Butts Park Arena is new home (13 Viewers)

Nick said:

Surely the private letters / conversations are more meaningful than what is in the paper?

What about the fact SISU were trying to arrange a meeting, but the council kept leaking everything to the press after it was requested it was confidential? (And the council had said to do the meetings out of the spotlight of the media).

The main reason Wasps are here, is that they were sold it. (Somehow the council didn't feel the need to print all of that info in the paper)

Click to expand...

In my experience in dealing with councils, the only thing that counts is a formal application in a form that complies with the council regulations. It must be clear and concise what is requested and what is offered.

"Leaks" and titbits of information were common to both sides.

the main reason Wasps are here is that the stadium was empty and CCFC are getting a new stadium near to here. That is still the official position as regards CCFC. TF as Chairman is obliged to tell the truth and so we must accept that - officially ( although in private conversations we think that is pure bullshit or "without substance ").

italiahorse said:

It seems that when Sisu make a statement it is put over by the few as a negotiating tactic.
Why can't these people see that these statements are the reason that Wasps are here and why Wasps will just configure the stadium based on us not being here?

They seem oblivious to the facts already out there and there apparent support of this Sisu tactic just deflects from Sisu putting out any information.

Click to expand...

Nick said:

Surely the private letters / conversations are more meaningful than what is in the paper?

What about the fact SISU were trying to arrange a meeting, but the council kept leaking everything to the press after it was requested it was confidential? (And the council had said to do the meetings out of the spotlight of the media).

The main reason Wasps are here, is that they were sold it. (Somehow the council didn't feel the need to print all of that info in the paper)

Click to expand...

And the full truth is somewhere in the middle of these posts.

italiahorse said:

I must admit I have no desire to comment on the match and tactics.
I prefer to read and 'like' comments from posters who have taken the time and effort to put the post together.
If we loose I just want to switch off for the weekend.

Click to expand...

But you go to games. You don't say that you are so pissed off with the situation that you don't go.

I know a couple of people that have had enough of everything that had gone on from Richardsons days at our club and ended up losing the buzz for CCFC. They certainly wouldn't waste their time on here now.

Nick said:

Ha, I think most people stopped listening to you trying to preach to them after you were on here demanding they all support SISU. There's no point trying to tell people what to say / think now.

Click to expand...

Makes me smile when you bring this old chestnut up Nick. I would guess 99% of people on this site supported SISU when they first "saved" us... and to suggest people stopped listening to italia is clearly complete rubbish, given the amount of arguments he has with posters on here. Shouldn't you be thanking him for all the traffic on the site?

Yes, stuff that happened directly between them is more important than PR crap. For example when Lucas was saying she will meet with Seppalla and go down on the train away from the glare of the media. What we didn't know is that she got a letter saying "yes lets meet and sort it, away from the press, it must be confidential" and then it was in the telegraph. We then know there is a letter saying how disappointed that it had to go through the media.

Click to expand...

Where is the question??

I don't doubt for a second both / all sides were being dicks behind the scenes, but that's more important than a pr statement.

Click to expand...

You're right, this is a fact. Dicking about behind the scenes is what's ruined the chance of a deal being made...Must admit, I struggle to understand what should be considered PR, or an official statement from the head honcho of the club. Or maybe people just pick and choose to suit their argument?

Astute said:

Don't worry. At least it shows that you are willing to have a change of mind. Unlike some on here. Or one especially who will post any old crap so he can make out he wasn't wrong the first time. Hello Grendel.

Click to expand...

Do you know how I was defending them mate.
I defend them for having the balls to meet you face to face to explain their decisions even if I disagree with their logic.
I liked the plan of signing young emerging talent Fox, Dann, Gunnutson, Westwood and even the idea of selling them on for profit.
I currently like the fact they have taken a step out of the limelight and are letting TM and MV do their jobs and the talking.

I don't like the time we were selling of players and not replacing them.
The decision to sell our best player in January for a mere £750k when facing relegation from the championship.
I didn't like us having something like 9 managers in six years.
I didn't agree with the rent strike
I didn't agree with hard ball tactics with our council and a local charity.
I didnt agree with the Northampton move.
I don't agree with the idea of a new stadium
I am not happy with the ambitions of of current owners (a stadium that may get increased to 22k)
A financial model that doesn't work in the championship.
I don't agree with the JR.

I will defend them if they do good stuff and complain when they don't. (IMO)

Nick said:

CCC are a bit different to a dodgy hedge fund though in terms of responsibility.

Click to expand...

You mean that only one will ever be held to account?

On the original topic of the thread.

I take it we are not building a 15k modular stadium at the Butts arena then?

Does anyone know how the talks went between the new guy for SISU and ACL the other day?

I think the day before the meeting he had an accident (??) in the press letting slip the site had been identified.
I guess these things happen.

skybluetony176 said:

You mean that only one will ever be held to account?

Click to expand...

No, he means the one that ML says is not a dodgy hedge fund. ( In private conversation which means it must be believed ).

dongonzalos said:

Do you know how I was defending them mate.

Click to expand...

with words Dongo with words

IIRC you was telling everyone that we should back SISU as they run our club. When some said about them you gave more reasons. And these same people that you was trying to get to back SISU are the same ones that you say are sticking up for SISU when posting things about CCC.

I could be a bit wrong as had a good drink inside me at the time. But it won't be far wrong

127 pages?

Seriously? No-one is going to back down, each position is entrenched.

Can't we just call it a 127-127 draw and wish each other a happy Christmas?

Otis said:

127 pages?

Seriously? No-one is going to back down, each position is entrenched.

Can't we just call it a 127-127 draw and wish each other a happy Christmas?

Click to expand...

Happy Christmas Otis

Otis said:

127 pages?

Seriously? No-one is going to back down, each position is entrenched.

Can't we just call it a 127-127 draw and wish each other a happy Christmas?

Click to expand...

Otis said:

127 pages?

Seriously? No-one is going to back down, each position is entrenched.

Can't we just call it a 127-127 draw and wish each other a happy Christmas?

Click to expand...

I'd accept an unencumbered draw.

martcov said:

I'd accept an unencumbered draw.

Click to expand...

Ha, ha!! Yes, perfect!

Otis said:

127 pages?

Seriously? No-one is going to back down, each position is entrenched.

Can't we just call it a 127-127 draw and wish each other a happy Christmas?

Click to expand...

yep. call a truce, get a football and have a game in no-man's land then after Xmas return to the trenches and do it all again.
Same people have been having the same arguments every few months since last Xmas with no noticeable changes in position.

tisza said:

yep. call a truce, get a football and have a game in no-man's land then after Xmas return to the trenches and do it all again.
Same people have been having the same arguments every few months since last Xmas with no noticeable changes in position.

Click to expand...

The thing is, I'd say over 90% of the people bickering will all want the same thing at 3PM on Saturday and be celebrating our goals.

martcov said:

I'd accept an unencumbered draw.

Click to expand...

Given that the letter from Sepella to Lucas confirmed a 125 lease was acceptable and Tim Fisher confirmed the same in a media interview I am sure you would.

Grendel said:

Given that the letter from Sepella to Lucas confirmed a 125 lease was acceptable and Tim Fisher confirmed the same in a media interview I am sure you would.

Click to expand...

The important word being "unencumbered".

skybluetony176 said:

It's funny that when Grendull trips himself up he can always rely upon Bob, Dave and Stuart to come running to catch him with a bit of deflection.

So what do you three think? Do you accept that SISU stated that they want the unencumbered freehold? There's enough links to prove without doubt that they did and repeated it. Can any of you bring yourselves to admit Grendull got it wrong and it isn't fabricated nonsense as he's repeatedly claimed?

Click to expand...

Don't think I've ever denied it was said have I? However we're back to the situation of picking and choosing which statements coming out of SISU people take as the gospel truth while declaring everything else bollocks.

There's also been times when they have said things that contradict the claim they need the freehold unencumbered, why choose to believe one over the other.

And that's before you even begin to put it into context. With the lease extension theres at least 200 years unencumbered, did CCC make that known to SISU. How have Wasps so quickly managed to get out of existing ACL contracts and sign up to new deals, was that all part of the sale? We don't know as CCC refuse to give any details.

Suspect when SISU say unencumbered they are likely referring to one of two things, if not both. Firstly the loan. Fisher believes ACL can't afford to repay the loan, he may yet be proved right on that. Had CCC not bailed out ACL would YB have sold the loan on or demanded repayment? Would ACL have been able to continue to meet payments? All unknowns but you don't go to the trouble of a bail out if everything in the garden is rosey. Secondly what was / is the status of existing contracts? In particular did any of them have front loaded payments? That is a potential issue if there are contracts to be honoured for which no revenue will be received.

Nick said:

CCC are a bit different to a dodgy hedge fund though in terms of responsibility.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the local council should be held to a much higher standard than a hedge fund. Posted the other day that the LGA code of conduct for all councils states 7 key areas that CCC should abide by: selflessness, integrity, openness, honesty, leadership, objectivity and accountability. In my opinion the council have failed in every single area.

italiahorse said:

It seems that when Sisu make a statement it is put over by the few as a negotiating tactic.
Why can't these people see that these statements are the reason that Wasps are here and why Wasps will just configure the stadium based on us not being here?

They seem oblivious to the facts already out there and there apparent support of this Sisu tactic just deflects from Sisu putting out any information.

Click to expand...

But you don't have a problem with CCC making false statements or making information public that SISU have asked to remain private? Or the local media making an agreement with the council to suppress news about a potential sale to Wasps. If that had been made public who knows what would have happened. Another unknown.

skybluetony176 said:

You mean that only one will ever be held to account?

Click to expand...

I'd like everything investigated going back to BR days but that's not likely to happen. The chance to really find out what SISU had been up to was the administration process which turned out to be a complete whitewash. Funnily enough everyone seemed keen for Appleton to get stuck in and dig up some dirt. Now we get its all in the past and lets move on.

CCC are accountable to the people of Coventry, they should not be able to do deals in secret, with a media blackout, and then hide behind confidentiality. Especially when it later turns out they have been giving false statements to the public.

martcov said:

The important word being "unencumbered".

Click to expand...

Nope don't think that's mentioned and hardly likely as it was for a half share.

Also as you refuse to acknowledge no-one knows the terms of the lease of 250 years agreed with wasps (holdings) - for all we know they can have total freedom without any restriction whatsoever.

I never said you did Dave and neither was my post directed at you.

As for regards as to believing or dismissing it as BS that wasn't the point I was making. It was being denied that it had ever been said and as you agree that is indeed fabricated nonsense.

That's all I was pointing out. There's a big difference between choosing to believe or disbelieve something that's been said and being in complete denial that it was ever said.

Grendel said:

Nope don't think that's mentioned and hardly likely as it was for a half share.

Also as you refuse to acknowledge no-one knows the terms of the lease of 250 years agreed with wasps (holdings) - for all we know they can have total freedom without any restriction whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I hereby acknowledge that I do not know the terms of the lease of 250 years agreed with Wasps. Furthermore I hereby confirm that I have never claimed to have known the terms of the said lease. Now, back to my point. Was the lease to be unencumbered or not? Was it just " we would consider a lease "?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sorry had to get that off my chest.

Moff said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sorry had to get that off my chest.

Click to expand...

Do you always cry out like that during a waxing?

Nick said:

The thing is, I'd say over 90% of the people bickering will all want the same thing at 3PM on Saturday and be celebrating our goals.

Click to expand...

100% I would say

chiefdave said:

I'm talking about when he first turned up before it all kicked off.

As much as we all agree now that there was a problem with the rent at the time there were lots of comments that the club had agreed to it and there shouldn't be a problem. We even had PWKH come on here to tell us it was only the same as what we were paying at HR, conveniently leaving out details like it was the final rent at HR which contained huge penalties for moving out late.

There was clearly a concern about the bank loan, if there wasn't an eventual bail out wouldn't have been needed. I think at one point there were concerns about the loan but nothing that wasn't solved to the satisfaction of the bank. They never called the loan in

Point being if on day 1 when Fisher said the rent is too high, the bank are concerned and your over reliant on CCFC the Council and Higgs had agreed and come to the table to negotiate on that basis then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Of course we'll never know that but it can't be easy to negotiate when the other side keeps saying we don't need you, our business is fantastic when you know that's not the case.

Click to expand...

Ok lets put it in to some context. Just to be clear I do not think TF is a fool, he is a clever fella in many ways and has qualifications to back it up. I am also sure anything he says is for a purpose. It is not that I am disagreeing with a lot of what you are saying either but TF as a purveyor of the truth about ACl for me doesn't ring true ....... there is of course some truth but much more suggestion in what he says

so without dealing in personalities lets concentrate on a timeline of some events regarding TF
09/05/11 appointed director of CCFC H
19/12/11 appointed director of CCFC Ltd
04/01/12 appointed director of SBS&L and Otium
08/01/12 gave first CT interview - no mention of ACL other than needed to look at working together to get a better deal. This tack continued in his interviews 03/05/12, 15/05/12, 09/06/12, 30/06/12.
06/03/12 The TF roadmap discussed
19/03/2012 ARVO master fund take charges over CCFC and CCFCH assets
01/04/12 CCFC stop paying rent
May 2012 SISU in talks with Charity to buy shares
01/05/2012 SISU informed CCC shares not for sale
31/07/2012 Exclusivity on share talks over - no deal agreed
October 2012 £2m verbal offer by SISU to Charity flatly rejected - no prospect of a deal
27/11/2012 TF took the tack for the first time of highlighting financial problems at ACL, emphasising loan debt
10/12/2012 Meeting of SISU, CCC, ACL, YB & Deloittes end in stale mate. Covers long lease, buying out the loan, Charity shares - except as of October there was no Charity share deal
19/12/2012 TF gives interview on CWR highlighting ACL's finances

now by 19/12/2012 as a director of each group company TF should have been aware of
- no deal to buy any shares Charity or CCC
- according to the JR had been notified ACL/CCC had another plan
- why accounts were not being filed (2012's never were for CCFC and CCFC H)
- that CCFC Ltd was a shell property company - was the landlord aware of the change of status?
- where the players registrations were - even if it were errors
- that ACL had gained two judgements, uncontested apparently, to recover rent and the process involved
- the benefit of due diligence information relating to ACL

So they could not agree a deal, the only way to get the site was to force a solution....... and public statements on the finances were part of the strategy. But they don't seem to have started to be negative until there was no deal in the offing, 7 months after withholding the rent. Was there always a SISU plan B going back to early 2012 ? Was plan B actually plan A? who knows? Clearly there was an element of truth in what was said, there always is in TF statements but the why is perhaps more interesting

as for the bail out. Interesting that for one party its a bail out the other its investment. Investment implies a reasonable prospect of a return

As for negotiations takes two to tango. Holding the shares AEHC and CCC didn't have to sell until they were comfortable with the outcome So SISU were entirely reasonable and transparent about negotiating were they? Just because TF says something doesn't mean CCC/AEHC have to agree to anything or is wholly true. Are SISU not saying we don't need you too? The new stadium idea first arose in December 2012 I believe

Yes ACL were over reliant on CCFC but this seems to have backfired on SISU too because the dispute made them look to other things, in fact stating as a policy in the accounts that in future they wont be reliant on sport team income

You can see it your way differently , got no problem with that, but when you put all the events of this whole saga in date order you get to see some interesting patterns and perhaps understand better why certain things were said and when they were said

TF was saying these things (a) not at the start and (b) with a purpose in mind

Think we will have agree to disagree CD

Apologies to everyone as this seems to be a thread like so many others ...... will do my bit and not post further on this thread :wave:

Article just posted by CT seems to kick Les Reid's exclusive into touch?

kmj5000 said:

Article just posted by CT seems to kick Les Reid's exclusive into touch?

Click to expand...

Looks like they want to have a battle with the insects good luck to them.

'The size is a restriction.'


Well what a shock! I certainly didn't see that coming.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

Otis said:

'The size is a restriction.'
Well what a shock! I certainly didn't see that coming.

Click to expand...

..... and the development costs ?

Otis said:

'The size is a restriction.'


Well what a shock! I certainly didn't see that coming.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Cost of development being a restriction is also another shock - wouldn't leave much spare change for lawyers, after all.

edit: IH beat me too it...

italiahorse said:

..... and the development costs ?

Click to expand...

Yep, but as soon as it was mooted loads of us straight away said you couldn't get a 20,000+ seater stadium in that location. Physically impossible before you even start to go into development costs.

Development costs shouldn't be an issue though should it if we have loads of investors ready to pump money into a new stadium.

Is this the announcement do we think?

Nick said:

Is this the announcement do we think?

Click to expand...

No.
I don't know how this chap wasn't interviewed or quoted when that article was first written.