However you dress it up or however you try to deconsruct it an "offer" was made. In any negotiation or dispute the making of any kind of proposal represents an indication of willingness to compromise
Whether such a proposal could be incorporated into the CVA (which it clearly couldnt) or whether Labovitch was "hearing" the offer as a director of Holdings, Otium, Arvo, SISU, SBS&L or anyone else is irrelevant because as Fisher, Seppala and all their acolytes have made abundantly clear, they have no intention or desire to rent and neither do they have any intention or desire to discuss rental terms
ACL can ONLY offer rental / leasehold terms, they do not have it in their gift to do anything else
SISU / Otium / Arvo then as now had / have no intention of reaching compromise otherwise they would have recognised that the "offer" - whatever it's legal status - represented an opening and an opportunity to enter discussions for a resolution.
To question (even rhetorically) whether ACL should continually repeat the "offer" on a regular basis (weekly? monthly? daily?) is absurd
Our owners want the freehold AND the stadium management (ie ACL) business. Neither is much use to them and their investors without the other and it seems very unlikely that SISU / Otium will ever have the funds and / or a willingness to pay what would have to be a proper market valuation, as is required by law, for the Ricoh
Have we ever had a full explanation of the rejection of the cva?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
I'm sure it will be liked whatever it is,
The point overlooked of course is that this action made future relationships almost impossible. Having stitched the club with a ten point reduction sisu were hardly going to be knocking on the door the next day for a rent reduction - it was an action that effectively declared war and the has never been vindicated.
I would have thought going back on hand shake deals, non payment of rent, non payment for academy facilities, JR, liquidation to break lease !!!!
What were all these actions friendly fire ??????
You really are a prize dickhead !!!!!
Have we ever had a full explanation of the rejection of the cva?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
I'm sure it will be liked whatever it is,
The point overlooked of course is that this action made future relationships almost impossible. Having stitched the club with a ten point reduction sisu were hardly going to be knocking on the door the next day for a rent reduction - it was an action that effectively declared war and the has never been vindicated.
I guess that after it became apparent that the owners were not interested in discussing rent deals it was the only bargaining tool left in the ACL cupboard, the only way they could force the club / club owners to the negotiating table. As a tactic it failed and rather like the warring parents who use their children as pawns it does no-one any great credit although you can see why, at the time, they did it
I guess that after it became apparent that the owners were not interested in discussing rent deals it was the only bargaining tool left in the ACL cupboard, the only way they could force the club / club owners to the negotiating table. As a tactic it failed and rather like the warring parents who use their children as pawns it does no-one any great credit although you can see why, at the time, they did it
I would have thought going back on hand shake deals, non payment of rent, non payment for academy facilities, JR, liquidation to break lease !!!!
What were all these actions friendly fire ??????
You really are a prize dickhead !!!!!
The Council went back on a deal to let SISU buy out the ACL mortgage. This is a non disputed fact.
And also unconfirmed of course by the council.
But apart from that?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
Not denied and mitigated by their own actions as in the £14m loan (not a bail out).
Not quite a fact then really ....
That's the £14m question, I guess we won't know the truth until either the council come out and say it's true or Tim produces the signed deals he claims to have. I'm prepared to give SISU the benefit of the doubt but I really will need to see some evidence before I believe that it's 100% true.Not strictly speaking but on the balance of probabilities yes. Or was the whole story made up?
Not quite a fact then really ....
Well no but then again when a certain person posts on here you take it at face value every time don't you? So it fisher posted on here it was a fact would you immediately like his post and accept it as gospel?
Have we ever had a full explanation of the rejection of the cva?
Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2
I would have thought going back on hand shake deals, non payment of rent, non payment for academy facilities, JR, liquidation to break lease !!!!
What were all these actions friendly fire ??????
You really are a prize dickhead !!!!!
Really? i thought they had been pretty clear on that. i don't remember the exact statement but it was along the lines of the admin process was rushed so the CVA was flawed meaning no one (except scrotium) understood what they were bidding for and therefore the best deal for creditors was not on the table.ACL wanted the admin process re-run because of this so rejected the CVA so it could be, accepting it would have meant no chance of it being re-run.
It's interesting how most if the main protagonists in this debate were also slavish thorn worshippers.
Ah well you really did get that wrong didn't you.
The fact is I have remained consistent on this forum since i joined over two matters;
Thorn should have been sacked in September 2011. Few will argue against that now.
If the rental agreement remained in place the club would go bust. Oh right on that as well.
Sisu were a huge disappointment. They should have done this when they started. Coventry city are a far greater community assett than a lump of ugly concrete in Holbrooks. Yet the council just treated them as a tenant they could charge a fortune to to allow the management company to stay afloat.
Whenever PWKH is challenged on the arrangement he says he deals in fact and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Well here is a fact. The titanic was declared an unsinkable vessel. In hindsight captain smith shouldn't have hit an iceberg I assume.
Personally I think if captain smith had used some foresight the titanic would not be an historical reference. Do you agree?
I'm sure it will be liked whatever it is,
The point overlooked of course is that this action made future relationships almost impossible. Having stitched the club with a ten point reduction sisu were hardly going to be knocking on the door the next day for a rent reduction - it was an action that effectively declared war and the has never been vindicated.
just read your reply here the problem started with relegation then the non payment of rent SISU did that nobody else
I think PWKH has answered this and his answer is different. Have you missed se posts from your hero? Two conditions were refused apparently.
I'm surprised you can read - you certainly never read I word I actually say.
Have to say It must be tough.
When you spend weeks sometimes months repeating the same mantra in here. Eventually you feel your propaganda has started to be accepted as fact, as a handful of others start to repeat the same mantra.
Then boom.
One post by someone genuine. Who is actually well respected and in the know and your 300 posts have just been vaporised from people's thoughts.
I can't help but feel that this is why some (very very small minority) are trying to discredit or diminish what PWKH says
Not strictly speaking but on the balance of probabilities yes. Or was the whole story made up?
Well no but then again when a certain person posts on here you take it at face value every time don't you? So it fisher posted on here it was a fact would you immediately like his post and accept it as gospel?
Well no but then again when a certain person posts on here you take it at face value every time don't you? So it fisher posted on here it was a fact would you immediately like his post and accept it as gospel?
So you at least you admit you admit that CCFC are a distant second in your priorities and ACL are first - as PWKH's are quite rightly. Of course he has to - you also clearly value their interests above the club
Brave admission - you have my respect.
Would be a tad silly not to really.
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?