Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
As to be expected really. ACL need to share the progress with fans. We're in meltdown. I want a statement from SISU.
Last edited:
I'm still sitting on the fence. I just think we need to sit tight, hold our nerve and see what happens, and not take sides.
I do however, think ACL are playing a clever PR game to get fans on their side. And this statement, like others, is only one side of the story.
Yes but the deal with ACL was signed before SISU arrived.
After SISU turned up to "save us" Cllr Mutton was in the CET stating their 50% was minimum £40m and SISU would have to develop the area. These are not the actions of someone wanting to propel he club back to the Premier but those of someone (who ultimately control ACL) who want to make as much money as possible.
Think this is very key that the club were onboard with the rent back then.
We know the history - the club was between a rock and a hard place at the time this was "negotiated", no matter how much you try to gloss over it now. ACL were a dominant position in the "negotiation" and take full advantage of that.
For PKWH to justify the rent on the basis there were no other comparisons is an utterly ridiculous statement.
And by the way PKWH statements you make on here are not in a personal capacity - they are in the capacity of your office. You cannot pick and chose given the office you hold and the fact you comment upon matters that are currently the subject of on-going litigation in which you represent one of the parties.
Think this is very key that the club were onboard with the rent back then.
We know the history - the club was between a rock and a hard place at the time this was "negotiated", no matter how much you try to gloss over it now. ACL were a dominant position in the "negotiation" and take full advantage of that.
For PKWH to justify the rent on the basis there were no other comparisons is an utterly ridiculous statement.
And by the way PKWH statements you make on here are not in a personal capacity - they are in the capacity of your office. You cannot pick and chose given the office you hold and the fact you comment upon matters that are currently the subject of on-going litigation in which you represent one of the parties.
Think this is very key that the club were onboard with the rent back then.
According to league rules SISU would have required permission from the football league in order to transfer the league rights to another entity. Did SISU notify the football league?
Then I had better make no more comments.
Black60sprey: the City Council do NOT ultimately control ACL. They are the freeholder and have a 50% stake in the company but they do not control it. There are two directors appointed by the Council and two by the Charity there are then three independent directors. (we have a vacancy for a permanent chairman at the moment) so they are not even in a majority on the Board. Whatever Cllr Mutton says is his view and not that of the company: he has similarly made statements about the Charity and Sisu, again his view not that of the Charity with which he has no connection. Robinson has also made comments about the Charity and Sisu again his view, for what it is worth.
I think this concept that CCFC should have a wider social responsibility of developing the rest of the area around the Ricoh has to be dropped. What other football clubs are saddled with this.
CCC benefitted from CCFC's failure to deliver the Gasworks stadium. The arena is a vibrant shopping complex, the olympics, conference facilities etc... but the without the club this would not have happened. CCFC was mismanaged but can't help thinking ACL took advantage of our vulnerability with the rent set so high.
well, maybe just another comment:
the reason that the development of the surrounding area is so important for CCFC is that it is vital, in my opinion, for CCFC to be part or wholly owners of the Ricoh. The income from the Ricoh at the present time is not enough to subsidise the ridiculous wages footballers seem to think they deserve. The whole thing needs to be grown. If it were owned by CCFC the FFP question would be solved and if the development was done it might become sustainable.
Is it really realistic to expect to find an Abramovic or a Qatari Sheikh who is prepared to fork out year after year to take over CCFC? Surely it is much better if we have an investor who will create more wealth in Coventry and build a sustainable football club?
The statement in truth tells us little new about the situation. Although the golden share may have laid with the League when the accounts were filed that of course doesn't mean that it wasn't switched afterwards.
People have said that ACL's admin order forced SISU to do what they did pre-emptively. Others will point to ARVO's debenture last June which foresaw this situation unfolding and will ask whether this ever was just about the rent.
The bottom line is that it didn't have to come to this. It is unlikely now that ACL will get its arrears back with ARVO, effectively SISU, calling the shots on creditors. What I feel would be useful at this stage would be a full objective list of what was last offered to the club. Perhaps that will allow us to see whether Fisher really had any intent of co-operation.
"The ridiculous wages footballers seem to think they deserve" - a little bit of leakage of true self?
(we have a vacancy for a permanent chairman at the moment)
BSB - for details of what ACL put on table go to http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php?start=4
CCFC are still refusing to let us publish their answers
Expect an application from the Trust President on Monday.
The bottom line is that it didn't have to come to this. It is unlikely now that ACL will get its arrears back with ARVO, effectively SISU, calling the shots on creditors.
Which ccfc is that, holdings or limited, if it's limited just publish the answers as they said ccfc ltd are a dormant company with no employees or assets, by the way ashby i take it you have seen the answers will they be an interesting read ?BSB - for details of what ACL put on table go to http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php?start=4
CCFC are still refusing to let us publish their answers
And with that in mind negotiations can re-open with ACL writing off the debts.
Reading ACL's answers they already were happy to write off £800k.
Still leaves some £500k.
Still leaves some £500k.
Reading ACL's answers they already were happy to write off £800k.
Thanks to PWKH for this and trying to keep us all in the loop as best he can - much appreciated
That statement seems clear to me. The important part is the reference to the annual return that clearly states the member of the Football League is CCFC Ltd not CCFC H Ltd dated 23/06/12
It is a fairly factual statement but yes it puts its own spin on it ...... why wouldnt it ?
Far from settled and plenty of twists to come yet
Would that be because they counted the escrow money they took then? Which you seemed to think didn't count?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?