Astute
Well-Known Member
And as usual you are wrong. The term is SUESUE and is very apt these days.
He created the term Sisue -- I think he is rather proud of it.
It isn't his place to say who...
Especially as his sources have told him not to say who.
And how do you know that?
I don't get the fixation with the loan ,It was good enough when they used I the very same to complete the fooking place.
If The need to they could revert to renting IT.
Do we know that it is over 40 years? Do we know what rate ARVO are charging for keeping CCFC alive throughout the Northampton phase? It would be good to know who is more rapacious - our owners or our council and charity? I would go for a hedge fund specialising in battering creditors in court, but I may be wrong.
Because I'm his source... and I'm not saying who until I get a clear answer, for the reasons said above.
But I *will* ask the right questions to the right people, and once I get a clear answer I will report the answer.
It will, undoubtedly, be that my information is wrong, I have no doubt. Who in their right mind would even go so far as threatening with legal action, a poster on a message board?!?
It's inconceivable, isn't it!
Well... you say good enough, it's why some of us didn't want the stadium built in the first place, that we could sense that the 'no other option' line was being peddled because it suited a 'quick fix' roll of the dice from the club... and the way council assets have to be structured nowadays, any deal to build it wasn't going to be good for the club, not because of malevolance from the council, but because of the constraints they're put under.
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
And what else would we have been left with? HR had already gone by then.
What is the rate of interest paid for the loan to CCC and from CCC to whoever they got the money off?
You know for a fact apparently.
What is the rate of interest paid for the loan to CCC and from CCC to whoever they got the money off?
You know for a fact apparently.
HR hadn't gone, we had the option to buy it back...
Which we, in fact, took up.
Because I'm his source... and I'm not saying who until I get a clear answer, for the reasons said above.
But I *will* ask the right questions to the right people, and once I get a clear answer I will report the answer.
It will, undoubtedly, be that my information is wrong, I have no doubt. Who in their right mind would even go so far as threatening with legal action, a poster on a message board?!?
It's inconceivable, isn't it!
Again Lord ,why Is It a problem now If It was'nt to complete the place first time around,secondly why does It matter when they could revert to a simple rental agreement,which Is what they started off with.
More of a fact than you stated as a fact :laugh:
We were renting. Why did we rent when we could have bought it back? We were renting for over 1m a season it was said.
he Sky Blues want to buy back their Highfield Road ground - as a financial investment. The team is still on course to move to a new home at the Arena in Foleshill by the start of the 2005 season. But club bosses are hoping to make a profit by buying back Highfield Road and then selling it on again.
They say they have no intention of keeping it as a stadium once they quit for the Arena, which is being built partly through public funds, including financial backing from the city council.
They have the right to exercise a buy-back clause put in the contract when they sold it to construction firm McLean Homes.
The club currently effectively leases the stadium from McLean.
The site has planning permission for 175 homes, ranging from two-bedroom flats costing #50,000 at 2000 prices, to four-bedroomed detached homes.
And the value of the site is going up, as it's close to a #1 billion redevelopment plan revealed this year by the city council.
The council wants to lower the ring road between Foleshill Road and Sky Blue Way, and and create a marina, with housing, shops, health facilities and a learning quarter around Swans-well, Foleshill Road and Stoney Stanton Road.
Club chairman Mike McGinnity confirmed yesterday that negotiations were underway and that the profit would not go to the Arena project.
He said: ?It?s a financial advantage to the club. It would be going into the football club - it helps us to survive. I?ll be able to tell you something more next week.?
He also confirmed the team was still going to move to the Arena.
Alan Stevenson, the man at the Arena company who is charged with organising selling off memorabilia from Highfield Road, said: ?There?s no truth in the rumour we?re staying at Highfield Road.
?If you saw all the preparations for moving, it?s out of the question.
?We want to move anyway - it?s the whole point of forward-thinking of the club. It?s our lifeline to get back to the Premiership to get to the (new) stadium.?
Who attacks a journalist for a respected national newspaper over what is as far as I can see a factual piece?
That smacks to me as an attack on freedom of speech and the press. If the allegations (and at the moment that's all they are) that other media outlets have been on the receiving end of legal threats from legal people connected to our owners turn out to be true.....
Not really because you still haven't given any facts.
The Guardian welcomes libel acts, their history embraces it...
I fail to see where I suggested one act made another less bad.
Come again. Lord said it was ACL/CCC that were threatening court action. What has this got to do with the Guardian?
I was replying to James, do keep up.
You may very well ask that question too!
Fact remains, we had the option to buy it back, and we did. I've quoted *that* before too, and been ignored because it didn't fit into a world view.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/highfield-road-buy-back-plan-3147941
Excuse the ? marks, I'd edit them out but Works Christmas Party calls.
The Guardian welcomes libel acts, their history embraces it...
I fail to see where I suggested one act made another less bad.
You may very well ask that question too!
Fact remains, we had the option to buy it back, and we did. I've quoted *that* before too, and been ignored because it didn't fit into a world view.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/highfield-road-buy-back-plan-3147941
Excuse the ? marks, I'd edit them out but Works Christmas Party calls.
Well we're homeless now and still no plans for the new stadium in sight.One of the reasons that he was so keen on the Ricoh Arena was because it was helping to regenerate this run down area of Coventry. He was concerned that had it not gone ahead we would have been homeless and as a result had a clause put into the sale contract. This would have allowed us to buy back Highfield Road for the same amount as we received for it plus some small interest had the deal to build the Ricoh fallen through.
IMHO I can't see SUESUE taking on the Guardian. We know that the vast majority of what was said to be the truth. If it came to court the whole truth would come out. All of us should want this.
BTW NW still waiting for your reply
So are you saying that if ACL had not issued an order to put the club into administration SISU were going to put the club into administration anyway?
Really? Where did you here that from?
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.
What are you prattling on about.
First 10 points was as of a consequence of ACL trying to claim back money owed, SISU wouldn't pay and so to use your quote "They did what any other business would've done" to reclaim it, administration. Just because CCFC bore the brunt of this doesn't mean it was someone else's fault. SISU could have protected the club and its fans by paying what was owed, they chose not to. Conclusion: SISU's fault.
And the second 10 points.......
And the second 10 points.......
And the second 10 points.......
Not a problem with it, just another one of these things thrown around as facts without any evidence, which is then taken as fact when no proof actually given.
A bit like the "fact" that Astute (always makes me laugh that) and others throw about that if SISU owned the ground then they would bankrupt the club with a massive rent before knocking the Ricoh down anyway.
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?