We'll Come Back To The Ricoh... (8 Viewers)

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

...but only as owners

That's the headline in the Telegraph today

Full article here:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Other bits. The appeal for the JR takes place on 28th November.

MusicDating · Sep 26, 2013

Quite a short interview then...;p

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

"would I have preferred to stay at the Ricoh? Of course. Would I have preferred to reach a deal with the council? Of course. That's why we agreed to the heads of terms (for the Higgs' share last year). But for whatever reason they patently refused to authorise that purchase.

We're taking the club in the right direction bar the emotional angst its given to fans. Emotions are not lost on us. I feel very bad. Football is like a religion.

IF the status quo continued, Coventry City would not be here in a year or two."

will am i · Sep 26, 2013

There is nothing new. Les seems to have forgotten to ask any questions.

1ccfc1987 · Sep 26, 2013

I wounder if they will talk before the JR about the ricoh though

Sent from my HTC One SV using Tapatalk 4

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

"The last thing I wanted was for the club to go into administration. All I wanted was the heads of terms deal that was signed - involving removing the debt, buying the Higgs' stake, with lease extensions, community programmes and bringing in (events management company) AEG. We also wanted a programme to get greater (stadium) ownership eventually.

THere is not a chance I would do that deal now."

Sky Blues · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
...but only as owners

That's the headline in the Telegraph today

They'll be in Northampton a while then, I suspect.

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

That's because he's a Shitzu rent boy apologist, I would imagine.

will am i said:
There is nothing new. Les seems to have forgotten to ask any questions.

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Can't be arsed to type any more now. It'll be on the website soon enough.

Sky Blues · Sep 26, 2013

Thanks for the early snippets Torch.

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

one last bit: "From the moment a decision was made for a joint venture with the council (in 2003) the club lost control."

will am i · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
That's because he's a Shitzu rent boy apologist, I would imagine.

How did you work that out. Ive been to every game home and away. What new information is in there?

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Here we go:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6094293

Not all of it though.

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

"We didn't want to distress ACL, but the Club couldn't afford to pay the rent, especially given the Financial Fair Play rules. We wanted to do a deal (with the council and ACL). We wanted to go together to Yorkshire Bank (to buy out ACLs 'mortgage' for cheaper than the £14M the council paid in January).

Then, at the end of November, we were told the council wouldn't approve the deal over the 50% Higgs' share."

Sky Blues · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
Here we go:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6094293

Not all of it though.

I think that's a very similar preview piece to the one CCFCWay put up last night. The full piece will probably be online soon enough though.

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Oh, sorry didn't realise. Yeah, the full thing will be up later. I guess they want people to go out and buy a paper copy first.

Sky Blues said:
I think that's a very similar preview piece to the one CCFCWay put up last night. The full piece will probably be online soon enough though.

luwalla · Sep 26, 2013

so we still have the club saying that they had a deal in place for the higgs share, and the council wouldnt approve it.. yet we have the council saying that it was SISU who failed to proceed with that deal, and that they never actually had the deal put in front of them to approve or decline

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Seems that way. Mutton did say though that "hell would freeze over" before he sold the share to SISU...

luwalla said:
so we still have the club saying that they had a deal in place for the higgs share, and the council wouldnt approve it.. yet we have the council saying that it was SISU who failed to proceed with that deal, and that they never actually had the deal put in front of them to approve or decline

will am i · Sep 26, 2013

luwalla said:
so we still have the club saying that they had a deal in place for the higgs share, and the council wouldnt approve it.. yet we have the council saying that it was SISU who failed to proceed with that deal, and that they never actually had the deal put in front of them to approve or decline

Sisu could just produce the signed heads of terms deal they keep talking about. It might convince a few more to go to Sixfields.

luwalla · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
Seems that way. Mutton did say though that "hell would freeze over" before he sold the share to SISU...

fair point.. if your trying to insinuate that your opposing party are telling lies, it doesnt really help when you go on the radio and make a strong statement that totally backs up what they have accused you of!! haha

torchomatic · Sep 26, 2013

Ha! To be honest, don't trust either side.

luwalla said:
fair point.. if your trying to insinuate that your opposing party are telling lies, it doesnt really help when you go on the radio and make a strong statement that totally backs up what they have accused you of!! haha

oldskyblue58 · Sep 26, 2013

I know it has been pointed out regularly before but ............. heads of terms are not a binding contract and either side can change their mind and walk away from them ...... would seem both sides have done exactly that when it suited them

will am i · Sep 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
I know it has been pointed out regularly before but ............. heads of terms are not a binding contract and either side can change their mind and walk away from them ...... would seem both sides have done exactly that when it suited them

Id like to see the document if it exists. As its now a PR battle it would seem to suit SISU to prove there was an agreement binding or not.

