Acl/cva (1 Viewer)

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

I'm not sure if this has been asked, so apologies if it has.

I would like to know what people think ACL should do re the CVA. Should they sign it or not.

In my view no way in hell should they, as it will give every thing to SHITSU they want. A broken lease, no more investigations into CCFC books and more importantly keeps them owning us.

I would like to hear what others think but not just the "Yes they should" or "No they shouldn't" but genuine whys.

Voice_of_Reason · Jul 18, 2013

skybluehugh said:
I'm not sure if this has been asked, so apologies if it has.

I would like to know what people think ACL should do re the CVA. Should they sign it or not.

In my view no way in hell should they, as it will give every thing to SHITSU they want. A broken lease, no more investigations into CCFC books and more importantly keeps them owning us.

I would like to hear what others think but not just the "Yes they should" or "No they shouldn't" but genuine whys.

Personally I think ACL will reject the CVA and then use legal means to prevent SISU from liquidating CCFC Ltd -- ACL has more than enough reasons to persue tis further through the courts if necessary. Any other views ?

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

Voice_of_Reason said:
Personally I think ACL will reject the CVA and then use legal means to prevent SISU from liquidating CCFC Ltd -- ACL has more than enough reasons to persue tis further through the courts if necessary. Any other views ?

But do you think they should reject it or sign it?

ccfc92 · Jul 18, 2013

skybluehugh said:
But do you think they should reject it or sign it?

well sisu have said if they sign it, they will negotiate re: the Ricoh :thinking about:

SkyblueBazza · Jul 18, 2013

Voice_of_Reason said:
Personally I think ACL will reject the CVA and then use legal means to prevent SISU from liquidating CCFC Ltd -- ACL has more than enough reasons to persue tis further through the courts if necessary. Any other views ?

"Liquidating"...I prefer LIQUIDISING... much more macho-sounding.
Personally, I don't know what ACL &/or SISU &/or PA know exactly so would not criticise if ACL accepted the CVA.

My gut feeling says somebody is running scared & are trying ever-so hard to get the CVA accepted so they can brush something under the carpet & relax a little.

stupot07 · Jul 18, 2013

They should accept it, Appleton has said he will liquidate ltd if its rejected. Can't see ACL being able to stop him given there has been due process.

Grendel · Jul 18, 2013

stupot07 said:
They should accept it, Appleton has said he will liquidate ltd if its rejected. Can't see ACL being able to stop him given there has been due process.

Given the notion shareholders come first they have to accept it.

If they don't ltd is liquidated and they get nothing. The football league have in principal already agreed transfer of the league share to otium so what would they gain?

No money
Continued embargo for the club
15 points penalty.

deanocity3 · Jul 18, 2013

ccfc92 said:
well sisu have said if they sign it, they will negotiate re: the Ricoh :thinking about:

they said they would consider a meeting ,this meaning that they would not turn up for any meeting probably,signed or not.
If acl do not sign then the liquidator can look into SiSu's affairs,that is why Sisu want the CVA signed,and take the course of action they want.as we know they don't like being told what to do

duffer · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Given the notion shareholders come first they have to accept it.

If they don't ltd is liquidated and they get nothing. The football league have in principal already agreed transfer of the league share to otium so what would they gain?

No money
Continued embargo for the club
15 points penalty.

Or you could make the case that by voting down the CVA there's a proper investigation into SISU's affairs, and the prospect of a new owner who intends to do business with ACL, rather than trying to shaft them.

Since the shareholders are the council and the Higgs Trust, they may prefer that option, in which case the directors have fulfilled that duty.

Personally, I'd prefer that option too, which I think is where this thread started.

Grendel · Jul 18, 2013

duffer said:
Or you could make the case that by voting down the CVA there's a proper investigation into SISU's affairs, and the prospect of a new owner who intends to do business with ACL, rather than trying to shaft them.

Since the shareholders are the council and the Higgs Trust, they may prefer that option, in which case the directors have fulfilled that duty.

Personally, I'd prefer that option too, which I think is where this thread started.

Who is going to do this investigation and who will pay? Ultimately the only way shareholders are to be compensated with any money is to accept the CVA.

It was suggested previously that shareholders could sue directors of they did not threaten legal action against Northampton. The scenario was far fetched this surely less so.

If ACL want to investigate sisu and sue Northampton let's hope the taxpayers of Coventry have deep pockets.

ArchieLittle · Jul 18, 2013

The administrator has to report on the conduct of the directors to the court.
We all know it will be a whitewash.

SkyblueBazza · Jul 18, 2013

ccfc92 said:
well sisu have said if they sign it, they will negotiate re: the Ricoh :thinking about:

Have they??? Don't know if that is true...they said they'll join talks with ACL & mediated by FL - no mention of any negotiation. Once CVA accepted the risk is that SISU just say "no way, we'll buy you out for £1 or carry-on the way we've started" - end of talks!

italiahorse · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Who is going to do this investigation and who will pay? Ultimately the only way shareholders are to be compensated with any money is to accept the CVA.

It was suggested previously that shareholders could sue directors of they did not threaten legal action against Northampton. The scenario was far fetched this surely less so.

If ACL want to investigate sisu and sue Northampton let's hope the taxpayers of Coventry have deep pockets.

If its wrong its wrong and SISU are not above the law.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Who is going to do this investigation and who will pay? Ultimately the only way shareholders are to be compensated with any money is to accept the CVA.

It was suggested previously that shareholders could sue directors of they did not threaten legal action against Northampton. The scenario was far fetched this surely less so.

If ACL want to investigate sisu and sue Northampton let's hope the taxpayers of Coventry have deep pockets.

Will have to remove Sisus hands out of them first, probably be cheeper anyway

Grendel · Jul 18, 2013

italiahorse said:
If its wrong its wrong and SISU are not above the law.

Well if it isn't wrong who picks up the tab?

Out of interest were you not a very pro sisu poster in the past? Has Ginetta once had a dream that he could afford a pizza from the local takeaway?

Grendel · Jul 18, 2013

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Will have to remove Sisus hands out of them first, probably be cheeper anyway

Please don't tell me you are going to break out into the Birdie Song.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Please don't tell me you are going to break out into the Birdie Song.

Very good,clever

Sky Blue Harry H · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Please don't tell me you are going to break out into the Birdie Song.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjMOJU26EsU‎

blueflint · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Given the notion shareholders come first they have to accept it.

If they don't ltd is liquidated and they get nothing. The football league have in principal already agreed transfer of the league share to otium so what would they gain?

No money
Continued embargo for the club
15 points penalty.

they would gain a full investigation into SISU and boy we really need that lets find out how bad they really are

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

Not answering the question boys and girls. Allowing people to take the post of point!!! Stopping a genuine debate between the YES/NO camps.

blueflint · Jul 18, 2013

reluctantly yes they should its my team they have ruined

tbh444 · Jul 18, 2013

I find it hard to believe that Otium could really liquidate CCFC Ltd and just walk away from the lease given they effectively are CCFC Ltd in new clothes - if that's in line with the law then it's a very bizarre one.

SkyblueBazza · Jul 18, 2013

Grendel said:
Well if it isn't wrong who picks up the tab?

Out of interest were you not a very pro sisu poster in the past? Has Ginetta once had a dream that he could afford a pizza from the local takeaway?

Why provoke with this "in the past" stuff...the central theme gets lost in the subsequent slanging match. Do you ever learn???
Only an idiot will maintain their original position if the said idiot has since found their original position to have been misplaced.
Cut people some slack & who knows - we may all yet be united.

Sisued · Jul 18, 2013

Reject the CVA.
The Golden share was non transferable so what then happens to it?
Sisu should be investigated and made an example of. I'm sick of this sisu money game destroying my club and ruining my enjoyment of football.

RegTheDonk · Jul 18, 2013

Sisued said:
Reject the CVA.
The Golden share was non transferable so what then happens to it?
Sisu should be investigated and made an example of. I'm sick of this sisu money game destroying my club and ruining my enjoyment of football.

Yeah sod it. I go along with that. Really had enough of these people. If it transpires they've done something crooked they deserve some comeuppance. And maybe it'll open a whole box of worms for the FL, those bleeders need shafting too.

Skybluesquirrel · Jul 18, 2013

skybluehugh said:
I'm not sure if this has been asked, so apologies if it has.

I would like to know what people think ACL should do re the CVA. Should they sign it or not.

In my view no way in hell should they, as it will give every thing to SHITSU they want. A broken lease, no more investigations into CCFC books and more importantly keeps them owning us.

I would like to hear what others think but not just the "Yes they should" or "No they shouldn't" but genuine whys.

I think the problem for ACL is if they don't accept the CVA they loose around half a million pound and then also need to find a big chunk for future legal fees. The future of the company is then in doubt.

If they do sign, small injection of cash but then the long term future is in doubt. And no chance of an investigation.

I think the key issue is who would appoint and pay for any investigation and in what form it would take. Getting the two sides to agree on an independent investigator/arbitrator would be very difficult to say the least. Getting them to agree to hot or cold refreshments for the interval would no doubt take a while...

Otis · Jul 18, 2013

I would say they should reject it. Basing this solely on the fact that I believe the club's finances should be investigated.

If the owners are found out to have been acting crookedly then I think we have a right to know.

Not convinced Sisu will sit down and negotiate either if the CVA is signed.

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

stupot07 · Jul 18, 2013

If ACL reject and the investigation finds nothing criminal has occurred, and we get relegated due to the 15 point deduction do ACL get the blame?

mrbluesky87 · Jul 18, 2013

Reject it. We have to know what and if there has been corruption. There always has to be a guinea pig to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. I'm not saying there has been any wrong doing but on the slight chance there has been we have to know. The whole sign and we will talk is blackmail and any credible organisation would not use this tactic. I appreciate it might lead to liquidation but personally I think that's a risk worth taking now considering the mess we are in.

