Legal Argument (2 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

SISU have been preparing for this since setting the charge against ARVO last year.

 

---

[torchomatic]

Yes they have: £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Whereas the council and the Higgs charity actually have a genuine interest in Coventry City Football Club.

 

[dongonzalos]

Yes they have: £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

It's been explained to you so many times Torch the Charity are not profiteering out of this

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

What this might cast some light on is the true financial position of the club-- Sisu skeletons galore methinks.

 

[wingy]

SISU have been preparing for this since setting the charge against ARVO last year.

Surely at that point the club have come under new Ownership ,have the league approved that change ,Otium is also a vehicle involved in this and that was set up before or when Delued rode into Town ,has been long in the planning as was the relegation.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No, it's just something MMM and Brighton trot out in every post.

Not an invalid argument. Wood and Bell combined would cost more than the revised rent offer on the table.

 

[wingy]

Not an invalid argument. Wood and Bell combined would cost more than the revised rent offer on the table.

But it was in the Deluded era and has increased our book value,how imperative .:facepalm:

 

[theferret]

Not an invalid argument. Wood and Bell combined would cost more than the revised rent offer on the table.

It's a nonsense argument that you can easily flip on it's head.

People who say attendances are too low, and argue that a thousand more on the gate would make a a difference; you could easily argue back that the extra revenue wouldn't even cover Wood and Bell's wages. True, but we'd still like that extra 1,000 people wouldn't we?

I have just negotiated a reduction in price with a supplier, but that reduction was wiped out the next day when I bought some computer equipment. I could have managed without it, but I needed it and it doesn't mean it wasn't worth negotiating that reduction.

Football clubs need players, and sometimes those players will be out injured for extended periods or will just under perform. That's way it is, but to dismiss every attempt to reduce costs by pointing out that money wouldn't cover the wages of this or that player is just silly. Why don't we just get rid of all of them and play the youth team, no need for any cost reduction then!

 

[coundonskyblue]

<p>

It's a nonsense argument that you can easily flip on it's head.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>People who say attendances are too low, and argue that a thousand more on the gate would make a a difference; you could easily argue back that the extra revenue wouldn't even cover Wood and Bell's wages. True, but we'd still like that extra 1,000 people wouldn't we?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I have just negotiated a reduction in price with a supplier, but that reduction was wiped out the next day when I bought some computer equipment. I could have managed without it, but I needed it and it doesn't mean it wasn't worth negotiating that reduction.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Football clubs need players, and sometimes those players will be out injured for extended periods or will just under perform. That's way it is, but to dismiss every attempt to reduce costs by pointing out that money wouldn't cover the wages of this or that player is just silly. Why don't we just get rid of all of them and play the youth team, no need for any cost reduction then!

I think he was highlighting how trivial it all is. The fact that sisu are willing to end 130 years of football in the city over the equivalent cost of two players.

It would be a bit like your business shutting down over that computer cost.

 

[theferret]

<p>

I think he was highlighting how trivial it all is. The fact that sisu are willing to end 130 years of football in the city over the equivalent cost of two players.

It would be a bit like your business shutting down over that computer cost.

I understand that, and it is a fair point.

 

[Godiva]

Forget the whole of ACL; you agree that Higgs were prepared to negotiate and cited £8 to £10m. Maybe £6m?

SISU got the club shares for free. Would the club shares plus half of the ACL and everything that went with it be bad business for that value?

And from that point, they would have had a springboard to begin negotiations with the council. Let's be frank, the council have been supportive of the venture in recent times. With an honest, candid and transparent SISU working in conjunction, as opposed to head-on, couldn't SISU have been the net beneficiary of this stance?

Your last part - could this have been done in friendly way? I suppose it could. But events are normally chained - action and reaction. The sisu-out-campaign last season amplified the hatred against sisu - and I suspect that contaminated any future negotiation. When TF came in and tried to start negotiation with ACL he may have met a determined opposition rather than a friendly allied.
I don't know - I wasn't there, but it does look like TF had an uphill battle on the back of Ransons and Dulieu's failures.

As for the fans shares ... well, they were in fact worth nothing. But it was imparative that they were handed over, otherwise sisu/Ranson wouldn't have total control.
The shares have a great sentimental value, and I would really hope that once the club is stable and viable new shares will be given to those who were effected 6 years ago. As well as another portion being put up for sale to other fans.
The shares may have to be B-class (no influence on the company), but I think that wouldn't concern the fans as long as any revenue from sale of those shares were put into the team. Other benefits can be added to shareholders like reduced prices on ST and commercials.

 

[olderskyblue]

When TF came in and tried to start negotiation with ACL he may have met a determined opposition rather than a friendly allied.
I don't know - I wasn't there, but it does look like TF had an uphill battle on the back of Ransons and Dulieu's failures.

And yet he came to an agreement with them, shook hands on it, and then I assume JS smacked his wrist and instructed him to renege on it.

 

[hill83]

ACL compromised on rent and on matchday income. Some flexibility on the arrears would have been a sign from SISU that they were - equally - prepared to move. Think about it, the arrears are a function of two things. Value and term. The value was addressed, the sticking point was the term. The longer Fisher's been buggering about at Hinckley, Rushden and Diamonds, agreeing terms then to change his mind, offering mediation, looking at a new build somewhere else, etc - has been wasting time and increasing the accruals; the very problem that's now so insurmountable to to place us in administration

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there any offer on the table from ACL before Sisu decided to withhold rent payments?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It's a nonsense argument that you can easily flip on it's head.

People who say attendances are too low, and argue that a thousand more on the gate would make a a difference; you could easily argue back that the extra revenue wouldn't even cover Wood and Bell's wages. True, but we'd still like that extra 1,000 people wouldn't we?

I have just negotiated a reduction in price with a supplier, but that reduction was wiped out the next day when I bought some computer equipment. I could have managed without it, but I needed it and it doesn't mean it wasn't worth negotiating that reduction.

Football clubs need players, and sometimes those players will be out injured for extended periods or will just under perform. That's way it is, but to dismiss every attempt to reduce costs by pointing out that money wouldn't cover the wages of this or that player is just silly. Why don't we just get rid of all of them and play the youth team, no need for any cost reduction then!

I suppose what I'm saying is that the club's priorities are wrong. David Bell and Freddie Eastwood, in transfer fees and wages, have likely cost as much as the rent paid since they signed, perhaps more. Neither has contributed on the pitch and have done nothing to justify their contracts or signings. £400k/year is deemed acceptable by Fisher for rent, he has F+B profit share and the offer of F+B revenues to be invoiced to the club, and a lengthy repayment schedule for the arrears he racked up with his boycott.

Yet he has rejected it and would rather have the club put in administration-pathetic.

 

[theferret]

I suppose what I'm saying is that the club's priorities are wrong. David Bell and Freddie Eastwood, in transfer fees and wages, have likely cost as much as the rent paid since they signed, perhaps more. Neither has contributed on the pitch and have done nothing to justify their contracts or signings. £400k/year is deemed acceptable by Fisher for rent, he has F+B profit share and the offer of F+B revenues to be invoiced to the club, and a lengthy repayment schedule for the arrears he racked up with his boycott.

Yet he has rejected it and would rather have the club put in administration-pathetic.

The deal did indeed seem to fall down on a relatively trivial amount in the end, and it is hard to fathom why it was such a sticking point.

I was just making the general point, that if you are going to measure expenditure for general overheads and such like against players wages then it is always going to seem skewed. You could equally argue that the wages of 1 top earner is more than the annual budget for the academy. Clearly, we cannot afford big contracts at this level, but players that are under contract there isn't much you can do if they are injured or nobody else wants them.

 

[mattylad]

Having reviewed it all here is how I see it.......

ARVO has asserted its position as main creditor over ACL as is their legal right.
CCFC Ltd going in to admin will cost the club 10 points this season regardless of the fact they might have moved the golden share.
CCFC Ltd going in to admin may well have broken the lease the club were tied in to with ACL (which was SISU'S main aim as soon as ACL were refinanced)
SISU hope by appointing its own administrator that a deal will be struck with ARVO for them to carry on running CCFC holding.
ACL will attempt on Tuesday to show that CCFC Ltd and CCFC holdings are the same businees so one going into admin without the other unlawful.
If ACL are successful they will ask that CCFC holdings be put in to admin and that the court appoint an administrator (p&a) over both companies.
ACL realise that refusing CCFC playing at the Ricoh weakens its position in court on Tuesday and for now at least will keep that option in place.
If ACL gets its choice of administrator then it can push for the sale of the club to a new owner.
ARVO can refuse any offer on the table it does not like and we could start next season with a minus points tally.
Chances of a new owner in before the start of next season? Ask me after Tuesday.

 

[wingy]

Good effort haha.:facepalm: