olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
You would have thought that if ML was keen on not losing 10 points, he might have heard it whatever hat he was wearing.....
Was it or wasn't it? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
You would have thought that if ML was keen on not losing 10 points, he might have heard it whatever hat he was wearing.....
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Nicely put, and I agree that if sums of this magnitude are being spent it is a waste. I imagine ACL underestimated the number of CCFC supporters that had an unwavering sense of what is right, and what is wrong.
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
What ACL were trying to do, as far as I can tell from what I have seen and heard, was to include terms into a deal that wouldn't sit within the terms of the Insolvency Act. That wouldn't be illegal, just sit outside the scope of what the administrator was trying to achieve. My guess is that Appleton asked they keep the terms within his remit.
From the ACL side; the signing or not of the CVA was one of the few, if only, point of leverage they had and therefore they're ever liable to use it. They obviously saw the administration process as flawed, but notwithstanding that appear to have been prepared to sanction it provided they got something in return - a £150K rent on rolling 10 year term has been muted.
That's not illegal. Simply rolling some terms into a negotiation that sat outside the remit of what Appleton was charged with achieving. Could SISU have accepted these terms if they deemed them fair outside of the CVA process and left the administrator to oversee that which he had remit to cover? Well yes, I'd say.
But as I posted earlier; any rent agreement at any time appears an irrelevance. It's all about freehold. Was then, was before then and remains so now
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
With reference to PWKH on this site.
I would suggest that it probably frustrates certain people. When they come on here and hypothesise and create a image of what has happened based on their own opinion. They then repeat it so often in various guises that they hope it becomes fact.
For example that the Higgs charity or ACL are leeches bleeding the 'cash cow' (Ricoh) dry.
Then when someone who is actually involved first hand in the negotiations is prepared to actually come on here and explain what is actually happening.
In that case for example that the money is reinvested back into the Ricoh.
It blows those people's version of events (who are not in the know) completely out of the window. Ruining all their hard work.
That leaves them with really no other option but to try and dampen PWKH's credibility and popularity.
Leading to as we currently see suggestions that he only comes on here to spin. That he may not give you the full picture.
That he could come on here and say absolutely anything and people will 'like' it.
I personally would like to say to PWKH keep doing it.
It is appreciated to have someone involved at the heart of this mess prepared to communicate with us.
I would suggest that it probably frustrates certain people. When they come on here and hypothesise and create a image of what has happened based on their own opinion. They then repeat it so often in various guises that they hope it becomes fact.
For example that the Higgs charity or ACL are leeches bleeding the 'cash cow' (Ricoh) dry.
Then when someone who is actually involved first hand in the negotiations is prepared to actually come on here and explain what is actually happening.
In that case for example that the money is reinvested back into the Ricoh.
It blows those people's version of events (who are not in the know) completely out of the window. Ruining all their hard work.
That leaves them with really no other option but to try and dampen PWKH's credibility and popularity.
Leading to as we currently see suggestions that he only comes on here to spin. That he may not give you the full picture.
That he could come on here and say absolutely anything and people will 'like' it.
I personally would like to say to PWKH keep doing it.
It is appreciated to have someone involved at the heart of this mess prepared to communicate with us.
Last edited:
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I would hazard a guess that any individual or business that operates with real transparency, proper ethics & seeks to tell the whole truth in a balanced way doesn't need to spend any money on "PR" types. The more you need to spend on those types...the less you can be believed & trusted.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
That is fair enough. But I do think it is a bit of spin (from both sides as OSB said). Im not going to even suggest I know the legal proceedings of all this. However from my point of view - surely it was not deemed legal because it was offered to Otium who were "not there" and the JR being dropped would have to be done by all companies who were "not there"?
Again, from an ACL point of view - It was offered because a director from Otium was there - If they were that interested they would have followed it up.
From a (insert company name here) point of view - It was never legally/officially offered, therefore could not be accepted
It appears nobody is right/wrong, so you can take it as you want really. We all surely know by now that this could have been a lot simpler if "feelings" from both parties were not involved.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
You raise a fair point. I distinctly remember Directors from CCFC Holdings offering CCC a deal, however because they were there to represent ACL they "couldn't hear it".
I also distinctly remember a Pig flying over the building at the time shouting "DO THE DEAL"
Makes me laugh, etc etc (lol? lmao? rofl?)
When I post on here I do so myself. I do not take advice from PR agencies and the like. I will sometimes discuss it with fellow directors and have occasionally put ACL statements on here. I personally prefer to put statements on here rather than through the CT as I know the whole thing will appear.
Most of the posts I write are to try to clarify things and I try to keep opinion out of them. I try to be factual. There are times when facts do not suit an argument or do not support an opinion and people react to what I write. I do not try to persuade.
Because there are so many confidentiality barriers it is very difficult for me to put everything into the open. For example neither Steve Waggott or I are going to say anything about the return of the Academy to the Higgs Centre. People might want to know what is going on, but would they prefer to know and kill the possibility or not to know and allow the negotiations to reach a successful conclusion? I think just about anyone would agree that to try to negotiate anything in public would be a nightmare.
Without repeating earlier posts I will try to put some facts into this and other threads:
The July meeting attended by Seppala, Labovitch, West and Harris (with lawyers), was to talk about a rental deal. Seppala said she wanted to talk about the freehold. ACL does not own the freehold and thus could not enter into talks with Sisu on that.
CCC can dispose of the freehold. The proposal would have to be taken to a full Council meeting and if accepted put out to tender. Anyone could then bid and the Council would achieve market value. If there was only one bid the Council would have to have independent valuation to assure themselves that the single bid achieved a proper value.
Sale of the freehold does not affect the leasehold. ACL would retain the leasehold. There would be no payment from the leaseholder to the freeholder unless the leaseholder bought a lease extension.
Cllr Lucas does not have the final say on any of the parts of this. She is Leader of the Council, the Council is a democratic body and all decisions made by it have to follow clearly defined paths through committees, scrutiny panels and full Council. No individual has "the final say".
No members of the Council can speak for ACL, just as the Trustees of the Charity cannot speak for ACL.
ACL is not a Council owned company.
Most of the posts I write are to try to clarify things and I try to keep opinion out of them. I try to be factual. There are times when facts do not suit an argument or do not support an opinion and people react to what I write. I do not try to persuade.
Because there are so many confidentiality barriers it is very difficult for me to put everything into the open. For example neither Steve Waggott or I are going to say anything about the return of the Academy to the Higgs Centre. People might want to know what is going on, but would they prefer to know and kill the possibility or not to know and allow the negotiations to reach a successful conclusion? I think just about anyone would agree that to try to negotiate anything in public would be a nightmare.
Without repeating earlier posts I will try to put some facts into this and other threads:
The July meeting attended by Seppala, Labovitch, West and Harris (with lawyers), was to talk about a rental deal. Seppala said she wanted to talk about the freehold. ACL does not own the freehold and thus could not enter into talks with Sisu on that.
CCC can dispose of the freehold. The proposal would have to be taken to a full Council meeting and if accepted put out to tender. Anyone could then bid and the Council would achieve market value. If there was only one bid the Council would have to have independent valuation to assure themselves that the single bid achieved a proper value.
Sale of the freehold does not affect the leasehold. ACL would retain the leasehold. There would be no payment from the leaseholder to the freeholder unless the leaseholder bought a lease extension.
Cllr Lucas does not have the final say on any of the parts of this. She is Leader of the Council, the Council is a democratic body and all decisions made by it have to follow clearly defined paths through committees, scrutiny panels and full Council. No individual has "the final say".
No members of the Council can speak for ACL, just as the Trustees of the Charity cannot speak for ACL.
ACL is not a Council owned company.
Last edited:
lewys33
Well-Known Member
So from that we can assume that this is going to be a very long process?
JS would surely have to look at buying out ACL as well as the freehold then? Or would JS then try to "manipulate" things so that ACL were taken out of the equation?
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This is where SISUs plan is doomed to failure. CCC can't let them have the freehold at below proper value which means SISU then can't sell it on at a profit or mortgage it for an amount greater than it has cost them to purchase.
Coupled with the fact that the freehold brings no income I still have no idea how SISU think the route they are pursuing is going to help them or CCFC.
Astute
Well-Known Member
When have they ever tried to help CCFC or us fans?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I assume you mean SISU and you're right they haven't but they keep claiming they need to take ownership of the freehold for the benefit of CCFC which is at best very doubtful but what PWKH's comment show is that even if they did have the freehold, as we've all suspected for a while, it brings no income and no benefit to the club.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Which I feel vindicates my earlier comment about PR. Thank you PWKH...& spot on with regard to the Academy!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
so true. all they need to do for the benefit of CCFC is own the leasehold, in otherwords ACL. this is what the £7m valuation is for and this is what they need to spend. ACL would then become a subsidy of the club and all the profit from the income streams would contribute to FFP. it's so simple from the prospective of the club, FFP and the fans which is why it should be clear to all that this is not what sh1tsu want. what they want is probably not available to them for financial and democratic reasons.
joy, you've dropped a bollock on this one. CCC is local goverment not a distressed business. Cut your losses, sell the club and fuck off.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm not near a computer at the minute. His last post was a corker - id imagine his decouples have all swooned and fainted in admiration and awe. Must be a record "like" hit that one. Can someone supply an hourly like count please?
No future with SISU
New Member
What are you on about, some one puts some thing of interest on and all you want to do is make stupid comments.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Every time he puts something you just comment about all the likes he has? You really are childish and pathetic
Astute
Well-Known Member
Just a shame that he comes out with common sense and keeps us informed with what is going on at the same time whilst shooting down a lot of the crap you come out with Grendull.
Norman Binns
Well-Known Member
If I knew you personally Grendel I’d be concerned about you. You ask a perfectly valid question to start this topic off with and when you get a thoughtful, rational response you reply with the most ludicrous nonsense. Why is that? Is it because you have nothing of any substance to respond with? If you neither agree with nor believe the answer to your original question then tell us why.
You have a very unhealthy obsession. 11,590 posts over the course of 26 months works out at around 15 posts every day for the last 790 days or so. This is never normal. I’m not being flippant or trying to be funny but I think you have serious issues. Either seek medical advice or get a life.
Last edited:
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Norman be careful, 54 likes in 3 posts - Grendel may just have a meltdown!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There 11,591 just for.
Difference with me is I don't talk to myself under another name or like my own posts.
covmark
Well-Known Member
you tell someone to get a life after bothering to work out how many posts a day said person has made.
Christ
Astute
Well-Known Member
Don't worry. The vast majority of us don't like your posts either these days. They are just full of crap most of the time.
Norman Binns
Well-Known Member
Utterly banal statement. It might seem a monumental effort for you work out Mark but 3 seconds worth of mental arithmetic hardly equates to spending more than 2 years of fixated forum posting does it?
Christ!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Is Grendel your first or last name ???
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
cos hes bloody boring
"we did offer this but we didnt actually offer it, in a way we did but it could also be argued we didnt,do you see what i did there? or didnt i?"
Grendel
Well-Known Member
First. I know, I know. I thought it was terrible then I heard some guy a Mr John had been christened Sky Blue - what are you on about?
kevinleftpeg
New Member
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Watch-it! He'll tie balloons on your wipers otherwise.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Hmmm...label (negatively), mock, ridicule or accuse (i.e. Scapegoat) those things & people we do not understand. Says more about you than anyone else.
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
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
