Breaking news - league letter to Ainsworth (1 Viewer)

How completely arse-backwards the FL are.

Had they enforced their rules, rather than employ their "discretion", SISU would have had to negotiate with ACL. Indeed as Ainsworth pointed out in an earlier letter of 5th July, there was an offer to play for free whilst in admin whilst continuing to negotiate. So there was no real threat to fixtures, until it became clear that the FL were going to sit back and do FA.

http://bobainsworthmp.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/football-league.pdf

The statement that ACL are responsible for the ten-point deduction is scandalous. As the creditor for a legally enforceable debt they were entitled to take any action they saw fit. Presumably the FL rules were designed to force clubs to find arrangements with the creditors, and generally the people owed the money are allowed to decide how fair the debtor's offer is.

That's the whole point of the CVA process. If the creditor doesn't think it's fair for whatever reason, then they are entitled to vote it down.

If the FL really thought that ACL were responsible then surely the proper course of action was to award no penalty whatsoever.

It's an utterly bizarre letter that shows just how pathetically weak the FL is. If they can use their discretion to avoid enforcing their rules here, then every tinpot owner that wants to avoid a legitimate debt will take them on. Good luck to them too - the faster we can show that the FL isn't fit for purpose, the quicker we can get someone in with the balls to do the job properly.

Even SISU must be laughing at the football league what a sham

It's a complete waste of time to expect the FL to do fuck all.. they have shown themselves to be weak, uninterested in fans opinions and prepared to interpret their rules in a completely elastic manner, all they want is for the league program to go ahead.

lordsummerisle said:

Somebody really flagged that?

Fucking hell!

Lucky you didn't quote anything from Paedogeddon.

Click to expand...

lordsummerisle said:

Somebody really flagged that?

Fucking hell!

Lucky you didn't quote anything from Paedogeddon.

Click to expand...

So it's fine for this neo-Nazi to claim that members of a certain racial minority are so unstable and so uneducated that they shouldn't use recreational drugs?

If he had just said builders, I wouldn't have had a problem - crack and Kangos don't mix. And this moron has clearly never listened to Miles Davis and would presumably dismiss his work as 'alien' music.

RPHunt said:

So it's fine for this neo-Nazi to claim that members of a certain racial minority are so unstable and so uneducated that they shouldn't use recreational drugs?

If he had just said builders, I wouldn't have had a problem - crack and Kangos don't mix. And this moron has clearly never listened to Miles Davis and would presumably dismiss his work as 'alien' music.

Click to expand...

Assuming I'm not missing something, please watch

http://vimeo.com/37951538

"The administrator advised me that this would leave him with no alternative but to liquidate the club."

Erm, if CCFC Ltd is the club then where are its players? When were they transferred?

"In order to keep the club alive, The Football League Board agree to offer the Otium Entertainment Group the club's share in the Football League providing it accepted various entry conditions, including a commitment that it meet the financial offer made to creditors under the proposed CVA."

This line is interesting - does it mean that ACL and the other creditors will still get the money offered if they had accepted the CVA? If so, shouldn't that put to bed the argument that they have lost taxpayers money? On the surface it would seem to suggest that they will get that money and still have the opportunity to get whatever it is they hoped to achieve by rejecting the CVA (I don't know what because they haven't said, but at a guess more action through the courts or a fuller investigation into what went on).

"We will now continue with our endeavours to get the club playing in its home city at the earliest opportunity, though this will be against the backdrop of the Club having had 10 points deducted for failing to achieve a CVA due to the actions of its former landlord."

As others have noted this is the line that really worries me about the Football League. It suggests they don't fully understand what has gone on. If they had stopped at "achieve a CVA" that would have been fine, but they then appear to go on to lay the blame for this situation solely on ACL and don't acknowledge that ACL were reacting to a chain of events set in motion by the tenant withholding the rent. The Football League appears to be mistaking effect for cause.

Although he was referring to the council loan, not the CVA, a High Court judge, Mr Justice Males, has given his view on where the bulk of the pressure in this dispute between the two sides came from: "The alternatives would appear to have been either the insolvency of ACL which (largely because the claimants had caused rent to be withheld as a means of exerting pressure in the commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment of the High Court in ACL's favour) was not in a position to pay the loan, or acceptance of the claimants' proposals which the council did not consider to be in its commercial interests."

ArchieLittle said:

This statement beggars belief. The permission to ground share was granted long before the CVA was turned down. The whole premise of the FL actions has been the only other choice was expulsion. There were lots of choices, but none of them suited a SISU appointed administrator.

Click to expand...

Here's the latest standard reply I've had from the FL - it would seem that they are Coventry's saviours and we should be thanking them!! I've asked them to stop replying - their smugness and arrogance easily matches SISU's. No wonder they get on so well.


Thank you for your email (to the FL).

We have received numerous emails from Coventry City fans in relation to the official statement released by The Football League on Friday 2nd August (http://www.football-league.co.uk/fo...ue-statement-on-coventry-city_2293334_3335621). We can assure you that your email has been read, however given the volume of emails, I hope you can appreciate, it’s not always possible for us to provide an individual response.

As you will be aware, on the morning of Friday 2nd August creditors of Coventry City Football Club Limited, rejected the proposals for a CVA. The administrators had previously sold the assets that were under their control to Otium Entertainment Group. This included the right and title in the one ordinary share in The Football League that constitutes membership of The League. With the rejection of the CVA, this meant that there was no company eligible to compete as Coventry City Football Club for the 2013/14 season.

In order for Coventry City Football Club to compete in League 1 this season, the Board agreed to transfer the club’s share to Otium under its ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision. This effectively sought to ensure the club continued to operate as a member of The League. As a condition Otium had to accept a ten point deduction, due to the fact that the club had been unable to agree a CVA as ordinarily required under The League’s insolvency policy. If The League had not taken this decision, there would be no Coventry City Football Club for season 2013/14.

The assets of Coventry City were sold to Otium by the administrator through a legal process. The Football League plays no part in this and ultimately has to work with the administrator’s nominated purchaser. The Football League’s role is to administer and regulate the competition that its members play in and only has the power to do so within its regulations. The owners and directors of Otium, through owning the club’s assets, have to comply with the requirements of The League Owners and Directors’ Test. Should you require it, further information about the Owners and Directors’ Test can be located here http://www.football-aleague.co.uk/page/FAQ/FAQsDetail/0,,10794~2428071,00.html.

In terms of stadium relocation, whilst The League has publically urged Otium and ACL to resolve the dispute, The League has no jurisdiction to force any Club (or landlord for that matter) to come to an arrangement over land or rental agreement. With no agreement in place to play at the Ricoh Arena, reluctantly, the Board of Directors approved the application to relocate on a temporary basis only. There are a number of stringent conditions in place regarding the temporary relocation. Failure to abide by these conditions and return to Coventry will result in cessation of the club’s membership of The Football League.

We acknowledge that it has been a difficult period for Coventry City supporters. However we have primarily ensured that the club remains a member of The Football League, and furthermore we will continue in our efforts to ensure that the club returns to the Coventry area at the earliest possible opportunity.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Things are looking up. If I had £1000 and late accounts, then I can own a football club under the football league's fit and proper rules.

Time for that long awaited career change then.

Can anyone lend me £999.99?

Seems reasonable statement to me. Our Coventry supporters so blind to think its SISU fault that ACL wanted to ensure we had 10pt deducted for no gain on their part.

Also Note that HMRC will never and have never accepted CVA's so irrelevant to ACL accepting it would have been refused.

Stafford_SkBlue said:

Seems reasonable statement to me. Our Coventry supporters so blind to think its SISU fault that ACL wanted to ensure we had 10pt deducted for no gain on their part.

Click to expand...

What possible reason would ACL have in wanting us deducted 10 points. I can just hear the ACL board discussions 'let's do this and they'll get 10 points deducted' - get real

Grappa said:

Here's a thought, and I realise it might seem outrageous, but maybe people don't all think the same way as you do.

Click to expand...

Heres a thought 7,000 fans plus at the Ricoh and on the march 900 fans at sixfeilds

just 90% plus don't think like you

ever thought of evaluating the facts and reconsidering your position?

Grendel said:

So? I repeat there were 3 minor creditors whose acceptance or not had no bearing on the acceptance of the CVA as collectively they were below the threshold. Higgs and the council accepted the revenue did not. If ACL had accepted the revenue as a non substantiated creditor would have been powerless. What do you not understand?

Click to expand...

HMRC £160,000 only a minor debt?

yet fisher said no external creditors other than ACL

CovFan said:

Here is the letter in full: http://bobainsworthmp.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/football-league-response.pdf

Click to expand...

That's it then - legislation required to ensure the rules are enshrined in law. No board discretion and insolvency policy to be made public so that this rape, and I use this word after much thought, of our club is never allowed to happen again.

cloughie said:

Heres a thought 7,000 fans plus at the Ricoh and on the march 900 fans at sixfeilds

just 90% plus don't think like you

ever thought of evaluating the facts and reconsidering your position?

Click to expand...

You (and many others on this site) are using argumentum ad populum: "If many believe so, it is so."

This is a logical fallacy. It leads to things like "the entire population of Germany can't be wrong twice" and the suppression of heliocentrism.

Just being in the majority does not make your case for you.

Grappa said:

You (and many others on this site) are using argumentum ad populum: "If many believe so, it is so."

This is a logical fallacy. It leads to things like "the entire population of Germany can't be wrong twice" and the suppression of heliocentrism.

Just being in the majority does not make your case for you.

Click to expand...

But then neither does being in the minority......

And if you want to take to your argument a little further, presumably you won't be a great believer in democracy.

duffer said:

How completely arse-backwards the FL are.

Had they enforced their rules, rather than employ their "discretion", SISU would have had to negotiate with ACL. Indeed as Ainsworth pointed out in an earlier letter of 5th July, there was an offer to play for free whilst in admin whilst continuing to negotiate. So there was no real threat to fixtures, until it became clear that the FL were going to sit back and do FA.

http://bobainsworthmp.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/football-league.pdf

The statement that ACL are responsible for the ten-point deduction is scandalous. As the creditor for a legally enforceable debt they were entitled to take any action they saw fit. Presumably the FL rules were designed to force clubs to find arrangements with the creditors, and generally the people owed the money are allowed to decide how fair the debtor's offer is.

That's the whole point of the CVA process. If the creditor doesn't think it's fair for whatever reason, then they are entitled to vote it down.

If the FL really thought that ACL were responsible then surely the proper course of action was to award no penalty whatsoever.

It's an utterly bizarre letter that shows just how pathetically weak the FL is. If they can use their discretion to avoid enforcing their rules here, then every tinpot owner that wants to avoid a legitimate debt will take them on. Good luck to them too - the faster we can show that the FL isn't fit for purpose, the quicker we can get someone in with the balls to do the job properly.

Click to expand...

Spot on duffer.....they are a weak limbed shambles. Nothing short of scandalous , how they have handled this situation.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

But then neither does being in the minority......

And if you want to take to your argument a little further, presumably you won't be a great believer in democracy.

Click to expand...

As you well know though Tommy, a huge majority supported SISU for quite some time after they came in, and would brook no argument against them.

The facts haven't changed, they are still the same rapacious hedge fund that they were when they came in, and many facts available at the time to support this.

As that was the majority view, it must surely have been right? If it was good to have hard headed financial people who wouldn't allow the club to be bullied and would look after their interests then, then surely it is still true now?

Brooking no dissent of the majority view( which as we know can be very temporary) is quite the opposite of democracy, it's the tyranny of consensus( or as Grappa has said elsewhere, the Tyranny of the "like" button).

Grappa said:

You (and many others on this site) are using argumentum ad populum: "If many believe so, it is so."

This is a logical fallacy. It leads to things like "the entire population of Germany can't be wrong twice" and the suppression of heliocentrism.

Just being in the majority does not make your case for you.

Click to expand...

I believe this is the quote (used as an attack on democracy) that you have just paraphrased:

"a hundred blockheads do not equal one man in wisdom"

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

RPHunt said:

I believe this is the quote (used as an attack on democracy) that you have just paraphrased:

"a hundred blockheads do not equal one man in wisdom"

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

Click to expand...

Wasn't it Ian Dury who said that?

RPHunt said:

I believe this is the quote (used as an attack on democracy) that you have just paraphrased:

"a hundred blockheads do not equal one man in wisdom"

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

Click to expand...

Of course, the problem is that Adolf Hitler was voted in by quite a large majority democratically.

I think they are trying to put the willies up other stadium owners as they will always have the upper hand over their tenants should it all fall apart. By siding with the team they are trying to level negotiations and keep their precious fixture list filled...

lordsummerisle said:

Of course, the problem is that Adolf Hitler was voted in by quite a large majority democratically.

Click to expand...

No he wasn't

lordsummerisle said:

Wasn't it Ian Dury who said that?

Click to expand...

Don't think he's got round to watching Brass Eye yet.

(Can't speak for Dury)

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

No he wasn't

Click to expand...

No, you're quite right, but was still leader of the largest party in the coalition government when he was made Chancellor.

lordsummerisle said:

No, you're quite right, but was still leader of the largest party in the coalition government when he was made Chancellor.

Click to expand...

and the reason was that several Socialist candidates were murdered and thousands of Socialists were put into concentration camps plus vote rigging Joy and Tim would have been proud

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

and the reason was that several Socialist candidates were murdered and thousands of Socialists were put into concentration camps plus vote rigging Joy and Tim would have been proud

Click to expand...

So would most socialists

Grendel said:

So would most socialists

Click to expand...

Only National

lordsummerisle said:

As you well know though Tommy, a huge majority supported SISU for quite some time after they came in, and would brook no argument against them.

The facts haven't changed, they are still the same rapacious hedge fund that they were when they came in, and many facts available at the time to support this.

As that was the majority view, it must surely have been right? If it was good to have hard headed financial people who wouldn't allow the club to be bullied and would look after their interests then, then surely it is still true now?

Brooking no dissent of the majority view( which as we know can be very temporary) is quite the opposite of democracy, it's the tyranny of consensus( or as Grappa has said elsewhere, the Tyranny of the "like" button).

Click to expand...

Where to start with that.....

As NW has often pointed out, the issue is brooking no dissent from each poster's view.

Your view (at least as implied here) is in the minority, but you have no problem in expressing it and, one might say, in brooking no dissent from it.

I've always believed that there is an explicit value in having the challenging view put - but that does not mean that it cannot be argued against.

As for the facts haven't changed, there I have to differ. My football club has been moved out of its city, that's a pretty big change from where I'm standing.

I've always given you credit for raising issues about SISU from the start, but there is a danger in arguing against "the concensus" just for the sake of it.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

Where to start with that.....

As NW has often pointed out, the issue is brooking no dissent from each poster's view.

Your view (at least as implied here) is in the minority, but you have no problem in expressing it and, one might say, in brooking no dissent from it.

I've always believed that there is an explicit value in having the challenging view put - but that does not mean that it cannot be argued against.

As for the facts haven't changed, there I have to differ. My football club has been moved out of its city, that's a pretty big change from where I'm standing.

I've always given you credit for raising issues about SISU from the start, but there is a danger in arguing against "the concensus" just for the sake of it.

Click to expand...

I've never argued from a pro-Sisu point of view of view though, just don't think that anybody really needs to have any more anti-Sisu arguments as such now, there are, as yet, undiscovered tribes in the depths of the Amazon jungle who know that Sisu are a bunch of twats, so that's an argument that doesn't really need exploring anymore for me.

There are however other parties involved, over many years, who also need looking at.

Some just blame Sisu, some ACL/CC, others blame previous boards, I blame them all, so I'm far from a minority view, I'm a one man majority!

leicesterskyblue said:

It would be nice to just sell everything to one owner and get rid of ACL and SISU and clear the air a bit wouldn't it

Click to expand...

Don't forget CCC as well

BrisbaneBronco said:

Don't forget CCC as well

Click to expand...

Or anybody with past associations on boards.

Nice to start again with a totally clean slate(not a new club).

Even I'd give them a couple of years before calling them wankers.




Possibly.

lordsummerisle said:

Somebody really flagged that?

Fucking hell!

Lucky you didn't quote anything from Paedogeddon.

Click to expand...

Trust-me trousers.

Deleted member 5849 said:

You've never watched Brass Eye I take it.

Click to expand...

I love Brass Eye but didn't pick up on the heroin quote being from there seeing as it had no context. Brass Eye's great, but it's not like quoting Python where everyone knows every line!

lordsummerisle said:

As you well know though Tommy, a huge majority supported SISU for quite some time after they came in, and would brook no argument against them.

The facts haven't changed, they are still the same rapacious hedge fund that they were when they came in, and many facts available at the time to support this.

As that was the majority view, it must surely have been right? If it was good to have hard headed financial people who wouldn't allow the club to be bullied and would look after their interests then, then surely it is still true now?

Brooking no dissent of the majority view( which as we know can be very temporary) is quite the opposite of democracy, it's the tyranny of consensus( or as Grappa has said elsewhere, the Tyranny of the "like" button).

Click to expand...

I wasn't online at the time, but from people I know, the mood was cautious but hopeful. That they made a positive impression by making signings helped their PR battle. You have to appreciate that things have changed, because a lot of people "gave them a chance", which is only reasonable. Since then, they have behaved terribly. Maybe you and I were right all along, leopards and spots etc, but to the average person they had to make their litany of errors and insults before they gave up &/or turned on them. You can't expect everyone to be as (correctly) judgmental of their nature-their very ideology-so (wisely) soon! It's the difference between Churchill in '38 and Churchill in '40. Now there's an analogy to warm the cockles In Greek mythology, Cassandra was destined to foretell terrible futures, but never be believed.