Sixfields attendees (8 Viewers)

[Astute]

He created the term Sisue -- I think he is rather proud of it.

And as usual you are wrong. The term is SUESUE and is very apt these days.

 

---

[Astute]

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? If so why didn't he say so whilst posting such a comment?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And how do you know that?

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!

 

[wingy]

I don't get the fixation with the loan ,It was good enough when they used the very same to complete the fooking place.

If The need to they could revert to renting IT.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

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.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

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.

I might be wrong but if memory serves me right the interest payable to Arvo is currently around £2m a year.

 

[Astute]

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!

Which means the comment that he knows is wrong then. Should have been has heard of.

OMG have been thinking again.

 

[Astute]

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.

And what else would we have been left with? HR had already gone by then.

 

[lordsummerisle]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And what else would we have been left with? HR had already gone by then.

HR hadn't gone, we had the option to buy it back...

Which we, in fact, took up.

 

[Astute]

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.

More of a fact than you stated as a fact :laugh:

 

[wingy]

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.

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.

 

[Astute]

HR hadn't gone, we had the option to buy it back...

Which we, in fact, took up.

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.

 

[James Smith]

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!

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....then that reminds me of Trafigura and super injunctions.

 

[lordsummerisle]

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.

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.

 

[lordsummerisle]

More of a fact than you stated as a fact :laugh:

Not really because you still haven't given any facts.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

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

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.?

Excuse the ? marks, I'd edit them out but Works Christmas Party calls.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.....

The Guardian welcomes libel acts, their history embraces it...

I fail to see where I suggested one act made another less bad.

 

[Astute]

Not really because you still haven't given any facts.

Like you did without there being any facts?


ACL and CCC show their accounts. IIRC it was shown somewhere. Not going to spend time searching for facts for someone that states his own facts when there isn't any though ointlaugh:

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

 

[Astute]

I was replying to James, do keep up.

So you are still saying you told him that ACL/CCC have been threatening our own fans with litigation?

 

[wingy]

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.

Wierd Ain't It when they reckon on having monies to buy that back for making money and I guess still thinking they could still progress on their share In the Arena at that point,FFS they could'nt even find £6M. for 50% of ACL ,God that bloke was clueless.

 

[James Smith]

The Guardian welcomes libel acts, their history embraces it...

I fail to see where I suggested one act made another less bad.

So are you suggesting that it is okay for the press to be gagged from reporting the truth about our plight even if it's inconvenient for our owners? Should anyone be able to do this just because they have deep pockets and can afford good lawyers who can threaten expensive legal action? I mean we're hardly in the same area or level of importance as say Duncan Campbell and Secret Society but it is important to have a free press. Especially when it appears that threats are being considered over what is unless you know differently a factual piece.

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.

No you're right Sir Higgs had that put in the sale contract

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.

Well we're homeless now and still no plans for the new stadium in sight.

 

[Astute]

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

 

[wingy]

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

It may be just be just one ........or two words .................Rent------Free.

 

[magic82ball]

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 the fuck would SISU do the right thing?

 

[magic82ball]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.......

 

[magic82ball]

And the second 10 points.......

Was of a consequence of ACL not accepting the massively reduced figure of what was owed to them as majority creditor, just as was their right as it was for HMRC to also reject. You may not like it as of course it effects the club and so your view is distorted and skewed somewhat but it was absolutely ACL's right to reject if they wish. As I have said before, as an independent business who's primary concern is their own business, the fortunes of CCFC have to be secondary in doing what they believe to be right for them in the short and long term. I think they felt in the long term a review would be launched to investigate the unlawful practices that they perceived to be happening and so took a gamble that a rejection may help in the long term, a gamble that appears to have failed. Their choice, but had SISU acted properly throughout, it would never have come to this. Conclusion: SISU's fault.

 

[skybluetony176]

And the second 10 points.......

see you're admiting susu cost us the 1st 10 points again.

i will conceed that ACL cost us the 2nd 10points as this was a direct consiquence of them and the Inland revenue declining the anministrators offer.

however why were they in a position to to this? thats right we were put into administration! just remind me who did that again?

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Cause and effect..

 

[Astute]

And the second 10 points.......

You love going on about the so called fact that CCC loaned ACL 14m which was covered by a loan CCC got for them and not taxpayers money, meanig you seem worried about taxpayers being at risk of losing money, yet make out you are pissed off because CCFC lost 10 points as ACL wouldn't give up on wanting the truth and money owed from SUESUE.

 

[torchomatic]

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.

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

You certainly are starting to post like an idiot at times these days Torch. I have always said that would be my worst fear. It is a fact it is my worst fear. Just show me where I have stated it as a fact though.