle · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
If that were true, and I'm not denying it; that point only pertains to the potential ownership of ACL. Whoever owns ACL - be that CCC/Higgs/PH4/The Krankies, this would not change the ownership model of the tenant football club. It simply wouldn't

If the Krankies owned it there might be a few more swinging parties at the Ricoh.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
If that were true, and I'm not denying it; that point only pertains to the potential ownership of ACL. Whoever owns ACL - be that CCC/Higgs/PH4/The Krankies, this would not change the ownership model of the tenant football club. It simply wouldn't

If I remember correctly the quote was "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own all of the Ricoh Arena"

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Didn't ACL place an "Indicative bid" for the Club while it was in Admin and then both ACL/CCC were quizzed on where the financing for the Club would come from?

I hate to be repetitive, but again, I must push home the fact that this is irrelevant. Whilst it is in administration, the control of the club is already in the hands of the administrator; who's job it then is to find the next custodians of the business. Any interest at this point is reactive, and not proactive; and SISU's claim is that ACL/CCC were trying to 'wrest control of the club' is irrelevant. By that time, control of the club was already in the hands of the administrator. No 'wrest' is necessary?!?

I'm not being obtuse, I just can't see any merit in this line of attack from SISU whatsoever

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
If I remember correctly the quote was "Hell will freeze over before Sisu own all of the Ricoh Arena"

Whatever the quote was - again - that would not alter the ownership of the football club. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. It's irrelevant

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Whatever the quote was - again - that would not alter the ownership of the football club. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. It's irrelevant

I get that I was just answering the question of the quote and who it was from.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
If the Krankies owned it there might be a few more swinging parties at the Ricoh.

Feck me. Imagine throwing the old Jensen Interceptor keys into the old fruit-bowl, only to find out you'd ended up with Jimmy bloody Krankie!

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I get that I was just answering the question of the quote and who it was from.

Ah, okay; sorry. I'll go back and reformat the 'arsey' type font I employed!

lordsummerisle · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Whatever the quote was - again - that would not alter the ownership of the football club. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. It's irrelevant

Though the council did wield some influence when Sisu their preferred owners of the club at the time they took over.

Strange as that may seem now.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I hate to be repetitive, but again, I must push home the fact that this is irrelevant. Whilst it is in administration, the control of the club is already in the hands of the administrator; who's job it then is to find the next custodians of the business. Any interest at this point is reactive, and not proactive; and SISU's claim is that ACL/CCC were trying to 'wrest control of the club' is irrelevant. By that time, control of the club was already in the hands of the administrator. No 'wrest' is necessary?!?

I'm not being obtuse, I just can't see any merit in this line of attack from SISU whatsoever

I get that MMM but that's not the point, you're always saying that "ACL had to act in accordance with business law, etc" however let's say for a moment that Sisu don't get Paul Appleton in to cover the Admin process and Joe Bloggs comes in to cover it, if then by some miracle ACL had managed to purchase the Club from the Administrator wouldn't this action been classed as "wrestling" control the Club from the previous owners i.e Sisu?

It didn't work out like that and we are grateful problem being is we had an American who was being fronted up by the Trust, Hoffman, Elliot and ACL to purchase both of them and failed, when I am sure all of the previous parties I just mentioned was 99.9% sure PH4 was guaranteed to purchase CCFC from Admin?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I get that MMM but that's not the point, you're always saying that "ACL had to act in accordance with business law, etc" however let's say for a moment that Sisu don't get Paul Appleton in to cover the Admin process and Joe Bloggs comes in to cover it, if then by some miracle ACL had managed to purchase the Club from the Administrator wouldn't this action been classed as "wrestling" control the Club from the previous owners i.e Sisu?

It didn't work out like that and we are grateful problem being is we had an American who was being fronted up by the Trust, Hoffman, Elliot and ACL to purchase both of them and failed, when I am sure all of the previous parties I just mentioned was 99.9% sure PH4 was guaranteed to purchase CCFC from Admin?

