Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's nothing to do with the law you clueless imbecile.
Council Hearing Match Thread (21 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
It's nothing to do with the law you clueless imbecile.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
You were supportive then of the 'temporary' move ?
Wasps are here to stay so I'll leave you to fight the futile battle against them.
I'll enjoy the experience because I can't effect anything !!
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I was certainly supportive of breaking the crippling rental agreement. IMO we only ever went to Sixfields due to ACL rejecting the CVA - this spiteful, vindictive action cost the club 10 points before a ball was kicked. Had that not happened we never would have gone.
I went to support the team in the knowledge we would never be in Northampton forever.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
So Sisu would have paid the rent if ACL had accepted the CVA ?
Your in cloud cuckoo land pal.
You got everything you deserve then.
Nick
Administrator
No, people just have eyes and memories
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
They vote on the big decisions and we vote them in to make the decisions. That's as near as it gets
Take it you aren't in favour of the EU referendum then?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Not what I said was it.
If CVA had not been rejected then club would have had the opportunity to get round the table and agree a mutually beneficial deal so that they stayed in Coventry. It may well have been short -term like, not dissimilar to what they agreed at the end of the previous season.
Either way - the money paid at the end of the process was the same amount they would have got if they accepted the CVA. It was totally unnecessary.
tisza
Well-Known Member
aren't you blurring the history a bit?
1. wasn't it the football league who subsequentlu made SISU pay what the amounts owed?
2. there couldn't have been discussions at the time due to the outstanding monies?
3. there were major questions at the time (which I haven't seen answered yet) around the movement of assets etc. between the various football companies involved with CCFC?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
1. Yes the FL insisted that ACL were paid the same amount as part of the agreement to let CCFC play in league.
2. So there couldn't have been discussions but ACL made 'rent offers' prior to the CVA meeting...? (Incidentally they couldn't have been accepted because only offered to club whilst in admin - something FL would not allow club to remain in)
3. ACL's sole responsibility was/is to its shareholders. It's is not the moral bastion that we empower to investigate the ethical practice of a hedge fund. Primary objective was to secure maximum monies for the company. Other motivations should have been irrelevant. In addition if this 'dastardly practice' needed looking at further - where was the official complaint that should have accompanied the CVA rejection?? It either never happened (which would seem strange give the supposed rationale for rejection) or it did happen but we heard nothing about it because nothing untoward was found.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What a crock of shit. The rental agreement was broken by the administration process and are we really supposed to believe that a hedge fund is so sensitive that they ran away crying to Northampton because big bad ACL hurt their feelings. Either they're in the wrong business or you're practicing a comedy routine.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
What part of in my opinion did you miss?
So in your opinion - if they didn't run away 'crying' why did they go? For the ambience?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
And again you twist the narrative to suit. Using your example what if the market value was a fiver and you offered a fiver and got told to get lost.
The simple fact is you have no idea what talks took place, as with all of us you can only guess. The difference is whenever someone suggests a possibility that doesn't fit with your narrative you declare it factually incorrect when you have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.
For all we know Sepalla could have offered Lucas £100m at their meeting. You're already admitted that if that wasn't tabled as a formal offer it wouldn't be put to the council so if Sepalla did make a verbal offer and Lucas told her 'no chance in hell' we wouldn't know about it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Actually if you look at Wasps previous moves the move to the Ricoh is following a very familiar path. And as we know both their previous moves saw them later walk away for a perceived better option.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Please. You're really not that stupid are you? I thought you was pretending.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's nothing like it.
They were renting and had no access to incomes.
One day you guys will face reality. Sisu fucked us up for good and we will need to rent off Wasps for the foreseeable future.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So you're saying it's inevitable that any club that rents a stadium will need to bog off to another city...?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What if the market value was a fiver? Sounds like you're the one changing the narrative Dave not me. "For all we know Sepalla could have offered Lucas £100m at their meeting" you know your scenario was more believable when you suggested the offer was a fiver.
If SISU had have tabled any formal offer we'd have known about it by now.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by italiahorse
They were renting and had no access to incomes.
Originally Posted by italiahorse
we will need to rent off Wasps for the foreseeable future
Six legs good, four legs bad.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Err because in their world they were the only people who could rent the arena and by removing CCFC for a while ACL would fold.
By keeping them away even longer the freehold could have become available.
If they had filled Sixfields ( as TF suggested
) it could have worked but they didn't account for fans staying away and ultimately Wasps deciding to move in.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If they had filled Sixfields ( as TF suggested
The thing is, they'd have always accounted for losses to make their play. Ultimately, we were pretty irrelevant in all that.
And even if there was relevance, then the sale of Wilson and a huge Arsenal attendance would have more than covered them.
But... we've been there, done that. Move on, as you might say
(Remind me what this thread was about?)
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No one disagrees that we need access to incomes. Sisu just didn't want to pay for them.
What is law if it isn't the logical conclusion of ethics and morality, do you have any brains?
Nick
Administrator
You can do things that aren't moral or ethical without breaking any laws..
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Oh yeah, council hearing.
Council won, no great shock, especially with home advantage.
Lessons learned? Who knows!
Council won, no great shock, especially with home advantage.
Lessons learned? Who knows!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
What was to stop Sisu buying into ACL at the start and then influence all the rents including CCFC's ?
Even buying the Higgs share back at the agreed price would give them a say on the rent.
Oh yea ... that's what a proper business would do but not a hedge fund.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yet only 3 years ago you fully supported their strategy.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Err because in their world they were the only people who could rent the arena and by removing CCFC for a while ACL would fold.
By keeping them away even longer the freehold could have become available.
If they had filled Sixfields ( as TF suggested
They probably didn't account for Wasps you are right. But then who would when the local council went on record countless times claiming how wrong it was for a team to be removed from its home town.
Who knew that whilst the emotional propaganda was being dished out by the council it had secretly begun to begin a process that would sell a home town teams stadium to an out of town franchise.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
To be fair given that they were quoted £24m its not really a surprise they didn't rush to get the chequebook out.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
In 2007 - yes should have happened. By 2009 I would suggest £24m for the F&B revenues alone would be quite the barrier - a fine calculation by a Mr Gidney IIRC.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Really? Buying Higgs share wouldn't give them a controlling interest in ACL and wouldn't give them any say in decisions such as rent. Sure they could have made a suggestion that the rent be lowered but with no controlling share and a lease in place it wouldn't have given them a strong position to push ACL down that route.
Do you think buying a 50% stake in ACL at £10m was fair to the football club given the price Wasps have purchased 100% for with a 200 year lease extension?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They didn't have one. Still don't.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
one might consider that the value was obviously different at that time ie no rent strike and a high rent paid etc
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why does anyone bother arguing with Italia and Tony anymore?
Italia is not stupid. He is just an old ham whose making hay while he can.
Tony is stupid but tries to look clever. He reminds me of Nursey in black adder 2. A sad pathetic figure who craves attention.
Best to put them both on ignore.
Italia is not stupid. He is just an old ham whose making hay while he can.
Tony is stupid but tries to look clever. He reminds me of Nursey in black adder 2. A sad pathetic figure who craves attention.
Best to put them both on ignore.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
This board would grind to a halt.
Other than the mutual back slapping by the hair shirt brigade what else would go on?