bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Ok. Do you have an evidence of a direct link between the Acl loan and council cutbacks? Surely your pleased as the interest received will help the local public purse in the long run?
Oh I am not confused at all. Loans are a risk -- you and your ACL worshipping friends may be perfectly happy in times of job losses, council service cutbacks etc. for the council to be bailing out a struggling private company that seemed wholly dependant on one customer -- many taxpayers I think would rather than debt settled and also a fee paid for a building that can then be directed to preventing further austerity measures.
Please give it a rest and take a long hard look at all the other parties involved in this fiasco, please!
No one comes out of this well IMHO!
Ok. Do you have an evidence of a direct link between the Acl loan and council cutbacks? Surely your pleased as the interest received will help the local public purse in the long run?
Who else is threatening to sue fans? How many rapacious owners are trying to get a Coventry stadium on the cheap? Who else signed ( took over ) a rental agreement that they now don't like? I see only only one party as the main culprit. It's up to you if you go to Sixfields, but I respect the people who won't feed this rapacious owner. IMHO! Yes Yes Yes PUSB - as you like to say….
What interest rate is being charged?
Well we've been told a higher rate than what the council pays to borrow the money.
Brilliant. So fisher mentions liquidation and that's why. So fisher speaks we all believe. New ground must be on the way - Fisher said so.
Have the CCC and ACL threatened to sue supporters as well ?
This all stems from the decision by our club/Sisu Capital Partners not to attempt to negotiate the rent they agreed to and instead just start a boycott. Then Mr Timothy Fisher mentioned to the press that and I quoteWhy are people saying SISU are the guilty part for putting the club into administration? ACL applied to the High Court to put the club into admin so SISU may as well had filed anyway so they could appoint their own administrator. They did what any other business would've done. Therefore the first 10 points were ACL's fault.
ACL were therefore forced to do what any other business would have done when faced with their biggest debtor suggesting liquidation.the club is at a 'tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided'.
Can you point to anywhere where Tim, Mark or Joy have ever said that we would be coming back to Coventry (except in a new stadium) - before the CVA was rejected.Secondly the CVA was rejected by ACL. SISU never rejected it did. ACL say they care about the club being back in Coventry but at the biggest chance of all to get them back instead of doing so they'd think of number one. Brilliant. Second 10 points was also ACL's fault.
Ironically, ACL filed for admin to stop the club from being liquidated. Once the CVA process began they rejected it to put the club into liquidation. Well done ACL.
Oh I am not confused at all. Loans are a risk -- you and your ACL worshipping friends may be perfectly happy in times of job losses, council service cutbacks etc. for the council to be bailing out a struggling private company that seemed wholly dependant on one customer -- many taxpayers I think would rather than debt settled and also a fee paid for a building that can then be directed to preventing further austerity measures.
I state the truth on another thread that the loan isn't taxpayers money but made by another company. CCC could get a much lower rate than ACL. CCC make a small profit on this. The taxpayers make a profit. You don't make a comment on this but go onto another thread to come out with more untruths on same subject when you know the truth.
I state the truth on another thread that the loan isn't taxpayers money but made by another company. CCC could get a much lower rate than ACL. CCC make a small profit on this. The taxpayers make a profit. You don't make a comment on this but go onto another thread to come out with more untruths on same subject when you know the truth.
Apparently so in one case I know of.
It's something often stated as fact that the taxpayers make a profit on the loan, but have never seen anywhere what the ate of the loan to the council was and what the rate of the loan to ACL is.
Quite possibly I've missed it, but if you have it would be grateful to know.
Can you name that case?
What happnes if ACL default on the loan -- no impact to the taxpayer in that scenario? Right.
Not my place to do so, though surprisingly it wasn't me!
Thought so :thinking about:
What happnes if ACL default on the loan -- no impact to the taxpayer in that scenario? Right.
Firstly SISU didn't pay the rent for a long time. They took over a rental agreement when they bought the club. They should have renegotiated the rental deal at that time when they were the only viable purchasers. ACL did what any company would have done when faced with a tennant who refuses to pay the rent. SISU are therefore the reason why we lost the first 10 points. Secondly the CVA was rejected because of the way the administration was conducted. There was - and still is - a lack of clarity as to who the players played for and as to whether Coventry City Football Club FC was indeed a football club or rather a non-trading property company as claimed by SISU. ACL obviously believed that the tennants were a football club holding the football league "Golden Share". I think most CCFC fans also believed they were supporters of a football team and not a property company. I certainly did. So whilst I remain a CCFC lover - not ACL - I see clearly that the rapacious owners are clearly at fault for the pending (possible) demise of my favourite football club.Why are people saying SISU are the guilty part for putting the club into administration? ACL applied to the High Court to put the club into admin so SISU may as well had filed anyway so they could appoint their own administrator. They did what any other business would've done. Therefore the first 10 points were ACL's fault.
Secondly the CVA was rejected by ACL. SISU never rejected it did. ACL say they care about the club being back in Coventry but at the biggest chance of all to get them back instead of doing so they'd think of number one. Brilliant. Second 10 points was also ACL's fault.
Ironically, ACL filed for admin to stop the club from being liquidated. Once the CVA process began they rejected it to put the club into liquidation. Well done ACL.
Who else is threatening to sue fans?
Oh I am not confused at all. Loans are a risk -- you and your ACL worshipping friends may be perfectly happy in times of job losses, council service cutbacks etc. for the council to be bailing out a struggling private company that seemed wholly dependant on one customer -- many taxpayers I think would rather than debt settled and also a fee paid for a building that can then be directed to preventing further austerity measures.
Remind me why they were docked 10 points this season? Did sisu reject a CVA - news to me.
At least you are finally admitting that susu cost us 10 points last season now. That's progress.
So it could be .00001% over 40 years?
A thought? From you?
Somebody hacked your account?
Just like you thought about making such a serious comment with no forthcoming proof that hardly anyone would believe.......including yourself?
A thought? From you?
Somebody hacked your account?
No I am not
Not my place to do so, though surprisingly it wasn't me!
In a world of litigation, it's wise to check sources before making accusations...
Word does reach me of threats to sue fans from other sources, it needs digging before committing to it however.
Good job some ask the qestions however rather than blindly accepting. let's hope the answer is 'no, I have never threatened a poster on a message board for libel' and then we can all be happy there is but one boogyman.
Try reading again what he said. He knows of one but it isn't his place to say who. Not he needs to check the legality as he knows
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?