I know, but what is the point of being able to reject it if there is no point in doing it?
Otherwise the administrator would just say what the deal is.
The process should have continued.
So they decided to make things worse?
Gentleman-your response is not one anyone would expect from a cov fan, or football fan actually
Or do ccfc just not mean that much to you?
Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please
After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating
So i take it you don't have an issue with last seasons 10point deduction going into administration ??????
We had a chance of making the play offs then ????
Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts
What did council gain from it?
I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please
After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating
For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.
The problem is when pipsqueak politicians like the milkman and his eaually ridiculous successor are given the spotlight to make the big decisions their egos cloud their judgement. They see this as some kind of battle and they and us will ultimately pay a very heavy price.
Not finding a replacement for Wilson who was injured three weeks ago probably isnt helping. Why wont we have finances to challenge again?
As next years player Budget is set to this years Turnover,only way to affect that will be through player sales ,equity Injections or ............return to the RICOH ??
You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.
I wouldn't take to much notice of him,hes still pissed with the council at the lack of cab ranks and the amount of licence's they issue.
Lol more thinly veiled racism.
Not my fault u have a really really bad job
Also once again only sisu haters who CAN'T debate it seems. embarassing
Leave this forim for those who love the team please.
You're a SISU hater, you said so at the start of this thread.
You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.
What do you suggest in targeting both sides, Sisu do the right thing and make an acceptable offer for the Ricoh? The Council carry out a valuation and slap a price tag on the Ricoh? What then? How long would all this take with the backwards and forwards that will be done on both sides? Surely a sensible idea just to get the warring parties around the table to start with would ACL/CCC offer the Ricoh rent free and then a really low rent whilst all this is negotiated, wait, hold on a minute...............
These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.
These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.
For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.
The problem is when pipsqueak politicians like the milkman and his eaually ridiculous successor are given the spotlight to make the big decisions their egos cloud their judgement. They see this as some kind of battle and they and us will ultimately pay a very heavy price.
No the Higgs Centre accepted the CVA, the charity are only shareholders in ACL and couldn't reject or accept it.
That is interesting as I am sure on a prior post you said they agreed it due to their charitable status. Why then do you think they agreed it?
You really should check your facts before posting. The Centre and the Charity are two different legal entities, as I understand it. At the creditors meeting the Centre were the ones that accepted thanks to their charitable status making not doing so difficult, ACL were the ones who rejected.
Er that was my point, they accepted it due to the charitable status - the same principal adopted by The Revenue for rejecting it.
That isn't correct though - the Higgs Charity didn't accept the CVA, they couldn't reject it either as they weren't a creditor. The Higgs Centre on the other hand did accept it and did so because of their charitable status making it difficult to reject.For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.
The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.
The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.
Therefore, with the two warring parties supposedly unwilling to talk, does it not make sense that the offer was made via the Football League?
You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.
The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.
Therefore, with the two warring parties supposedly unwilling to talk, does it not make sense that the offer was made via the Football League?
While I go along with both sides having some level of responsibility for our club's position the reality is the ongoing future of the club lies only in the hands of its owners. Why should the club's landlord be concerned about its future when the club refused to pay its rent? Where is the club's concern about ACL's future? This isn't a two-way situation. We (the fans) can not insist that ACL have an eye on the club's future when the club don't have an eye on theirs.
ACL are the only 'victim' here - when the club refused to pay the rent on a long term lease agreement. The point deductions that followed are consequences of the club's own actions in not paying the rent. No-one to blame but the club's owners however, they continue to blame ACL and CCC for problems of their own making.
It's messy. Whatever the whys and wherefores the club refused to pay its rent having paid it for years before with no problems. The club deserved everything that followed.
It's a shame. The points deductions have blunted a season where there is hope of a play-off place. My thoughts are that we will get fewer points in the second half of the season as oppositions work out how to play our unknown youngsters. Although possible play-off are a long shot and I hope SP gets the boys there. Our only chance is for promotion this year. If we don't do it then a long decline and slow death is on the horizon.
These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.
I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.
So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.
SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.
The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.
The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.
I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.
So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.
SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.
The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.
The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.
I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.
So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.
SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.
The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.
The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.
Sorry Paxman, that history is very biased.
The club and council were in a joint venture. Both stood to profit from the deal and both would have had McGinnity not thrown the balance of power away.
Remember that both sides have veto over the other. It was set up so that neither would unduly profit.
To paint it as "sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves." is either extremely naive or intentionally misleading.
The council owned the land, the freehold would always lay with them even if CCFC had build the ground. The council provided the land they needed because it was mutually beneficial. The only people that have reaped the rewards are CCFC with a world class stadium and the City of Coventry for it's economic benefits. The idea that keeps getting floated on here that the Ricoh is providing cash for some other purpose such as tax cuts or saving services is simply wrong.
I know a lot of people are bringing in personal issues with politics here, but can we please realise that this is about our club, not which colour team you support in the polls or whether you think local government is a good thing.
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?