Well it doesn't look like its going to happen anytime soon.At least ive saved a few hundred quid on mine and my lads season tickets
If the club does not move back quickly it will cease to exist.
Whether it be a 6 million lease ....... a 40 million lease ..... or a 1 billion fafillion lease. It is still a lease which they wanted to protect, for themselves and for the people of coventry to keep their football club in their city. Therefore what is your argument? All you ever argue is that people are factually wrong, but you dont ever back this up with anything factual yourself? Nobody knows official figures so what is the point in getting picky about numbers?
Oh do I have to use crayons.
The post is exploring motives of ACL rejecting the CVA. I've given my view.
Schmee (unless he has inside knowledge) offers a view with no evidence whatsoever which strangely you do not question.
The claiming they are seeking to recover the outstanding least based on initial rental values.
We do know that the £150,000 offer could not be made as part of the CVA process.
So they want £40 million but apparently will do a deal for substantially less with the same company at the same time?
Do you listen to yourself? you say he has no evidence then you use it yourself as evidence??
Fair enough - Appleton said - Legally the £150,000 could not be made as part of the CVA process BUT why could it not have been dealt with outside of this?
How is it that CCFC Holdings which did not own the golden share at the time can do a deal to play at northampton yet CCFC Ltd. who did own the golden share at the time and was in the process (if not a completed process) of being transferred to Otium cannot do a deal with the council relating to the new offer made?
Why have SISU/Otium appealed the decision to throw out the JR? Because they care?
That the point, as far as we know, the offer has never been made outside the CVA.
The offer was made. I remember the whole reason the CVA was postponed a further couple of days was because of the offer. Now if it was not made outside of the CVA then why have SISU used this as an excuse to not pursue it? Why have they just written it off as "oh well it wasnt offered outside the CVA so WERE PLAYING IN NORTHAMPTON!" If they really cared about CCFC playing in Coventry then they would have said "well hang on, you cant offer it as part of the CVA but we are very interested in doing a deal based on that offer."
People are quick to read something and suffer from "tunnel vision"
The offer was made. I remember the whole reason the CVA was postponed a further couple of days was because of the offer. Now if it was not made outside of the CVA then why have SISU used this as an excuse to not pursue it? Why have they just written it off as "oh well it wasnt offered outside the CVA so WERE PLAYING IN NORTHAMPTON!" If they really cared about CCFC playing in Coventry then they would have said "well hang on, you cant offer it as part of the CVA but we are very interested in doing a deal based on that offer."
People are quick to read something and suffer from "tunnel vision"
That the point, as far as we know, the offer has never been made outside the CVA.
'Tunnel vision' are you being ironic?
You ask why haven't ccfc not pursued it, on the flipside why haven't ACL been proactive in offering it outside the CVA? They need a tenant as much as ccfc need a venue.
You say if sisu really care about ccfc playing in Coventry then they would pursue it outside the CVA, the same can be applied to ACL, after all they did reject the CVA for the fans.
That the point, as far as we know, the offer has never been made outside the CVA.
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.
Let's assume the offer was made as part of the CVA and thats the reason it couldn't be considered, now assume it has never been made outside the CVA. If I was Tim Fisher and what had been offered as part of the CVA was an acceptable deal that would see CCFC playing at the Ricoh I'd be on CWR, in the Telegraph all over the website telling ACL to make the offer now and it will be accepted.
The fact that hasn't happened indicates to me the deal is not acceptable to Fisher and therefore the manner in which it was made becomes pretty much irrelevant.
the offer was made, that is well documented in the press with both ACL stating so and fishface stating it couldn't legally be agreed within the CVA confirming it happened. so yes we know the offer was made, just to reiterate ACL and fishface have both confirmed this with the statements they have made about it.
so it goes back to the argument that it didn't need to be included in the CVA agreement. it could have been a legally binding contract outside of the CVA.
this would have meant ACL agreed to the CVA at a cost to the city of Coventry's council tax payers of over £ 600,000 or more if you listen to grendal, and the club or part of the club wouldn't be facing liquidation.
shitsu accepted the last rent offer meaning that CCFC play in Coventry, a strange idea i know but we all seem to agree that it would be a good idea.
shitsu also drop the pointless judicial review that the judge as good as laughed out of court, we would never have even got to the even more pointless appeal. thus saving the city of Coventry council tax payers money in legal fee's, money that is much needed in other services i would imagine. and shitsu would save a fortune in pointless legal fee's and who knows who they will saddle with them debt's.
it seems to me everyone would have been a winner in this scenario, so i don't understand why it couldn't have happened. perhaps grendal can explain instead of just disagreeing. i would love to hear a reasoned argument from you grendal and should i actually agree with you i state now i am more than willing to state this on here.
Oh do I have to use crayons.
The post is exploring motives of ACL rejecting the CVA. I've given my view.
Schmee (unless he has inside knowledge) offers a view with no evidence whatsoever which strangely you do not question.
The claiming they are seeking to recover the outstanding least based on initial rental values.
We do know that the £150,000 offer could not be made as part of the CVA process.
So they want £40 million but apparently will do a deal for substantially less with the same company at the same time?
the offer was made, that is well documented in the press with both ACL stating so and fishface stating it couldn't legally be agreed within the CVA confirming it happened. so yes we know the offer was made, just to reiterate ACL and fishface have both confirmed this with the statements they have made about it. BUT WAS THE OFFER STILL APPLICABLE OUTSIDE THE CVA AND WITH CONSIDERING THE JR? I SUSPECT IT WASN'T AS I'M SURE ACL WOULD BE CONSTANTLY BANGING ON ABOUT IT.
so it goes back to the argument that it didn't need to be included in the CVA agreement. it could have been a legally binding contract outside of the CVA. SO ACL CAN BLACKMAIL THE CLUB -SIGN THIS AND DROP THE JR AND WE'LL AGREE THE CVA?
this would have meant ACL agreed to the CVA at a cost to the city of Coventry's council tax payers of over £ 600,000 or more if you listen to grendal, and the club or part of the club wouldn't be facing liquidation.
shitsu accepted the last rent offer meaning that CCFC play in Coventry, a strange idea i know but we all seem to agree that it would be a good idea.
shitsu also drop the pointless judicial review that the judge as good as laughed out of court, we would never have even got to the even more pointless appeal. thus saving the city of Coventry council tax payers money in legal fee's, money that is much needed in other services i would imagine. and shitsu would save a fortune in pointless legal fee's and who knows who they will saddle with them debt's. SISU RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY BELIEVE THERE IS REASON FOR A JR.
it seems to me everyone would have been a winner in this scenario, so i don't understand why it couldn't have happened. perhaps grendal can explain instead of just disagreeing. i would love to hear a reasoned argument from you grendal and should i actually agree with you i state now i am more than willing to state this on here. AS NONE US WERE THERE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, WE DO KNOW THAT APPLETON TOLD ACL TO TAKE THE RENT AND JR OUT OF THE CVA WHEN THEY ADJOURNED, THEY HADN'T DONE THIS WHEN THEY RETURNED A WEEK LATER.
Childish.
I have not seen any admission it was offered by either side and of it was then why reject the CVA?
I've given my opinion - by backing Haskell and offering a very attractive rent arrangement ACL believed the process would mean sisu were forced out and the club could return under new owners.
prove it i know you can't
I have not seen any admission it was offered by either side and of it was then why reject the CVA?
I've given my opinion - by backing Haskell and offering a very attractive rent arrangement ACL believed the process would mean sisu were forced out and the club could return under new owners.
the offer has been talked about by both sides. if their was no offer why are both sides talking about it? clearly this being the case ACL didn't accept the CVA because shitsu didn't accept the offer. seem simple to me
surely if we can agree on 2 things it is that the club needs to return back to Coventry and that it needs new owners, as long as they are better owners does it matter who they are.
Then the source must be on record. Please provide a link
Well what is not happening is ACL want compensation for the lease. Well unless you and Schmee are saying ACL indeed have never offered the club a rent reduction.
The real reason it was probably rejected as I suspect Schmee well knows is that ACL had some fanciful belief that they could somehow change owners. It seems almost certain they had met Haskell and persued a strategy to bring sisu down by offering the rent reduction to the administrator - an act against creditors law according to Appleton.
I suggest you read ACL's statement that they did it to get the club back to Coventry quickly. Explain how that works of sisu ended up still owning the club.
Another failed attempt at brinkmanship under the pseudonym of business strategy.
I guess the thread is still "derailed" as basically you just don't like the truth.
Remember the ancient Chinese proverb;
A man was on the ground searching for something under a street lamp. Another came to assist. The man said he'd lost his key over the road where the streetlight was broken.
"Why are you searching here then" said the second man
"Because this is where the light is" came the reply
Sometimes you need to look in the dark as the solution to a problem is not as simplistic as you may think.
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?