Have acl offered rent of £150k (3 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Pete]

To otium or just the administrator?

If not, why not?

If they still won't then we should darn well encourage them to do so and bit assume it will be rejected!!

If otium reject it they are insane!

Pwkh do you know??

 

---

[MusicDating]

I think even if ACL offered the Ricoh rent free SISU would not accept the offer, as they only want ownership.

To me ACL's main mistake was only offering the free rent whilst in admin. It showed that they were happy for admin to continue into the new season.

If they had offered it free up until say xmas for negotiations with any potential new owners to continue, it could've called SISU's bluff.

 

[italiahorse]

I've tried to understand this but nobody seems to know the real answer.
I understand it could not be offered as part of the CVA process but cannot understand why it could not be offered outside it.
They could have an agreement at 150K legally bound in with CCC/ACL accepting the CVA surely ?

 

[jaytskyblue]

PWKH has already said 'Sisu have moved on', they arent interested in talking.

 

[italiahorse]

I think even if ACL offered the Ricoh rent free SISU would not accept the offer, as they only want ownership.

To me ACL's main mistake was only offering the free rent whilst in admin. It showed that they were happy for admin to continue into the new season.

If they had offered it free up until say xmas for negotiations with any potential new owners to continue, it could've called SISU's bluff.

.......... but could transfer of ownership not be agreed over a 10 year period. After all TF / SISU plan is a 10 year plan.
Compass (F&B) could also be agreed as I am led to believe they are on a 10 year rolling agreement.

 

[The Bear]

Sisu want out. They just need something to make it worthwhile & that's the stadium.

No other buyer will want the club without the stadium.

ACL & Sisu need to sit down and work out a deal for the stadium (rent then buy or outright buy) and we can move on.

Strip back the emotion & politics and this is the logical way forward.

I can't see Sisu's new stadium going anywhere and I can't see them being forced out of ownership with the current losses that would entail and I certainly can't see ACL getting a new tenant for the Ricoh.

Something has to give.

 

[skybluetony176]

I've tried to understand this but nobody seems to know the real answer.
I understand it could not be offered as part of the CVA process but cannot understand why it could not be offered outside it.
They could have an agreement at 150K legally bound in with CCC/ACL accepting the CVA surely ?

thats exactly what i keep saying.

no-one has yet said and prooved that it couldn't have been done, they just keep saying that appleton said it couldn't be done within the CVA. when i point out that i said nothing about it it being in the CVA i am talking about a legaly binding contract between ACl and shitsu outside of the CVA, at which point people go quite.

having said that the rent was a legaly binding contract and looked how that worked out.

 

[jaytskyblue]

This idea of letting Sisu have the Ricoh (no doubt at their price) so they will then nice and easy sell on to a new owner, is beyond naive.
They are unethical incompetent bullies with a business strategy no one understands- which is very likely not in the interests of the club or city.
The idea of giving in to a bully so they will have want and go away is also none to pleasant.

 

[Esoterica]

PWKH has already said 'Sisu have moved on', they arent interested in talking.

but has anyone tried? It's an arms folded, sulking childs attitude towards the issue.

Publically offer SISU a fair deal to come back to the Ricoh (with no caveats this time) and if SISU still say no then any ambiguity about their motives is taken away. The fans will at least be united in their understanding of where we currently are then. The current plight might be more SISU's fault than anyone elses but the pressure from us as fans is currently being applied in the wrong place to acheive the fastest resolution to getting Coventry City FC back in Coventry

 

[stupot07]

I've tried to understand this but nobody seems to know the real answer.
I understand it could not be offered as part of the CVA process but cannot understand why it could not be offered outside it.
They could have an agreement at 150K legally bound in with CCC/ACL accepting the CVA surely ?

We can only assume the offer was never been made outside the CVA. Had it been I'm sure ACL would be using their PR machine to make sure everybody knew about it.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

ACL offered the Rent of £150,000 to the owners of the club.
At that time it happened to be the Administrator He for whatever reasons could not accept it.

Fisher in turn got his nickers in a twist (not for the first time) for not being asked and the divide got bigger.
At the moment nether side trust each other so we are at a stale mate.........Fucked

 

[Sutty]

The way I've understood things is that ACL have only wanted to deal with CCFC Ltd, they do not recognise Holdings as the club. It's just infuriating that petty issues are stopping CCFC playing in the city.

 

[RFC]

Petty issues and the offer "never being legally made"!

It's also been alleged by MEP that on top of the rental offer that was not made CCC wanted to put on a £4 surcharge or levy on top of whatever price CCFC were going to charge and on an average gate of 10,000 this would have produced a further £1.5 million in revenue for the Council/ACL????

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes but on Fishers own admission it was LTD that paid the ricoh rent so why would they deal with holdings it's a separate company and who's fault is that?

The way I've understood things is that ACL have only wanted to deal with CCFC Ltd, they do not recognise Holdings as the club. It's just infuriating that petty issues are stopping CCFC playing in the city.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Again another quote that has no proof if so lets see it?

Oh who made that accusation?

Petty issues and the offer "never being legally made"!

It's also been alleged by MEP that on top of the rental offer that was not made CCC wanted to put on a £4 surcharge or levy on top of whatever price CCFC were going to charge and on an average gate of 10,000 this would have produced a further £1.5 million in revenue for the Council/ACL????

 

[italiahorse]

This idea of letting Sisu have the Ricoh (no doubt at their price) so they will then nice and easy sell on to a new owner, is beyond naive.
They are unethical incompetent bullies with a business strategy no one understands- which is very likely not in the interests of the club or city.
The idea of giving in to a bully so they will have want and go away is also none to pleasant.

But at the right price with safeguards for CCFC ?

 

[italiahorse]

The way I've understood things is that ACL have only wanted to deal with CCFC Ltd, they do not recognise Holdings as the club. It's just infuriating that petty issues are stopping CCFC playing in the city.

Are you sure ? I'm not.
Are they waiting for Ltd to be sorted before they offer the deal?
If they are why can't they tell Optium now ?

 

[Sutty]

Yes but on Fishers own admission it was LTD that paid the ricoh rent so why would they deal with holdings it's a separate company and who's fault is that?

As for whose fault the club being split over 2 companies is, god only knows, but by all accounts the structure was put in place some time in the mid-90s.

The basic problem seems to be that Fisher et al wanted to deal entirely through Holdings, and ACl would only deal with limited. Hugely frustrating. Hopefully once the liquidation of limited has gone through and the old rental agreement is no more then negotiations between Holdings and ACL can begin.

I still hold out hope that we'll be playing on the green grass at the Ricoh by the time Sixfields becomes a boggy mess!

 

[Sutty]

Are you sure ? I'm not.
Are they waiting for Ltd to be sorted before they offer the deal?
If they are why can't they tell Optium now ?

I can't say I'm 100% but I vaguely remember some talk that ACl didn't want to deal with Holdings. Can't remember who said it or when though.

As I say, hopefully the liquidation of CCFC ltd will instigate some movement.

 

[italiahorse]

Petty issues and the offer "never being legally made"!

It's also been alleged by MEP that on top of the rental offer that was not made CCC wanted to put on a £4 surcharge or levy on top of whatever price CCFC were going to charge and on an average gate of 10,000 this would have produced a further £1.5 million in revenue for the Council/ACL????

Or perhaps original £1.2M rental divided by 12,000 attending divided by 25 games equals £4 contribution per person per game ?
It may be just playing on figures, we don't really know. But if we can't interrogate the facts we just hear it as we want too.

 

[stupot07]

Or perhaps original £1.2M rental divided by 12,000 attending divided by 25 games equals £4 contribution per person per game ?
It may be just playing on figures, we don't really know. But if we can't interrogate the facts we just hear it as we want too.

The surcharge was also mentioned on the FAQ's as part of the £400k per annum offer.

 

[italiahorse]

The surcharge was also mentioned on the FAQ's as part of the £400k per annum offer.

I can vaguely remember that (I think) but what was the £150K offer.
Why would SISU not put this out the fans to perhaps get some sympathy with the situation ? :cough

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Correct was, is and how it is are all different everyone twists it to prove they are right in some way.
Trouble is who is right in all this? and until they start talking openly we will never Know.

Or perhaps original £1.2M rental divided by 12,000 attending divided by 25 games equals £4 contribution per person per game ?
It may be just playing on figures, we don't really know. But if we can't interrogate the facts we just hear it as we want too.