The second question would need to be answered by ACL however PWKH has stated that it was rejected as SISU / Otium wouldn't agree to 2 pre-conditions. It is worth remembering that when responding to the CVA offer ACL have a legal framework they need to adhere to, they can't simply reject it because they don't like SISU.
Odd that, because their press release was all about how they rejected it for the good of the club as a whole, and not because it was an appropriate financial deal.
Worth remembering that in his capacity as Allard Higgs, PWKH actually voted for the CVA.
Worth remembering that is a legal requirement for a charity.
Odd that, because their press release was all about how they rejected it for the good of the club as a whole, and not because it was an appropriate financial deal.
Worth remembering that in his capacity as Allard Higgs, PWKH actually voted for the CVA.
They have to vote for a CVA?
It was on here before, I think by PKWH that a charity is legally required to accept an offer of a CVA by the charity commission.
The 'legal' reason is merely a request - not like you implied in your statement.
As for the FL rules, they themselves circumvented their own guidance as it was an exceptional circumstance.
The only thing the 'request' implies is that they didn't want the JR, which is fair enough.
You're insinusting that a) the rejection was justified and b) they were forced to do it.
Odd that, because their press release was all about how they rejected it for the good of the club as a whole, and not because it was an appropriate financial deal.
Worth remembering that in his capacity as Allard Higgs, PWKH actually voted for the CVA.
"At the meeting held on Tuesday, ACL had put forward modifications that were not compliant with the terms of the Insolvency Act and Rules. This was explained to both them and their legal representatives at the time.
"The adjournment provided them with an opportunity to put forward modifications that were compliant with the law in order to make use of the time made available by the adjournment that they themselves proposed.
"However, despite being given this further opportunity, they declined. Accordingly, when asked whether they were in favour or not of the Proposals, ACL confirmed their rejection.
"Therefore, the CVA has been rejected."
Reacting to ACL's statement, Mr Appleton added: "I have noted ACL's statement released today with some interest.
"Put simply, we do not understand the comments being made by ACL with regard to the ability to put forward new proposals.
"As I said in my earlier statement, the proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.
This from CT (quoting Appelton):
Old coals and Groundhogs spring to mind.
Fair point, well made.
I'm doing exactly what I complain about elsewhere!
Still, we can always Google this board for evidence
Legal reasons?? As I have said before... If they believed that something illegal happened in the admin process they should have reported Appleton to the appropriate authorities.
FL Rules? Firstly what jurisdiction do ACL have in the football world? Secondly by going into admin the club was punished by losing 10 points, and again in the rejection of the CVA. If there were further FL rules being breached, then they wouldn't have awarded the GS. What other rules have supposedly been broken, and what have ACL the right to make judgement?
To suggest ACL rejected the CVA for these is nonsense.
Surely we've done all this to death. In ACL's words, they rejected the CVA because...
“ACL’s motivation for rejecting the CVA was about much more than pure financial interest. Along with various other parties, ranging from Sky Blues fans and Supporters Direct through to local MPs and potential bidders, ACL was not happy with the way the administration process was run. Accepting the CVA would have been a tacit approval of a process that few people save Sisu and the administrator had any faith in. Along with HMRC, ACL rejected the CVA.
“We did so because we have significant doubts about how the process has been managed – particularly with new evidence that the administrator should have been aware of coming to light on an almost weekly basis.”
That's the direct quote. Clearly ACL weren't happy with what had gone on in Admin process for a number of different reasons. To suggest they rejected the CVA out of spite is daft. They, along with plenty of other people who followed it, had real and legitimate doubts about what had gone on with CCFC Ltd before and during Administration.
To blame ACL for costing us points is daft, imho. The blame lies with the people who refused to pay the bills, and have been fairly clearly shown as determined to distress ACL whatever the possible cost to the fans and club.
In truth though, it's largely irrelevant now to my mind. What matters is what happens next, not what has gone on before.
Surely we've done all this to death. In ACL's words, they rejected the CVA because...
“ACL’s motivation for rejecting the CVA was about much more than pure financial interest. Along with various other parties, ranging from Sky Blues fans and Supporters Direct through to local MPs and potential bidders, ACL was not happy with the way the administration process was run. Accepting the CVA would have been a tacit approval of a process that few people save Sisu and the administrator had any faith in. Along with HMRC, ACL rejected the CVA.
“We did so because we have significant doubts about how the process has been managed – particularly with new evidence that the administrator should have been aware of coming to light on an almost weekly basis.”
That's the direct quote. Clearly ACL weren't happy with what had gone on in Admin process for a number of different reasons. To suggest they rejected the CVA out of spite is daft. They, along with plenty of other people who followed it, had real and legitimate doubts about what had gone on with CCFC Ltd before and during Administration.
To blame ACL for costing us points is daft, imho. The blame lies with the people who refused to pay the bills, and have been fairly clearly shown as determined to distress ACL whatever the possible cost to the fans and club.
In truth though, it's largely irrelevant now to my mind. What matters is what happens next, not what has gone on before.
As a fan did you nominate ACL to be the moral bastions? Because I certainly fucking didn't.
Here's an idea - leave the football governance to the appropriate authorities, let ACL worry about finding someone to use their fucking stadium.
The second points deduction lies clearly at the feet of ACL no matter how you dress it up.
As a fan did you nominate ACL to be the moral bastions? Because I certainly fucking didn't.
Here's an idea - leave the football governance to the appropriate authorities, let ACL worry about finding someone to use their fucking stadium.
The second points deduction lies clearly at the feet of ACL no matter how you dress it up.
As a fan did you nominate ACL to be the moral bastions? Because I certainly fucking didn't.
Here's an idea - leave the football governance to the appropriate authorities, let ACL worry about finding someone to use their fucking stadium.
The second points deduction lies clearly at the feet of ACL no matter how you dress it up.
Both points deductions (and any future ones) lay firmly at the owners feet I'm afraid. No-one forced them to stop paying rent.
As a fan did you nominate ACL to be the moral bastions? Because I certainly fucking didn't.
Here's an idea - leave the football governance to the appropriate authorities, let ACL worry about finding someone to use their fucking stadium.
The second points deduction lies clearly at the feet of ACL no matter how you dress it up.
The anti=ACL seem to have been out in force today......sorry to have missed it......work:blue:
So some people are pro ACL? Who are they?
Ah the wonderful binary world of Grendel.
It's nothing to do with football governance, what are you on about? It's to do with insolvency - there's no fucking law that says that ACL have to accept the CVA, the clue is in the middle word - Voluntary.
If you want ACL to get on with it, then why are you whining about them turning down the CVA. This thing about 'spite' is pathetic - you can see their reasons, you just can't accept them. If the bills are paid, no Admin, no insolvency, no CVA.
You have, once again, got it all arse backwards in some desperate attempt to prove a motive that makes no sense. Who's really 'dressing it up' here?
If you want spite, go talk to our owners about why we're playing in Northampton and losing millions every season - now there's a decision that doesn't seem easy to explain.
Edit: And 'moral bastions', what's that supposed to mean. ACL are supposed to accept something that they see as wrong. To suit you?
Here is another statement from ACL on rejecting CVA
“ACL, jointly owned by the Alan Edward Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council, voted not to approve the Administrator’s proposals.
“This decision was based on ACL’s twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond. This last point is especially important given that CCFC has been the subject of a ‘catastrophic insolvency’ in the hands of its previous owners"
How did ACL's actions meet either of those aims? No mention on how their crippling financial arrangements helped to exacerbate that financial disaster (and yes before you say it SISU should have sorted it back when they took over)
ACL didn't have to accept the CVA, but what was their main priority? You would think it would be to recoup the maximum amount possible from the admin process. So if they had been offered the max value - then why did they not accept it?
They were unhappy with the process - It's a complicated process, and is probably parts of that may appear questionable- but they are ultimately perfectly legal. If they felt something illegal or untoward had happened in the process then that's different. Report Appleton to the appropriate authorities.
12 months on and they have done nothing. and we've just had another season of mediocrity thanks to starting on -10... and I'm being pathetic for suggesting the actions were spiteful?
LMFAO !!
Your going to have to calm down with all this hatred for Sisu !!
When will you ever shut up about Sisu ??
So some people are pro ACL? Who are they?
Here is another statement from ACL on rejecting CVA
“ACL, jointly owned by the Alan Edward Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council, voted not to approve the Administrator’s proposals.
“This decision was based on ACL’s twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond. This last point is especially important given that CCFC has been the subject of a ‘catastrophic insolvency’ in the hands of its previous owners"
How did ACL's actions meet either of those aims? No mention on how their crippling financial arrangements helped to exacerbate that financial disaster (and yes before you say it SISU should have sorted it back when they took over)
ACL didn't have to accept the CVA, but what was their main priority? You would think it would be to recoup the maximum amount possible from the admin process. So if they had been offered the max value - then why did they not accept it?
They were unhappy with the process - It's a complicated process, and is probably parts of that may appear questionable- but they are ultimately perfectly legal. If they felt something illegal or untoward had happened in the process then that's different. Report Appleton to the appropriate authorities.
12 months on and they have done nothing. and we've just had another season of mediocrity thanks to starting on -10... and I'm being pathetic for suggesting the actions were spiteful?
Try reading the replies you get a bit slower. You might understand them then.
ACL tried to keep our club in Coventry by rejecting the CVA. All that had to happen was to drop the JR and sign up to a rental agreement of much less than it was before. They also wanted to see how the process had been done, like the movement of players contracts and so. If you remember Appleton didn't notice that some players were registered in a different place that he and SISU said. He couldn't even find the golden share. The questions should have been asked IMHO.
SISU said they wanted a 3 year rolling contract, but the FL rules stated that 10 years minimum was needed. Were ACL at fault for turning down a 3 year contract that they couldn't accept if they abided by the FL rules? Why didn't SISU go to the FL and ask if they could have a 3 year contract at the Ricoh instead of moving our club to Northampton? For some reason when they went to the FL they said they couldn't stay at the Ricoh as all trust had been lost. Why didn't they say that they wanted a 3 year contract instead of 10? Was it because the FL might have let them have the 3 year contract? It wouldn't have helped them distress ACL would it?
You say 12 months on and they have done nothing. How about looking at what they have attempted in the last 18 months to try and bring our club home. There was the road map that was the idea of SISU. CCC went along with it. The arena would have been half owned by SISU. But SISU wouldn't buy the Higgs share as they had agreed to. They wanted to pay over 10 years and not provide proof of funds. And as we know it wouldn't have been a good move by higgs to accept it considering that SISU seem to do administrations and liquidations frequently. The judge ruled that SISU were not interested in following their own idea through. Then Joy said she wanted a lower rent. So a lower rent was offered. 400k IIRC. This was turned down as there was no pie money. So then a lower rent plus pie money was offered to SISU. This was turned down. So a lower rent again plus pie money was offered. This was turned down again. By this time we are playing in Northampton. Then ACL offer rent free for the rest of the season and then less than we are paying in Northampton for the following two seasons. This was also turned down. And you try and make out that ACL have done nothing.
So what have SISU done to bring our club home. They have said what they want and then moved the goalposts each time it has been offered. They have started litigation each time they want to. They have shown us a few pictures of a stadium. How about plan A becoming plan B and back to plan A. Or the latest where Joy says we will never go back to the Ricoh whilst her sidekicks say we aim to go back.
So yes I certainly do disagree with your views on what has been going on and why we are in Northampton. You have told us all that you talk to SISU. Have you asked them why they keep turning down offers to return? I would love to find out why if it isn't for trying to distress ACL. Do you agree that we should all suffer whilst they do this? Do you agree that our club keeps going lower whilst they do this? Lack of trust? Do they honestly think that any sane person would trust them now? They don't even seem interested in rebuilding trust with anyone. So they are finally talking to us. I am happy to see this. But I suspect that the only reason for this is to get us behind them and attack CCC. They will get my backing, but only when they start running our club properly and when they treat us supporters with more respect.
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?