What was the objective... (1 Viewer)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Of ACL rejecting the CVA?

The way some people on twitter made out, it was going to be 'the best thing since sliced bread', plenty of people urging ACL to reject the CVA, I personally didn't see how it would affect anything, but then again, I didn't look into it. Now, with hindsight, all I can conclude is that it hasn't done anything to get SISU out, or more importantly (at this moment in time), get Cov playing in Coventry but even worse, we have a 10 point deduction (should've been more!) and the only thing we have to play for this season is survival, when, with the start we've had, playoffs was a possibility.

Can somebody shed light on this?

 

---

[Danceswithhorses]

I personally don't think this has been discussed enough.........not

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Tbf, I have been absent for a long time.

 

[torchomatic]

I personally don't think this has been discussed enough.........not

Actually think it's a valid question and one I've asked many times. Rejecting the CVA did nothing for ACL or the Club. Weird.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nick]

I think it is usually the bandwagon, a lot of people don't fully understand (me included) but they call for things like ACL to refuse it because SISU are the baddies. It is the same as when people were calling for administration a few months ago as it would rid us of SISU.

 

[Kingokings204]

There was no point in rejecting the CVA and a very touchy subject with me. This done nothing but to hurt fans with 10 points and with a good team this year effectively ending a realistic play off push as proved last year again with 10 points gone. Even with CVA accepted an investigation still needs to happen so this is not a reason to reject CVA. As proved also the rejecting of the CVA has done nothing and SISU remain in charge. The only possible answer therefore to rejecting it is silly kids games and hurting SISU with on field matters which hurts their investment to get us back to championship which obviously in turn hurts us fans also. You wont come back to ricoh so we will reject your CVA. Moronic.

 

[dadgad]

I think that they had pinned their faith on more info coming out which would implicate Sisu in "wrongdoing". Hence more and more leaked documents.
It has become tedious because it changes nothing.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

There was no point in rejecting the CVA and a very touchy subject with me. This done nothing but to hurt fans with 10 points and with a good team this year effectively ending a realistic play off push as proved last year again with 10 points gone. Even with CVA accepted an investigation still needs to happen so this is not a reason to reject CVA. As proved also the rejecting of the CVA has done nothing and SISU remain in charge. The only possible answer therefore to rejecting it is silly kids games and hurting SISU with on field matters which hurts their investment to get us back to championship which obviously in turn hurts us fans also. You wont come back to ricoh so we will reject your CVA. Moronic.

I am sure the ACL directors had their reasons. I am equally sure those reasons will see the light of day in the fullness of time.

However, ahead of the JV ruling, all council staff involved, and ACL folk were advised to hold their tongues for fear of being found in contempt of court. And rightly so.

The SISU JV case was roundly thrown out. Not just a bit; scathingly so by Justice Males, including the award of costs. What then the logic in SISU's appeal? I can see nothing other than a continuation of the effective gagging order it puts in place.

Until such time as the shackles of silence are effectively removed, to call it 'moronic' without explanation - and the explanation only being absent due to SISU's continued and laughable legal action - seems very judgmental

 

[Ashdown1]

When is this ridiculous appeal due to be thrown out again ?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

When is this ridiculous appeal due to be thrown out again ?

It's funny isn't it? It's so ridiculous, ACL were keen for the JR to be dropped? Which looks dodgy, to me, as if they are hiding something, personally, I think 'CCFC', may have a case, so I want to see what a judge says who makes decisions based on fact (the law) rather than opinion. Yes, it was rejected out of hand by a judge, and if the appeal gets rejected, fair enough, I'll accept the ruling.

 

[ccfcway]

by accepting the CVA, ACL were accepting a break in the lease agreement, how on earth could they do that ?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

by accepting the CVA, ACL were accepting a break in the lease agreement, how on earth could they do that ?

Even by rejecting the CVA, the lease is still broken, so would be fair to say rejecting the CVA was a futile move that only succeeded in increasing bad feeling (works both ways) therefore making it even less likely CCFC will return to Coventry?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It's funny isn't it? It's so ridiculous, ACL were keen for the JR to be dropped? Which looks dodgy, to me, as if they are hiding something, personally, I think 'CCFC', may have a case, so I want to see what a judge says who makes decisions based on fact (the law) rather than opinion. Yes, it was rejected out of hand by a judge, and if the appeal gets rejected, fair enough, I'll accept the ruling.

Of course they wanted it dropped! It appeared vexatious and by Fisher's own admission a six-figure legal cost they didn't want to incur.

It's not 'dodgy' to not want to throw a huge sum at solicitors for a case that's without foundation; it's common bloody sense. What's wrong with you for God's sake?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Even by rejecting the CVA, the lease is still broken, so would be fair to say rejecting the CVA was a futile move that only succeeded in increasing bad feeling (works both ways) therefore making it even less likely CCFC will return to Coventry?

But the directors are duty bound to act on the best interests of the business; not necessarily look at the net result. How could they vote that breaking a long term lease was in the best interests of their business?

 

[RPHunt]

It's funny isn't it? It's so ridiculous, ACL were keen for the JR to be dropped? Which looks dodgy, to me, as if they are hiding something, personally, I think 'CCFC', may have a case, so I want to see what a judge says who makes decisions based on fact (the law) rather than opinion. Yes, it was rejected out of hand by a judge, and if the appeal gets rejected, fair enough, I'll accept the ruling.

You are suggesting that the judge, who threw out the original request, didn't consider the law and the facts when giving his opinion! There have been some pretty daft claims made in SISU's defence on here recently, but this one surely ranks as the daftest.

 

[Godiva]

But the directors are duty bound to act on the best interests of the business; not necessarily look at the net result. How could they vote that breaking a long term lease was in the best interests of their business?

This is true - but you need to add: ... and its stakeholders.

But by rejecting the CVA they made certain the club will never again play at the Ricoh. Is that in the best interest of the business and its stakeholders? Ask Compass or the Casino if their business is improved by the outlook of not having 6.000 -10.000 potential customers coming to the Ricoh 30 times a year.

But if CCc and Higgs are happy, then the directors of ACL must have done a marvelous job.

 

[italiahorse]

Only ACL know the exact reason, we can only speculate.
Does the JR restrict them from talking about it and saying why it was rejected.

From my limited take on this I think the CVA if rejected initially means further discussions take place to work towards an agreement.
If the administrator decided against this and liquidated this would also only work in SISU's favour as they get the club.
I also think that ACL thought there would be further discussions on the players contracts which should have been in Ltd but somehow over the years now appear in Holdings.
This obviously works in SISU's favour as Ltd is not worth bidding on without the players. Something happened and the FL never picked it up, perhaps this is the reason we only got 10 points.

 

[italiahorse]

This is true - but you need to add: ... and its stakeholders.

But by rejecting the CVA they made certain the club will never again play at the Ricoh. Is that in the best interest of the business and its stakeholders? Ask Compass or the Casino if their business is improved by the outlook of not having 6.000 -10.000 potential customers coming to the Ricoh 30 times a year.

But if CCc and Higgs are happy, then the directors of ACL must have done a marvelous job.

Guesswork I'm afraid until the details come out.

 

[Gint11]

Finally, some criticism aimed at ACL...Shine a light. (Que 'Hello Timmy)

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Like I said, I think CCFC may have a case, but again, if the judge rejects the appeal, then I'll accept the ruling.

If SISU think they have a case, like anyone in this country, they have the right to take someone/something to court, whether it gets rejected or not is the point here. There are legal costs to both sides, and obviously SISU have it all to gain if it is ruled that CCC acted unlawfully, and actually, if CCC have breached 'European Law', then the JR is probably going to get rejected in UK lawsbecause CCC may not have breached UK law (for openmindedness, they may not have breached EU law either, but that is what they're being accused of right?) it will probably get taken up to the European Courts, if SISU persist.

But don't you feel that ACL could've dealt with the CVA a bit more professionally, co'mon, you think saying 'we'll accept CVA if you drop JR and accept rent deal,if not, fuck you', will get SISU to 'play ball'? Bearing in mind SISU got an agreement with NTFC (again, bearing in mind that SISU believe ACL need CCFC as anchor tenant to survive, an attitude sure to make negotiations frosty) it wasn't not exactly professional, again, both sides have been unprofessional (especially if some things 'Joy' has apparently said/done), and it's clear that emotions are dominating this saga now. I'll reiterate, both sides are guilty of it.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You are suggesting that the judge, who threw out the original request, didn't consider the law and the facts when giving his opinion! There have been some pretty daft claims made in SISU's defence on here recently, but this one surely ranks as the daftest.

If he has acted in a manner that isn't impartial, that isn't for us to decide, it's judges bodies, and other judges who sat in on the case, not for a few football fans who think they know it all.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The only reason I can see is that they expected the administrator to come back with a new CVA offer with a better deal for them

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The only reason I can see is that they expected the administrator to come back with a new CVA offer with a better deal for them

How could the offer be any better? Wasn't the offer tabled all the money owed to them? And didn't Appleton tell ACL to leave the JR and lease out of it?

 

[Astute]

How could the offer be any better? Wasn't the offer tabled all the money owed to them? And didn't Appleton tell ACL to leave the JR and lease out of it?

Fisher said at the fans forums that debts would be paid in full. But when it came to it the offer was only a percentage. And only 0.5% if rejected. Don't know if that is what Appleton said but wouldn't be a surprise. He did everything in SISU'S favour.

Then to top it all off the FL tried to keep their mistakes quiet. If nothing was wrong why did they check every other football league club for the same wrongdoings? To me this is why the CVA was rejected. And ACL will still get the amount offered at least.

This has still got a long way to go. To me it will either be SISU get hold of the Ricoh for peanuts or work out it isn't going to happen. If this is the case Fisher will look for a way to take us back without looking as he has backed down or Joy will replace him.

 

[Covstu]

Rejecting it had no positive impact but maybe just vindicated ACL's feelings about SISU and the lack of payment (which is fair enough) but the outcome hasnt suited anyone apart from created a larger gulf in getting these two parties to discuss a way forward which is what everyone wants. My view is that the Ricoh needs to be in the ownership of the football club and therefore sits with SISU at present but they should pay whatever the going rate is, which is obviously the issue. A logical thought would be that they pay for the stadium in installments but if they are not going to pay the rent then why would they pay the installments!

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

How could the offer be any better? Wasn't the offer tabled all the money owed to them? And didn't Appleton tell ACL to leave the JR and lease out of it?

It was 590k they were offered I think, I think we owed them over 1.3 million

It is discussed on here that they may also have wanted some form of compensation for breaking the lease agreement or an agreement to come back to the Ricoh before they signed the CVA

Yea Appleton said some of the changes he couldn't do, I think that was about the JR. As others have said though there isn't a reason this couldn't have been done outside the CVA agreement though.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Rejecting it had no positive impact but maybe just vindicated ACL's feelings about SISU and the lack of payment (which is fair enough) but the outcome hasnt suited anyone apart from created a larger gulf in getting these two parties to discuss a way forward which is what everyone wants. My view is that the Ricoh needs to be in the ownership of the football club and therefore sits with SISU at present but they should pay whatever the going rate is, which is obviously the issue. A logical thought would be that they pay for the stadium in installments but if they are not going to pay the rent then why would they pay the installments!

Well said Stu..

 

[sky blue john]

It was 590k they were offered I think, I think we owed them over 1.3 million


It is discussed on here that they may also have wanted some form of compensation for breaking the lease agreement or an agreement to come back to the Ricoh before they signed the CVA

Yea Appleton said some of the changes he couldn't do, I think that was about the JR. As others have said though there isn't a reason this couldn't have been done outside the CVA agreement though.

The 500k figure offered included compensation for the 40year lease.
Does there have to be any other reason from acl's side ?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The 500k figure offered included compensation for the 40year lease.
Does there have to be any other reason from acl's side ?

Hang on, the CVA was rejected because we didn't accept the last offer before the creditors meeting, if we did accept the offer and therefore CVA was accepted, why would ACL need to be compensated for the broken lease?

May I also ask, where's your source for that?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

This is true - but you need to add: ... and its stakeholders.

But by rejecting the CVA they made certain the club will never again play at the Ricoh. Is that in the best interest of the business and its stakeholders? Ask Compass or the Casino if their business is improved by the outlook of not having 6.000 -10.000 potential customers coming to the Ricoh 30 times a year.

But if CCc and Higgs are happy, then the directors of ACL must have done a marvelous job.

Respectfully; I think you are wrong. Or are you claiming that SISU offered to stay at the Ricoh if ACL agreed the terms of the CVA? If so, and you can prove it, your comment has come validity. If not, well, frankly it doesn't.

If not; I'm glad you agree that the directors had no alternative other than to vote against an agreement that broke their asset - the lease

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It was 590k they were offered I think, I think we owed them over 1.3 million

It is discussed on here that they may also have wanted some form of compensation for breaking the lease agreement or an agreement to come back to the Ricoh before they signed the CVA

Yea Appleton said some of the changes he couldn't do, I think that was about the JR. As others have said though there isn't a reason this couldn't have been done outside the CVA agreement though.

For some reason, I'm under the impression that ACL written off some of the debt owed to them, to a figure around the 600k mark but I'm not 100% and sure don't want to be quoted on that!

But again, why would they need compensation for a broken lease if they weren't going to accept it unless a new lease was agreed?

From what has been said, this all boils down to amount of money for ACL... Nothing wrong with that but, why were Cov fans urging ACL to reject the CVA as if it were a lifeline for the club? Doesn't make sense!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Respectfully; I think you are wrong. Or are you claiming that SISU offered to stay at the Ricoh if ACL agreed the terms of the CVA? If so, and you can prove it, your comment has come validity. If not, well, frankly it doesn't.

If not; I'm glad you agree that the directors had no alternative other than to vote against an agreement that broke their asset - the lease

Well, ACL tabled a generous, but flawed, (I myself would've rejected it) offer to SISU to stay at the RICOH... And ACL, rightly or wrongly, were going to reject the CVA if the rent agreement wasn't agreed. That's how it seemed to me.

 

[Steve.B50]

Tbf, I have been absent for a long time.

Yes, we noticed. Where have you been and why?

 

[James Smith]

It's funny isn't it? It's so ridiculous, ACL were keen for the JR to be dropped? Which looks dodgy, to me, as if they are hiding something, personally, I think 'CCFC', may have a case, so I want to see what a judge says who makes decisions based on fact (the law) rather than opinion. Yes, it was rejected out of hand by a judge, and if the appeal gets rejected, fair enough, I'll accept the ruling.

Or they wanted to save SISU both from themselves and a scathing rebuke from the judge.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Well, ACL tabled a generous, but flawed, (I myself would've rejected it) offer to SISU to stay at the RICOH... And ACL, rightly or wrongly, were going to reject the CVA if the rent agreement wasn't agreed. That's how it seemed to me.

ACL were holding a contract which had already been proven in High Court - uncontested by SISU, right? Unless there was another offer which would be seen to be in the interests of the business (and it's stakeholders, Godiva), which might have included staying at the Ricoh; they have to reject the CVA.

The directors of ACL have responsibilities, some of them known as fiduciary responsibilities, which mean they can't support a significant tenant on a long term contract simply walking away without consequence. I guess they opposed the CVA hoping - alongside their representations to the FL, etc - to force the administration process to be reconsidered. Thereby perhaps producing another outcome, which may have resulted in new owners, and a tenant that would honour at least some of the terms of the contract they were holding. That, from their position as Directors of ACL would be a better outcome, and therefore the one they would be obliged to follow.

Wouldn't that make sense?