How about answering some straight questions without looking into the past:
Could we make more money for the club by being at the Ricoh right now, or not?
Does making more money, right now, make us more viable, or less viable?
There is no guarantee we could be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off with another owner, so what your saying is Sisu should not ask for the price that they feel the Club is worth, yet you're insistent on Sisu paying the Full price for Sisu but happy for Sisu to knock down their price for the Club? :thinking about:
That's not even close to true, they were offered 25% of what they were owed and they were offered a few hundred k in compensation for the canceling of a lease worth tens of millions.
I don't quite understand your use of the word viable here. Sooner or later it may become a reality though. If SISU fail in the JR, and ACL survives, SISU will be faced with mounting losses and the commitment to build a new stadium. At that point it could be selling and cutting their losses really is their only option. We're not at that point yet though.
With regard to your questions:
1) I'm assuming because they want to break ACL and presumably get the Ricoh on the cheap. Current evidence, like the refusal to go back there and play, would seem to back that up. Regardless, it would seem that they changed a lot of things prior to administration so that they could hold on to the club.
2) Buying Leeds isn't that straightforward perhaps. Check the recent news. All of the evidence suggests that he wanted the football club and a share in the stadium, but you're ignoring that simply because he didn't buy Leeds. That seems a little odd, to me.
Yes.
More viable.
Those questions have never been the issue, but maybe you can answer these questions:
Should the Club be entitled to it's own revenues?
Should the Club own it's own stadium to improve it's prospects and outlet?
That's not even close to true, they were offered 25% of what they were owed and they were offered a few hundred k in compensation for the canceling of a lease worth tens of millions.
Hey, Rob; just run through some of this Ainsworth stuff can you?
“Mr Adam Bradley of Taylor Vinters was company secretary of CCFC Holdings Ltd, CCFC Ltd and other entities in the group from 20 December 2010 to 26 June 2013 and that he is an insolvency adviser of considerable reputation"
“Further notes, however, that he says he never gave any advice during that period on insolvency or administration and indeed was surprised when Coventry City Football Club (CCFC) Ltd was put into administration and has had no discussions about this with any directors or other stakeholders nor attended a board meeting during his time as company secretary"
“Further notes that he states that he did not have contact with key personnel at CCFC and in particular, never spoke to or took instructions from Joy Seppala, never spoke to Mark Labovitch, had limited dealings with Tim Fisher and only in recent months, met Onye Igwe on one occasion, after Mr Igwe left the company, never had any dealings with the Ken Dulieu organisations and had no responsibility to file accounts and would only have done so if instructed by the directors"
So Bob therefore calls:
“And calls on the Government to review the law in relation to company secretaries that allows an individual to act as company secretary for protracted periods of time and yet be able to claim no knowledge of or be responsible whatsoever for the affairs of the company.”
So, he's appointed in December 2010; which would have been or or around the same time as Grant Meredith Jones (Professor of Insolvency Law at Nottingham University) was also appointed by SISU, no?
Just run through with me where we've been since, can you - until ACL 'forced' them into administration in March of 2013?
Yes.
More viable.
Those questions have never been the issue, but maybe you can answer these questions:
Should the Club be entitled to it's own revenues?
Should the Club own it's own stadium to improve it's prospects and outlet?
What does this have to do with the topic?
What does this have to do with the topic?
The last two questions are yes Robo.
But to own a stadium you have to buy it not expect it as a gift.
It is up to the club to create its own revenues. I would suggest purchasing the stadium is a good starting point.
However many successful businesses are built on rentals of property.
Business wise there are plenty of options around a Ricoh deal that would move the club forward as opposed to a new build in an undesirable location at enormous cost just to build.
SISU have derailed us, but let's face it we are stood right next to the right track.
However there are other scenarios and possibly SISU are playing one of those out and I don't think pro SISU pro ACL matters....as a Cov fan there will be no winners!
FFS, jack it in. How many times do people have to explain the director's fiduciary responsibility to their own limited business, and their view that the administration was flawed - and they weren't alone in that view - as the reasons they rejected the CVA.
You may not agree with the explanations, that's your prerogative; but to incessantly state that the only motivation was spite in the face of such explanations is tiresome and childish in the extreme
What has any of this monotonous dull-fest got to do with the topic...
.....the topic being "where is Haskell?"
So you'd rather the club was strapped to an unworkable lease just to pay your ACL friends? The amount paid was the full amount stop lying.
I care for the club your care about the lease and I'm the troll.
Go figure.
Your insinuation that the 10 point deduction was ACL's spite? Surely, this is context to the admin process and everything that's come thereafter?!?
Care to comment?
What has any of this monotonous dull-fest got to do with the topic...
.....the topic being "where is Haskell?"
We could but do we have the offer F&B revenues which the Club generates on the table? No, we don't and why should we go back if not all the revenue we generate is coming into the Club? Thank you McGinnity.
yes and if a club so chooses they should be entitled to sell off the rights to their revenue too, which they did, so now they arn't entitled to that portion of revenue and so if they want the revenue they need to buy it back, honestly I think these rights would be available for significantly less than they were sold for due to how much less they bring in now, but sisu have never even spoken to the owners of these rights.
