Just as long as we don't start with the 'What am I?' questions:slap:
"Is the answer an Irish quiz show host?"
"Is the answer an Irish quiz show host?"
Perhaps the forums would become a much nicer place to be if we started telling people to leave it out when they are being a dick even though they are on the same side of the arguement as ourselves. After all I'm guilty myself at chosing to respond critically to something northenwisdom said even though I'd passed by many much worse comments today from people on the same side of the argument as me, yet I didn't comment on those posts. Thats wrong and something alot of us are guilty of I think.
...I'll do you a deal, and try and count to ten on anything I see as insulting, as long as you now have a catchphrase of 'Leave it out'
Preferably in a cockney accent
What am I?
A former footballer, I allegedly nailed Matt Carbon's sister and kicked the shit out of a shop window. If I was manager of your team (application via social media) I'd introduce good football which would win matches, which I can only assume nobody has tried to do in the past and so I'd definitely be great.
The clue to how successful this Haskell bid is likely to be is in the word "if" in the Coventry Telegraph headline: he'll buy the Ricoh "IF he can complete City takeover."
I will lay money with anyone who cares to take me on that the administrator's report will be inconclusive, particularly in respect of the Golden Share.
Pound to a penny, he will find that the club is owned and run by ''Holdings' and that anyone who wants to buy it must approach its owners - in other words, Elliott/Hoffman/Haskell would have to negotiate with Sisu, and Sisu will not deal with Elliott.
Nothing has changed.
So they would reject even the most stupendous offer in the world just because it came headed by someone they didn't like?
When I try to sensibly debate some c unit comes along with some c unitish comment about me being a SISU plant.
Seriously, it really is moronic, childish and pathetically naff.
How can I debate when I get twattish responses like that?
Some people like Nonleagueherewecome (you too for that matter!), BrightonSkyBlue (another who disagrees with me but is polite, civil, and actually tries to talk about things on their merits) answer the words, some decide to see evil everywhere and it's pathetic, idiotic and downright immature.
you're far too inarticulate.
All this talk on here and yet nothing is NEW.
It depends on defining where the golden share is. The next move by any party will depend on that.
There is no surprise that Haskell has publicly stated a bid and it depends on where the golden share is determined to be. If it's with CCFC Ltd then his bid can be accepted or REJECTED. The details of his bid have not been given. Also anyone can bid...there may be others lining up once the golden share is confirmed to be with CCFC Ltd. SISU can bid themselves - also likely.
There are legal precedents and ramifications here and it is not a case for anyone to speculate based on personal feelings towards any party.
ACL might dislike SISU but if SISU get back control of CCFC Ltd and the golden share is there then ACL will need to talk to them again and that suggest square one. If the golden share is with Holdings then we are already at square one.
I'm sure the Hoffman/Elliott controlled bid on behalf of Haskell has been registered and they have sought tentative agreement with ACL/Higgs and the council but it means nothing unless the Golden Share is with CCFC Ltd. Moreover if Haskell's bid is just the 50% shareholding in ACL then there is still no sustainability for the football club in the medium to long term. I hope he has further agreements afoot to buy out ACL at least. I care about the football club and hope Haskell's bid is not on a promise of development around the land? A plan that includes income streams from the stadium is foremost in any bid surely?
What makes any of you think there is anything different from a couple of months ago?
I assume you mean the paper trail of so called debts? Ha it could be 100 million or whatever but like I said nothing has changed in the scenario from a couple of months or so ago. Nothing we did not know before or now.
All this talk on here and yet nothing is NEW.
It depends on defining where the golden share is. The next move by any party will depend on that.
There is no surprise that Haskell has publicly stated a bid and it depends on where the golden share is determined to be. If it's with CCFC Ltd then his bid can be accepted or REJECTED. The details of his bid have not been given. Also anyone can bid...there may be others lining up once the golden share is confirmed to be with CCFC Ltd. SISU can bid themselves - also likely.
There are legal precedents and ramifications here and it is not a case for anyone to speculate based on personal feelings towards any party.
ACL might dislike SISU but if SISU get back control of CCFC Ltd and the golden share is there then ACL will need to talk to them again and that suggest square one. If the golden share is with Holdings then we are already at square one.
I'm sure the Hoffman/Elliott controlled bid on behalf of Haskell has been registered and they have sought tentative agreement with ACL/Higgs and the council but it means nothing unless the Golden Share is with CCFC Ltd. Moreover if Haskell's bid is just the 50% shareholding in ACL then there is still no sustainability for the football club in the medium to long term. I hope he has further agreements afoot to buy out ACL at least. I care about the football club and hope Haskell's bid is not on a promise of development around the land? A plan that includes income streams from the stadium is foremost in any bid surely?
What makes any of you think there is anything different from a couple of months ago?
"£163,294 plus VAT for 475 hours' work since his appointment up to May 14. The administrator's solicitors, Stephenson Harwood LLP, had incurred another £143,64"
£343 an hour .. to make a few phone calls & sift through a few legal documents.. what a total racket this business is..
so over a quarter of a million pounds of costs already.. for us to be really no further down the line... yeah i bet he needs more time to go through things!!!
and this is for a non operational company with supposedly very little assets !! i wonder how long it would take & how much the bill would be for a very active company , with loads of assets.. my guess is most likely pretty much exactly the same amount of time!
Sorry, I missed off the smiley, I agree and I'd be very surprised if we are not playing at the Ricoh next season, unless (as mentioned in another thread) we are not playing at all which is a scary thought. ACL have already said that they have not locked out CCFCWell James conventional wisdom is the answer.
To suggest they will move from the City and build a new stadium which will need a capacity of at least 20k costing upwards of 60/70m to build when they have never given thought to putting such investment in since taking over the club is pure folly. Even if someone built a stadium for 20m it's pure folly.
They have used every tactic available to them and will clearly continue to do so. If they spend 3 seasons playing at borrowed grounds then who on earth is going to replace the tenant at the Ricoh? A football stadium without a major sponsor or football club? Can ACL survive? Talk of ACL getting other activity in there is bravado from their side quite frankly. And the council - how will they look losing the former FA Cup winners from their own Town and stadium? Seriously think about it.
The brinkmanship will not end until a deal is done on the Ricoh and the sooner the council get a grip - yes the council the better.
www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/30884-PH4-has-bid/page7ACL said:“So that there can be no doubt in the minds of Sky Blues supporters, ACL have not locked the football club out of the Ricoh Arena. ACL have consistently acted to try to save the football club and to ensure that the football club continues to play at the Ricoh Arena. Indeed, ACL has already committed a significant level of funding to ensure that the pitch is improved for next season, after the Club ceased to commit investment in the pitch towards the end of last season."
Well James conventional wisdom is the answer.
To suggest they will move from the City and build a new stadium which will need a capacity of at least 20k costing upwards of 60/70m to build when they have never given thought to putting such investment in since taking over the club is pure folly. Even if someone built a stadium for 20m it's pure folly.
They have used every tactic available to them and will clearly continue to do so. If they spend 3 seasons playing at borrowed grounds then who on earth is going to replace the tenant at the Ricoh? A football stadium without a major sponsor or football club? Can ACL survive? Talk of ACL getting other activity in there is bravado from their side quite frankly. And the council - how will they look losing the former FA Cup winners from their own Town and stadium? Seriously think about it.
The brinkmanship will not end until a deal is done on the Ricoh and the sooner the council get a grip - yes the council the better.
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?