And why is that?
Joined the forum this last month to do what...................defend the appalling actions of these miscreants !! I just don't want to hear their rubbish, they've made us a laughing stock !
It's totally obvious what sisu try and do on these boards. 1+1 wisdom???? we can see straight through you and you sisu drivel
Their is only blind hero worship of our football club established 1883 !! We want what's best for it and obviously that doesn't include a secretive company loading ridiculous amounts of debt against it !
Why should it be an issue wisdom? ACL never locked the door. Sisu threaten to take the club away from cov!!!
It wouldn't be an issue if sisu paid legally binding rent while negotiating a more reasonable one then would it?
Then there's their chance to give some actual evidence, as opposed to spin through the press.
I thought everyone wanted a solution? Yet reading through this thread it seems I'm the only one who would support an attempt to find a solution to still playing in Coventry
Plus we all know its not about the rent. Just sisu trying to get control of the stadium
So you'd support arbitration if it found a solution then?
Because arbitration could look at the original rent agreement, and whether it was legal and, if so, whether the club had to pay what was due.
That'd be a good thing wouldn't it? ACL would get their rent, as they're confident any arbitrator would agree with the offer they've made they'd be bound to that, the club get a ground and everyone's happy?
That's a perfect solution isn't it? An independent legally binding deal that ensures the club have to pay their debts in full?
An arbitrator could always, after all, say the current rent deal was perfectly fine and, having signed up to the process, the club would have to accept that.
So where's the problem? The only problem could have been cost, but then sticking the club in administration, not getting the full debt owed back, maybe not getting any deal whatsoever. Well, that hasn't worked out has it?
Yes you're right, everyone else has booked their season tickets to New St. The solution is for the club's owners to show humility and accept the last offer made as a goodwill gesture so trust can start to be rebuilt.
Tim Fisher suggested Mediation on the radio live on CWR and was then asked by Mr Linnell if he would be willing to abide by the results of any third party mediation Tim ducked giving an answer. Now why would that be?So you'd support arbitration if it found a solution then?
Because arbitration could look at the original rent agreement, and whether it was legal and, if so, whether the club had to pay what was due.
That'd be a good thing wouldn't it? ACL would get their rent, as they're confident any arbitrator would agree with the offer they've made they'd be bound to that, the club get a ground and everyone's happy?
That's a perfect solution isn't it? An independent legally binding deal that ensures the club have to pay their debts in full?
An arbitrator could always, after all, say the current rent deal was perfectly fine and, having signed up to the process, the club would have to accept that.
So where's the problem? The only problem could have been cost, but then sticking the club in administration, not getting the full debt owed back, maybe not getting any deal whatsoever. Well, that hasn't worked out has it?
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372993&viewfull=1#post372993Last night Tim Fisher did state he had asked ACL for mediation but only during a radio broadcast and on the clubs website, no direct request made to ACL with terms of reference or anything like that. I believe when Linnell pressed him on the radio on Saturday about abiding by any third party decision he avoided giving an answer - maybe someone could confirm that.
If it was illegal then the club wouldn't have signed it in 2005. They also wouldn't have demanded a non fluctuating rent.
Now I know that Mediation isn't the same as arbitration but people here don't think mediation will work, and if he won`t agree to be bound by the results any third party decides on what hope is there?
You could ask many questions about the deal if you wanted to.
I'm sure it was all above board, I hasten to add. After all, nobody had a bad word to say about the previous boards of the club.
So how can sisu get the trust of ACL back then?
Nah you're right we should just put PWKH in a stock and pelt him with rotten tomatoes until he admits that the rent is illegal. Then we can give Fishy the keys to the city.
You seem to be selectively choosing segments from my posts and missing this bit:Sign up to legally binding arbitration.
Move the process on beyond 'they said this wa wa waaaa'.
Have both sides agree to do negotiating through the arbitrator rather than through the press.
Sit down and talk.
That requires both sides to commit and make the step that shows they want to find a solution.
You were quite happy with all the actions of the previous board then? Nothing at all odd about any of their decisions? Nothing you'd want challenging if the opportunity arose?
I don't see why bringing PWKH into that is at all relevant unless you know something I don't?
Easy - now in a cockney accent, all together:To suggest that the rent deal was devised with illegal intent is a serious allegation NW. Although how rent can be 'illegal' in the first place I'm not so sure.
What do you know then?
You were quite happy with all the actions of the previous board then? Nothing at all odd about any of their decisions? Nothing you'd want challenging if the opportunity arose?
I don't see why bringing PWKH into that is at all relevant unless you know something I don't?
To suggest that the rent deal was devised with illegal intent is a serious allegation NW. Although how rent can be 'illegal' in the first place I'm not so sure.
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?