Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Still unsure about the 150K offer. (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter italiahorse
  • Start date Sep 16, 2013
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #1
Linnell said again it was only offered to the administrator.

What does that exactly mean?
 
R

RFC

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #2
Never legally offered but it looked good in the Press! PUSB!
 
R

ricohman

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #3
It seems it was the offer if the administrator found a new buyer, not sisu. Maybe wrong
 
T

tuousis

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #4
where did you read that.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #5
This is the point ......... nobody knows.
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #6
As I understand it, the lease for Coventry City to play at the Ricoh was between CCFC Ltd and ACL. So negotiations would be between those companies while the lease was in effect. At the time of the £150,000 offer in the summer, Paul Appleton was running CCFC Ltd as the company's administrator so the offer was made to him. If I recall correctly, Mr Appleton said he had no team to play at the ground and he would not or could not alter the CVA to take account of that offer. Therefore, the offer got no play. Meanwhile, Mr Appleton had sold CCFC Ltd's league share to Otium, which had a deal to play in Northampton agreed and had indicated they did not want to return to the Ricoh.

Happy to be corrected if my memory is faulty.
 
J

jan87

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #7
italiahorse said:
Linnell said again it was only offered to the administrator.

What does that exactly mean?
Click to expand...

It was offered to PA as he was in effect running the club. Perhaps we should ask why he didn't pass this information on
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #8
italiahorse said:
Linnell said again it was only offered to the administrator.

What does that exactly mean?
Click to expand...

I think that the offer was made to the administrator and he stated it was not legal in respect to the CVA. What stuns me is that it has not been followed up by SISU nor ACL / CCC. I think that it will be raised again but not until the Judicial Revue has been completed, and if the Judge again finds in CCC favour. Then I think SISU will have to talk.
 
J

jan87

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #9
That's how I remember it
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #10
jan87 said:
It was offered to PA as he was in effect running the club. Perhaps we should ask why he didn't pass this information on
Click to expand...

He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
 
Last edited: Sep 16, 2013
A

Ashdown1

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #11
theferret said:
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Click to expand...

And meanwhile both sides lose a bundle of cash and all the business' around CV6 also miss out on vital revenue !!
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #12
theferret said:
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Click to expand...

That's spot on you complete twat.
 
T

thaiskyblue

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #13
Sky Blues said:
As I understand it, the lease for Coventry City to play at the Ricoh was between CCFC Ltd and ACL. So negotiations would be between those companies while the lease was in effect. At the time of the £150,000 offer in the summer, Paul Appleton was running CCFC Ltd as the company's administrator so the offer was made to him. If I recall correctly, Mr Appleton said he had no team to play at the ground and he would not or could not alter the CVA to take account of that offer. Therefore, the offer got no play. Meanwhile, Mr Appleton had sold CCFC Ltd's league share to Otium, which had a deal to play in Northampton agreed and had indicated they did not want to return to the Ricoh.

Happy to be corrected if my memory is faulty.
Click to expand...
this is how i saw it too.
 
C

coop

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #14
i thought Acl offered it to who ever won the golden share and could play there for free while in admin.We are still in admin and one game at the ricoh with the way we are playing will pay for the years rent.
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #15
ACL are very very quiet
 
J

jan87

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #16
theferret said:
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Click to expand...
The offer should have been passed on, PA is at fault there
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #17
jan87 said:
The offer should have been passed on, PA is at fault there
Click to expand...

Passed on to SISU? Why? ACL have already said they didn't recognise SISU as owners of the club. CCFC Ltd was offered the deal, but PA had no players or team, there was no way he could have accepted it.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #18
Cheshire Sky Blue said:
I think that the offer was made to the administrator and he stated it was not legal in respect to the CVA. What stuns me is that it has not been followed up by SISU nor ACL / CCC. I think that it will be raised again but not until the Judicial Revue has been completed, and if the Judge again finds in CCC favour. Then I think SISU will have to talk.
Click to expand...

But if he accepted the offer on behalf of CCFC then the CVA would be agreed and it would still be in Ltd.
Ltd would transfer to Otium because they had bought it. Then the Team, The Golden Share, The Players Contracts and a peppercorn Ricoh rent would all be with Otium.

The only thing I can think of that would stop this is that the deal was not on the table when Ltd was put up for sale.
So, why did Appleton not say he would run the bidding again and include the offer?

Still not 100% on this.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #19
italiahorse said:
But if he accepted the offer on behalf of CCFC then the CVA would be agreed and it would still be in Ltd.
Ltd would transfer to Otium because they had bought it. Then the Team, The Golden Share, The Players Contracts and a peppercorn Ricoh rent would all be with Otium.

The only thing I can think of that would stop this is that the deal was not on the table when Ltd was put up for sale.
So, why did Appleton not say he would run the bidding again and include the offer?

Still not 100% on this.
Click to expand...

And so would the agreement.

Hadn't the assets from Ltd been transfered to Holdings before ACL made the offer? If they had offered it before it would have made sense.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #20
RoboCCFC90 said:
And so would the agreement.

Hadn't the assets from Ltd been transfered to Holdings before ACL made the offer? If they had offered it before it would have made sense.
Click to expand...

Did the CVA need to be signed that day ?
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #21
italiahorse said:
Did the CVA need to be signed that day ?
Click to expand...

The CVA proposal signing had already been delayed, however I am not sure it was deadline by law, maybe someone with a better knowledge of that can reiterate it.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #22
RoboCCFC90 said:
The CVA proposal signing had already been delayed, however I am not sure it was deadline by law, maybe someone with a better knowledge of that can reiterate it.
Click to expand...

It was delayed a few days because of the offer. Surely Appleton would have known the answer there and then, instead of raising our hopes for a few days and then not explaining in the following few Months.
 
N

njdlawyer

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #23
theferret said:
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Click to expand...

Completely agree

I blame SISU entirely and ACL not at all for our plight. However SISU have had the upper hand strategically and tactically throughout. They have a clear and unshakeable plan (and I think that most people agree on this) to force ACL / CCC / AHT into a fire sale. ACL on the other hand do not appear to have a coherent approach and are continually on the back foot reacting rather than setting the agenda. They now seem to be sitting back and waiting for the JR appeal and the 19/9 report

Making an offer, publicly, as suggested is the obvious thing to do, one would think, put the ball in SISU's court and prove them, once and for all, to be the bad guys

The problem with such an offer, however, is that if it was accepted then the two parties would have to agree HOT going forward eg rent increase upon promotion, decrease upon relegation, match day costs and revenues etc. I would like to think that the reason for the current "radio silence" from everyone is that these things are being discussed and negotiated away from the glare of the (local) media and fans in readiness for a return to the Ricoh next season. There's no harm in blind optimism...
 
J

jan87

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #24
RoboCCFC90 said:
Passed on to SISU? Why? ACL have already said they didn't recognise SISU as owners of the club. CCFC Ltd was offered the deal, but PA had no players or team, there was no way he could have accepted it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, PA was in charge of the club at that point not SISU. He should have passed the information on to any potential buyers
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #25
jan87 said:
Exactly, PA was in charge of the club at that point not SISU. He should have passed the information on to any potential buyers
Click to expand...

Yeah but CCFC Ltd was not deemed to be the club and all the players contracts were under Holdings before the deal was offered.

Appleton could have spoken to SISU about the offer, but they wanted out of the place and the agreement with ACL, they were hardly going to take up any last ditch offer on ACL's terms..
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #26
italiahorse said:
It was delayed a few days because of the offer. Surely Appleton would have known the answer there and then, instead of raising our hopes for a few days and then not explaining in the following few Months.
Click to expand...

Adds to the list of negative actions that took place during the Admin process.
 
T

thaiskyblue

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #27
RoboCCFC90 said:
Yeah but CCFC Ltd was not deemed to be the club and all the players contracts were under Holdings before the deal was offered.

Appleton could have spoken to SISU about the offer, but they wanted out of the place and the agreement with ACL, they were hardly going to take up any last ditch offer on ACL's terms..
Click to expand...
normal sisu business practice they want everything their way, or nothing, they are not doing this for the good of club by the way.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #28
theferret said:
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows who is talking to who, about what nor any offering...if indeed anyone IS talking to anyone else at this stage. It might be that someone somewhere HAS managed to get this situation by the scruff of the neck - & do things IMO properly - privately rather than publicly (which they are all perfectly well witching their rights to do).
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #29
RoboCCFC90 said:
Yeah but CCFC Ltd was not deemed to be the club and all the players contracts were under Holdings before the deal was offered.

Appleton could have spoken to SISU about the offer, but they wanted out of the place and the agreement with ACL, they were hardly going to take up any last ditch offer on ACL's terms..
Click to expand...

But Ltd if the CVA had been signed would still be in business and passed to Otium.
On the second point the rent was reduced drastically to 150K in a move towards (perhaps better) what SISU wanted. Hardly ACL terms.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #30
thaiskyblue said:
normal sisu business practice they want everything their way, or nothing, they are not doing this for the good of club by the way.
Click to expand...

Well they want is best for their business and in our case their asset and felt being stuck under some rental agreement at the Ricoh with limited revenue streams wasn't the way forward which it isn't this club needs to be bringing it 100% of its revenues to strive.

Whether you believe anything I have said regarding SISU having good intentions for the club and the Arena is up to you.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #31
italiahorse said:
But Ltd if the CVA had been signed would still be in business and passed to Otium.
On the second point the rent was reduced drastically to 150K in a move towards (perhaps better) what SISU wanted. Hardly ACL terms.
Click to expand...

On the second point you say perhaps, yet it is rumoured and talked about muchly on here, that SISU want the Arena freehold how is a £150K Rental offer going to help towards their goal?

Your first point is if's and but's there is no way to say that this would have been the case especially based on what we have seen so far.
 
J

jan87

New Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #32
RoboCCFC90 said:
Yeah but CCFC Ltd was not deemed to be the club and all the players contracts were under Holdings before the deal was offered.

Appleton could have spoken to SISU about the offer, but they wanted out of the place and the agreement with ACL, they were hardly going to take up any last ditch offer on ACL's terms..
Click to expand...
Fisher is saying that the offer was
never made because it was not offered to him directly, so therefore he can blame ACL
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #33
jan87 said:
Fisher is saying that the offer was
never made because it was not offered to him directly, so therefore he can blame ACL
Click to expand...

Which is partly correct.

In part that Fisher runs CCFC Holdings (Ltd) and had all the assets including the players contracts and what not owned by Holdings, ACL knew he was running the club and they could have made the offer to him but didn't, because they didn't believe that, that's where the Golden Share had been. Fisher thought Holdings was the club through beneficiary circumstances.

Appleton on the other hand was a total liability from the start.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #34
You are also forgetting the so called 'offer' was not just a 150k rent. It involved a 10 year agreement and other clauses that made it ridiculous, though on face value it grabbed headlines for the 150k rent only deal. Hmmm.

Legally ACL did not offer the deal to the company that could accept it. Frankly as I have said before, both these sides SISU and ACL are complicit to our current position with ACL acting just as underhandedly as SISU.

Someone said all the businesses around the Ricoh and the knock on effect are being affected. Yes and the football club is one of those.

As for ACL they need to take responsibility for some of this and try and ensure they do right by all those affected. That means attempting at least, to bring back the football club and I don't think anyone will deny ACL would be better off with the cities football club at the Ricoh?

There are a couple of legal processes to see out first and then the talking will start...
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
  • Sep 16, 2013
  • #35
Paxman II said:
You are also forgetting the so called 'offer' was not just a 150k rent. It involved a 10 year agreement and other clauses that made it ridiculous, though on face value it grabbed headlines for the 150k rent only deal. Hmmm.

Legally ACL did not offer the deal to the company that could accept it. Frankly as I have said before, both these sides SISU and ACL are complicit to our current position with ACL acting just as underhandedly as SISU.

Someone said all the businesses around the Ricoh and the knock on effect are being affected. Yes and the football club is one of those.

As for ACL they need to take responsibility for some of this and try and ensure they do right by all those affected. That means attempting at least, to bring back the football club and I don't think anyone will deny ACL would be better off with the cities football club at the Ricoh?

There are a couple of legal processes to see out first and then the talking will start...
Click to expand...

That's just blowing people away and I try not to do that
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?