LastGarrison · Jul 18, 2013

stupot07 said:
If ACL reject and the investigation finds nothing criminal has occurred, and we get relegated due to the 15 point deduction do ACL get the blame?

Or do you think that some of the blame could also be apportioned back to SISU as if they paid the rent they signed up to none of this would be happening?

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

Skybluesquirrel said:
I think the problem for ACL is if they don't accept the CVA they loose around half a million pound and then also need to find a big chunk for future legal fees. The future of the company is then in doubt.

If they do sign, small injection of cash but then the long term future is in doubt. And no chance of an investigation.

I think the key issue is who would appoint and pay for any investigation and in what form it would take. Getting the two sides to agree on an independent investigator/arbitrator would be very difficult to say the least. Getting them to agree to hot or cold refreshments for the interval would no doubt take a while...

Who would pay? I think that would depend the out come. If SHITSU where found guilty of something, I believe in would be included in any fines or settlements.

I would think the investigator would be chosen by the courts, but not sure.

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

Otis said:
I would say they should reject it. Basing this solely on the fact that I believe the club's finances should be investigated.

If the owners are found out to have been acting crookedly then I think we have a right to know.

Not convinced Sisu will sit down and negotiate either if the CVA is signed.

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

Agree with all you have said. It would be nice of they could get old Joy and Fisher to answer a few of the questions they have avoided for so long.

Godiva · Jul 18, 2013

Most seem to miss the duty of the ACL directors: To promote the success of the ACL business for the benefit of the shareholders and stakeholders.

They have two choices:
Vote 'yes' - that will mean they receive pretty much what they were owed (I guess the missing £100k is susu's way of letting ACL pay a part of the administrators fee). They will also have the chance of negotiating a 3 year deal to have the club play at the Ricoh while the new stadium is being build.
Vote 'no' - that will see them get nothing back. And they will lose any possibility of the club playing there for the next 3-4 years.

Vote 'yes' or 'no' ... the lease is dead. It won't matter how they vote, it won't save the lease.
Vote 'yes' or 'no' ... the assets and the Golden Share goes to Otium. The club will continue under sisu ownership no matter how they vote.

Remember they are obliged to promote the success of the ACL business for the benefit of the shareholders and other stakeholders.
That obligation can be meassured in money. Having to write off £500k instantly and effectively lose the business the club brings to the Arena will hurt ACL financially. And it will bring a cascade of collateral damages to the Casino, Compass and all the businesses in and around the stadium.

On the surface I think it is the directors duty to sign the CVA. It will save them half a million on the spot and give them the opportunity to keep the club and its business at the Areana for at least another three years.

But there are lot of things we don't know about. Maybe ACL think they can promote the success of the ACL better by not signing the CVA. In that case I would love to hear their reasoning.

In any case - don't expect (or believe) they will sign or refuse for the benefit of the fans or the club. In that respect they are equal to sisu - they need our money.

stupot07 · Jul 18, 2013

LastGarrison said:
Or do you think that some of the blame could also be apportioned back to SISU as if they paid the rent they signed up to none of this would be happening?

Of course they will have some blame,just as ACL must share some for the position we find ourselves in.

skybluehugh · Jul 18, 2013

Godiva said:
Most seem to miss the duty of the ACL directors: To promote the success of the ACL business for the benefit of the shareholders and stakeholders.

They have two choices:
Vote 'yes' - that will mean they receive pretty much what they were owed (I guess the missing £100k is susu's way of letting ACL pay a part of the administrators fee). They will also have the chance of negotiating a 3 year deal to have the club play at the Ricoh while the new stadium is being build.
Vote 'no' - that will see them get nothing back. And they will lose any possibility of the club playing there for the next 3-4 years.

Vote 'yes' or 'no' ... the lease is dead. It won't matter how they vote, it won't save the lease.
Vote 'yes' or 'no' ... the assets and the Golden Share goes to Otium. The club will continue under sisu ownership no matter how they vote.

Remember they are obliged to promote the success of the ACL business for the benefit of the shareholders and other stakeholders.
That obligation can be meassured in money. Having to write off £500k instantly and effectively lose the business the club brings to the Arena will hurt ACL financially. And it will bring a cascade of collateral damages to the Casino, Compass and all the businesses in and around the stadium.

On the surface I think it is the directors duty to sign the CVA. It will save them half a million on the spot and give them the opportunity to keep the club and its business at the Areana for at least another three years.

But there are lot of things we don't know about. Maybe ACL think they can promote the success of the ACL better by not signing the CVA. In that case I would love to hear their reasoning.

In any case - don't expect (or believe) they will sign or refuse for the benefit of the fans or the club. In that respect they are equal to sisu - they need our money.

I believe ACL were owed £1.3m even before CCFC went into administration. So 1/2m is nowhere near all that they are owed. And therefore they would be doing a disservice to their stakeholders/share holders.

I do not believe ACL will struggle as much as you think. They would have already begun looking into other revenue streams, and their books were looking pretty good, even without income from CCFC.

Acl/cva (1 Viewer)

New 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

New 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

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency