fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I thought that the liquidation process was so a thorough investigation could be carried out?
Since then ACL had insisted it was seeking a revised CVA to prevent liquidation. But Mr Appleton confirmed today ACL had still made no approach regarding any last-ditch CVA – and had submitted no alternative proposals as it had been required to do.
ACL confirmed it had made no formal approach.
Confirming there had been no formal request for a new CVA, an ACL spokesman said: “We urge Mr Appleton not to begin the liquidation process and instead re-examine the entire administration process before he makes any further decisions.
I thought that the liquidation process was so a thorough investigation could be carried out?
you are trying to make it sound like thats a contradiction, it is not, it has never been ACL's main preference for their to be an investigation, the main preference has always been to have ccfc playing at the ricoh long term and to get what they are owed. so of course a re run of the administration process is preferable to a liquidation investigation.
you are trying to make it sound like thats a contradiction, it is not, it has never been ACL's main preference for their to be an investigation, the main preference has always been to have ccfc playing at the ricoh long term and to get what they are owed. so of course a re run of the administration process is preferable to a liquidation investigation.
I still don't understand why they rejected the CVA. £590k on top of the £500k from the escrow account, was nearly the whole debt owed to them.
Why would re-running the administration process achieve either of these aims? The same administrator, the same major creditor and the same buyers?
Why would re-running the administration process achieve either of these aims? The same administrator, the same major creditor and the same buyers?
This is a common misconception.
It's not about the rent owed, its about the lease (worth something like £42m) which Appleton didn't even consider as neither did Sisu.
If CCFC Ltd is the club it can't just be liquidated so CCFC get out of the lease. ACL are arguing it is the club, which would pretty much prevent Sisu liquidating it without losing the Golden Share and CCFC's place in the pyramid.
Appleton, Fisher and co have refused to entertain this idea claiming its a defunct property subsidiary. The FL have made things clear as mud by refusing to give detailed, dated information about where players were registered, leading to both ACL and Sisu claiming the FL had proved their point.
ACL want the admin process rerun because they should at least be compensated for the lost lease or (what should happen) it removes the avenue used by Sisu to get out of the lease.
That's why ACL rejected the CVA. It didn't offer proper value for what they'd lose and accepting it removed any chance of appealing the entire process.
Ltd is no longer the club, the Football league have given the golden share to Otium and the administration won't be re-run.
Ltd is no longer the club, the Football league have given the golden share to Otium and the administration won't be re-run.
Correct Schmee is talking bollocks. The reason they did it is very obvious and if Schmee was correct then the revised £150,000 deal clearly was never offered to the club was it?
I thought that the liquidation process was so a thorough investigation could be carried out?
FP, where did this quote come from? it would be nice to see the full statement that it come from so you can get the full facts/story rather than just make an assumption from a sound bite.
The bit about CCFC Ltd being the club is irrelevant now though as the golden share was transferred to Otium so we could compete this seasonThis is a common misconception.
It's not about the rent owed, its about the lease (worth something like £42m) which Appleton didn't even consider as neither did Sisu.
If CCFC Ltd is the club it can't just be liquidated so CCFC get out of the lease. ACL are arguing it is the club, which would pretty much prevent Sisu liquidating it without losing the Golden Share and CCFC's place in the pyramid.
Appleton, Fisher and co have refused to entertain this idea claiming its a defunct property subsidiary. The FL have made things clear as mud by refusing to give detailed, dated information about where players were registered, leading to both ACL and Sisu claiming the FL had proved their point.
ACL want the admin process rerun because they should at least be compensated for the lost lease or (what should happen) it removes the avenue used by Sisu to get out of the lease.
That's why ACL rejected the CVA. It didn't offer proper value for what they'd lose and accepting it removed any chance of appealing the entire process.
Correct Schmee is talking bollocks. The reason they did it is very obvious and if Schmee was correct then the revised £150,000 deal clearly was never offered to the club was it?
here's another sound bite from the same CET piece
"Club director Mark Labovitch urged Coventry City fans to ask what ACL and its council directors had gained from rejecting the CVA, leading to the damaging 10-point penalty"
i would answer Mr Labovitch's question with another question. What does CCFC, the fans of CCFC and even shitsu gain by moving the club to sixfields by choosing not to accept ACL's offer for a 10year rent agreement in exchange for excepting the CVA at a cost to the Coventry council tax payers.
as a fan of CCFC who doesn't pay my council tax to CCC i don't care what ACL gain or loose, all i care about is what happens to CCFC and i think we can all agree that moving CCFC to sixfields has benifited no one, not shitsu, not CCFC and most of all us long suffering fans
But they weren't allowed to legally include the offer and associated dropping of the JR as part of the CVA. As far as we are aware it's never been offered to the club outside the CVA.
Schmee is talking A LOT of sense. It was offered to CCFC Ltd. which was in the process of being sold to Otium. So yes it was offered to them. Tell me I am wrong?
The football League have got away with a lot from this. It is ultimately their fault that SISU have been allowed to fiddle with everything.
Your are totally wrong.
Schmee is effectively making a claim that the CVA rejection is due to the lease being broken and they seeking compensation for the £40 million plus they are owed.
They are only owed this based on £1.2 million a year. We were told that ACL offered £450k a year do the total becomes £16 million.
Now you are saying the club has been offered £150,000 a year so now its £6 million.
So the reason for rejection is not as cited or the offer has never been made to the club.
Take your pick.
Always happens ...... people come on trying to understand what is happening, we have a bit of discussion with people putting their understanding of it, a few corrections by other people that have a little bit of knowledge on it, some people recollect some other discussions and facts ............
........ then that idiot Grendull slags someone off with his rancid comments.
or the club chose not to take it. when i say club i mean shitsu of course
So Schmee is a liar then and so is Paul Appleton?
here we go again, I know this , you don't as your thick.
I am above everyone and you should bow in my presence
So Schmee is a liar then and so is Paul Appleton? that's your words not mine
According to fisher ccfc have moved out of the ricoh for good and are going to build a new ground. What I find strange is that certain people keep banging on about the ricoh,the council,acl etc etc. Why cant people just move on? The club has gone,it doesn't play at the ricoh and certainly doesn't represent the city of Coventry anymore.
Id be more worried about where the club will be in 3-5 years than keep on bickering about acl.
Ok you explain toe how a CVA is rejected in order to get a £40 million lease paid and yet they are offering the same creditor a £6 million lease for the same facility?
If the club does not move back quickly it will cease to exist.
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?