This is interesting.... (12 Viewers)

[valiant15]

If the club does not move back quickly it will cease to exist.

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

 

---

[Grendel]

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?

 

[lewys33]

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?

 

[valiant15]

Also,maybe you should be badgering fisher with some questions? (duffy)

 

[stupot07]

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.

 

[lewys33]

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"

 

[Grendel]

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"

 

[stupot07]

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"

'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.

 

[chiefdave]

That the point, as far as we know, the offer has never been made outside the CVA.

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.

 

[lewys33]

'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.

One of the reasons Tim gave for not accepting the offer apart from it being outside the CVA was that because of the contract with northampton now done it would cost too much to back out. Also at the last CVA meeting (I think it was then dont quote me) it was mentioned that Joy attended with her lawyers and proceeded to say that they would continue to threaten ACL with litigation, and the only way Coventry would be back at the Ricoh would be if SISU owned it at a price of her choice. SISU also did not drop the JR. So ask yourself what would you do?

 

[skybluetony176]

That the point, as far as we know, the offer has never been made outside the CVA.

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.

 

[longjohnskyblue]

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 It's obvious what FP is trying to do here, as usual trying to paint ACLas the bad guy. But as all those that are trting this, they are using flawed logic. It's like the creationists arguments. You will never convince these people. You can bombard with fact after fact, and they will just reject out of hand whilst NEVER being able to produce a coherent counter argument!

SISU simply tried to circumvent the rules and relied on technicalities and threats. With the League admitting ACL were right, it poked a massive hole in the argument Ltd were just an administrative company. In every other company it is he holdings that is the admin company (HENCE HOLDINGS!). They tried to be clever, and have been caught out.

Just hope common sense prevails, and the company can be taken back from sisu.

I'd call for a fans group to try and buy back the club, and if they tried that maybe I'd back them, but they are too bisy trying to build up membership, suppress criticism, and inflate their self importance rather than do what they promised everyone what they would do and what they were founded for!

If they did what they promised maybe I would respect them, but whilst they are only interested in boosting their egos I cannot and more and more people are realising they aren't fit for purpose!

 

[stupot07]

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.

Or the club are pissed off that ACL rejected the CVA and landed the club with a 10 point penalty.

 

[Grendel]

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.

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.

 

[Astute]

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?

 

[Grendel]

Childish.

 

[stupot07]

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.

 

[Astute]

Childish.

I am sorry Grenduffy. Your intelligence is so much higher than ours. You are so intelligent with your comments that we don't understand what you are saying.








Or you are just full of shite but trying to hide it with untruthful facts?

 

[blueflint]

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

 

[CCFCSteve]

Shmeee makes some very valid points. Yes acl were willing to try to negotiate a rent reduction, that doesn't mean they are not contractually entitled to the remaining part of the lease. By accepting the cva they would be walking away from this for 500k (and it would also have been an acceptance that the club can move out of the city !)

Appleton and the club had every opportunity to try to revise the cva proposal. I'm still struggling to see how a cva (which is ultimately just an agreement with your creditors) couldn't be modified as per acls proposed offer.

 

[Grendel]

prove it i know you can't

It's an opinion? What's yours?

 

[skybluetony176]

stupot07

dropping of the judicial review was part of the offer, they did bang on about it.

blackmail! strong language!.so using the club as leverage to try and purchase a sports stadium at a knockdown price. how would you describe that?

"shitsu rightly or wrongly believe there is a reason for the JR" on this we almost agree. lets give the qualified judge the final say on this. he said wrongly and laughed it out of court at the 1st opportunity.

"none of us know what really happened, we do know that Appleton told" if ever there was a perfect example of a contradiction in terms you've just secured 1st place and what jurisdiction does Paul Appleton have outside of the administration and CVA, none he's not king of the world he's an administrator. if shitsu really want to listen to someone they should start listening to the fans and bring the club home.

 

[RPHunt]

Could this be true?

Tim: This is Tim Fisher, CEO of CCFC Ltd, CCCFC Holdings Ltd, Otium............
Joy: Cut the crap, Tim, this is Joy. Have you had any offers of a ground yet?
Tim: Chap from Northampton says we can play there.
Joy: Northampton, where's that?
Tim: Dunno, but we can play there.
Joy: What about the Ricoh, Old Trafford, Villa Park or any of the others?
Tim: None of them have called.
Joy: Have you tried calling them?
Tim: No, you said that would be a sign of weakness and that they should come to us with an offer, remember.
Joy: OK, we have to tell the Football League something, so Nottingham it is.
Tim: Northampton, Joy.
Joy: Whatever, I couldn't care less.

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Like you said earlier it's an opinion

Then the source must be on record. Please provide a link

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

An ancient Chinese proverb involving a street lamp?

 

[RPHunt]

An ancient Chinese proverb involving a street lamp?

Did you really expect accuracy from Grendel?

 

[blueflint]

It's an opinion? What's yours?

an opinion