fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I thought that the liquidation process was so a thorough investigation could be carried out?
This is interesting.... (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter fernandopartridge
- Start date
I thought that the liquidation process was so a thorough investigation could be carried out?
sky blue zam
Member
expect more points deductions
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
In my experience if you reject a CVA the next step is for the administrator to come back with an improved offer. I've never had to request a revised CVA but then I have only been a relativity small creditor when I have been involved in administrations so it may have happened without my knowledge.
Surely by rejecting the CVA you're saying come back with a better offer. Is there even a recognised process for requesting an improved CVA past rejecting the initial offer?
Surely by rejecting the CVA you're saying come back with a better offer. Is there even a recognised process for requesting an improved CVA past rejecting the initial offer?
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.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Bastard ACL...making us sell Gibbo, preventing us playing in Europe in 87, getting us relegated from the Prem, moving us to Northampton...and now this outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
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.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why would re-running the administration process achieve either of these aims? The same administrator, the same major creditor and the same buyers?
thaiskyblue
New Member
more money for Appleton.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
See my post above.
the point being the entire administration process was rigged against anyone else purchasing the club because the situation with the players and golden share wern't confirmed. is not within the rules for the players and golden share to be separated and if they were together it makes placing a significant bid significantly more attractive.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Ltd is no longer the club, the Football league have given the golden share to Otium and the administration won't be re-run.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not sure what this has to do with anything, you asked why they rejected the CVA. That is why they rejected the CVA. Otium was handed the GS after they rejected it.
Now obviously you have a point going forward, but they can still claim that the broken lease should be compensated for.
What would be REALLY interesting is if (ignoring anything the FL say) it is found that assets had been sold/hidden/moved illegally from Ltd and in some way the process is ordered to be run again and they find that everything WAS in Ltd. Then the FL have the horrible problem of having handed the GS to a company that has no club.
But as I said, you didn't ask that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-wont-10-points-5833592
It's not the first time they have been court out with regard these claims:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-league-admits-coventry-city-5741590
Last edited:
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
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 season
I think the general consensus was that at least in name CCFC Ltd was the club as that was where the golden share lied. Upon Appletons decision to liquidate CCFC Ltd, the football league had a choice to make. To either kick the club out of the league or allow the transfer of the golden share to Otium so we could continue.
Since the football league admitted that the whole debacle of the clubs structure, where contracts and the golden share lied etc. was there fault due to an oversight try didn't have much of a choice but to allow the transfer of the golden share
lewys33
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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 Coventry's 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
"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 Coventry's 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
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
ahh, that old get out clause. it didn't need to be legally included in the CVA. it could have been a completely separate legally binding agreement, one that shitsu wouldn't even discuss and then they keep hiding behind "it wasn't allowed to be legally included in the CVA" quote. its a cop out.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
or the club chose not to take it. when i say club i mean shitsu of course
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So Schmee is a liar then and so is Paul Appleton?
blueflint
Well-Known Member
ffs grendel grow up get a pair and see the trees you could not be further from the truth and i really think you know that
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
here we go again, I know this , you don't, as your thick and below me
I am above everyone and you should bow in my presence
I am above everyone and you should bow in my presence
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
my point is there are more possibilities than you are suggesting and the truth is no-one knows which one is true, even you grendal.
Last edited:
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.
Id be more worried about where the club will be in 3-5 years than keep on bickering about acl.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If the club does not move back quickly it will cease to exist.
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
I don't know and I never pretend I do know it all. Only those present at the discussions and who have seen sight of the relevant documents really know the truth of whats been going on.
ACL spout their side of the story and SISU spout their side of the story, I do not trust either side, we are completely stuck in the middle and either side do not give a flying fuck about any of us.
Its guesswork on my part, your part and everyone else who supports Coventry. You have made plenty of decent points in the past but lately you never leave it up to us to decide if we think the same as you, or take your point on board,as you always say "this is whats going on" and if you don't believe me your a muppet or ACL arse licker.
Just make your point and leave it up to us without you getting abusive the first person who disagrees with you.
Last edited:
Anyone got a "penny dropping" smiley?
lewys33
Well-Known Member
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?