Ashdown1 · Sep 26, 2013

So in short, after a period of time supporting the club and being unable to stem the tide of unsustainable losses SISU went after getting the Arena on the cheap and they did this primarily by refusing to pay the full rent in an attempt to distress the management company. Pretty much everything else that followed has been a combination of poor relations, distrust and spite !
So where do we go from here then????

italiahorse · Sep 26, 2013

To be honest it is difficult to believe who is right and wrong on this in reference to moving this forward.

What both ACL and SISU need to do is publish the details.

SISU show us your offers you have made .... Not just "we made them an offer". We can see how you are thinking and if it's reasonable.

ACL / CCC show us what you want .... Not just "they want it for nothing". We can see if you are being fair.

ACL/CCC FFS just let it go and start talking business. Ccfc have lost out, now be prepared to loose out something before you loose the lot. Forget future profits, make a big decision for the sake of Coventry people and the cities prestige.

The first dominoe is tottering......

oldskyblue58 · Sep 26, 2013

but how would it change things now ...... The Council apparently walked away from it and you would think they had reasons that were good enough for them ..... Seppala is saying she wouldnt accept that deal now anyway ............ just leaves us fans raking over the coles of things that cant be changed, we need to start looking forward not back. How does the situation get resolved now is the important thing.

the comment about the agreement muddies the waters but really doesnt add to the solution....... it is old stuff repeated again, that can be rebutted by a simple we changed our mind. Good PR would be something that was binding that was reneged on or better still plans for the new stadium

RoboCCFC90 · Sep 26, 2013

Has anyone seen the full article yet I can't find it anywhere

Edit: Just reading it now.

kmj5000 · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
"We didn't want to distress ACL, but the Club couldn't afford to pay the rent, especially given the Financial Fair Play rules. We wanted to do a deal (with the council and ACL). We wanted to go together to Yorkshire Bank (to buy out ACLs 'mortgage' for cheaper than the £14M the council paid in January).

Then, at the end of November, we were told the council wouldn't approve the deal over the 50% Higgs' share."

The club couldn't afford to pay the rent!??

But it can afford to lose millions in ticket season sales, match day tickets, kit sales and sponsorship for the next 5 years, and also fork out substantial legal fees to fund the JR.

What utter bullshit, Joy!

valiant15 · Sep 26, 2013

So the spoiled brat Seppalla didn't get her own way and doesn't like it?

italiahorse · Sep 26, 2013

will am i said:
Id like to see the document if it exists. As its now a PR battle it would seem to suit SISU to prove there was an agreement binding or not.

I've reached the point where I don't care what's happened.
Let's move it forward with ACL/CCC making a "this is what it's worth offer". Tie it too the club, offer 50% stake, give it to CCFC for what you owe! Or something. FFS if nothing happens the area will die so base your valuation on that.

kmj5000 · Sep 26, 2013

torchomatic said:
"We didn't want to distress ACL, but the Club couldn't afford to pay the rent, especially given the Financial Fair Play rules. We wanted to do a deal (with the council and ACL). We wanted to go together to Yorkshire Bank (to buy out ACLs 'mortgage' for cheaper than the £14M the council paid in January).

Then, at the end of November, we were told the council wouldn't approve the deal over the 50% Higgs' share."

OSB - does the rent have any impact on the FFP rules?

SkyBlueHomer · Sep 26, 2013

Without seeing the exact facts of what went on I'm blaming the lot of them.

I think they are all as bad as each other & I'm going right back to when the decision was made to leave Highfield Road. Everything was based on staying in the Premiership, as a result things fell apart around them. Its seems that deals were poorly done out of desperation.

Problem now as I see it I think for each party involved it has become personal & they have forgot the basics, its us the supporters that are suffering.

Godiva · Sep 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
I know it has been pointed out regularly before but ............. heads of terms are not a binding contract and either side can change their mind and walk away from them ...... would seem both sides have done exactly that when it suited them

unless hands were shaken?

Godiva · Sep 26, 2013

kmj5000 said:
OSB - does the rent have any impact on the FFP rules?

No - FFP is based on revenue.

We'll Come Back To The Ricoh... (8 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency