i know but i get annoyed when the same question is asked by the same person who can't seem to read when the answer is there for all to see
Sisu are taking us to hell in a hand cart.
Get back to the Ricoh on the best deal you can get. Worry about the stadium purchase later.
Oh behave! The offer was made and declined in a very specific and particular legal environment, that being the case, could it not have been offered directly to Otium, away from that environment at a later time? Please tell me why it was not?
Correct but funny how they didn't want to buy it when they were there?
Just want everything for what they believe is the right price NOTHING. cannot people see through this we are fucked while they are here will want millions for something that is worth nothing but want to pay nothing for something that is worth millions.
They are just leashes
Funny, estate agents, letting agents, car salesman, etc, tend to follow up offers.
Car salesman: so would you like to buy this car, it's a good offer.
Me: it's a good price.
Car salesman: deal?
Me: sorry it's for the wife, so cant do a deal today.
Next day phone rings....
Hi, it's Peter from the garage. Wondered if you have spoken to the wife, and whether she'd like to come down for a test drive
I'm not saying that it couldn't of been offered at a later date. It could/should've been. Why couldn't ML ring up when he was wearing his Otium hat and ask if the offer was still valid?
What would he have to lose? If it was a yes it would mean a deal cheaper than Sixfields and higher revenue. If it was a no it would be massive poke in the eye for the ACL/CCC/AH PR machine. ML would be well within his right to go straight to Les Reid and tell him all about it.
Yes the offer could/should've been followed up. The point is why did it need to be?
You going to the chile game cj?
Yeah ill be there along with the old fella and my lad. I might see you on the train back again. We're getting the same train but getting on at Watford.
I hope there's no Leicester fans on it this time lol.
it just goes to show that ACL and CCC are no more trustworthy than sisu-the lot of them do not care about ccfc - only their own personal agendas
Only one side has a political agenda?
One side for sure needs a hearing test?
Didn't TF also say to Sky Sports News after the first CVA meeting regarding the 150K offer that he hadn't seen that coming and would need time to consider it or words to that effect. Did he then hit his head and forget it had ever happened or was he not part of Otium that day as well?
To be honest tho we're past this being a point worth arguing. Clearly if SISU wanted this deal they knew it was at the very least a possibility and would have acted on it. It only really becomes an arguable point if you believe SISU would have accepted it and ACL revoked it. I'm sure if that had happened SISU would have made sure everyone knew about it.
Didn't TF also say to Sky Sports News after the first CVA meeting regarding the 150K offer that he hadn't seen that coming and would need time to consider it or words to that effect. Did he then hit his head and forget it had ever happened or was he not part of Otium that day as well?
To be honest tho we're past this being a point worth arguing. Clearly if SISU wanted this deal they knew it was at the very least a possibility and would have acted on it. It only really becomes an arguable point if you believe SISU would have accepted it and ACL revoked it. I'm sure if that had happened SISU would have made sure everyone knew about it.
I could almost cry with frustration reading this thread. In the name if Sweet Jesus; is there anyone on this planet that still thinks this dispute is about rent?
It's about the freehold of the Ricoh.
Who offered what to whom; at what time and wearing what colored shoes after eating a certain sandwich for lunch is all superfluous.
SISU - in whatever iteration - want the Ricoh; and the rent was one of the pantomimes they used to pull the gullible ones onside; the thread instigator being a perfect case in point
I'd like to know if the rent offer of £150k is still open, partly because I'm curious and partly because it's further evidence of SISU's unreasonableness that I'd like to see proven or otherwise.
The question posed was basically 'has the 150k rent offer actually been made?' PWKH has made 2 posts so far in this thread. In the 1st he uses semantics around the term 'liquidation' and in the 2nd he goes on about the philosophy of the offer. He hasn't answered the question yet people are cheerleading him. If Fisher was as obfuscatory in response to a plain question you'd all be blowing fuses.
Just an observation.
Indeed....I'd go even further and state that I'd like to see ACL make the offer again....preferably in an open letter in the CT or published online.....
That way, we'd all be clear as to where the 2 sides actually sit.
Come on ACL.....surely an open & transparent offer of £150K per year on a rolling basis up to a maximum of 5 years, for example, would score you a massive PR win.....and would clarify a lot for a lot of suffering fans....
What do you think PWKH??
The question posed was basically 'has the 150k rent offer actually been made?' PWKH has made 2 posts so far in this thread. In the 1st he uses semantics around the term 'liquidation' and in the 2nd he goes on about the philosophy of the offer. He hasn't answered the question yet people are cheerleading him. If Fisher was as obfuscatory in response to a plain question you'd all be blowing fuses.
Just an observation.
And then wait for some to have a go at CCC for not wanting to sell to SISU saying our club won't be able to move forward without the freehold?
CCC won't be able to do the right thing for some people whatever they do.
Indeed....I'd go even further and state that I'd like to see ACL make the offer again....preferably in an open letter in the CT or published online.....
That way, we'd all be clear as to where the 2 sides actually sit.
Come on ACL.....surely an open & transparent offer of £150K per year on a rolling basis up to a maximum of 5 years, for example, would score you a massive PR win.....and would clarify a lot for a lot of suffering fans....
What do you think PWKH??
He said the offer was made to otium. Yet ML (a director of Otium) was there on behalf of Holdings. How has that not answered the question "was the offer ever made?"
An offer was made. It was made prior to, and repeated during the CVA meeting. It was made to Otium. Labovitch, a director of Otium said that he was not there for Otium he was there for Holdings. Therefore he heard no offer. It then becomes a philosophical question doesn't it? The man, Labovitch, was there. Labovitch was there for Holdings. As the offer was not to Holdings but to Otium he could not hear it. As a man he could hear it, but as a director of Otium he could not hear it, so it was not made....
It was not an offer as it was added as a condition of signing the CVA, which the administrator said was not allowable. So it was an offer which couldn't be an offer which is a bit like one of them philosophical paradox things.
Im not sure people are really grasping this, but I will ask again. Why should somebody who has no ties with the club anymore do the running around making offers here there and everywhere?
[CENTER:facepalm:[/CENTER]
Coventry City won't be able to do the right thing for some people whatever they do.
...Perhaps because as a Senior director of an empty, tenant-less Ricoh Arena, who allegedly stated at a recent meeting with a SBTrust that they wanted CCFC to be playing there, they may want to clarify their position & show fans (their ex-customers) where they stand.....
it would also be better & cheaper PR than their current agency appears to provide IMHO...
Right back at ya.
PWKH is a clever bloke. He knows how to use words. He's saying an offer was made but he's neglecting to mention that said offer was unacceptable to the Administrator.
So technically he's correct but he's omitting an important part, I believe.
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?