CVA meeting today (4 Viewers)

[Godiva]

Every club pays matchday expenses that is not part of any rental agreement

I believe it was said on this forum ... possibly by OSB? ... that matchday expenses were part of the original £1.2m yearly rent, but I may be mistaken.

 

---

[cloughie]

AT LEAST IM NOT A SHEEP!!! AT LEAST I HAVENT LET THE COUNCIL USE OF THE COVENTRY TELEGRAPH AND MISINFORMATION BRAIN WASH ME. I HAVE BEEN AGAINST SISU MANY TIMES IN THEIR FIRST 2 OR 3 YEARS - BUT THE FACT IS THE COUNCIL ARE OUT TO KILL OUR CLUB AND HAVE YOU BELIEVING THEY ARE ON YOUR SIDE. THEY ARE LYING!!! SISU OUR THE CLUB WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM AND OUR TEAM. WE ARE TEAM SISU. WETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. THE REST OF YOU ARE TEAM COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL.

Coventry City Council fail to Co-operate – Success for Ian Dove QC and Thea Osmund-Smith - See more at: http://www.no5.com/news-and-publica...c-and-thea-osmund-smith/#sthash.tAv2k1eO.dpuf
http://www.no5.com/news-and-publica...uccess-for-ian-dove-qc-and-thea-osmund-smith/


BECAUSE OF COURSE COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL PLAY FAIR DONT THEY!!!

http://www.no5.com/cms/documents/Cov City Council_Duty to Cooperate Conclusions.pdf

LOSERS
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NOW ID RATHER BE BACKED UP BY A FUND WITH 20 % OWNERSHIP IN THIS COMPANY AND MANY MANY OTHERS!!

http://investor.netia.pl/company,financial_reports-year,2013.html

http://www.netia.pl/files/investors/financial_reports/2013_q1/quarterly_financial_report.pdf


Ms. Joy Victoria Seppala founded Sisu Capital Limited in 1998 and serves as its Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Seppala serves as a Manager at Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC. From 1995 to 1998, she served as Worldwide Head of the Special Situations Investment Group at Paribas Corporation in London. She joined Paribas Corporation as its Vice President in 1992. She worked for a number of years in the mergers and acquisitions departments of Kidder Peabody & Co. Incorporated, Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated, and Mitsubishi Trust & Banking Corporation. Ms. Seppala serves as a Panel Member of The Takeover Panel (U.K.). She serves as a Director at Sisu Capital Limited.



She joined Paribas Corporation as its Vice President in 1992

BNP Paribas is a leader in global banking and financial services and one of the strongest banks in the world (Rated AA by Standard & Poor's i.e. 3rd rating out of a scale of 22). Ranked as the 11th-largest company and 7th-largest bank in the world on the 2010 ”Forbes Global 2000,” BNP Paribas employs over 204,000 people in more than 80 countries across five continents and has over 15,000 employees in the U.S. and Canada. The Group's North American operations comprise Corporate and Investment Banking, Asset Management and Services, and Retail Banking.

SHES NO FUCKING MUG!!

ah don't we just love it when someone uses capitals makes it all true
except in your world

 

[James Smith]

Robbo 1.3 million is not owed. That what administration was all about. Coventry city council took on the big boys and well and truely got spanked!! Noe their only recourse is to make sisu wait for their signature. They can either take 25p in the pound or walk away with nothing! Good work appleton and good work sisu. I hope this bankrupts the council i really do,. They have tried to kill my club.

Talking of the council, I'm still waiting to hear how it is illegal for Cov City Council to loan their stadium of which they are a part owner money but it is fine for Swansea City Council to loan their stadium of which they are a part owner money.

To recap you said you were in the legal profession, I'm not which is why I'm interested in your opinion.

i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.

You claimed that no council can loan money to a business they are a part owner of.

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law.

I posted a response pointing out numerous instances of "State Aid" and you picked on the Northampton example which I don't disagree is part of a larger regeneration plan as one of the NTFC fans confirmed.

So I asked how this position of council loans fitted in with the Liberty Stadium in Swansea.....

So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?

You said you thought that the difference was a lack of differences between all the board members of the Liberty.

i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.

You also said on this issue in response to an OSB58 post

the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

I asked if this was just Cov Council or any council?

and you responded thus

no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios

And then added this in reply to someone else

to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.

I then asked if in your legal opinion Swansea Council were as 'guilty' as Coventry City Council

no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios

So Swansea Council are just as guilty as Coventry City Council then? Will SISU be going after them too?