Not really. Let's start at the beginning. There's a contract in place. If the tenant fulfills their obligation to that contract, they're bullet proof.

The change of ownership as a function of administration is an output from a process that you only enter into once you've lost control of the club. And they lost control of the club by not paying rent. Yes, it was too high; but so were other costs within the business. In some years, interest charges were equivalent to the headline rental figure; so not worth going into administration for, certainly.

What or who comes after administration - be that PK4 or whoever - is irrelevant. Entering administration means you've lost control, and no 'wrest' is necessary

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Not really. Let's start at the beginning. There's a contract in place. If the tenant fulfills their obligation to that contract, they're bullet proof.

The change of ownership as a function of administration is an output from a process that you only enter into once you've lost control of the club. And they lost control of the club by not paying rent. Yes, it was too high; but so were other costs within the business. In some years, interest charges were equivalent to the headline rental figure; so not worth going into administration for, certainly.

What or who comes after administration - be that PK4 or whoever - is irrelevant. Entering administration means you've lost control, and no 'wrest' is necessary

Point taken. I am not sure if it could of been achieved but it would of been better for us for ACL to of purchased the Club during the Admin process.

chiefdave · Mar 12, 2014

torchomatic said:
What about Mutton (*edit: or someone from the council anyway) saying the Council will never sell the share to a CCFC owned by SISU yet showing a third party, PH4, around the ground and offering him the share?

Mutton wasn't much help for sure but it wasn't solely his choice. Had SISU submitted a formal bid it would have gone before the full council. It wasn't just for Mutton to say yes or no.

Showing PH4 round the ground and even, if it happened, making a deal to sell him their share doesn't somehow force SISU out of the club. As we know if anyone took over ACL they would do so with the existing contracts in place. If the club had continued to pay the rent nothing would have happened. You could even argue that as the relationship between SISU, ACL and CCC was so poor PH4 coming in may have improved things.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

Tell you what Rob, dear chap; seriously, it'd have been better for us all if SISU had bought the Higgs share in ACL when it was reported they were on the table. Then seen what was possible with the council.

Now, with decent accounts from ACL such as those released last week, their divergence and swollen turnover - and I hence 'attractiveness' - makes an already impossible situation a touch more difficult. If indeed, that's possible....

Grendel · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
If that were true, and I'm not denying it; that point only pertains to the potential ownership of ACL. Whoever owns ACL - be that CCC/Higgs/PH4/The Krankies, this would not change the ownership model of the tenant football club. It simply wouldn't

Stop being disengenious for the sake of it.

You know full well Haskell was allegedly interested in buying a football club and the primary reason for him being introduced was the club.

The admin button was pushed when Haskell had already been and done the rounds with the council. It was hoped he could buy the club and the golden share so sisu would be forced out. You know as well as I do that the whole process was geared to achieving that and no amount of evasive wordplay will change anything.

James Smith · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Point taken. I am not sure if it could of been achieved but it would of been better for us for ACL to of purchased the Club during the Admin process.

Who knew what constituted the club during the administration process? Did anyone among us actually know which business was considered by the league as the club and the holder of the Golden Share? I mean it took Mr Appleton such a long time to locate the Golden Share that the accounts must have been in an awful mess.

Grendel · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Tell you what, dear chap; seriously, it'd have been better for us all if SISU had bought the Higgs share in ACL when it was reported they were on the table. Then seen what was possible with the council.

Now, with decent accounts from ACL such as those released last week, their divergence and swollen turnover - and I hence 'attractiveness' - makes an already impossible situation a touch more difficult. If indeed, that's possible....

Lets see in a couple of years how swollen their turnover looks - unless we have the Olympics every year and an Erscow account to draw from.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

Grendel said:
Stop being disengenious for the sake of it.

You know full well Haskell was allegedly interested in buying a football club and the primary reason for him being introduced was the club.

The admin button was pushed when Haskell had already been and done the rounds with the council. It was hoped he could buy the club and the golden share so sisu would be forced out. You know as well as I do that the whole process was geared to achieving that and no amount of evasive wordplay will change anything.

Evasive wordplay? Ha ha. Let's keep it simple, and post in Grendelesque binary terms:

- You pay your bills
- No administration
- Change of ownership = impossible

PIPSQUEEK · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Point taken. I am not sure if it could of been achieved but it would of been better for us for ACL to of purchased the Club during the Admin process.

It was never going to happen once SISU had appointed their own Administrator who could not find the golden share or who had the player contracts and then they liqudate both CCFC Company's so no one could find out what was in the accounts and how do we know what the best bid was , all we have is Appleton saying it was the best deal for Coventry City

James Smith · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Didn't ACL place an "Indicative bid" for the Club while it was in Admin and then both ACL/CCC were quizzed on where the financing for the Club would come from?

I thought (and am no expert on this so may be wrong) that they put a bid in to make sure that they saw all the information available to the bidders.

chiefdave · Mar 12, 2014

James Smith said:
I thought and am no expert on this that they put a bid in to make sure that they saw all the information available to the bidders.

I think you might be right. I seem to remember someone from ACL saying it didn't mean they were going to bid for the club they just wanted all the information they could get access to as a creditor.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Tell you what Rob, dear chap; seriously, it'd have been better for us all if SISU had bought the Higgs share in ACL when it was reported they were on the table. Then seen what was possible with the council.

Now, with decent accounts from ACL such as those released last week, their divergence and swollen turnover - and I hence 'attractiveness' - makes an already impossible situation a touch more difficult. If indeed, that's possible....

That's my point MMM, ohr sorry, Dear Chap if ACL had purchased the Club they would own the leasehold, all the revenues it generates and the Club, then if they didn't want to hold onto it they could have sold the lot in a package.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 12, 2014

James Smith said:
Who knew what constituted the club during the administration process? Did anyone among us actually know which business was considered by the league as the club and the holder of the Golden Share? I mean it took Mr Appleton such a long time to locate the Golden Share that the accounts must have been in an awful mess.

This is what the Club have been saying for ages mind you.

PIPSQUEEK · Mar 12, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
This is what the Club have been saying for ages mind you.

Only cause they were caught out

James Smith · Mar 12, 2014

[Moderator hat on]
I've removed something from one post and the replies to it. Could we please keep this to having a go at ACL, Sisu or the council and avoid bringing religion in. Thank you
[Moderator hat off]

Grendel · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Evasive wordplay? Ha ha. Let's keep it simple, and post in Grendelesque binary terms:

- You pay your bills
- No administration
- Change of ownership = impossible

Well the first owners couldn't pay their bills could they and that's why sisu are here. If the first owners hasn't been backed into taking an outrageous deal this would not even be an item for discussion.

Your evasive and frantic spinning fools no one.

ACL = take CVA (no business case or law prevented them from doing so)= 10 points better = better promotion prospects = better hope of re-establishing a working relationship between both sides in the future.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 12, 2014

Grendel said:
Well the first owners couldn't pay their bills could they and that's why sisu are here. If the first owners hasn't been backed into taking an outrageous deal this would not even be an item for discussion.

Your evasive and frantic spinning fools no one.

ACL = take CVA (no business case or law prevented them from doing so)= 10 points better = better promotion prospects = better hope of re-establishing a working relationship between both sides in the future.

You are either delusional, troubled, or here on the wind-up.

Whichever cap fits, I'm not going through it all again

Grendel · Mar 12, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You are either delusional, troubled, or here on the wind-up.

Whichever cap fits, I'm not going through it all again

Thespian speak for "I know you are correct but I'm going to argue the same point again and again and again just as I did when I defended Andy thorn"

2½ times our points deduction in the last 8 weeks. (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency