Open letter from Joy and Tim (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

The key paragraph is this one.

That said, we want the club playing home games in the right place as soon as possible – back in the Coventry community. So, we are ready and willing to talk about a deal that brings the club back to the Ricoh Arena, until we can own our own stadium.

(my emphasis)

There's sufficient there to suggest a divergence from the long term justification.

And as for KCiC, well that wouldn't be taken up because a) it was bollocks and b) it appears from ACL's later statements, no discussion with ACL about whether they had the authority to act in making such an offer.

So, I'll go halves for a round down the Greyhound. Or if they're fans of canal side pubs but would rather extend it to the Coventry area, the Cape of Good Hope is quite nice.

We've got to get away from the OMG they don't really want to talk. They're sayng they want to so... let them. They may end up with zero resolution if they chat, but they'll definitely end up wih zero resolution if they don't!

covcity4life · Jul 14, 2014

if council dont offer matchday revenues i am not sure how they could have any supporters left?

sky blue john · Jul 14, 2014

There is no point in dissecting Sisu's statement, have we not been down this smelly bullshit road before ?
The only route now is to force Sisu out !

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

covcity4life said:
if council dont offer matchday revenues i am not sure how they could have any supporters left?

ACL man, ACL.

The problem might well be that the way the companies are set up, they're not able to offer match day revenues...

The whole setup's daft, let's make no mistake about that! All things can be true in this, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

shmmeee · Jul 14, 2014

covcity4life said:
if council dont offer matchday revenues i am not sure how they could have any supporters left?

As NW said, firstly it's ACL (it matters, because you're less likely to come across as a crank who just hates the council (like Grendel)), secondly the issue seems to be that literally CCFC are asking for something that ACL don't have to give away.

There's also the issue of giving an organisation who has been trying to destroy your business for the past 18 months open access to all your accounts, without some kind of security that they're not just going to fuck you over again.

F&B is a smokescreen, if NW is right and they are willing to do a short term deal until a new ground or the Ricoh is sorted, then F&B shouldn't get in the way of that. IF they're willing to do a longer term deal, that gives ACL a bit more security and a deal might be done there.

Eyes on the prize. We should be playing in Cov. FFP F&B the FL the FA and FCUK can all wait until that's sorted.

Ultimately, we may have to accept that what CCFC need and what ACL can give are two different things and we may need to build elsewhere.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

shmmeee said:
Ultimately, we may have to accept that what CCFC need and what ACL can give are two different things and we may need to build elsewhere.

Indeed. To borrow a line from last night, I'll believe it when I see it. But... you can only go on what you have, and so far all signals point to pushing anybody who has a vague say in the decision making process to sit down in a room and talk.

Lucas seems happy to, Seppala and Fisher seem happy to...

covcity4life · Jul 14, 2014

they are happy in northampton because they get matchday revenues

if acl cant offer that then the club is fucked. and its not all one partys fault.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

covcity4life said:
they are happy in northampton because they get matchday revenues

Not entirely sure that's correct!

sky blue john · Jul 14, 2014

covcity4life said:
they are happy in northampton because they get matchday revenues

if acl cant offer that then the club is fucked. and its not all one partys fault.

Lol !!
Make it up as you go along do you ???

Houdi · Jul 14, 2014

stupot07 said:
They have paid the money to an escrow account as instructed by the FL.

And let's not forget, ACL aren't legally entitled to it, they waived that legal right when they rejected the CVA. This was a private arrangement between the FL and Otium in order to grant them the golden share.

And I'm not taking pot shots. I just don't see why they can't start talks prior to dropping the appeal and receiving the money from the FL. The payment and dropping of the appeal could be part of the outcome of negotiations.

What happens if the FL believe that the £500k (negotiated down to £300k) was part of this payment and only authorise half payment? Does that mean we can never play at the Ricoh?

Whilst in the spirit of reconciliation, it maybe fair for ACL to start talks whilst the FL decide what monies can or should be paid, to me ACL should never countenance talks whilst there are still legal threats in play. No one should be forced to negotiate with a gun put to their head. The only reason SISU are even contemplating talks is because they have reached a dead end. If the JR had been a rout in SISU's favour do you think they would have shown any magnanimity, no they would have moved in for the kill.
The fact remains SISU were routed in the court case, and the onus should be on them to seek and offer compromise. People should really stop continually making excuses for them. They lost and lost big, but they still can't seem to accept it.

olderskyblue · Jul 14, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Lucas seems happy to, Seppala and Fisher seem happy to...

It appears SISU are arguing over the guarantors money received, meaning they should pay less. Wasn't this money paid as SISU defaulted on rent? If so, then the guarantors should get their money back after SISU pay up shouldn't they? Or is this too simple... ?

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

olderskyblue said:
It appears SISU are arguing over the guarantors money received, meaning they should pay less. Wasn't this money paid as SISU defaulted on rent? If so, then the guarantors should get their money back after SISU pay up shouldn't they? Or is this too simple... ?

Probably, and rationally yes.

However if SISU cause Robinson and McGinnity some financial hassle, it's one of the few things they've done that is worthwhile

shmmeee · Jul 14, 2014

covcity4life said:
they are happy in northampton because they get matchday revenues

if acl cant offer that then the club is fucked. and its not all one partys fault.

Then they're frankly insane. They're losing between £1.5m and £3.5m in revenue each season depending on which estimates you take. If it's about revenue then they are massively incompetent.

It's about trying to prove that ACL can't survive without them to give them a stronger hand in negotiations, or is possible pick up ACL after they go bust. That's arguably a viable and legal business plan, even though some (myself included) may find it unethical.

It may be, due to the F&B deal ACL signed a while ago, that the Ricoh isn't viable for the club (though I'm still to be convinced of that until I see financials for the new stadium). Then yes, a fair chunk of the fault lies with whoever signed off on a deal that meant ACL can't offer a viable deal to CCFC.

But there's a whole load of ifs and buts in there. From what I can see ACL are willing to offer as much as they can and the previous talks discussed CCFC negotiating with Compass and having a rent reduction if no deal can be reached for their share. So there's ways around this on both sides, but it's going to require compromise.

skybluetony176 · Jul 14, 2014

Houdi said:
stupot07 said:

They have paid the money to an escrow account as instructed by the FL.

And let's not forget, ACL aren't legally entitled to it, they waived that legal right when they rejected the CVA. This was a private arrangement between the FL and Otium in order to grant them the golden share.

And I'm not taking pot shots. I just don't see why they can't start talks prior to dropping the appeal and receiving the money from the FL. The payment and dropping of the appeal could be part of the outcome of negotiations.

What happens if the FL believe that the £500k (negotiated down to £300k) was part of this payment and only authorise half payment? Does that mean we can never play at the Ricoh?

Whilst in the spirit of reconciliation, it maybe fair for ACL to start talks whilst the FL decide what monies can or should be paid, to me ACL should never countenance talks whilst there are still legal threats in play. No one should be forced to negotiate with a gun put to their head. The only reason SISU are even contemplating talks is because they have reached a dead end. If the JR had been a rout in SISU's favour do you think they would have shown any magnanimity, no they would have moved in for the kill.
The fact remains SISU were routed in the court case, and the onus should be on them to seek and offer compromise. People should really stop continually making excuses for them. They lost and lost big, but they still can't seem to accept it.

Click to expand...

this is where the FL need to be careful. If a third party has paid part of this fee for recieving the golden share then surely the third party own a share of the golden share. to say the FL made this messy at the start is an understatement, they seem to have attached clauses to the golden share without understanding what they mean. they should have either put no financial clause in, in the 1st place or they should have made sisu pay it up front.

wingy · Jul 14, 2014

shmmeee said:
Then they're frankly insane. They're losing between £1.5m and £3.5m in revenue each season depending on which estimates you take. If it's about revenue then they are massively incompetent.

It's about trying to prove that ACL can't survive without them to give them a stronger hand in negotiations, or is possible pick up ACL after they go bust. That's arguably a viable and legal business plan, even though some (myself included) may find it unethical.

It may be, due to the F&B deal ACL signed a while ago, that the Ricoh isn't viable for the club (though I'm still to be convinced of that until I see financials for the new stadium). Then yes, a fair chunk of the fault lies with whoever signed off on a deal that meant ACL can't offer a viable deal to CCFC.

But there's a whole load of ifs and buts in there. From what I can see ACL are willing to offer as much as they can and the previous talks discussed CCFC negotiating with Compass and having a rent reduction if no deal can be reached for their share. So there's ways around this on both sides, but it's going to require compromise.

According to TF ,Compass really aren't much of a problem As AEG own 50% of them.

sky blue john · Jul 14, 2014

wingy said:
According to TF ,Compass really aren't much of a problem As AEG own 50% of them.

So its just Sisu that are the problem then ?

wingy · Jul 14, 2014

sky blue john said:
So its just Sisu that are the problem then ?

Don't know John.

In the context of Fridays statement It doesn't stack up ,but in the context of Chinese whispers started the Friday before " Deal done ,To be announced In two weeks ,AEG to run things " ,he's not talking Short term rental Is he?

skybluetony176 · Jul 14, 2014

sky blue john said:
So its just Sisu that are the problem then ?

Nooooo! its everyone else. Grendull said so.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

wingy said:
Don't know

Reckon this should be our new motto?

olderskyblue · Jul 14, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Probably, and rationally yes.

However if SISU cause Robinson and McGinnity some financial hassle, it's one of the few things they've done that is worthwhile

I nearly added that to my original post

Would have been interesting to see if ACL had accepted the lower figure from SISU, whether R & McG would have then gone after SISU for their money back.... Although I'm sure SISU would have then argued the money was nothing to do with rent...

wingy · Jul 14, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Reckon this should be our new motto?

We can only go on our own perceptions ,intuition .

Mine don't usually let me down too often ,I see more of the same ,alas that doesn't see us kicking off In the Ricoh Arena come August.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 14, 2014

wingy said:
We can only go on our own perceptions ,intuition .

Mine don't usually let me down too often ,I see more of the same ,alas that doesn't see us kicking off In the Ricoh Arena come August.

I have learned with CCFC to always expect the worst... then find out there are new and unexpected ways for it to become worse than imagined!

sky blue john · Jul 14, 2014

wingy said:
Don't know John.

In the context of Fridays statement It doesn't stack up ,but in the context of Chinese whispers started the Friday before " Deal done ,To be announced In two weeks ,AEG to run things " ,he's not talking Short term rental Is he?

I must have missed these whispers what thread a source ?

sky blue john · Jul 14, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
I have learned with CCFC to always expect the worst... then find out there are new and unexpected ways for it to become worse than imagined!

Agree with that.

shmmeee · Jul 14, 2014

wingy said:
According to TF ,Compass really aren't much of a problem As AEG own 50% of them.

Then I guess it will come down to the length of the deal, or CCFC accepting a short term deal while revenues etc are sorted.

Grendel · Jul 14, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Houdi said:

this is where the FL need to be careful. If a third party has paid part of this fee for recieving the golden share then surely the third party own a share of the golden share. to say the FL made this messy at the start is an understatement, they seem to have attached clauses to the golden share without understanding what they mean. they should have either put no financial clause in, in the 1st place or they should have made sisu pay it up front.

Click to expand...

Don't be so stupid. The golden share resides where it is. If the £300,000 is considered part of the £590,000 debt then Robinson and Mcginnity will be entitled to claim there funds back.

Either way the share resides with the owners of the club and is a share not shares.

skybluetony176 · Jul 14, 2014

Grendel said:
skybluetony176 said:

Don't be so stupid. The golden share resides where it is. If the £300,000 is considered part of the £590,000 debt then Robinson and Mcginnity will be entitled to claim there funds back.

Either way the share resides with the owners of the club and is a share not shares.

Click to expand...

So if MM & GR are entitled to £300K back then there is no reason for the FL to make. They hand it over to ACL, that bridge is crossed and we can all move on to the next hurdle.

MM & GR just chase ACL for their refund and not the FL or SISU, problem solved. Well done Grendull. i knew you'd come up with a sensible idea sooner or later.

Grendel · Jul 14, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Grendel said:

So if MM & GR are entitled to £300K back then there is no reason for the FL to make. They hand it over to ACL, that bridge is crossed and we can all move on to the next hurdle.

MM & GR just chase ACL for their refund and not the FL or SISU, problem solved. Well done Grendull. i knew you'd come up with a sensible idea sooner or later.

Click to expand...

No they just make the payments to each creditor out of the funds. You seem desperate for ACL to get £890,000 - why?

lapsed_skyblue · Jul 14, 2014

From Grendel "No they just make the payments to each creditor out of the funds. You seem desperate for ACL to get £890,000 - why?"

I've made this point before but we'll try again...

The administrator paid out ACL's debt at a rate of 27p in the £. He recognised the other 73p in the £, he just didn't have the funds to pay it. If ACL have means of collecting this debt legally from someone else, such as a guarantor, why are you so desperate that they shouldn't?

Grendel · Jul 14, 2014

lapsed_skyblue said:
From Grendel "No they just make the payments to each creditor out of the funds. You seem desperate for ACL to get £890,000 - why?"

I've made this point before but we'll try again...

The administrator paid out ACL's debt at a rate of 27p in the £. He recognised the other 73p in the £, he just didn't have the funds to pay it. If ACL have means of collecting this debt legally from someone else, such as a guarantor, why are you so desperate that they shouldn't?

This has nothing to do with the administrator debt and we were told by ACL that they recovered the funds due to loss of earnings.

The point is the money is residing with the fiotba league and they under their own ruling will pay what is owed to who.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. Do you?

oldskyblue58 · Jul 14, 2014

My tuppence worth on the events over last few days.

Firstly the march. Great to see so many fans still care and a terrific turnout all things considered. The tone was "bring city home" and that was loud and clear. Clearly that was the primary drive for nearly all those that attended. The FL came in for some well deserved criticism - they have been indecisive and inept through out this saga, they have clearly misunderstood much of what has gone on. You only have to read the statements they issue to know they are largely clueless, focussed only on "the integrity of the competition" and support of their members. In addition there were some regular chants against SISU. But over ridingly it was a good show of fans unity organised by the Trust.

What the march seemed to do was to bring out all sorts of responses from interested parties. If nothing else it has stimulated some debate and comment. To some degree to me the March felt like it was being hijacked though including by the CT

- ACL have issued details of their start point. Unlike others here I do not see that as obstacles - surely for any negotiations to be worthwhile there has to be a clear statement as to what gets you to that point. In the past goal posts have kept moving in the dispute and no one knew what the bottom line was. Now you could say that the £590k and demand for no more legal action blocks any approach but should it? Surely if you are serious about making an approach then you seek to find out if there is any way round these items is there a compromise? . Personally I think the legals are the bigger obstacle - I would not be doing deals with anyone who is taking legal action against me. All the legals do is divert time money and energy from running the business - who gains from that? Should ACL be chasing CCFC/SISU for a deal? - well if their business is sound then why would they, surely it is CCFC to make the approach they benefit most by any arrangement that could be made and are the ones in need?. To say negotiate and at some point in the future maybe the legals will go away I find a little naiive

The Fisher & Seppala letter. For me the timing said it all, last thing on a Friday. Both have been encouraged for weeks to make an approach, it has been pointed out to them how even a short term deal makes more sense than being at Sixfields. But why do it in the press at all? Surely it would have been even better to have said we have talked to ACL, there are issue that we will try to resolve and work round, we are setting up meetings, then go to the press. I understand when people say the tone was more conciliatory- but why was it changed. There is a old adage about leopards and spots. Nothing has in fact been done other than to divert attention on to ACL. Havent we seen these tactics so many times before? Action not words has any proper attempt at contact been made or is it just an exercise to curry favour with the fans in an exercise actually designed to fail? Much of the letter was to be honest just flannel, and shall we say economic with the mechanics & effects of FFP (well smcp in L1). Why would they think that threatening to take further legal action can be put to one side and a deal done - ask yourself would you deal with someone doing that to you, surely we all understand the cost alone colours our thinking?

CCC- Basically the door is open to talk but don't bother talking about the freehold because right now it is not for sale. So in reality what is there to talk about? SISU/CCFC say they want a short term rent deal at the Ricoh whilst they build a new stadium. Why do they think that CCC are going to be the ones granting such a deal - there is actually no reason for them to be involved other than to encourage ACL and CCFC to get the deal done. Yes CCC is a stakeholder and lender but they are not in a position to grant a short term deal - they can influence it but isn't everyone agreed they all want the club back at the Ricoh

CT - initially disappointed with the coverage to be honest. The Sky Blue Trust march became the CT backed march and oh yes the SBT helped organise it. Glad to see that has been corrected, understand the need to sell papers but I found it a little tacky doing that.

the £590k. This is as many things are in this dispute becoming muddied and the actual basis lost. It is not a payment of rent, it is not payment of the CVA, It isn't even a legal debt to be included in the liquidation. IT IS a payment required by the FL of a sum of money under the FL insolvency policy. As such it is part of a contract between FL and Otium where Otium got the golden share. ACL can not chase it because they are not party to the contract (I suspect they do not expect to receive it) but the FL are going to be hard pressed to reduce it or write it off - to do so would be non payment of a football creditor. Why is that important? because it puts in doubt the football creditor rule and has far bigger implications than being sued by SISU.

The fact still remains that the only people who can bring the club back to Coventry are the owners. If there is no will to compromise then there is no deal. There is no conciliatory tone without actions to match. The only action that has happened is the show of unity by the fans on Saturday - as far as I am aware there has been no contact between SISU and the other parties. If it were so important, then surely there would have been by now? Instead we are waiting to see if costs will be awarded and appeals allowed - that perhaps tells us the real situation and future:thinking about:

Final thought. Looking at the financials set up I would estimate that CCFC could break even at Sixfields following the sale of Wilson & Christie. There is no great pressure therefore to up sticks and return to the Ricoh. SISU & ARVO will not need to fund further this season unless they choose to (I suspect they wont). So that places SISU under far less pressure than thought and they can wait out the season there in my opinion. So just how committed to a return are they? Actions not words prove so much...... I can not help this nagging feeling of something set up to fail

DazzleTommyDazzle · Jul 14, 2014

Like most things the FL get involved in, this £590k seems less than clear....

It was surprising (to me at least) that the FL made the payment of the £590k a condition of the "golden share" being transferred to Otium.

I'm not sure if this was because the owners of the ground were being treated as some form of "football creditor", or if it was some attempt to ameliorate the impact of ACL's rejection of the CVA.

However they did - and the amount they chose was the amount that ACL would have received under the CVA.

As far as I'm aware, no conditions were put on this obligation i.e. any money ACL can recover from third parties (who may or may not be ex-Directors) can be deducted from it, so it would appear to be a straightforward matter.

If the view is taken that it is inextricably linked to the amount recoverable under the CVA, then presumably the "reduction" would not be the full amount received from MM and GR, but the CVA percentage of that amount, i.e. if Mr Appleton had taken it into account, the gross amount received would have been deducted from his calculation of the gross amount due from CCFC to ACL (i.e. the amount shown in the creditors listing) producing a new net figure that would then have been paid out at the agreed percentage.

So - on that analysis - we'd either be arguing about £0 (in the first case) or the CVA payable % (was it 25% - can't remember and can't be bothered to look it up) of either the cash received from GR and MM or the total amount that they were theoretically liable for.

So, all quite simple really.

On a slightly more pointed note, it really does bother me that the FL appear so unconcerned about this whole matter that they're happy to wait until a few days before the season starts before they'll condescend to turn their attention to it. - Another G&T old chap? - Don't mind if I do - I say what's all this about that shower from Coventry? Why are they playing in Nottingham anyway?.......

lapsed_skyblue · Jul 14, 2014

Grendel said:
This has nothing to do with the administrator debt and we were told by ACL that they recovered the funds due to loss of earnings.

The point is the money is residing with the fiotba league and they under their own ruling will pay what is owed to who.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. Do you?

The reason for the payment of this money is unclear and to shift depending on the argument being made at the time. I am content for the FL to make a decision over the funds in the escrow account and trust that they will make that decision based upon the agreement they made with SISU/OEG.

skybluetony176 · Jul 14, 2014

Grendel said:
skybluetony176 said:

No they just make the payments to each creditor out of the funds. You seem desperate for ACL to get £890,000 - why?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure £890K minus the £300K MM & GR get back is £590K. whichever way you look at it, its going to cost sisu the £590K the FL said they have to cough up for otium to obtain the golden share.

You seem desperate for ACL to not get a penny even though this has become a bridge that needs crossing before we can move forward with a return to the Ricoh - why?

spider_ricoh · Jul 14, 2014

Just more bluffing and brinkmanship by SISU.....

Open letter from Joy and Tim (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency