I personally don't think this has been discussed enough.........not
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.
When is this ridiculous appeal due to be thrown out again ?
by accepting the CVA, ACL were accepting a break in the lease agreement, how on earth could they do that ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
It was 590k they were offered I think, I think we owed them over 1.3 millionHow 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?
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!
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 ?
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.
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.
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
Tbf, I have been absent for a long time.
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.
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.
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?