37. In the case of Swansea County Council, the Council put direct money
into the scheme (£27 million plus £6.854 million from the sale of Council
owned land) as well as providing a loan of £2 million to the Stadium
Management Company to cover fit out costs. This loan is over a 20year
period and was provided via prudential borrowing. In addition, the
Council provided a £2.5 million rental guarantee to the retail developer,
Capital & Regional; in the event this guarantee has not been required
and the Council are due overage monies due to the success of the retail
development. Finally, Swansea Council agreed to meet the remediation
and piling costs of the stadium at risk; in the event, these costs were as
predicted and further monies were not required from the Council.

(http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37)

You replied with

it still is not the same as our situation. were the owners of the club and the stadium in a pitch battle at the time? no .. it seems to me the swansea method was agreed by all parties

I asked if your original statement was still correct....

So what you're basically saying is that your original statement is incorrect and councils can loan money to companies they are part owners in?

All the parties in our case agreed on the loan (namely ACL & a unanimous Cov Council etc.) and seem perfectly happy. SISU are alleging that they were involved in something prior to this but haven't yet proved anything.

I guess we'll have to see whether SISU actually do have the signed papers that Young Timothy has claimed that they do, about distressing ACL.

You never responded, any chance you will now? In both the case of Swansea and in our case all parties involved in the deals were happy with it. Young Timothy has claimed that they were involved in a deal that fell through, but that doesn't have any bearing on the legality of whether councils can loan money to businesses they're part owners in.

So why is it okay for Swansea Council to loan the Stadium business they're a part owner in money but not for Coventry City Council to do the same?

 

[cloughie]

Excellent find.
Well, that is simply not true unless Fisher thought the Escrow account was the clubs own money - which definetely wasn't the case.
The club still paid 10K/match in expenses, so they did pay something.

Even when facts are put in front of you you still try to convince yourself they paid some rent

you just lose any credibility you may have left

 

[cloughie]

you think sisu have got this completely wrong? Like or hate them, they have got this absolutely right. Commercial leases are not like a lettings contract, companies stop paying the lease all the time, every day, usually to force the landlord to renegotiate and sometimes to have the landlord cancel the lease. There was no break clause in this lease so sisu were tied into the lease as part of the deal when buying the club. There may or may not at that point have been a verbal agreement where the rent would lower if the club suffered further relegation and acl may or may not have reneged on that verbal agreement -- that is the type of example that may or may not have lead to the club refusing to pay the rent. In commercial leasing the club are still the tenants of the grounds until the owners release them from the lease. The only way in which this is not the case is in a break clause or the company leasing the propoerty go into administration.


If you remember it was acl that forced administration on the club, the club did the only right thing and placed themselves into administration meaning they choose their insolvency company. If actual fact once you remove the outer layers of this situation the truth is sisu played an absolute blinder and have the council on their knees: Particularly with the 14 million pounds they are out pocket and will have to write off. I still believe we will be at the ricoh in time for the season to start. And why?? Because the council have no choice but to finally give... Last hour

Obviously we can see that by 'we' you mean sisu

 

[Seyeclops666]

Pathetic, you lot are so pathetic, fans come here to this forum to give an honest open opinion, it seems to me that we must all have one opinion or basically go and find a railway line. Oh and we are all retards too ! All because we support the owners of our club, fuck the council !! Yes to sisu

yes to sisu

yes to sisu

yes to sisu



keep it up ms seppalla and co, the sisu boys are loving your demolition of the council!! Theyve had it coming for years - ever since they wrecked our city centre turning into a ghost town

You are feckin retarded clearly!! the "Council" isn't a single entity that has existed the same thoughout time - the Council is the local government structure that all areas have to administer small amounts of local money (on average about 20% of the totality of money spent locally) most of it is directed by central government through local agents - police, job centre plus, GPs, hospital trusts, courts and probation etc.

The Council consists of locally elected people - most of whom are City supporters (well certainly in the current lot anyway) - and officers who do the work as directed by the politicians. These politicians change regularly - so how you can blame the current council for piss poor planning decisions (and they were feckin scandalous by the way) that happened 50 years ago defies belief.

The Tories were in power when they decided to give a bridging loan so we had a ground and the current administration (Labour) have done everything they can (IMHO) to keep the privately owned ( and badly managed) club afloat whilst retaining an essential community asset.

Clearly you know nothing about local government and by most of your other rants you know feck all about business too. You are deluded idiot.

Oh and by the way I don't work for the Council I am just not stupid so "understand" things - you should try it some day.

 

[Godiva]

Will they use up the full 14 days?
Of course it depends on what is to be considered, but maybe 7 days will do. Then they all have 7 days if more consideration and investigation is necessary.

Ok, 8 days then ...

BBC Cov & Warks ‏@BBCCovWarks 28m #CCFC administrator adjourned the creditors' meeting yesterday to discuss the CVA Proposals until July 30 at 11am.