If acl act on behalf of joint owners CCc/Alan Higgs (1 Viewer)

shmmeee · Aug 22, 2013

Esoterica said:
What still is not clear to me throughout this is where CCC strike the balance between CCC looking after it's community and ACL looking after it's own business interests. In terms of where we are as a fanbase, we are currently divided. Not down the middle, the majority want SISU out and are not concerned with the fire, when the frying pan is so hot. However this has lead to a lot of focus on those attending and not attending matches rather than a united approach in applying pressure to the right parties to get the short term situation resolved - getting cov back in cov.

If SISU's intentions are sinister, in terms of their intentions for the stadium should they be able to acquire the freehold or a long term leasehold, why are the council, through ACL, not offering them a rental contract that ticks the football boxes - fair rent, access to revenue streams to tick the FFP boxes and most importantly playing matches back in Coventry. If SISU were to then refuse this, it would surely unite the fanbase by exposing, or at least narrowing down, SISU's intentions for the stadium

For one that deal (in fact an even better one) has been on the table in the form of the Higgs share since day one. If its what Sisu want and the club need, why back out of the deal?

Secondly the deal that was rejected, ending negotiations and kicking off admin proceedings, was for £400k plus 100% F&B for FFP purposes. Then £150k with the option to buy the revenue separately.

Technically (though I doubt they'd honour it) we can currently play there for free as CCFC Ltd is still in admin.

However you miss the point entirely as is the plan from Sisu

Even if we ARE better off at our on ground. Why wilfully lose us money by moving us to Norhampton in the interim?

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 22, 2013

shmmeee said:
For one that deal (in fact an even better one) has been on the table in the form of the Higgs share since day one. If its what Sisu want and the club need, why back out of the deal?

Secondly the deal that was rejected, ending negotiations and kicking off admin proceedings, was for £400k plus 100% F&B for FFP purposes. Then £150k with the option to buy the revenue separately.

Technically (though I doubt they'd honour it) we can currently play there for free as CCFC Ltd is still in admin.

However you miss the point entirely as is the plan from Sisu

Even if we ARE better off at our on ground. Why wilfully lose us money by moving us to Norhampton in the interim?

Those are two cracking posts and require expanding with the parties involved

James Smith · Aug 22, 2013

Esoterica said:
What still is not clear to me throughout this is where CCC strike the balance between CCC looking after it's community and ACL looking after it's own business interests. In terms of where we are as a fanbase, we are currently divided. Not down the middle, the majority want SISU out and are not concerned with the fire, when the frying pan is so hot. However this has lead to a lot of focus on those attending and not attending matches rather than a united approach in applying pressure to the right parties to get the short term situation resolved - getting cov back in cov.

If SISU's intentions are sinister, in terms of their intentions for the stadium should they be able to acquire the freehold or a long term leasehold, why are the council, through ACL, not offering them a rental contract that ticks the football boxes - fair rent, access to revenue streams to tick the FFP boxes and most importantly playing matches back in Coventry. If SISU were to then refuse this, it would surely unite the fanbase by exposing, or at least narrowing down, SISU's intentions for the stadium

The issue is that SISU appear to be taking a leaf out of our book and doing a NOPM campaign against ACL, if SISU wanted to play back at the Ricoh then they could have just accepted any of the deals that were on the table previously. Those deals wouldn't have helped distress ACL and therefore was there anyway they could be accepted? Tim also said that any rent deal would have to be effectively costing SISU no money and I don't know how that would work in practice.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

PWKH said:
I did not say it nor was I at the meeting.

PWKH:

1. Apologies for evidently misrepresenting your personal role
2. But the following was in an ACL board statement to the Telegraph:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp...news/coventry-city-ricoh-landlord-acl-5582877

"Mr Fisher has also now chosen to make factually inaccurate public statements relating to the meeting attended by Joy Seppala as well as ACL Board members on Thursday 25 July.
"It is interesting to note Mr Fisher’s failure to mention Ms Seppala’s verbal statement during this meeting, made in the presence of her own lawyers that the only circumstance in which the Club would return to the Ricoh would be upon SISU assuming full ownership of the venue without any negotiation on purchase price.
"Ms Seppala also stated at this meeting her intention to continue to threaten ACL and its shareholders with expensive litigation at every possible opportunity.
"Perhaps the fact that Mr Fisher was not himself present at this meeting has distorted his view of what was really discussed.

3. So I assume what I stated was in fact the ACL Board position.

torchomatic · Aug 23, 2013

You forgot to put kisses at the end.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

torchomatic said:
You forgot to put kisses at the end.

My my, you weeeally weaaly love Sisu dont you...

Actually not over impressed that PWKH didnt actually say what was being referred to by me/others was based on an ACL board statement to The Telegraph (even though he was not present at the meeting with Joy himself).

Grappa · Aug 23, 2013

torchomatic said:
You forgot to put kisses at the end.

Too busy tugging his forelock.

James Smith · Aug 23, 2013

torchomatic said:
You forgot to put kisses at the end.

There's always the edit button

Grappa · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
My my, you weeeally weaaly love Sisu dont you...

Actually not over impressed that PWKH didnt actually say what was being referred to by me/others was based on an ACL board statement to The Telegraph (even though he was not present at the meeting with Joy himself).

That might mean he has to confirm it was said. Which he may not want to, for some reason.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

The important thing is this confirms that the ACL Board insist that, Joy Seppala stated in front of lawyers on 25th July that:

"... the only circumstance in which the Club would return to the Ricoh would be upon SISU assuming full ownership of the venue without any negotiation on purchase price"

To my knowledge this has never been denied by Sisu.

Grappa · Aug 23, 2013

Nor confirmed by PWKH.

Grendel · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
My my, you weeeally weaaly love Sisu dont you...

Actually not over impressed that PWKH didnt actually say what was being referred to by me/others was based on an ACL board statement to The Telegraph (even though he was not present at the meeting with Joy himself).

Don't worry I'm sure your fantasy figure will forgive you. If PWKH posted he was sitting on the toilet you'd be frantically hitting the like button.

I just loath creeps.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

He wasnt there so may not want to confirm things on a personal basis.
But the statement was from the ACL board, members of which were there, and the board I assume includes PWKH.

Grendel · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
He wasnt there so may not want to confirm things on a personal basis.
But the statement was from the ACL board, members of which were there, and the board I assume includes PWKH.

Slither, slither, grovel, grovel. Why don't you offer to mow his garden this weekend just to keep on his good side?

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

Grendel said:
Slither, slither, grovel, grovel. Why don't you offer to low his garden this weekend just to keep on his good side?

The morons are out today. Not interested that Sisu are apparently not prepared to negotiate a share of or a price for the Ricoh, Just the bullying approach of take it or leave it, and threats about court action.

Godiva · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
The morons are out today. Not interested that Sisu are apparently not prepared to negotiate a share of or a price for the Ricoh.

Well, we don't really know what was said exactly, and in what context.

But I think JS could well have said something in the line of 'We have already tabled an offer for the ccc and Higgs shares. We are still interested in buying the full package, but the price is not negotiable above what we have already offered to pay".

Nowhere have I seen it quoted or stated that sisu are after the freehold (apart from various posters on here), so I still believe sisu want ACL and the long lease. With that in mind, please remember who issued the statement with a very hostile wording: The same people who wrote that statement would find them self surplus to requirements if ACL were actually sold to the club.

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
He wasnt there so may not want to confirm things on a personal basis.
But the statement was from the ACL board, members of which were there, and the board I assume includes PWKH.

If ACL said it, then it must be true.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

That ACL board statement was never to my knowledge disputed by Sisu, unless someone can find a denial......

Godiva · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
That ACL board statement was never to my knowledge disputed by Sisu, unless someone can find a denial......

You say it's ok that PWKH doesn't comment as he wasn't there. Surely it's ok that Fisher doesn't comment as he wasn't there? And Seppala never issues any statements apart from the odd christmas greetings.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

stupot07 said:
If ACL said it, then it must be true.

It is actually a quite specific description of who was there and what was said and sent to a Newspaper, are you saying ACL just made it up? Especially as there has been no denial to my knowledge.

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
That ACL board statement was never to my knowledge disputed by Sisu, unless someone can find a denial......

Pretty sure Mark L denied it on CWR after the first game of the season.

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
It is actually a quite specific description of who was there and what was said and sent to a Newspaper, are you saying ACL just made it up? Especially as there has been no denial to my knowledge.

ACL also said today it was renewing its call on the League to refer to the FA ACL's complaint about the club groundsharing at Northampton Town - under regulation 79 of the League's regulations.

“There are various options now open the administrators. At the very least, we would hope to see revised CVA (Creditor Voluntary Arrangement) proposals, which we have been requesting for the last two weeks.”

A spokesman for Paul Appleton said: "Contrary to ACL's statement I can confirm there has been no request for a revised CVA."

No ACL always tell the truth....

You do realise that ACL employ a PR company to handle their communications?

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

Godiva said:
You say it's ok that PWKH doesn't comment as he wasn't there. Surely it's ok that Fisher doesn't comment as he wasn't there? And Seppala never issues any statements apart from the odd christmas greetings.

On such a key issue, published in The Telegraph, yes you would expect some Sisu comment.
And to be clear I think PWKH could have referred to that ACL board statement more clearly on here.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

stupot07 said:
ACL also said today it was renewing its call on the League to refer to the FA ACL's complaint about the club groundsharing at Northampton Town - under regulation 79 of the League's regulations.

“There are various options now open the administrators. At the very least, we would hope to see revised CVA (Creditor Voluntary Arrangement) proposals, which we have been requesting for the last two weeks.”

A spokesman for Paul Appleton said: "Contrary to ACL's statement I can confirm there has been no request for a revised CVA."

No ACL always tell the truth....

You do realise that ACL employ a PR company to handle their communications?

A statement from a Board is a very formal thing to do, it isn't something a PR company knocks up. The specific nature and substance of that, not denied unless anyone can prove otherwise suggests it is true.

Glad you trust Appletons competence, not sure many do.

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
A statement from a Board is a very formal thing to do, it isn't something a PR company knocks up. The specific nature and substance of that, not denied unless anyone can prove otherwise suggests it is true.

Glad you trust Appletons competence, not sure many do.

Of course they do, they are employed to handle their communications strategy and all of their PR and press releases.

Whats it got to do Appleton's competence?

James Smith · Aug 23, 2013

Godiva said:
Well, we don't really know what was said exactly, and in what context.

But I think JS could well have said something in the line of 'We have already tabled an offer for the ccc and Higgs shares. We are still interested in buying the full package, but the price is not negotiable above what we have already offered to pay".

They agreed heads of terms with the Higgs but I didn't think they actually tabled an offer.

Godiva said:
Nowhere have I seen it quoted or stated that sisu are after the freehold (apart from various posters on here), so I still believe sisu want ACL and the long lease.

I read between the lines and from the comments Ann Lucas said about protecting an asset I took that combined with the ACL statement to mean the freehold otherwise why would there have been any need for the Lucas comments? A lease even a long one would have been just that, the council would have retained the freehold of the site and the 'asset' is protected. However if the freehold was demanded and for a silly lowball amount then those comments start to make more sense (to me anyway).

Godiva said:
With that in mind, please remember who issued the statement with a very hostile wording: The same people who wrote that statement would find them self surplus to requirements if ACL were actually sold to the club.

If ACL became a 100% subsidiary of the club they'd probably still be running the stadium, the only people who would lose their jobs would probably be the board members and those are likely to be unpaid and part time. They would also doubtless be aware that the job would go when ACL was sold, probably told that when they were asked to be on the board. Plus maybe the payroll and HR person who would have a duplicate at CCFC.

James Smith · Aug 23, 2013

stupot07 said:
Pretty sure Mark L denied it on CWR after the first game of the season.

Now was he at the meeting?

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2013

James Smith said:
Now was he at the meeting?

I think so, but i have been to bed since then

James Smith · Aug 23, 2013

stupot07 said:
I think so, but i have been to bed since then

Would be nice to have a list of attendees.

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 23, 2013

stupot07 said:
I think so, but i have been to bed since then

If you haven't got anything in writing or a link, Torchy will say you are making it up.

Godiva · Aug 23, 2013

James Smith said:
They agreed heads of terms with the Higgs but I didn't think they actually tabled an offer.

No, I think that was because that was the last piece of the chain. When ccc bought the ACL mortgage the whole card house came tumbling down.

James Smith said:
I read between the lines and from the comments Ann Lucas said about protecting an asset I took that combined with the ACL statement to mean the freehold otherwise why would there have been any need for the Lucas comments? A lease even a long one would have been just that, the council would have retained the freehold of the site and the 'asset' is protected. However if the freehold was demanded and for a silly lowball amount then those comments start to make more sense (to me anyway).

ACL is the the operational business of the community asset. If ACL went tits up, the asset would be in danger.
So protecting ACL is (in the eyes of ccc) protecting the community asset.

James Smith said:
If ACL became a 100% subsidiary of the club they'd probably still be running the stadium, the only people who would lose their jobs would probably be the board members and those are likely to be unpaid and part time. They would also doubtless be aware that the job would go when ACL was sold, probably told that when they were asked to be on the board. Plus maybe the payroll and HR person who would have a duplicate at CCFC.

I believe sisu have said a few times their plan was to bring in a company specialized in running a multipurpose arena like the Ricoh. So yes, ACL management would be replaced as would probably a few employee at 'ground level'.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 23, 2013

Pretty sure Labovitch denied all this categorically... and he was there

I'll dig up the thread later for tedium's sake, if I end up having a duller Friday evening than I even anticipate as of now!

Noggin · Aug 23, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Pretty sure Labovitch denied all this categorically... and he was there

I'll dig up the thread later for tedium's sake, if I end up having a duller Friday evening than I even anticipate as of now!

He did deny it categorically and he was there. I'm very anti sisu and trust labovitch as far as I can throw him (and I'm badly disabled so thats not at all) so hopefully confirmation from someone on the opposite side of the argument will prevent you having to search for it.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 23, 2013

Noggin said:
He did deny it categorically and he was there. I'm very anti sisu and trust labovitch as far as I can throw him (and I'm badly disabled so thats not at all) so hopefully confirmation from someone on the opposite side of the argument will prevent you having to search for it.

Ta

Yep, we had the chat and you went away to listen to check I'd heard it right.

But naturally I didn't want to just say that

It's not about sides of the argument anyway, it's about wading through the bold facts to the reality. Just because he categorically denied it doesn't mean anymore it didn't happen, then someone saying it did happen meant it did, but trusting one public statement over another is a dangerous game.

If acl act on behalf of joint owners CCc/Alan Higgs (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency