Related to the first question: Tim Fisher stated that the club's request for a 3 year run off was rejected. Is this true or not?
5: The current licence has 42 years to run are there any break clauses included?
ACL: The current licence expires in September 2054. ACL agreed to consider the variation of three to four clauses at the meeting of 29 January 2013, at the request of CCFC. Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch committed to forward the particular clauses which they proposed to amend, these were never received. ACL would not consider inserting break clauses into the current licence, as this is the home of Coventry City Football Club
CCFC: Require break clauses after 3 or 5 years (not set in stone – by way of example) to be acted upon if relationship not working.
24: Did CCFC inform ACL that it intends to move to a new built ground in South Warwickshire
ACL: Yes, Chris West and Paul Harris were advised post 29 January 2013 meeting during a follow up discussion with Tim Fisher, Mark Labovitch and John Clarke, that the Club wanted a three year run off period. This was totally rejected by the ACL representatives. There were no details provided of the location other than “South Warwickshire”, and that it would potentially take three years.
I am sorry but I am not setting myself up for a Linnell type Q&A. He knows nothing except what he has been told and can only speculate along with everyone else. I very quickly would get into difficulty with confidentiality. No private company does its business in public, and nobody can realistically expect it to do so.
I can answer one of your questions as it is hypothetical: of course ACL could offer a rental deal to Otium, just as Otium could put forward a proposal. Both companies would then have to work out whether it there is a future in that proposal. It would have to make economic sense otherwise it could not be accepted. That is as far as I will go.
As to the CVA: no.
In answering these three questions I make it very clear that I will generally not answer questions. You will understand I am sure that there is a tendency on this board for people to half read, or to not read, before posting and they say the wildest and quite often the stupidest things and I do not want to become engaged in that kind of thing. Nor do I have the time.
I am sorry but I am not setting myself up for a Linnell type Q&A. He knows nothing except what he has been told and can only speculate along with everyone else. I very quickly would get into difficulty with confidentiality. No private company does its business in public, and nobody can realistically expect it to do so.
I can answer one of your questions as it is hypothetical: of course ACL could offer a rental deal to Otium, just as Otium could put forward a proposal. Both companies would then have to work out whether it there is a future in that proposal. It would have to make economic sense otherwise it could not be accepted. That is as far as I will go.
As to the CVA: no.
In answering these three questions I make it very clear that I will generally not answer questions. You will understand I am sure that there is a tendency on this board for people to half read, or to not read, before posting and they say the wildest and quite often the stupidest things and I do not want to become engaged in that kind of thing. Nor do I have the time.
Related to the first question: Tim Fisher stated that the club's request for a 3 year run off was rejected. Is this true or not?
Before admin. I am sure I told you this before.
Nor would I expect you to answer Torch's question. But by saying that you could, I feel that most Coventry fans would want you to.
Why? We seem to expect the "other" side to tell us everything, don't we?
Related to the first question: Tim Fisher stated that the club's request for a 3 year run off was rejected. Is this true or not?
could i also ask why the cva was rejected and what acl/ccc hoped to gain? A straight answer would be appreciated.
it gave us da upper hand and now we have sisu right where we want dem like.
I dont think either party has the other "where we want dem like"
Why? We seem to expect the "other" side to tell us everything, don't we?
That must explain why "we" are permanently disappointed then.
Guess so. PWKH isn't helping his "likes" in this thread though.
Maybe he could organise a fans' forum?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
did i read somewher that the FL would have to approve this as it wouldn't be classed as a ground share and therefore would need to be a minimum 10year contract to comply with their rules? having said that, as their rules are more guidelines and they have already set a president for bending/breaking them this year i can't see it being an issue. having said that, they need to look like they've grown a pair for some possitive PR what's the betting that they make this the oppertunity to do so.
Guess so. PWKH isn't helping his "likes" in this thread though.
Maybe he could organise a fans' forum?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
Your not the only one that seems to have a fascination with "likes"
It must be jealousy !!!
You will understand I am sure that there is a tendency on this board for people to half read, or to not read, before posting and they say the wildest and quite often the stupidest things and I do not want to become engaged in that kind of thing. Nor do I have the time.
I agree with you
Reminds me if a story I read about some bloke tying balloons to another blokes car.
Now is that true or not I don't know and the names of the parties allegedly involved escape me.
However I do remember thinking at the time - that's a really stupid thing to do and is not something I would ever get involved in even if I had the time.
I agree with you
Reminds me if a story I read about some bloke tying balloons to another blokes car.
Now is that true or not I don't know and the names of the parties allegedly involved escape me.
However I do remember thinking at the time - that's a really stupid thing to do and is not something I would ever get involved in even if I had the time.
The 10 years is indeed a FL regulation which I think is why ACL proposed a 10 year rolling contract at £150Kpa. In theory had SISU accepted that they could have walked away when a new ground was ready and pay off the remainder of the contract. From a financial standpoint that would leave them a lot better off than being at Northampton. Pretty sure they're going to lose more than £1.5m in revenue being there.
I agree with you
Reminds me if a story I read about some bloke tying balloons to another blokes car.
Now is that true or not I don't know and the names of the parties allegedly involved escape me.
However I do remember thinking at the time - that's a really stupid thing to do and is not something I would ever get involved in even if I had the time.
the story i heard was that you provided the hot air to fill the balloons, nothing about being the person who tied the balloons to the car. it seems this was not qualified seeing as you aren't capable of tying up your own shoe laces.
thats just what i heard. in no way am i saying thats what happened.
Yawnfest
I see there's some sad Bastards still jacking off over the Ricoh/acl. Haven't your beloved sisu moved on etc?
Don't you think you boring repetitive tossers should do the same?
Try banging on old flabby chops fishers door about arena tinpot, thats your future isn't it?
You're obsession with acl and the Ricoh is boring the shit out of us all.
I see there's some sad Bastards still jacking off over the Ricoh/acl. Haven't your beloved sisu moved on etc?
Don't you think you boring repetitive tossers should do the same?
Try banging on old flabby chops fishers door about arena tinpot, thats your future isn't it?
You're obsession with acl and the Ricoh is boring the shit out of us all.
To be fair there do seem to be quite a few people on here who do get very excited and probably do jack off to thoughts of The Ricoh/ACL.
Not me though, if I was turned on by big things that are hard to fill I'd still be with my ex.
says the guy who doesnt support ccfc anymore yet just cant stop posting.
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?