The offer was made to Otium, not the administrator. If it was unacceptable to the administrator why did he agree to adjourn the CVA meeting for a few days? Did he need a few days to decide it was unacceptable to him?
lThe offer was made but in an environment where it could not be accepted is my interpretation of the gaurded statement.
It could not be accepted there and then. Then of course we had the CVA rejection. Fisher and co were hardly going to be quick off the mark then were they?
Still if PWKH posted a thread on here entitled my favourite food is tomato soup he'd get 100 likes straight away.
So now it's not that Otium didn't get the offer it's that they couldn't accept it there and then? If they couldn't accept it there and then could someone not have had a "quiet word" to say lets talk about this elsewhere.
The offer was made but in an environment where it could not be accepted is my interpretation of the gaurded statement.
It could not be accepted there and then. Then of course we had the CVA rejection. Fisher and co were hardly going to be quick off the mark then were they?
Still if PWKH posted a thread on here entitled my favourite food is tomato soup he'd get 100 likes straight away.
I'm guilty of pressing the like button on one or more previous comments by PWKH. I have done this because I find that he comments, and gives insight, about meetings that no one else is willing or able to do. He also does this without resorting to making bitter comments about the people involved, which considering his position, and how I believe he has been treated, I find commendable.
It does rather read as though you are slightly jealous of being liked. I'll send one over your way.
I could almost cry with frustration reading this thread. In the name of 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
Remember when they had talks back in July and JS attended a meeting yet Lucas and
Reeves didn't bother to show. They sent two lackeys who didn't have the authority to make a decision anyway. That shows that both sides are good at spinning and playing games as witnessed in PWKH's earlier post on here.
I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.
Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;
PWKH can spin it with the best
Most. People on here swallow that spin every time
Points proved case closed.
If it's a non conditional offer then why hasn't it been made since the conclusion of the administration process?
I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.
Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;
PWKH can spin it with the best
Most. People on here swallow that spin every time
Points proved case closed.
Why would Lucas have been at the meeting anyway ?
As said in her recent press statement she is not involved with acl and is not involved in acl's decision making process !!!!!
My understanding is that the offer was made, deemed unacceptable and then the meeting adjourned to allow ACL to remove the unacceptable clauses. When the meeting reconvened I am pretty sure Appleton said he was 'baffled' or somesuch that the clauses had not been removed.The offer was made to Otium, not the administrator. If it was unacceptable to the administrator why did he agree to adjourn the CVA meeting for a few days? Did he need a few days to decide it was unacceptable to him?
I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.
Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;
PWKH can spin it with the best
Most. People on here swallow that spin every time
Points proved case closed.
Because she cares about her "beloved" Sky Blues and wants them back in Coventry? Why on earth is she meeting with Seppala to thrash out a deal then? Of course she's involved CCC and ACL are inextricably linked. To deny it is stupid or deliberately misleading.
My understanding is that the offer was made, deemed unacceptable and then the meeting adjourned to allow ACL to remove the unacceptable clauses. When the meeting reconvened I am pretty sure Appleton said he was 'baffled' or somesuch that the clauses had not been removed.
And suggesting she won't have final say is also stupid.
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
Remember when they had talks back in July and JS attended a meeting yet Lucas and Reeves didn't bother to show. They sent two lackeys who didn't have the authority to make a decision anyway. That shows that both sides are good at spinning and playing games as witnessed in PWKH's earlier post on here.
It makes me laugh when some people want to split hairs about ccfc ltd, holdings and Otium like it matters which was offered what !!!
Don't they all have the same directors ?
Do they not all claim beneficial ownership of each other?
You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.
Makes me laugh, etc etc
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.
Makes me laugh, etc etc
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
I dont remember that, but I am not going to ask for proof or anything. If that is what you think then fair enough.
They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.
Mr Appleton said: "At today's reconvened creditors' meeting, all parties except Arena Coventry Limited and HMRC accepted the CVA proposals.
"At the meeting held on Tuesday, ACL had put forward modifications that were not compliant with the terms of the Insolvency Act and Rules. This was explained to both them and their legal representatives at the time.
"The adjournment provided them with an opportunity to put forward modifications that were compliant with the law in order to make use of the time made available by the adjournment that they themselves proposed.
"However, despite being given this further opportunity, they declined. Accordingly, when asked whether they were in favour or not of the Proposals, ACL confirmed their rejection.
"Therefore, the CVA has been rejected."
Reacting to ACL's statement, Mr Appleton added: "I have noted ACL's statement released today with some interest.
"Put simply, we do not understand the comments being made by ACL with regard to the ability to put forward new proposals.
"As I said in my earlier statement, the proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.
"The Company will now proceed according to our proposals made as Administrator that were accepted by the majority of creditors including ACL."
Does anybody know the terms that were outside of the law?
As I understand it, the situation with regards ACL's proposals sitting within the confines Insolvency Act and Rules or not was that they were trying to link commitment from the new party with some of the obligations of the contracted agreement of the company in administration. Normal and complaint with the law, no. But, in this instance, they as a disadvantaged party were dealing - in effect - with one entity controlling both companies, pre and post administration order.
So, could they have been tied in lawfully? No. Were they right to look toward them being so within this unique context? Well, probably yes
You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.
Makes me laugh, etc etc
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
was it, wasn't it?
it doesn't matter either way, sh1tsu don't want it. that's not what they want.
If you think it doesn't matter then why bother posting?
I personally am very interested to know the answer to this very simple question: Has ACL ever lawfully offered CCFC the £150k rent deal? It seems to have become a 'fact' for many on here that it actually was offered but I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth.
Peter: Yes or no?
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?