The time has come (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
SIR ERNIE

SIR ERNIE

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Z

For goodness sake - the £150,000 deal was not offered to the owners but to the administrator. How many times does this have to be said to you before it sinks in?
Click to expand...


God you're gullible.

SISU are not interested in playing at the Ricoh at any price. The football club is unimportant to them. Always has been.

How many times does this have to be said to you SISU apologists before it sinks in?
 
Last edited:
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Grendel said:
Z

For goodness sake - the £150,000 deal was not offered to the owners but to the administrator. How many times does this have to be said to you before it sinks in?
Click to expand...

Actually none of the stakeholders have said that is the case. You are making a presumption, I don't know what was on the table, neither do you.
 
CJ_covblaze

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
Rent at Sixfields is 260k per season.
 
ohitsaidwalker king power

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Z

For goodness sake - the £150,000 deal was not offered to the owners but to the administrator. How many times does this have to be said to you before it sinks in?
Click to expand...

Wasn't offered to the owners or wasn't heard by the owners ?. A technical point you make...but please, come on open your eyes- if the intentions of SISU were found in the best interests of the football club , the supporters and the citizens of Coventry they would have listened to that offer and found a way past the administration technicality- instead to suit their own arguments and purposes they hide behind their self appointed administrator. SISU aren't adverse to the odd non standard protocol are they, i.e player registrations to non existant football clubs?
 
Last edited:
K

kmj5000

Member
Baginton said:
why dont ACL offer to sell the ground to CCFC at the market value
Click to expand...

Because firstly, it's obvious to everyone that SISU don't want to ay the market value and secondly, SISU would then charge the club £1.2m rent p.a. instead of excessive the management charges they have levied in the past few years!
 
S

Skybluesquirrel

New Member
Grendel said:
Z

For goodness sake - the £150,000 deal was not offered to the owners but to the administrator. How many times does this have to be said to you before it sinks in?
Click to expand...

The offer was made by ACL to the administrator as part of an agreement to agree the terms of the CVA. If the preferred bidder had accepted the terms, the rent being paid by Otium would be to the owners of the Ricoh at the price suggested this season.

Therefore the offer was quite clearly made to the owners of the club once it exited from administration. The offer was made to the Otium and the club.

10 years is the minimum time period allowed by the FL regulations. The agreement was rolling over the 10 year period.

That really should sink in.
 
G

Grappa

Well-Known Member
Skybluesquirrel said:
The offer was made by ACL to the administrator as part of an agreement to agree the terms of the CVA. If the preferred bidder had accepted the terms, the rent being paid by Otium would be to the owners of the Ricoh at the price suggested this season.

Therefore the offer was quite clearly made to the owners of the club once it exited from administration. The offer was made to the Otium and the club.

10 years is the minimum time period allowed by the FL regulations. The agreement was rolling over the 10 year period.

That really should sink in.
Click to expand...

The administrator made it quite clear that he could not propose the CVA with ACL's conditions attached. So no, it hasn't sunk in.
 
Sisued

Sisued

New Member
I read somewhere recently (i cant think where but it was a published article and not on a forum) that the rent at Sixfields was 170k which is the average paid in Div 1
 
S

Skybluesquirrel

New Member
Grappa said:
The administrator made it quite clear that he could not propose the CVA with ACL's conditions attached. So no, it hasn't sunk in.
Click to expand...

Administration is a process that attempts to rescue a failing company from entering liquidation with a view to exiting as a going concern.

ACL had a lease agreement with CCFC that was unpaid. ACL proposed a revised agreement as part of the CVA. This is standard practice as part of a taking a business forward as a 'going concern'.

The conditions which Appleton rejected related to the JR, which ACL tagged on to the offer.

To suggest Appleton could reject the conditions attached that relate to rent is frankly naive, blinkered and absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top