Gary Hoffman’s long-distance attempt to meet Coventry City’s chief Tim Fisher (7 Viewers)

[James Smith]

Wasn't it in some court papers that SISU had agreed to buy 50% and go halves on the debt but the council then took on 100% of the debt when they refinanced? OR something like that?

Not sure SISU have ever actually produced the smoking gun in the form of paperwork that blows the council away on this. I 'think' all they've done is get a court date an no evidence has yet been produced in a courtroom. If Tim or anyone from SISU would like to come on here and correct me I'd be extremely grateful, and bloody surprised.

 

---

[Danceswithhorses]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

APOLOGY-Oops didn't mean to like this post-wasn't concentrating-sorry

 

[sky blue john]

For TSB.
lol !!!!
keep it up and you might get a slot at a comedy club !!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Not sure SISU have ever actually produced the smoking gun in the form of paperwork that blows the council away on this. I 'think' all they've done is get a court date an no evidence has yet been produced in a courtroom. If Tim or anyone from SISU would like to come on here and correct me I'd be extremely grateful, and bloody surprised.

It was TF who claimed that a deal had been agreed to be joint bankers of ACL. In theory they could do this at any time by offering the council half of ACL's debt anyway.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Hoffman's offer still sees the club get a hell of a lot more net income at the Ricoh than it would at Northampton. There is no profit in it for him or the other folk putting money in.

Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.

 

[true sky blue]

Haven't seen any evidence to back up the idea that the council have ever actively blocked the sale of ACL, can you provide some? Also when was it agreed that they would be buying the Ricoh, the club share is in ACL not the Ricoh and held by the charity?
I do think that at some point in the future after SISU have been starved out, the club under new owners will get ownership of ACL but I can't see that happening under SISU ownership of the club.


i cant be bother to trowl back through evidence, too time consuming, but the immortal words of the councils and ACL mouthpiece Mr Mutton were "we will never sell to Sisu" if you go by that alone the evidence that the council blocked the sale is there... but for more evidence what do you think the 14 million 'loan' (that isnt really a loan) is for? to spell it out to some of you its a controlling share. in all but words. control of what? to be sure ACL do not sell
:blue:

 

[lordsummerisle]

Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.

With a return to his investors as well.

Was never a serious offer, Hoffman knew it would never be accepted, just one more shot across the bows in the PR wars.

 

[James Smith]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

Okay so from what you've said can you tell me how legal it is for a council acting as a rent guarantor for a company that they weren't a part owner in? Like for example the multi million pound loan Nottingham Council acted as a guarantor on for Nottingham Forest. In 2004 Forest then failed to make an interest payment on the loan some distance into the repayment period and the council were forced to make it on their behalf, with the club paying up later on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/3850337.stm). and then of course there's the Northampton Town £12M loan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-23168498) etc. And then what about every other stadia in the country where the council and the local club are in partnership (usually called an SMC*) where the council have either propped up the SMC or taken little or no revenue from it are going to be in trouble then.

Boy are we going to be popular if this goes to court and these are all brought up, especially with our current landlords Northampton. :facepalm:

*Stadium Management Company

 

[I'mARealWizard]

It's OK though. True Sky Blue works in law
Don't cha fella?

I'll leave others to ridicule your none sense rant.


However, 1 point I can't quite grasp.

You claim that SISU have their goal as distressing acl in order to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that acl is distressed to the point that they are forced to sell the Ricoh.

Given that it is in a prime location with planning available for development and hotels etc... And given that SISU seem hell bent on achieving this:

1. Why would SISU be there only company offering to buy this stadium?

And more importantly

2. Why the hell would acl sell to SISU? Given their mutual history, acl are likely to sell to any person BUT SISU.

Quite a dangerous tactic with no guaranteed outcome even if they manage to distress acl, which is not likely.

 

[James Smith]

It was TF who claimed that a deal had been agreed to be joint bankers of ACL. In theory they could do this at any time by offering the council half of ACL's debt anyway.

Yeah he's claimed but has yet to provide any proof to back those claims up.

 

[true sky blue]

Okay so from what you've said can you tell me how legal it is for a council acting as a rent guarantor for a company that they weren't a part owner in? Like for example the multi million pound loan Nottingham Council acted as a guarantor on for Nottingham Forest. In 2004 Forest then failed to make an interest payment on the loan some distance into the repayment period and the council were forced to make it on their behalf, with the club paying up later on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/3850337.stm). and then of course there's the Northampton Town £12M loan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-23168498) etc. And then what about every other stadia in the country where the council and the local club are in partnership (usually called an SMC*) where the council have either propped up the SMC or taken little or no revenue from it are going to be in trouble then.

Boy are we going to be popular if this goes to court and these are all brought up, especially with our current landlords Northampton. :facepalm:

*Stadium Management Company

thats a totally different scenario. thats investment by a local authority for the community. what Coventry City Council did was invest 14 million as some kind of loan!! no no no the council can not LOAN to a company it is a part owner in. see the difference it is unethical and unlawfull, hence the judicial review - for a judge or judges to decide on the lawfullness of the councils actions. The council are very likely to lose this JR

 

[oldskyblue58]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

You know what I have always advocated the club should live within its means - in that context what the club have sought to do over the last year or so is what I would expect in terms of matching cost to income that is. I whole heartedly agree with that part of the strategy. But what about the previous 4 years?

The debts are not what they seem and having done the calculation then the actual SISU cash input to 310511 was 20.2m. As owners they have loaded the club with massive debt and you have to ask why? to what purpose?

The managers have done a pretty good job of getting themselves sacked - it being a results based business

The players brought in have generally been, with a few exceptions, of a poorer standard. They have received net proceeds of 6.27m up until 31/05/11 and purchased net 6.21m. Player transactions are self financing in terms of transfers.

Got to question why anyone would have a strategy to keep investing when there is no prospect of a return ...... or is there some reason to it?

It is not a fact that SISU are the best way forward for CCFC ...... it would seem to be that they are the only way forward at the moment however

Judicial review ...... interesting that we are about to play at a League 2 ground that borrowed 12m on a similar basis.......... who owns sixfields freehold btw ? They didnt invest council owned monies they " invested" a loan they took out from central government and lent that money at a profit to ACL which is a key element of the North Coventry Regeneration Scheme. Rather than artificially distress two companies to pay a fraction of a debt to bank allegedly

Of course there will be allegations of wrong doing around the JR date ......... would be unusual if there was not .... wonder where the source of those allegations will be. Allegations are not facts until proven

BTW this is not backing anyone against the Club....... just an opinion on certain matters that are part of the bigger picture that were proffered as fact when are no more than opinion

 

[mattylad]

Fisher is right, if they wanted they could pay the Ricoh rent and use the ticket sales to pay for it themselves, this deal changes nothing.

Which just shows what total w@#kers they are being moving us to Northampton # NOPM

 

[true sky blue]

It's OK though. True Sky Blue works in law
Don't cha fella?

I'll leave others to ridicule your none sense rant.


However, 1 point I can't quite grasp.

You claim that SISU have their goal as distressing acl in order to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that acl is distressed to the point that they are forced to sell the Ricoh.

Given that it is in a prime location with planning available for development and hotels etc... And given that SISU seem hell bent on achieving this:

1. Why would SISU be there only company offering to buy this stadium?

And more importantly

2. Why the hell would acl sell to SISU? Given their mutual history, acl are likely to sell to any person BUT SISU.

Quite a dangerous tactic with no guaranteed outcome even if they manage to distress acl, which is not likely.

they will sell to sisu because:

1. they are the only show in town with a football team
2. because of the fans (you cant ask sisu to consider the fans but not ask the council/acl)
3. because without the football team and golden share the ground becomes the white elephant we al fear
4. why would 'any other person' want to buy the white elephant - its a football stadium - with out the football its a fish dead in water making losses

 

[Seyeclops666]

what some of our less business sensed fans dont seem to remember is the fact that Sisu entered into a deal to buy the club (with its massive debts) and with a clear agreement to the arena being sold to them as part of the deal. the council put a stop to that taking place. Mutton may have been only the mouthpiece but when the council said the arena will never be sold to Sisu that was when the swords were drawn. Since then it has always been a fight for the arena. the council have paid 14 million pounds simply to enable ACL not to crumble and be forced to sell to Sisu.

so you guys honestly dont think the end game here is ownership of the Ricoh? and your insinuating im mad? your all off your trolleys. its simple: acl or higgs sell at a realistic price under these poor market conditions and we play our football at home. dont sell to Sisu and we play away... leaving ACL to go completely bust. leaving the council left to explain where 14 million pounds of Coventry persons taxes have gone!!

this story by the way is only just beginning, personally i think coventry city council are in deep deep trouble.

You are either terribly badly informed, stupid or a liar (in the pay of SISU or not). This is not what happened at all as the intelligent and enlightening threads on this site have explained numerous times.

 

[The Penguin]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy?

The existence of Ken Dulieu, Leonard Body and Onye Igwe invalidate any point you care to make about 'good business strategy'.

the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

No, that's your interpretation, not fact. Somebody who works in law should know that. My interpretation is that moving the club 35 miles away from its home against the wishes of an estimated 75% of the supporter base, and at a time when interest in Coventry City is at an all time low, is not the best way forward for the business and the club. Taking a potential 75% cut in ticket revenue, even with a significant savings in rental payments, is not the best way forward for the business and the club in my view. Continuously misleading the supporter base and media is not the best way forward for the business and the club in my view.

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law.

Why are you suddenly so interested in ethics? Is it not unethical to refuse to honour a contract (though it was a crap contract, no question about it)? Is it not unethical to lie to supporters about a groundshare being in the West Midlands? Is it not unethical to tell people that either "ACL re-enter negotiation pronto, or we file for liquidation"? Is it not unethical to then turn around and say that "we do not posture, we do not threaten, we only act in good faith because that is how you do business", thereby contradicting your previous threatening bluster?

Is it unethical for a council to invest council monies (assuming that is what they did) in a business? Yeah, probably. Do not, however, claim the moral or ethical high ground when SISU's own ethics are questionable at best.

also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football

This is the first thing you've ever said that I agree with.

back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up

I refuse to back either of them. I have no ties to CCC so I don't give two flying fucking shits about them, though I care about the city itself and don't want to see it suffer.

I will not support any owner of any football club who treats supporters with such disdain. I will not support an owner whose public statements are often so contradictory and full of spin that they erode any shred of trust I might have in them.

 

[James Smith]

thats a totally different scenario. thats investment by a local authority for the community. what Coventry City Council did was invest 14 million as some kind of loan!! no no no the council can not LOAN to a company it is a part owner in. see the difference it is unethical and unlawfull, hence the judicial review - for a judge or judges to decide on the lawfullness of the councils actions. The council are very likely to lose this JR

So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Allegations are not facts until proven

Yyou do realise you're on SkyBluesTalk don't you OSB??

 

[duffer]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

Oh aye, the council tried to screw us up by bailing the club out when they had no home.

Personally, I think the true whiners are people who cry that a business that has racked up £60m of debts should be rewarded by being given the Arena (thus screwing over both Council taxpayers and The Higgs Trust).

And I'm calling you out on your Judicial Review - give me one example of a council pulled up on a JR for the kind of thing we're talking about here? Just one.

I'm guessing you're throwing this kind of stuff around without doing any real research, based on what a fat bloke down the pub told you. In fact the only JR's relevant to fooball and councils that I can find are ones where residents have taken on local authorities over the grant of planning permission for stadiums (e.g. Ashton Vale). If you're really interested in JRs then you might want to look into that, because it's exactly the sort of thing that SISU are likely to face wherever they try to get planning for their mickey-mouse, pie-in-the-sky stadium.

Anyway, back to the ground. If SISU had wanted to, they could have bought the Higgs Trust 50% for around £6.5m ages ago. Instead they've gambled with the future of the club by trying to distress their way to ownership, to the point where now their only plan is to take us out of the city for five years build a crappier, smaller stadium (in a worse location). Yet you still support them. And you've got the poor manners to call others deluded. Unreal.

 

[The Penguin]

It's OK though. True Sky Blue works in law
Don't cha fella?

I'll leave others to ridicule your none sense rant.


However, 1 point I can't quite grasp.

You claim that SISU have their goal as distressing acl in order to purchase the Ricoh on the cheap.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that acl is distressed to the point that they are forced to sell the Ricoh.

Given that it is in a prime location with planning available for development and hotels etc... And given that SISU seem hell bent on achieving this:

1. Why would SISU be there only company offering to buy this stadium?

And more importantly

2. Why the hell would acl sell to SISU? Given their mutual history, acl are likely to sell to any person BUT SISU.

Quite a dangerous tactic with no guaranteed outcome even if they manage to distress acl, which is not likely.

I would have thought deliberately distressing a company to acquire an asset well below its value, while it is probably good business, is also quite unethical (there's that word again!)

 

[true sky blue]

You know what I have always advocated the club should live within its means - in that context what the club have sought to do over the last year or so is what I would expect in terms of matching cost to income that is. I whole heartedly agree with that part of the strategy. But what about the previous 4 years?

The debts are not what they seem and having done the calculation then the actual SISU cash input to 310511 was 20.2m. As owners they have loaded the club with massive debt and you have to ask why? to what purpose?

The managers have done a pretty good job of getting themselves sacked - it being a results based business

The players brought in have generally been, with a few exceptions, of a poorer standard. They have received net proceeds of 6.27m up until 31/05/11 and purchased net 6.21m. Player transactions are self financing in terms of transfers.

Got to question why anyone would have a strategy to keep investing when there is no prospect of a return ...... or is there some reason to it?

It is not a fact that SISU are the best way forward for CCFC ...... it would seem to be that they are the only way forward at the moment however

Judicial review ...... interesting that we are about to play at a League 2 ground that borrowed 12m on a similar basis.......... who owns sixfields freehold btw ? They didnt invest council owned monies they " invested" a loan they took out from central government and lent that money at a profit to ACL which is a key element of the North Coventry Regeneration Scheme. Rather than artificially distress two companies to pay a fraction of a debt to bank allegedly

Of course there will be allegations of wrong doing around the JR date ......... would be unusual if there was not .... wonder where the source of those allegations will be. Allegations are not facts until proven

BTW this is not backing anyone against the Club....... just an opinion on certain matters that are part of the bigger picture proffered as fact when are no more than opinion

fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.

the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

 

[The Penguin]

fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.

We were also burdened with crap managers.

 

[James Smith]

thats a totally different scenario. thats investment by a local authority for the community. what Coventry City Council did was invest 14 million as some kind of loan!! no no no the council can not LOAN to a company it is a part owner in. see the difference it is unethical and unlawfull, hence the judicial review - for a judge or judges to decide on the lawfullness of the councils actions. The council are very likely to lose this JR

So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?

Ooh sorry meant to include this

Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC) was set up in April 2005 to oversee the general running of the Stadium. The Stadium Management Company works in conjunction with the two sporting clubs, FMC and the Premier Club to ensure the smooth running of the Stadium. The board of SSMC consists of two directors from the City and County of Swansea, and two directors from both Swansea City Football Club and Ospreys Rugby. Board members meet on a regular basis to discuss, review and actively manage progress.

http://www.liberty-stadium.com/liberty_stadium_management.php

 

[chiefdave]

the thing about the Hoffman offer is it has made it very public knowledge that the Ricoh is available and can be used by CCFC. the timing is surely not coincidental with ACL meeting with the FL today. the FL have so far justified the groundshare on the 'there's no other option' basis, that's now blown out of the water so they're going to have to come up with another reason or withdraw permission. the fact that Fisher refuses to even consider it or even meet Hoff just highlights that SISU have no interest in playing in Coventry.

 

[Seyeclops666]

you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

You feckin moron - without the Council there wouldn't be a ground to argue about - they had to save the deal because the previous owmers blew the money and we nearly didnt have anywhere to play. SISU have put in hardly any money - they have sold all our decent players and hardly bought anyone (we were embargoed most of the time) and charged CCFC a fortune for feck all to build up fictitious debts to give them the upper hand in an administration that they were always planning. That's what these feckers do - asset strip, screw partner organisations and then having taken them over on the cheap - either asset strip them too or sell to take their profit and look for the next poor buggers to shaft!!

 

[wingy]

fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.

the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

but that is exactly what they did when funding the gap through the Construction phase ,with a divided Council and being very careful around the rules governing the area around the current argument ,what is different?

 

[true sky blue]

So what is the difference (except the obvious numerical one) between Swansea Council loaning their SMC of which they are part owners £2m (http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37) and Cov Council loaning ACL of which they are part owners £14m?

i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.

 

[Seyeclops666]

Skybluegod does make a valid point though, the proposal was basically the club pay Hoffman who then pay ACL. Any leftover money is put into the academy. It was a non starter as a deal as SISU could have done this themselves without Hoffman but have chosen not to. Obviously SISU and the club should have came to some sort of agreement to stay at the Ricoh with ACL but Hoffmans offer is basically the same as ACLs except the money is paid though him so it is no surprise it has been rejected.

Yes but it has exposed the fact that SISU would be better off at the Ricoh - with much bigger crowds than Sixfields - and therefore should be at the Ricoh - unless of course their whole plan is to screw ACL, the City of Coventry, the Council, the Higgs Trust and us as fans - oh sh*t that is their plan!!

 

[I'mARealWizard]

they will sell to sisu because:

1. they are the only show in town with a football team
2. because of the fans (you cant ask sisu to consider the fans but not ask the council/acl)
3. because without the football team and golden share the ground becomes the white elephant we al fear
4. why would 'any other person' want to buy the white elephant - its a football stadium - with out the football its a fish dead in water making losses

You are aware of hotel development, exhibition halls, retail, the casino etc...
If SISU have fucked off to northants and acl put up the Ricoh for sale, why would you erroneously assume only someone owning a football team would bid for it?

According to their published accounts, income from CCFC accounts for approx 9% of their income.

Yet you insist on repeating this lie about then being dead in the water ad finitum. I wonder why you would do such a thing?

 

[The Penguin]

i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.

We could potentially have benefitted from the CCC/ACL deal by being able to renegotiate better terms for playing at the Ricoh, given that ACL's greatly improved mortgage terms would have improved their financial position.

Why not take advantage of that?

 

[true sky blue]

Anyway, back to the ground. If SISU had wanted to, they could have bought the Higgs Trust 50% for around £6.5m ages ago. Instead they've gambled with the future of the club by trying to distress their way to ownership, to the point where now their only plan is to take us out of the city for five years build a crappier, smaller stadium (in a worse location). Yet you still support them. And you've got the poor manners to call others deluded. Unreal.[/QUOTE]


HAVE A SEARCH YOURSELF BUD:: IM TOO BUSY TO BE HONEST.. YOU WILL FIND ONE OR TWO

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/

OR HERE

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_...EMENTS&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

1. VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 66069/09 130/10 3896/10 - Grand Chamber Judgment [2013] ECHR 645 (09 July 2013) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2013] ECHR 645; From European Court of Human Rights; 215 KB)
   
2. The High Court's Jurisdiction in Relation to Criminal Proceedings (Report) [2010] EWLC 324 (27 July 2010) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2010] EWLC 324; From The Law Commission; 0 KB)
   
3. Meadows -v- Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 (21 January 2010) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2010] 2 IR 201, [2010] 2 IR 701, [2010] IESC 3; From Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions; 400 KB)
   
4. AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 042 (23 February 2010) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2010] JRC 042; From Jersey Royal Court; 95 KB)
   
5. McVeigh, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 101 (20 December 2012) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2012] NIQB 101; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 36 KB)
   
6. Discussion Paper on Judicial Factors [2010] SLC 146 (DP) (December 2010) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2010] SLC 146 (DP); From Scottish Law Commission (Discussion Papers); 361 KB)
   
7. Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Rev 1) [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 2 WLR 1275, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2012] UKSC 22, [2013] 1 CMLR 4; From United Kingdom Supreme Court; 351 KB)
   
8. Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement (Consultation Paper) (LRC CP56-2009) [2009] IELRC CP56 (September 2009) (View without highlighting) [98%]
   ([2009] IELRC CP56; From Irish Law Reform Commission Papers and Reports; 3324 KB)
   
9. Green, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 48 (26 June 2012) (View without highlighting) [88%]
   ([2012] NIQB 48; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 9 KB)
   
10. Graham, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 80 (31 October 2012) (View without highlighting) [88%]
    ([2012] NIQB 80; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 39 KB)
    
11. Holywood, Re Judicial Review [2010] NICA 30 (30 June 2010) (View without highlighting) [87%]
    ([2010] NICA 30; From Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Decisions; 50 KB)
    
12. McMillen, Re Judicial Review [2008] NIQB 21 (18 January 2008) (View without highlighting) [86%]
    ([2008] NIQB 21; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 51 KB)
    
13. Howard, Re Judicial Review [2011] NIQB 125 (6 December 2011) (View without highlighting) [86%]
    ([2011] NIQB 125; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 42 KB)
    
14. Drinan, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 76 (16 October 2012) (View without highlighting) [86%]
    ([2012] NIQB 76; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 55 KB)
    
15. W, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 37 (31 May 2012) (View without highlighting) [84%]
    ([2012] NIQB 37; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 22 KB)
    
16. Maguire, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 39 (6 June 2012) (View without highlighting) [84%]
    ([2012] NIQB 39; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 21 KB)
    
17. McCauley, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 74 (12 October 2012) (View without highlighting) [84%]
    ([2012] NIQB 74; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 31 KB)
    
18. DM, Re Judicial Review [2012] NIQB 98 (7 December 2012) (View without highlighting) [84%]
    ([2012] NIQB 98; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 35 KB)
    
19. Quinn, Re Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 24 (22 February 2013) (View without highlighting) [84%]
    ([2013] NIQB 24; From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions; 140 KB)
    
20. KAY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 37341/06 [2010] ECHR 1322 (21 September 2010) (View without highlighting) [83%]
    ((2012) 54 EHRR 30, 54 EHRR 30, [2010] ECHR 1322, [2011] HLR 2, [2011] L & TR 1; From European Court of Human Rights; 124 KB)

 

[lordsummerisle]

the players turned out to be damp squids.

To be fair I'd expect all squids to be damp.

 

[James Smith]

i suppose the difference is the club were not at war with the stadium owners and the action of swansea council may have been upon agreement by all parties. Coventry City Councils is a bit diferent to that, our council advantaged ACL by providing the monies - was there consultation with the tax payer? did you or I agree to these millions being paid? no .. was there a consultation at Swansea? i dont know .. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.

Sorry you said earlier:

the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

(my bolding)

So did you just mean Cov City Council or any council?

 

[duffer]

fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.

the council can not loan money to a company it is part owner of. the only money the council may provide to local inititatives is outlined here : https://www.gov.uk/government/polic...-how-they-spend-public-money-in-their-area--2

I'm afraid most of that seems to relate to stuff coming in the future. Could you be bothered to read a little further, I think the Local Government Act 2003, Section 12 (which is I believe is still in force) might inform you further:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/12

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/notes/division/4/1/9

Here's the key note:

A local authority may invest—
(a)for any purpose relevant to its functions under any enactment, or
(b)for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 12 makes clear that authorities have power to invest, not only for any purpose relevant to their functions but also for the purpose of the prudential management of their financial affairs.

Are SISU challenging that with their Judicial Review, do you think? Pretty tough one to win, I'd say.

Unless you know of any other law or rule they might've broken - the stuff you've sent is rather vague and wishy-washy I'm afraid.

 

[lordsummerisle]

1. Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Rev 1) [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 2 WLR 1275, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2012] UKSC 22, [2013] 1 CMLR 4; From United Kingdom Supreme Court; 351 KB)

Assange? Is it Covileaks then?