unfortunately every Sisu move thus far has been unethical rather than unlawful. The problem with business law is that there are so many loopholes to escape through and Sisu have exploited the lot!
The pathetic administrator had no players because Fisher and Seppala moved them from Limited to Holdings, anyone with half a brain should legally pursue SISU,s fradulent practices, or are they beyond the law
And why am I happy with being in L1? Where have I said "I AM HAPPY BEING IN LEAGUE ONE BECAUSE I THINK SISU ARE WIZARD"?
What I am saying is I can't understand how anyone would trust them with the Ricoh. The only thing we could trust them with is taking our club even further. Yet he seems to think giving them the Ricoh for nothing would be a good idea.
How many here can trust them with anything?
I never said we should give them the Ricoh for nothing
Hes just thinking about himself as usual. Yes let's hand over a multi million pound complex to a faceless bunch of crooks for free just so it doesn't spoil some people's Saturday afternoon routine. Id rather liquidation and start again.
Post 147 and 152 on this thread?
They moved us out of Cov because ACL refused to deal with them. Mutton refused to deal with them. Idiots wrote to the Council begging not to deal with them.
And yet again, you put words into my mouth. Where have I said "it's a good move for them"?
My belief is that, if we are ever going to see the back of SISU, they will have to had to have bought into the Ricoh, so that than can sell CCFC as a going concern, as at least a break even company.
FFS they were offered a deal and refused it. They weren't forced, they chose.
Post 147: They (ACL) can either say "have the stadium" or something similar. They. i.e. ACL
Post 152: "If it keeps Coventry City in Coventry then yes." Which was in answer to your direct question. If it meant we stayed in Cov then I would accept that, better than going out of the City, for me anyway. But not something that would happen in a gazillion years. Certainly more preferable for me than groundsharing or liquidation.
And so were ACL. They're both culpable for our plight. Both.
A direct question that gave a direct answer of giving them the stadium.
Christ it's back to normal on here, everyone furious at the' hedge fund club busting wankers' and Torchomatic just repeating himself like a mad drunk on a bench !!
Oh and here's the other care in the community case !
Yes, I would. Why? Because we'd still be in Coventry, not in Northampton. Also, the club would be a much more attractive proposition for any interested purchaser.
Oh and here's the other care in the community case !
So why didn't SISU buy the Higgs share?
Most interesting point in this for me is 2.3 asking the council to approve funding of the overspend of £2.9 million from council reserves, is this not where the £14 million loan was reported to come from, so why was nobody complaining about a misuse of public money at this time ?Here are the details of the Ricoh financing: http://democraticservices.coventry....08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
After reading what young Timothy said this morning I think I trust Bryan more than him and that's saying something given how much I trust Bryan.No, not one bit. But if it was a straight choice of him or going to Northampton for at least three years then I would take my chances with Richardson. There's at least a chance that he could sell it on while staying in the City.
With our current situation then is zero chance of a buyer. Which is the point I am trying to make. People's hatred for SISU clouds their judgement over the Ricoh and the role of ACL.
I would rather have SISU owning the stadium with the club getting the revenues and staying in the City. It seems I am in the minority however.
So why didn't SISU buy the Higgs share?
That "twist" is up to ACL. They can either say "have the stadium" or something similar. Or they can try and keep into admin as a groundshare cannot go ahead while we are in admin. It's in the lap of the Gods, PWKH and Ann Lucas.
So why didn't SISU buy the Higgs share?
they did offer too.. and the higgs had accepted their offer.. the council then stopped the deal, i thought that was announced ages ago.. or am i imagining it
This was also my understanding that a sale had been agreed, but CCC used there veto to stop the salethey did offer too.. and the higgs had accepted their offer.. the council then stopped the deal, i thought that was announced ages ago.. or am i imagining it
you're imagining It,all they did was agree heads of terms ,while apparently talking to the council about distressing ACL,work that out.they did offer too.. and the higgs had accepted their offer.. the council then stopped the deal, i thought that was announced ages ago.. or am i imagining it
This was also my understanding that a sale had been agreed, but CCC used there veto to stop the sale
they did offer too.. and the higgs had accepted their offer.. the council then stopped the deal, i thought that was announced ages ago.. or am i imagining it
You are imagining it. The Council have never been asked to agree to the Charity selling its shares in ACL, thus it follows that they could not have "stopped the deal".
they did offer too.. and the higgs had accepted their offer.. the council then stopped the deal, i thought that was announced ages ago.. or am i imagining it
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?