This isn't a black and white question in fact it's a weasely question and honestly you full well know this.
Everyone thinks the club owning their own stadium is a good thing but the way sisu is going isn't getting us the stadium and is causing untold damage, regarding building a new stadium no the club shouldn't own a stadium in that way because the costs to build it arn't outweighed by the benefits.
Does that mean it's Ginger, gets passed down it's old siblings clothes and is referred to as Ronald?
I never said that the way Sisu are dealing with the Ricoh is correct, we have had this discussion in the past I'd rather skip it on this occasion if that's alright.
sorry robo you have no argument. How can it be worth sisu putting in 3million each year for the next 3-5 years just for the sake of few hundred thousand in f&b revenue each year?
Would love to believe this to be the case-Sisu unite club and stadium and sell on- but I don't.
I don't think they have any plans/ambitions for CCFC if they obtain freehold ownership of the Ricoh. I'd speculate they would possibly sell the complex on for retail development.
Think about it....
They are demanding freehold ownership of the complex.
The string puller is on record as stating she know's nothing/has no interest in football.
It would take a good deal of investment to get us back to top flight football.
The site has excellent transport links-M6 motorway/Train line with station to be built.
My guess is they would sell it to retail developers who would bulldoze the stadium to make way for a complex a la Bluewater in Kent. There is already substantial retail development at the site which could be expanded on. Look at Meadowhall in Sheffield, in the retail desert that is Coventry, I think potential investors would be more inclined to pursue that line of enterprise.
"A Share in something is better than a share in nothing"
Hope that clears it up for you.
Sure, you know how you avoid this kind of discussion? not asking stupid questions like "Should the Club own it's own stadium to improve it's prospects and outlet?" as a way to deflect. You can't ask that question and then complain because I answered it.
What a load of rubbish you spout !!
So a share in 70million debt is better than no share at all ????????????????
Re your last sentence, we are on a rental deal at Sixfields with a catastrophic effect on home attendances and PR with the fans.
SISU intends to build its own? The approach and strategy is back to front on this and that's why so many have no faith in it. Let's face it drive around Coventry and just outside the borders and you are tripping over For Sale Signs outside suitable sites. Sites that will also attract other businesses to provide suitable revenue streams?
If this folly (my opinion I know) goes ahead, the only suitable revenue stream will be to SISU/Arvo at the expense of our club, and for how long?
No I am not convinced on Byng or Haskell either. I really do believe potentially the Ricoh could be our crown. Unfortunately it's development potential at the moment is also a poison chalice.
acl haven't been paid at all at this point, but when they do it will be as I wrote, 25% of what they were owed, + 25% of what appleton determined was fair compensation for the breaking of the lease.
but yes the club should have been tied to a lease (that is massively better than the current situation) and should have negotiated a new better much more workable one, the 400k offered was fair, but the more recent offers much better still.
I could go and search and find proof of the exact offer to acl and what it comprised off but what's the point, you already know you are making stuff up and trolling and as soon as I provide the evidence you will disappear from the thread like you always do when proved wrong and pop up in another thread to wind people up.
Re your last sentence, we are on a rental deal at Sixfields with a catastrophic effect on home attendances and PR with the fans.
SISU intends to build its own? The approach and strategy is back to front on this and that's why so many have no faith in it. Let's face it drive around Coventry and just outside the borders and you are tripping over For Sale Signs outside suitable sites. Sites that will also attract other businesses to provide suitable revenue streams?
If this folly (my opinion I know) goes ahead, the only suitable revenue stream will be to SISU/Arvo at the expense of our club, and for how long?
No I am not convinced on Byng or Haskell either. I really do believe potentially the Ricoh could be our crown. Unfortunately it's development potential at the moment is also a poison chalice.
The amount offered was £587,000 ACL would have been out of pocket to the tune of about £30,000
Stop lying.
Yes.
More viable.
Those questions have never been the issue, but maybe you can answer these questions:
Should the Club be entitled to it's own revenues?
Should the Club own it's own stadium to improve it's prospects and outlet?
Couldn't agree more, but trust me if Sisu managed to purchase it they'd be gone shortly afterwards.
Possibly or become our landlords. For all their moaning about ACL I think that is the position they want to be in?
:O That's just taking my quotation and being silly John.
I honestly don't think ownership is the issue, whether you're paying money in rent, leasehold, or interest on a loan. Ultimately that's always going to be a cost to club.
And access to income streams would be handy too - but you can't just expect to be given back what you've already sold.
So, given you accept the club would be more viable at the Ricoh right now, in terms of revenue (with or without F&B etc), do you think that it's right that our owners refuse to take us back?
not silly its relevant to the discussion because you believe it is worth spending 9-15million over the next 3-5 years just to gain an extra 300k a year revenue ?
It would take upto 50years to get your money back !!!!!
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?