Here we go again its bing (4 Viewers)

[duffer]

The path to success is often littered with a long list of failures. It is not the failure that is damaging but how one handles the failure which is important.

Absolutely. You don't get thrown out of your professional society for failing. You get thrown out because of how you've handled the failure. It's an honour/integrity/ethics thing.

Is there a reason you're making excuses for the bloke?

He might well be a lovely chap - but having had more than our fair share of dicey owners and dreamers I'm surprised we'd want someone who couldn't actually even qualify under FL rules, involved with the club.

 

---

[Flying Fokker]

who is Barbara Meeden ?

Peter Jones in drag. Deborah Meaden is her sister.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Here is the latest article in the CT regarding Byng

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/michael-byng-claims-lining-up-7910161

There are parts of it that I think are factually wrong

- the option can not be transferred or sold on without the Charity's permission. If it could have been then it would already have been transferred to Otium when they bought all the assets in 2013
- Appleton is no longer the administrator he is the liquidator

in addition
- Does the 30 days run from yesterday or a date previous to that when the charity received the offer and had a duty to advise CCFC Ltd/liquidator
- so if the option can not be transferred from CCFC anyone coming in has to purchase CCFC Ltd from the liquidator - which means doing a deal with the creditors at 10p in the £ that could cost £12m approx. half of which would go to ACL.
- Unless the offer matches what is there from Wasps then it will fail, I would think it is not just about the cash it is also about the social and community engagement they have planned. If the monetary value is low then I would guess the other stuff will be important in order to get the sale past Charity Commission scrutiny.
- just because they perhaps get the right to bid doesn't mean the Charity have to accept it because it matches it in cash terms - they will need to better the offer from Wasps (which includes cash but also other assurances I would think)
- all of which means the veto if Wasps have one is likely to be redundant

I would guess Mr Byng phoned for a chat to see what was going on. The CCC would be bound by NDA's so unless a formal offer was made no they wouldn't discuss it with him.

Personal opinion is that Mr Byng is an irritation in the process, is far too close to SISU in some respects but does not own any interest in the one thing that matters CCFC and I wish he would go away

final thought is if Byng does get 50% where does that leave CCFC ? isn't CCFC who we would like to see at the Ricoh not some Chinese investors?

 

[stupot07]

So basically what you're saying OSB, that sisu are in a lose lose scenario here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[oldskyblue58]

So basically what you're saying OSB, that sisu are in a lose lose scenario here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I do not see as it stands how anyone SISU, Byng or AN Other get their hands on it ....... As it stands I think Wasps are ahead of the game whether I like that or not. I want CCFC at the Ricoh secure for the long term but I don't think they will end up owning 50% of ACL to do that

I will caveat that with I am not an insolvency expert and there may be some legal wrinkle that I do not know that changes things

 

[stupot07]

I do not see as it stands how anyone SISU, Byng or AN Other get their hands on it ....... As it stands I think Wasps are ahead of the game whether I like that or not. I want CCFC at the Ricoh secure for the long term but I don't think they will end up owning 50% of ACL to do that

No, nor me, which I though all that sisu should put a last minute bid in was a bit futile.

What next? Obviously they can get a long term rent deal, but is it really in wasps best interests to give us access to revenue? And will that revenue be enough to push us forward in the medium to long term.

I hope by some miracle they manage to pull a blinder, but am not at all hopeful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[oldskyblue58]

Depends if you see this as two halves or as a partnership to make something bigger as to whether a better deal on incomes can be achieved.

They can live without CCFC certainly but having both there and successful makes things much more profitable. They also understand that for both to be successful requires both having income access. So the question is do they perceive a greater benefit to having CCFC there than not. If they do then it is worth their while offering a deal that benefits both and forging a partnership even if CCFC do not have an element of ownership in ACL.

For instance they could offer CCFC a 100 year lease. That enhances values in CCFC and provides security. IF included in that there is access to various income streams then it could work.

Have said a few times ..... there are opportunities there, but the blinkers have to be taken off to see them. Not sure SISU can work in partnerships though - I think Waggott could if he was backed properly

 

[mattylad]

Absolutely. You don't get thrown out of your professional society for failing. You get thrown out because of how you've handled the failure. It's an honour/integrity/ethics thing.

Is there a reason you're making excuses for the bloke?

He might well be a lovely chap - but having had more than our fair share of dicey owners and dreamers I'm surprised we'd want someone who couldn't actually even qualify under FL rules, involved with the club.

Think you will find it was Buddha making the excuses lol...but dont let his mantra spoil a good conspiracy witch hunt on my behalf ha ha ha