Did I support ACL & CCC for the right or wrong reasons?

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
Why is it that today I am questioning my strongly held belief that ACL and CCC were taking the correct approach in the SISI – CCFC debacle. I had believed that ACL – CCC had very strong and compelling reasons for rejecting the CVA (A stance I supported) but today, they state that they will not be challenging Appleton if he proceeds the liquidate CCFC.

If there is no challenge, why then reject the CVA? That action precipitated the deduction of 10 points. I had assumed that behind the scenes the Legal beagles had a plan, and were playing the long game. ACL have the ball in their court at this moment, I had hoped for a back hand smash for a winner. I fear that I and many more may be disappointed.

If there is no challenge then frankly I am mystified why they rejected the CVA. That worries me as Timmy was also mystified, and I don't want to be like him.



http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-owners-rule-out-5842597
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2013
446
54
78
If Appleton won't entertain a revised Cva then what's the point? They've given their best offer and it was rejected out of hand.

Acl are only people realistically able to do something about the owners...they've tried but so far come up against brick walls.
At least they are coventry people....
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2013
446
54
78
Oh and Tim being mystified is only another excuse for him to have another potshot, its already been long established that he's a f-ing liar
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2012
8,528
1,383
113
It seems that no matter what CCC. ACL. do, will be shot down by the FL. Septic has stated she will only buy the Ricoh on her terms, and openly admitted she is going to try and distress ACL....(Something the Judge in the JR has said)...... It has also been suggested on this forum that the FL may have been threatened (Sued) over the GS if it is taken away from SISU.................“Indeed, Mr Justice Males has made the reasons for his judgment very clear. We note, in particular, his reference to the withholding of lawfully owed rent by SISU as a means of exerting pressure on ACL in commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment in the High Court in ACL’s favour.”
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2012
8,528
1,383
113
It seems that no matter what CCC. ACL. do, will be shot down by the FL. Septic has stated she will only buy the Ricoh on her terms, and openly admitted she is going to try and distress ACL....(Something the Judge in the JR has said)...... It has also been suggested on this forum that the FL may have been threatened (Sued) over the GS if it is taken away from SISU.................“Indeed, Mr Justice Males has made the reasons for his judgment very clear. We note, in particular, his reference to the withholding of lawfully owed rent by SISU as a means of exerting pressure on ACL in commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment in the High Court in ACL’s favour.”
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
4,292
123
63
Why is it that today I am questioning my strongly held belief that ACL and CCC were taking the correct approach in the SISI – CCFC debacle. I had believed that ACL – CCC had very strong and compelling reasons for rejecting the CVA (A stance I supported) but today, they state that they will not be challenging Appleton if he proceeds the liquidate CCFC.

If there is no challenge, why then reject the CVA? That action precipitated the deduction of 10 points. I had assumed that behind the scenes the Legal beagles had a plan, and were playing the long game. ACL have the ball in their court at this moment, I had hoped for a back hand smash for a winner. I fear that I and many more may be disappointed.

If there is no challenge then frankly I am mystified why they rejected the CVA. That worries me as Timmy was also mystified, and I don't want to be like him.



http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-owners-rule-out-5842597

One thing that surprised me in that article was that Higgs apparently voted FOR the original CVA. I didn't know that. Was that information in the public domaine already?

Anyway, it seems the 'game' is finally coming to the end. There is still a JR to hear and of course Mr Appeltons report of his investigation into current and former directors actions.
But I think that is about it then.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
4,292
123
63
Yes, Higgs Centre, rather than Higgs Charity/ACL type thingy ;)
Oh, right! Thanks! For a second I thought I had completely missed something important.
Turns out I had just completely switched off my brain.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2011
4,879
115
63
Yes, Higgs Centre, rather than Higgs Charity/ACL type thingy ;)
Yeah I think someone said that they have to vote for it being a charity but because they're only shareholders in ACL same compulsion didn't apply in that case.
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
When they say there is no challenge, that means that they want the full investigation that liquidation brings to go ahead?

They can challenge the findings of liquidation later in the process if needed. No?
That is and has been my assumption. I am still convinced CCC / ACL were and are in the right. I just hope they will see it through.
 

slyblue57

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2011
554
172
143
solihull
Well I want Sisu gone and Cov back in Cov but I think CCC and ACL could nt give a hoot about City.
The two 10 point reductions are down to them.
You could argue last seasons was brought about by SiSu, I do nt agree.
This season, they should ve accepted the CVA. They are nt challenging the liquidation so where has it got us, CCFC,
no where !
The sooner SiSu are gone and CCC interference the better.
Pusb
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2013
446
54
78
Had the acl admin gone ahead then yes, last seasons 10 points was down to them. Lets not forget they applied for that as they were owed over £1million unpaid rent.
However sisu probably knowing full well they wouldn't get a look in with acl appointed administrator put club in themselves, so actually it is down to them. Why did they do it? To buy the club back off themselves and shaft acl.

This seasons you could also say yes, it is, however hmrc also voted against the Cva, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this would have meant liquidation even if acl accepted?

Appleton, sisu backed acl and football league into a corner by selling everything during admin so fl had no option but to give them the share...that and the threat of legal action...
 

mrtickle

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
252
3
18
Had the acl admin gone ahead then yes, last seasons 10 points was down to them. Lets not forget they applied for that as they were owed over £1million unpaid rent.
However sisu probably knowing full well they wouldn't get a look in with acl appointed administrator put club in themselves, so actually it is down to them. Why did they do it? To buy the club back off themselves and shaft acl.

This seasons you could also say yes, it is, however hmrc also voted against the Cva, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this would have meant liquidation even if acl accepted?

Appleton, sisu backed acl and football league into a corner by selling everything during admin so fl had no option but to give them the share...that and the threat of legal action...
Hmrc always vote against CVA due to the preferred status given to football over itself. If ACL had accepted the CVA it would have gone through due To the minor percentage owed to hmrc.
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2012
3,138
1,037
213
Hmrc always vote against CVA due to the preferred status given to football over itself. If ACL had accepted the CVA it would have gone through due To the minor percentage owed to hmrc.
It was£700 owed to hmrc which was a result of going into adminstration
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,756
2,833
163
Coventry
Number of things:
They had to find proposals acceptable to all creditors (SISU what chance)
Appleton made it clear he wasnt going to play ball
ACL weren't the only ones to reject it

Fisher unsurprisingly is trying to gain some mileage out of the confusion.

And don't forget the league we are in might be part of the plan...low over heads diminished gates even if we were at the Ricoh! All trying to distress ACL.

Folks this is one league you can buy your way out of. Remember those funds the FL has seen.

Remember poor old Andy having his squad stripped...we all knew it would end in relegation.

They've stripped us to a core for a purpose. Clever SISU thick fans.

Everyone knows its wrong but they keep driving the situation. They have too much legal clout and nous for the incompetent FL
 
Last edited:

lewys33

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2013
2,789
91
98
Coventry
I too was confused after reading that they were not going to be doing anymore. It made rejecting the CVA seem pointless and "chucking the toys out of the pram" like. However there could be a reason for this:

maybe they are holding out for something to come out from the liquidation process, or possibly more leaked documents, or even parliament to step in and do something! ......... I don't know. There is definitely a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know about, and this is definitely far from over as has been mentioned.

Well I want Sisu gone and Cov back in Cov but I think CCC and ACL could nt give a hoot about City.
The two 10 point reductions are down to them.
Ridiculous claim. I could understand the argument for us having -10 this season but to say it is their fault for last season is unbelievable. If you need an explanation as to why then you clearly have no understanding of the situation.
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2013
446
54
78
I'm almost certain relegation to league 1 was part of the plan, but what an absolute disgraceful thing to want the club you own to do, just cos it was part of a ruthless business practice of trying to distress a local company half paid for by fans/citizens of coventry, half a charity....
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2011
22,002
16,485
263
Had the acl admin gone ahead then yes, last seasons 10 points was down to them. Lets not forget they applied for that as they were owed over £1million unpaid rent.
However sisu probably knowing full well they wouldn't get a look in with acl appointed administrator put club in themselves, so actually it is down to them. Why did they do it? To buy the club back off themselves and shaft acl.

This seasons you could also say yes, it is, however hmrc also voted against the Cva, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this would have meant liquidation even if acl accepted?

Appleton, sisu backed acl and football league into a corner by selling everything during admin so fl had no option but to give them the share...that and the threat of legal action...
If the ACL administration had been run, why would the outcome have been any different? I am really struggling with this idea.....
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2013
2,789
91
98
Coventry
If the ACL administration had been run, why would the outcome have been any different? I am really struggling with this idea.....
Different administrator. ACL wanted Guiffoyle (or however you spell that blokes name) which was the guy making comments all the way through with the CET.
Different administrator could have brought a different outcome but who knows?
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
23,185
13,382
363
If the ACL administration had been run, why would the outcome have been any different? I am really struggling with this idea.....
Well... there are always reasons why all parties want to choose their administrator.

It's not that any administrator does anything dodgy, but as with everything there are ways to skew things in favour of certain parties. Am sure an ACL administrator would have attempted to skew things in a different direction.

I suspect the (Holdings) Ltd. chaos would have still been a surprise however!

Worrth remembering this is all within the law however ;)

Preston Haskell IV said:
I personally met with Mr. Paul Appleton and think he and his colleagues, bound by the laws and rules of an official legal process have been very professional throughout this difficult undertaking. His job wasn't easy but it was done according to the law, and appropriately managed.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2011
22,002
16,485
263
Different administrator. ACL wanted Guiffoyle (or however you spell that blokes name) which was the guy making comments all the way through with the CET.
Different administrator could have brought a different outcome but who knows?
Would the other parties have bid more for SISU's debt than SISU did?

Based on what schmee posted the other day, it may have been that ACL would have attempted to manoeuvre themselves to being the major creditor by calling the debt as being the complete value of the rental agreement (rather than the arrears owing). Not sure if that's true or not. Not sure whether it would be considered fair by a Court either.
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2013
2,789
91
98
Coventry
the appointed administrator would be more sympathetic towards whoever appointed them. 1 of the reason Appleton said Otium were the best bidders was because of this "beneficial ownership" so maybe somebody else wouldnt have looked at it in the same way.

I remember saying it a while back while the admin process was running - Would you prefer a team without a home ground or a home ground without a team (if the contracts were in holdings). Appleton went for the first option with Otium rather than the later with Haskell. Others may have gone a different route I dont know