Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

usskyblue · Feb 9, 2016

Reading you all stumbling over each other to prove you've picked the 'right side' made me look forward to a time when you'd all died at the hands of old age, beer pickled livers or, dare I say, prescription medication. SISU would be long gone, as would the Coventry Councilors and ACL execs, having died of boredom in court. Wasps had gone under, left the Ricoh and reformed as MK Bees...and Coventry City were sitting top of the Premiership, 9 points clear of Leicester, with a game in hand.

(Even if I'm way off with the league position,) I smiled, because I briefly saw a future without the crap that you are all choosing to divide you.

Then I realized.

I bet you're passing your shitty 'insight' down to your kids...

....glory

SkyBlueZack · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Why did he hold this view, do you think?

This is a question no one knows the answer too as Nick has mentioned they had that stance before SISU. Maybe whilst we push SISU for plans for the future, we could also ask the CCC why they have always been reluctant to sell to CCFC. Why CCFC were quoted astronomical prices for rights back etc. Also as for the Higgs just wanting there money back, they invested 6.5m. The formula worked out at 10m. 3.5m difference? Now not for one moment do I not appreciate them stepping in and helping but what is the difference made up of? Inflation?

fernandopartridge · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Why did he hold this view, do you think?

Remember the silly references to investment in the team? He was using that as part of his reasoning. SISU were taken to task over their (lack of) investment in the playing squad at one of the earlier meetings.

chiefdave · Feb 9, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Also as for the Higgs just wanting there money back, they invested 6.5m. The formula worked out at 10m. 3.5m difference?

And not all of that £6.5m was cash, some of it related to existing debt didn't it?

rupert_bear · Feb 9, 2016

Reading the Telegraph article, SISU or Sepalla cannot lose, by lose I'm talking financially. Should they win they go on to sue CCC or even the Government for millions, should the verdict go against them they carry on appealing right up to the Europe courts will take years. Every time they go to court they sell a player which helps pay the legal bill, Sepella don't give a stuff where the football club is, bet she doesn't know now. Will be interesting though if we vote to come out the EU

Nick · Feb 9, 2016

rupert_bear said:
Reading the Telegraph article, SISU or Sepalla cannot lose, by lose I'm talking financially. Should they win they go on to sue CCC or even the Government for millions, should the verdict go against them they carry on appealing right up to the Europe courts will take years. Every time they go to court they sell a player which helps pay the legal bill, Sepella don't give a stuff where the football club is, bet she doesn't know now. Will be interesting though if we vote to come out the EU

Any links to player sales paying legal fees?

fernandopartridge · Feb 9, 2016

chiefdave said:
And not all of that £6.5m was cash, some of it related to existing debt didn't it?

I think OSB said that £2m was owed to directors

SkyBlueZack · Feb 9, 2016

Only 2.5m was paid in cash IIRC?

Hobo · Feb 9, 2016

Nick said:
Any links to player sales paying legal fees?

There may not be any direct links. But money spent on legal fees means they haven't the option to invest further in the club. As TM says you can only spend the pound once. However the accounts show that no money is being directly taken out of the club. Player sales can prevent the need for then to put more money in. We will never know because the budgets are separate, however they can still influence each other potentially.

Nick · Feb 9, 2016

Hobo said:
There may not be any direct links. But money spent on legal fees means they haven't the option to invest further in the club. As TM says you can only spend the pound once. However the accounts show that no money is being directly taken out of the club. Player sales can prevent the need for then to put more money in. We will never know because the budgets are separate, however they can still influence each other potentially.

Don't most clubs use player sales to fund the club's in lower leagues?

That's on the assumption if there were no court costs to pay it would be invested in the club? It is also assuming it is using up all of their money too. (It may well be, and they may well have planned to invest it all in CCFC).

Captain Dart · Feb 9, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Only 2.5m was paid in cash IIRC?

FFS, it bears repeating, £6.5M flowed from Higgs to the club, though only £2M cash, the rest was was in the form of loans written off.
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...c-ltd-holdings-ricoh-build-years-1993-to-2007

2003
Accounts for CCFC Group show a net investment of £6,808,425 in the Arena Project which was then sold to the AEH Charity for £6,500,000. The balance of £308,425 was written off Companies House
CCFC Group Accounts 2003 & 2004
19[SUP]th[/SUP] December Alan Edward Higgs Charity acquires 50% of ACL from CCFC ltd. Shares owned by Football Investors Limited, which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the Charity. Cost to Charity £6,523,184 inc. fees. Payment made £2m cash £2.5m waiver of loan and £2m to two directors who had outstanding loans to FIL who then re loaned the money to CCFC ltd. CCFC Ltd acquires option to purchase shares back from the Charity. CCFC H accounts, Judicial Review docs
19[SUP]th[/SUP] December Development agreement between ACL and CCFC signed

Hobo · Feb 9, 2016

Nick said:
Don't most clubs use player sales to fund the club's in lower leagues?

That's on the assumption if there were no court costs to pay it would be invested in the club? It is also assuming it is using up all of their money too. (It may well be, and they may well have planned to invest it all in CCFC).

Where have I said I have a problem with it? I just answered your post that is all.

rupert_bear · Feb 9, 2016

We will never know if player sales pay legal bills, players are a company asset sellable like any asset st the whim of an owner

fernandopartridge · Feb 9, 2016

rupert_bear said:
We will never know if player sales pay legal bills, players are a company asset sellable like any asset st the whim of an owner

The accounts will tell you.

Nick · Feb 9, 2016

rupert_bear said:
We will never know if player sales pay legal bills, players are a company asset sellable like any asset st the whim of an owner

The accounts have said they haven't so far.

dadgad · Feb 9, 2016

rupert_bear said:
We will never know if player sales pay legal bills, players are a company asset sellable like any asset st the whim of an owner

Our owners are not rich enough to get decent legal advice or legal ability that is sufficiently astute to win a case. All they can do is keep appealing......

SkyBlueZack · Feb 9, 2016

I was responding to chief dave. But as you seem so keen and informed. Are you able to clear up the 3.5m difference between purchase price and formula price?

SkyBlueZack · Feb 9, 2016

Another bizarre one. Why do people think sisu are poor? Not putting money into ccfc doesn't mean there poor.

Captain Dart · Feb 9, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Another bizarre one. Why do people think sisu are poor? Not putting money into ccfc doesn't mean there poor.

Given that SISU have to pay £250K costs per lost stage the total will come to at least £1M, probably more, by the end of failing to win JR2
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owner-sisu-pays-7585265

chiefdave · Feb 9, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
I was responding to chief dave. But as you seem so keen and informed. Are you able to clear up the 3.5m difference between purchase price and formula price?

Without knowing the formula its hard to say. Does seem odd that with ACL not particularly doing well there was a large premium for CCFC to pay. Personally I would say anywhere between £2m and £6.5m could be argued to have been a fair offer to Higgs from CCFC.

Captain Dart · Feb 9, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
I was responding to chief dave. But as you seem so keen and informed. Are you able to clear up the 3.5m difference between purchase price and formula price?

Read back, OSB has explained it.

dongonzalos · Feb 9, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Remember the silly references to investment in the team? He was using that as part of his reasoning. SISU were taken to task over their (lack of) investment in the playing squad at one of the earlier meetings.

Why as a Cov fan would you call those references silly.
You have SISU saying they can afford to buy ACL but they can't afford to make the football club competitive.
I like the idea of council leader saying run the football club properly and we will sell to you.
If it was me at that time and if I was allowed to I would sell 10% at a time based on certain criteria getting met.
That way you get a well run football club like it seems to be now and an incentive to SISU to bother.
I am sure some smart arse will tell me why that's not allowed

fernandopartridge · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Why as a Cov fan would you call those references silly.
You have SISU saying they can afford to buy ACL but they can't afford to make the football club competitive.
I like the idea of council leader saying run the football club properly and we will sell to you.
If it was me at that time and if I was allowed to I would sell 10% at a time based on certain criteria getting met.
That way you get a well run football club like it seems to be now and an incentive to SISU to bother.
I am sure some smart arse will tell me why that's not allowed 

Running the club properly means spending money they haven't got on players they can't afford. Remember at this time the club was loss making you thick c**t.

dadgad · Feb 9, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Running the club properly means spending money they haven't got on players they can't afford. Remember at this time the club was loss making you thick c**t.

He's not thick at all. Running a football club means exactly that. Sisu deliberately thought that ruining one was a better alternative. And you talk about 'thick' Haha

Nick · Feb 9, 2016

dadgad said:
He's not thick at all. Running a football club means exactly that. Sisu deliberately thought that ruining one was a better alternative. And you talk about 'thick' Haha

Running a football club like that got us in this mess.

dongonzalos · Feb 9, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Running the club properly means spending money they haven't got on players they can't afford. Remember at this time the club was loss making you thick c**t.

You are calling a person you don't know and have never met on a social media site a thick c......
there is quite an irony in that.

dongonzalos · Feb 9, 2016

Nick said:
Running a football club like that got us in this mess.

Running a football club like what?
So you think it is impossible to put a competitive football team on the pitch without running up loads of debts.

duffer · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
I like the concept of buying the best young talent on 4 year contracts. Developing them for two years then selling them on for a profit. Also developing from your own academy and doing similar.

I don't think we ever did the process correctly either selling too cheaply or allowing contracts to run down. Also we wouldn't adequately replace either.

I don't agree that SISU could have came in and got us relegated straight away clearing out the squad.
Most were very annoyed when it eventually happened. If it happened straight away our expectations were on a quick return to the Prem there would have been uproar.

Also I agree with the way SISU are backing the manager this season.
Just hope if we get to the championship they can do it there.

The problem with four-year contracts is what happens when the best young talent doesn't turn out to be as good as you thought. Or when the new manager (bearing in mind I can't remember the last manager we had for more than a couple of years) decides he doesn't rate the old manager's players.

At that point the best young talent seems to end up in the bomb squad, and is vilified by fans and manager alike for being a drain on funds!

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 9, 2016

duffer said:
The problem with four-year contracts is what happens when the best young talent doesn't turn out to be as good as you thought. Or when the new manager (bearing in mind I can't remember the last manager we had for more than a couple of years) decides he doesn't rate the old manager's players.

At that point the best young talent seems to end up in the bomb squad, and is vilified by fans and manager alike for being a drain on funds!

All true. Although tbh I do agree with the general principle.

It probably has to tie in with having faith in the manager, come what may. Ranson certainly practiced what he preached in that respect ref: Coleman.

SkyBlueZack · Feb 9, 2016

Trying to be competitive in the premiership is what initiated this whole mess. Spending money you don't have. Also dongo it's not the council's responsibility to tell a football clubs owners how to run it or questioning what they do. Think you can tell a lot about their attitude by that remark. There not on Starbucks case? Or any other business for that matter. Football nowadays is just that. A business. Hence people like sisu getting involved

dongonzalos · Feb 9, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
All true. Although tbh I do agree with the general principle.

It probably has to tie in with having faith in the manager, come what may. Ranson certainly practiced what he preached in that respect ref: Coleman.

Yes agree with that Venus Clapham and TM seem to have a good eye for a young player.
There is always the gamble

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Yes agree with that Venus Clapham and TM seem to have a good eye for a young player.

Do they, though?

Currently we're packing our side with loanees and veterans. We don't seem to be signing up many prospects for the future that are ours.

I'm not saying they *don't* btw, but the strategy sure ain't long-term atm.

stupot07 · Feb 9, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
Do they, though?

Currently we're packing our side with loanees and veterans. We don't seem to be signing up many prospects for the future that are ours.

I'm not saying they *don't* btw, but the strategy sure ain't long-term atm.

Bang on. The only decent prospect we've just sold after less than half a season's worth of games in our first team.

The only young player TM, Venus and Clapham have signed that's ours is Lamieres.

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

dongonzalos · Feb 9, 2016

stupot07 said:
Bang on. The only decent prospect we've just sold after less than half a season's worth of games in our first team.

The only young player TM, Venus and Clapham have signed that's ours is Lamieres.

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

I said they seem to be able to spot a player signing them is a different matter

stupot07 · Feb 9, 2016

dongonzalos said:
I said they seem to be able to spot a player signing them is a different matter

Really? All are or have been England youth internationals, we may not of heard of them but I imagine the likes of Armstrong, Kent, etc were all well known in the footballing community. None were going to actually sign with us other on loan.

And I'm not knocking them, but it's all short term fix with 20 out of contract players and 6 loans free to leave at the end of the season.

I don't think they have shown the eye of picking a player as one for the future or in long term building of the squad in mind.

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

Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency