grego_gee
New Member
My own view is that neither is wrong but you have to understand the risks and each has to accept the consequences if it all goes wrong
Thanks OSB I certainly think you are entitled to state your own view!
imp:
My own view is that neither is wrong but you have to understand the risks and each has to accept the consequences if it all goes wrong
I believe they are very skewed. No one knows the new restructured terms that ACL now have. The making profit bit o assume is the direct quote from the council which is purely in the assumption they deliver over the payment period.
We can pretty much assume the only reason that they did what they did was because ACL were unable to meet Yorkshire banks patent terms or a fear of the loan being bought by a third party. In reality only 1 third party was ever likely to make such an action.
So will the football be better off? Well only time will tell but I suspect not.
As for being skewed I dont believe so, and I would suggest that your own attitudes in this whole situation are far more skewed than my own.
He is concerned because of the Councils involvement - public funds being used to proffer loans etc!
As far as I'm aware, Bob isn't a real football fan, but my second hand information indicates that he is disgusted that there is a potential for Coventry to be without a comptetative football club and lays the blame at the council and charity for taking financial advantage of our plight all those years ago and repeatedly whacking us with it now.
Sorry, Im runnig my hand under cold taps now! Work it out from what you see..
Cool. Needed that.
Context: Rugby Lions went into administration.
Context: Rugby Lions went into administration.
and the Rugby authorities didn't help much/enough, he asked if Minister believed Football authorities were involved enough..
but the lions was owned by a conman ..pure and simple..but the council still own the land that the rugby lions is on
I would guess that wasnt how SISU hoped it might come out ........
Not a one sided report backing the council then!
wot cum out mate?
I would guess that wasnt how SISU hoped it might come out ........
Not a one sided report backing the council then!
It was pretty much a PR disaster for them, but I'm not sure how much it will bother them. And I certainly don't think this will deflect them from their objectives (whatever they are?) or their strategy to achieve them (whatever that is?). It ought to have an effect on their behaviour and tactics, but unfortunately I doubt if it will. Hopefully, the Football League may be interested in intervening to appoint a mediator, as a result of this debate, but I'm not holding my breath!
Frankly, I can't see SISU ever agreeing to binding arbitration and am not sure whether the Council would either. So some sort of mediation seems the only realistic way out of the mess which SISU and ACL have created and I believe the Football League ought to insist on it.
As far as I'm aware, Bob isn't a real football fan, but my second hand information indicates that he is disgusted that there is a potential for Coventry to be without a comptetative football club and lays the blame at the council and charity for taking financial advantage of our plight all those years ago and repeatedly whacking us with it now.
Bob was very anti-SISU and put a very passionate case for CCFC, with GR chipping in with a few things .... but at the end of the day, the minister said he didn't have the power to appoint a mediator/arbitrator, and basically said good luck with it. Waste of time IMHO.
Sort of. Joy Seppela put the mokkers on mediation after Labovic took it to her. Listen to the whole debate on the link further up.I think I've missed a major point here but when I was watching Bob Ainsworth said that binding arbitration was the way forward. He them seem to suggest (sounded like he only read the follow up to a previous email) Mark Labovitch, on the board at CCFC, was agreeable to this and the process should be made public which somehow seemed to make it a bad thing. What have I missed as surely the club agreeing to binding arbitration with transparency for the fans would be a good thing? Was there any mention of ACL agreeing to binding arbitration?
I think I've missed a major point here but when I was watching Bob Ainsworth said that binding arbitration was the way forward. He them seem to suggest (sounded like he only read the follow up to a previous email) Mark Labovitch, on the board at CCFC, was agreeable to this and the process should be made public which somehow seemed to make it a bad thing. What have I missed as surely the club agreeing to binding arbitration with transparency for the fans would be a good thing? Was there any mention of ACL agreeing to binding arbitration?
Mediation will just be more waste of time.
Most believe that neither side will feel comfortable with arbitration, and that's exactly why it should be the chosen way. If outside authorithies like the league and/or the sport minsters office could lean on the parties, that might just get them there. If one side accept arbitration the other side cannot reject.
Sort of. Joy Seppela put the mokkers on mediation after Labovic took it to her. Listen to the whole debate on the link further up.