Statement finally released (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wes_cov
- Start date
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
SISU aren't capable of reflecting. Not exactly gonna suddenly say "hang on...I think actually we may have been bang out of order!" are they?
Last edited:
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
So, I guess all that's left to say about all parties involved......C U Next Tuesday
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
And Tim goes back to the SISU office and they say "we don't agree with that even though you shook on it"
grego_gee
New Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
imp:
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
Do you really think that the debt will be written off (i.e. out of the group)?
TF has repeatedly said that there is no way the club will play at the Ricoh, so on what grounds do you think that the CVA would change that?
skybluehugh
New Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
Your dead right it is what I want. We can not come out of admin, even if the CVA is signed, until the books have been signed off. No debt will be written off, it will just be more slight of hand from your buddies.
Well done ACL for standing up to these morons.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
ACL have got to hold on and NOT sign the CVA. The more time financial matters have to be sorted out, the more chance that SISU will be exposed for the "Alleged" washing at Mr Papadopolous's launderette in Albert Square.
spwaverley4916
Active Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
please dont generalise - we all dont want that - most on here want to play in Coventry for home games
grego_gee
New Member
Thank you for pointing that out!
could it be that a few might not want a 15pt deduction either?
imp:The Prefect
Active Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
ACL are not obliged to sign. Unlike SISU who were under a legal obligation to pay the rent and chose not to pay, ACL are able to chose whether they sign. It seems they refused - good for them as they're not being bullied by SISU. If I were ACL I would accept the CVA if the club agree a new rent and play at the Ricoh Arena.
15 point deduction might be the case - SISU are responsible for the failure to pay debts and are therefore responsible for the consequences.
Any reduction in debt on exiting adminstration is open for debate. With a three tier ownership structure it is likely the whole debt will remain between tiers 1 and 2. Basically company A lends money to company C via Company B. When C goes into administration Company B writes off the debt but the debt still remains between Company A and Company B. SISU could write off debt owed by CCFC Ltd to Company B without affecting their 'collectable monies' further up the corporate hierarchy. The write-off of debt could be all smoke and mirrors.
Bearing in mind the club haven't submitted accounts and neither have Otium, the transfer embargo will last way beyond the transfer window so we'll only be able to sign players that are without a club and hold their own registration when it is finally lifted. The pool of good players will be very small by the time we're able to sign any.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Well said people blame ACL for the crisis and the Embargo this is the third one in 5 years?
Sisu also said that they would pay off the debts when they first brought the Club.
Tim Fisher himself repeatedly said that CCFC were Debt free so now we should believe everything they say and every thing is hunky dory.
Well I thought I was gullible but not this time.......
Sisu also said that they would pay off the debts when they first brought the Club.
Tim Fisher himself repeatedly said that CCFC were Debt free so now we should believe everything they say and every thing is hunky dory.
Well I thought I was gullible but not this time.......
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I think it's selfless of Sisu leaving the Ricoh so that the Arena can make more money for the ratepayers and local charities of Coventry without the club around it's neck holding it back.
Well done to Sisu i say.
Well done to Sisu i say.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Absolutely right, well done. I see ACL have just announced that Status Quo have taken on a 23 date residency until next May.
grego_gee
New Member
The only way to end the lease was for the company to enter administration. They decided they had to do that and although you could argue it might be unethical or morally questionable it is perfectly legal, it is a legal process in itself.
ACLcannot force SISU to be a tenant if they do not want to be one.
What seems to be unfolding is that they can perhaps offer terms for the club to continue to play at the RICOH and perhaps make their signing of the CVA conditional on a new rent deal. If they offer a temporary deal (3-5 years) it might be acceptable to SISU?
If they try to insist on a long lease at whatever reduced rent I doubt if it will be acceptable to SISU.
If they fail to reach agreement and make the club incure the 15 pt penalty it will be their responsibility alone, it would also be illegal for their directors not to accept the 590k on the table in preferance to nothing and liquidation.
They can persue a new deal that they could argue might be better for their shareholders, but it will be down to SISU's free choice to accept or reject whatever is offered so it must be what they would find attractive. ACL are sailing very close to the wind.
imp:
duffer
Well-Known Member
The only way to end the lease was for the company to enter administration. They decided they had to do that and although you could argue it might be unethical or morally questionable it is perfectly legal, it is a legal process in itself.
ACLcannot force SISU to be a tenant if they do not want to be one.
What seems to be unfolding is that they can perhaps offer terms for the club to continue to play at the RICOH and perhaps make their signing of the CVA conditional on a new rent deal. If they offer a temporary deal (3-5 years) it might be acceptable to SISU?
If they try to insist on a long lease at whatever reduced rent I doubt if it will be acceptable to SISU.
If they fail to reach agreement and make the club incure the 15 pt penalty it will be their responsibility alone, it would also be illegal for their directors not to accept the 590k on the table in preferance to nothing and liquidation.
They can persue a new deal that they could argue might be better for their shareholders, but it will be down to SISU's free choice to accept or reject whatever is offered so it must be what they would find attractive. ACL are sailing very close to the wind.
Can we just nail down this illegal thing. It is absolutely not illegal for the directors of ACL to decline to sign the CVA.
Their duty is to act in the best interests of the company, and given all of the circumstances they could reasonably argue that ACL's best chance of a future return is to throw this deal out.
Asset stripping, wrongful trading, fraudulent trading - now that is illegal. And it's part of the stuff that a lot of us would like to see investigated, but we're not looking at ACL in that regard. It's the other side who appear to have been sailing close to the wind!
grego_gee
New Member
"throwing out " the CVA and accepting nothing could not possibly be argued to benefit their shareholderes in any shape or form.
Proposing another deal could hold some improvement.
imp:
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
@ grego_gee.... If they fail to reach agreement and make the club incure the 15 pt penalty it will be their responsibility alone, it would also be illegal for their directors not to accept the 590k on the table in preferance to nothing and liquidation. I say.......... Is that in the same way that SISU were legally responsible to pay a contractual rent too?
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
"throwing out " the CVA and accepting nothing could not possibly be argued to benefit their shareholderes in any shape or form.
Proposing another deal could hold some improvement.
If voting down the CVA could result in a proper investigation from which there could be either a change of owners and/or a reversal of the transfer of assets out of CCFC Ltd, then it's an entirely proper action for the directors to take.
So it is in no way whatsoever illegal for them to take that course. You might not want them to for some personal reason, but it's not illegal.
Who do you think the shareholders in ACL are, just out of interest? Do you think the directors making this decision might be in some way linked to them?
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
would hope that all parties might have watched & listened to the march on Sat (7,000 approx),
& would understand that Coventry should, could, & would play in Coventry, IF all parties UNDERSTAND that it's the fans who really count in all of this,
perhaps the FL might have coughed & spluttered something to all parties,
or perhaps the FA might have nudged the FL to cough
PUSB
& would understand that Coventry should, could, & would play in Coventry, IF all parties UNDERSTAND that it's the fans who really count in all of this,
perhaps the FL might have coughed & spluttered something to all parties,
or perhaps the FA might have nudged the FL to cough
PUSB
blueflint
Well-Known Member
It says all parties but it is only ACL that can need time to reflect, they must have not been willing to sign!
How good for us will that be?
15 point deduction before we even kick a ball
No reduction in the debt that would have been written off by SISU
No reprieve from exile to Northampton
No hope to continue playing at the Ricoh
Well its what you all seemed to want!
not exactly we want SISU out so our club can move on we want to play in cov now not in 5 yrs time we want some investment in our squad and to sell off some dead wood.we want to play attacking football with a chance of winning we want people like you to see the light and realise this won't happen under SISU