Waggot (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 29, 2013

And if I could just address Grendels rather infantile claim made elsewhere in this thread, ACL did not call in the liquidators. Indeed at the time of winning the court case, when they could have issued a winding up order, they showed restraint. They called in the administrator - a huge difference between the two - only at a time when Fisher spoke in terms of liquidating the club.

And those who criticise ACL should again remember they are a limited business; who's primary concern has to be according to company law, the good will of that business. Don't criticise its directors for doing exactly what law says they should. Criticise previous regimes who made their existence necessary.

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And if I could just address Grendels rather infantile claim made elsewhere in this thread, ACL did not call in the liquidators. Indeed at the time of winning the court case, when they could have issued a winding up order, they showed restraint. They called in the administrator - a huge difference between the two - only at a time when Fisher spoke in terms of liquidating the club.

And those who criticise ACL should again remember they are a limited business; who's primary concern has to be according to company law, the good will of that business. Don't criticise its directors for doing exactly what law says they should. Criticise previous regimes who made their existence necessary.

How did rejecting the CVA benefit ACL? Given that it put another barrier to returning to the Ricoh by giving sisu another excuse? What financial benefit have they gained?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
How did rejecting the CVA benefit ACL? Given that it put another barrier to returning to the Ricoh by giving sisu another excuse? What financial benefit have they gained?

You're asking that question with the benefit of hindsight. ACL are supposed to be getting the same amount now as was proposed under the CVA so if you flip the question around financially what have they lost? You have to remember that ACL are a company in their own right and have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders, are people suggesting they ignored this and have therefore acted illegally?

None of us knows the reason the CVA was rejected. All we know from PWKH is that ACL were prepared to accept the CVA if SISU would accept 2 conditions which are generally thought to be drop the JR and agree a new deal at the Ricoh. To most people that doesn't seem unreasonable and would have seen the club continue to play in Coventry which is surely what we all want.

valiant15 · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
But we've always sold our better players.

Anyway my point was that us fans get blinded by the handful of PL big transfer fees and then over estimate how much our players are actually worth.

Plus a lot of deals when they figures are released include the projected wages for lifetime of the contract, signing on fee, performance related add ons and agents fees.

I seem to remember that Juke signed on a £1m deal, but when we sold him the CET said we'd only paid £300k for him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Yes I know weve always sold our better players(eventually),doesn't make it right though does it. But the better players were normally here for a while before someone came in with an offer we couldn't turn down.

Sisu's attitude has been sell at the first whiff of cash and sell your top goalscorer for a poxy 700 grand whilst fighting relegation just sums up the ambition they have.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
How did rejecting the CVA benefit ACL? Given that it put another barrier to returning to the Ricoh by giving sisu another excuse? What financial benefit have they gained?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

you could say the same about the JR. given that ACL made the last offer through the FL despite this is a good indication on which company is acting like the adult, the fact that SISU turned it down tells you who is acting like a petulant child.

Astute · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
bigfatronssba said:

Ofcourse they will but people are presuming that not selling the Ricoh is more important to the people of Coventry than CCFC playing in Coventry - we don't know what the short, medium or long term economic and commercial/tourism benefits are. We're also guessing what market value is. No one knows.

Les Reid's suggestion of a local economic impact survey is a good one, as is getting a couple of valuations done on the Ricoh.

Click to expand...

Would you say that the market value of the Ricoh isn't a lot more than the cost of a 12,000 seater stadium out of Coventry? And are you saying they should get it on the cheap because they are holding our club and us fans to ransom?

Sky Blue Pete · Dec 29, 2013

As someone has said earlier - market value is so subjective. It is mainly dependant on the person wishing to sell and a person willing to buy. They have to agree a figure as I understand it. The system in Scotland is a little different in that a person has to be willing to sell. Then there is an auction! Market value is a misnomer and is being used by both sides

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 29, 2013

chiefdave said:
None of us knows the reason the CVA was rejected. All we know from PWKH is that ACL were prepared to accept the CVA if SISU would accept 2 conditions which are generally thought to be drop the JR and agree a new deal at the Ricoh. To most people that doesn't seem unreasonable and would have seen the club continue to play in Coventry which is surely what we all want.

Agreed. We all know that, as above, the directors of ACL are duty bound by law to protect their company's best interests.

I believe that the two conditions above were part of ACL's proposal. Namely 'we won't sign the CVA as is, but we will with these two conditions agreed'. Indeed, Appleton eluded to a side agreement, which sat outside his remit as administrator.

So, Stu. If the above were correct - and it's only my guess as a possible scenario - would ACL be most culpable with its directors following their obligation to do best by the business they serve; or SISU for refusing to entertain the idea, knowing the consequences?

Grendel · Dec 29, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Agreed. We all know that, as above, the directors of ACL are duty bound by law to protect their company's best interests.

I believe that the two conditions above were part of ACL's proposal. Namely 'we won't sign the CVA as is, but we will with these two conditions agreed'. Indeed, Appleton eluded to a side agreement, which sat outside his remit as administrator.

So, Stu. If the above were correct - and it's only my guess as a possible scenario - would ACL be most culpable with its directors following their obligation to do best by the business they serve; or SISU for refusing to entertain the idea, knowing the consequences?

How did it best serve the directors? How have they benefitted. Seriously no knew here is stupid. It's pretty obvious that there as attempt to force ownership change and it failed. The trust pretty much endorsed it as well, hence the little spat the other week.

Is PWKH a director? Didn't Higgs sign? Did PWKH want ACL to sign? Were the ones who didn't actually councillors working for the council who had set up the refinancing? If so the business it is best serving is our caring sharing council and we all know what they think of the club.

Astute · Dec 29, 2013

Grendel said:
How have they benefitted. Seriously no knew here is stupid.

Says it all for me Grendull

Grendel · Dec 29, 2013

Astute said:
Says it all for me Grendull

Typing on my phone with non bifocal contacts is a challenge. Still as that's all you can pick on I guess we agree for once.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 29, 2013

CWR just said they may look to move out fringe players, assume Barton, Manset to make room for more additions to the squad
And Christie may be sold if he isn't going to sign a new deal
We have room for 3 more additions without selling anyone under the football league rules

Astute · Dec 29, 2013

Grendel said:
Typing on my phone with non bifocal contacts is a challenge. Still as that's all you can pick on I guess we agree for once.

Your posts are mainly deluded so no need to tell you the truth. You would just make up more excuses for SISUE.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2013

CCFC said:
CWR just said they may look to move out fringe players, assume Barton, Manset to make room for more additions to the squad
And Christie may be sold if he isn't going to sign a new deal
We have room for 3 more additions without selling anyone under the football league rules

Nothing wrong with that but we'll see what happens. Once the window closes we need to have at least the same strength and depth in the squad as we do currently and ideally we need to increase both areas if we want to make a serious go at the play offs, especially with regard to squad depth. If we don't, and end up with a smaller and / or weaker squad then Fisher / Waggot / Labovich will need to explain why and they won't be able to blame it on attendances and they have said they can cover the loss of income caused by the move to Northampton.

Grendel · Dec 29, 2013

Astute said:
Your posts are mainly deluded so no need to tell you the truth. You would just make up more excuses for SISUE.

I make no excuses I just state facts. You should look up the word fact in the dictionary as its clearly a word that you are not familiar with.

Grendel · Dec 29, 2013

chiefdave said:
Nothing wrong with that but we'll see what happens. Once the window closes we need to have at least the same strength and depth in the squad as we do currently and ideally we need to increase both areas if we want to make a serious go at the play offs, especially with regard to squad depth. If we don't, and end up with a smaller and / or weaker squad then Fisher / Waggot / Labovich will need to explain why and they won't be able to blame it on attendances and they have said they can cover the loss of income caused by the move to Northampton.

Yes they'd become unique in Conentry city history for saying players are not for sale - and then selling them.

Astute · Dec 29, 2013

Grendel said:
I make no excuses I just state facts. You should look up the word fact in the dictionary as its clearly a word that you are not familiar with.

You make up your own facts. You twist the truth to do so. The vast majority of us know this. Like after the last poll what was about how many of us voted who was at fault for our present predicament. You twisted the facts to state that just over 50% of us blamed CCC. But as you know using the stats as you did 93% of us blamed SISUE. You never mentioned that once though. You just kept saying that the majority of us blamed CCC ointlaugh: There is much more crap you have tried to come out with if you want me to remind you.

Are you still earning in excess of 100k a year in your unskilled job Grendull?

blueflint · Dec 29, 2013

Grendel said:
I make no excuses I just state facts. You should look up the word fact in the dictionary as its clearly a word that you are not familiar with.

no you don't

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
And they decided not too and have subsequently been offered an even better deal. The lease was completely broken when ACL rejected the CVA, for which I still don't know what they have gained other than sticking two fingers up at sisu which reduced the likelihood of a Ricoh return.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Do we actually know that the lease is broken? If ltd has yet to be liquidated then is it still in existence or did admin do it?

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

Grendel said:
ACL would have agreed the CVA if two conditions were agreed. So when you say they wanted the truth that would be a very odd condition wouldn't it?

It's common proticol to appoint the preferred administrator. That had nothing to do with liquidation that was down 100% to ACL and bear in mind Higgs accepted the CVA.

As you say fisher claimed the club may have to be liquidated and ACL to protect themselves raised a court order - odd then they ultimately liquidated the club.

Why you need to create your own stories around the facts I'm not sure.

The Higgs Centre Trust had to accept the CVA though didn't PWKH say it was difficult for a charity to reject one?

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
Do we actually know that the lease is broken? If ltd has yet to be liquidated then is it still in existence or did admin do it?

I think the option to buy the Higgs share has gone but technically the lease will still exist until liquidation. Didn't SISUs CVA offer include a pay off to cancel the remainder of the contract?

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
The Higgs Centre Trust had to accept the CVA though didn't PWKH say it was difficult for a charity to reject one?

Correct, legally as a charity they have very little choice other than to accept a CVA that offers some return. ACL, as a private company, have different legal requirements but still have to operate within the law so presumably those that think ACL rejected the CVA for reasons other than the best interests of their stakeholders believe that ACL acted illegally.

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

skybluefred said:
stupot07 said:

skybluefred said:

Not really. They bought ccfc and all of it's existing contracts. Should they have renegotiated every contract ccfc had in place before buying the club?, utility bills, transport, academy at the Higgs, ict support, kit suppliers, etc?

I agree it should have been one of the first things they should have done when they took over, along with slashing an unaffordable wage bill, but I don't see how or why they would be renegotiating contracts prior to buying the club. ACL wouldn't even acknowledge Otium in the administration process because that's not where the contract was.

You are trying to convince me that hard headed people like sisu would buy a business and all of it's legally binding contracts without completing due diligence.A blind man on a galloping horse could see that paying £1.2m rent,and not
getting any of the match day revenues because previous owners had sold them off, would mean the Club was never going to be viable.If knowing these facts you still go ahead and buy then the buck stops solely with you and your own
incompetance.

Whichever way you try to spin it,sisu have made an almighty mess of running CCFC and are now frantically looking
for way's to cut their losses and scarper. The quicker the better.
Oh and otium did not exist when sisu bought CCFC.

Click to expand...

They didn't do due dilligence that's been confirmed - that would concern me if I was an investor.

Click to expand...

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
They didn't do due dilligence that's been confirmed.

It has?

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
It has?

Yes Stacie McDermott said they hadn't at the last SCG meeting minutes.

SM – At present the club has control of its destiny. How many fans wish SISU had done due diligence back then and not bought the club? If we go back to rental deal we might not be in control again.

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/minutes-from-the-scg-meeting-1219512.aspx

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
Yes Stacie McDermott said they hadn't at the last SCG meeting minutes.

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/minutes-from-the-scg-meeting-1219512.aspx

To be fair, it's difficult to take the context of the point she is trying to get across. It doesn't say they didn't do it, just says who wishes they had done it and then walked away.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 29, 2013

That doesn't mean they didn't!

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
To be fair, it's difficult to take the context of the point she is trying to get across. It doesn't say they didn't do it, just says who wishes they had done it and then walked away.

Well to me it says they didn't do it and I for one wish they'd done it and then walked away. Going bust back then seems a better option now with 20/20 hindsight.

Grendle said due dilligence takes weeks and that they didn't have the time to do it.

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
Well to me it says they didn't do it and I for one wish they'd done it and then walked away. Going bust back then seems a better option now with 20/20 hindsight.

That's because you've read the first half of the sentence in isolation from the second.

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
That's because you've read the first half of the sentence in isolation from the second.

Which bit of the sentence

How many fans wish SISU had done due diligence back then and not bought the club?[

Am I missing?

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2013

James Smith said:
Which bit of the sentence

How many fans wish SISU had done due diligence back then and not bought the club?[

Am I missing?

You're reading that part in isolation. It in no way implies it wasn't done, just who wishes they'd not bought the club after doing due diligence. I wasn't there, and I suspect neither were you to hear it in context.

James Smith · Dec 29, 2013

stupot07 said:
You're reading that part in isolation. It in no way implies it wasn't done, just who wishes they'd not bought the club after doing due diligence. I wasn't there, and I suspect neither were you to hear it in context.

I see what you're saying and you're correct that there could be another way of looking at it.

Hobo · Dec 30, 2013

Due diligence takes weeks? Maybe I don't know? But how long does it take to say..."this stadium we play in, how much is the rent and what are the terms?"

AndreasB · Dec 30, 2013

skyblue4u said:
if they sell our best players now then like a lot of fans i'll be finshed with ccfc. Yes it happened before but having to deal with everything else sisu have done will be just too much.

30 years of following the sky blues look to be coming to an end

again

Jack Griffin · Dec 30, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
That doesn't mean they didn't!

In that case it means whatever Stacie says can't be relied on.

On the other hand a lot of shit gets said, read the misplaced optimism on this story & weep... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/7139107.stm

And here is a story about Ranson/SISU sniffing round 6 weeks before the deal was done. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/7073760.stm, and they were probably looking at it before this story got into the media.

Waggot (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency