Here comes the crunch! (4 Viewers)

[SuperCov]

How would that benefit the club in reality? [as in get rid of SISU]

New owners who may invest in the squad? I understand that is not guaranteed for sure but I can't see it getting better with SISU at the helm. Think they've had enough chances now to sort this mess, losing Mark Robins last season was it for me.

How would SISU still as our owners benefit the club?

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

Potentially getting rid of Sisu not a good enough benefit for you?

Not if the collateral damage is the actual death of CCFC.

 

[fernandopartridge]

New owners who may invest in the squad? I understand that is not guaranteed for sure but I can't see it getting better with SISU at the helm. Think they've had enough chances now to sort this mess, losing Mark Robins last season was it for me.

How would SISU still as our owners benefit the club?

New owners of who? What?

 

[Spionkop]

Paxo, Norman, Grendel, Stupot, you and a few others really are a mealy mouthed bunch. While the club suffers under this awful rotten Sisu regime you put up a constant stream of 'Why nots.' At every turn. Delay, deliberation, discuss.
There is nothing to discuss on this anymore. Us fans have had enough. Still you fight their corner. Sisu are rotten to the core. What part of CCFC in Coventry don't you understand. Don't answer, a rhetorical statement.
I think if anything, you 4 need investigating for signs of sanity and for any ounce of genuine feeling for CCFC. Not one of you feels emotion, just constant appeasement to these awful owners.

 

[RPHunt]

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston Churchill

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think if anything, you 4 need investigating for signs of sanity and for any ounce of genuine feeling for CCFC. Not one of you feels emotion, just constant appeasement to these awful owners.

What part don't you understand other than the mindless personal abuse.

twat.

Who the fuck is appeasing anybody? I'm certainly not, just because you're so entrenched in your position you read anything that isn't EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT (the act of a spoiled kid of ever I saw it) as appeasement is not my problem.

 

[covmark]

Paxo, Norman, Grendel, Stupot, you and a few others really are a mealy mouthed bunch. While the club suffers under this awful rotten Sisu regime you put up a constant stream of 'Why nots.' At every turn. Delay, deliberation, discuss.
There is nothing to discuss on this anymore. Us fans have had enough. Still you fight their corner. Sisu are rotten to the core. What part of CCFC in Coventry don't you understand. Don't answer, a rhetorical statement.
I think if anything, you 4 need investigating for signs of sanity and for any ounce of genuine feeling for CCFC. Not one of you feels emotion, just constant appeasement to these awful owners.

They don't fight sisu's corner they're just not blinded by a hatred of them and they don't have a misguided love of everything ACL, unfortunately that puts the said posters in a minority.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Genuine question, but if ACL or whoever have cause to believe something illegal has happened, and evidence to that effect... surely an investigation could be enacted regardless?

Exactly.

In anycase - what became of Craig Whyte who took over Rangers? There were some very dodgy practices there yet I've not heard of any prosecutions arising from the investigation into the liquidation.....

 

[SkyBlueUkeman]

Exactly.

In anycase - what became of Craig Whyte who took over Rangers? There were some very dodgy practices there yet I've not heard of any prosecutions arising from the investigation into the liquidation.....

Banned from running the club or any football club for that matter.
Still believes he's owed money.

 

[Paxman II]

Paxo, Norman, Grendel, Stupot, you and a few others really are a mealy mouthed bunch. While the club suffers under this awful rotten Sisu regime you put up a constant stream of 'Why nots.' At every turn. Delay, deliberation, discuss.
There is nothing to discuss on this anymore. Us fans have had enough. Still you fight their corner. Sisu are rotten to the core. What part of CCFC in Coventry don't you understand. Don't answer, a rhetorical statement.
I think if anything, you 4 need investigating for signs of sanity and for any ounce of genuine feeling for CCFC. Not one of you feels emotion, just constant appeasement to these awful owners.

My feelings are with Coventry City F.C. The one that won the FA Cup in '87 and the one I will support until it dies or I die.
Owners as despicable as the ones we have currently will come and go. Survival and not total destruction and liquidation is uppermost in my thoughts.

I don't take any sides in the dispute but do see that both sides are so culpable for where we are now. maybe SISU more than the other but never the less both strongly culpable.
I try to see the viewpoint as a fan, from SISU's point of view, from ACL/Council/Higgs point of view and the law. nothing else.

I try to see a way forward not backwards.

 

[robbieray]

WE need to stick together

 

[wes_cov]

Another genuine question if Companies are legally required to file there accounts why has no "Legal" action been taken (obviously we have the punitive transfer embargo which seems to be no deterrent to SISU)

 

[SuperCov]

New owners of who? What?

The question was, if we were to be rid of SISU how would that benefit the club. I suggested, the possibilty of new owners at Coventry City FC.

How would SISU still as our owners benefit the club?

 

[grego_gee]

Do you have proof that the council has taken profits or a dividend then?

I never suggested anything of the sort! and my comment was genuine, not meant as facetious.

If you read again my OP you will see I pointed out that in their last years accounts to (31 may 2012) they only made a profit of £1m and would have made a loss without the rent of £1.3m from City.
And also in that year they received a one off cash injection of £4m from issuing shares to IEC!
Also at the end of that year they were bailed out to the tune of £14.4m by the council to save them from YB foreclosing.

No I have not for one minute suggested they have or ever will be in danger of returning a profit or a dividend (or any super-rent) to CCC.

But its staggering to hear them say that not one penny of the proceeds of the CVA will find its way back to the council!

Again I am not disputing what they say, its perfectly correct!

imp:

 

[dadgad]

I try to see a way forward not backwards.

Good. And to that end what would be best for club right now, AND in the medium term?

 

[SkyBlueUkeman]

Banned from running the club or any football club for that matter.
Still believes he's owed money.

Craig whyte this refered to.

 

[grego_gee]

If signing the CVA means that the murky finances of Ltd are not investigated then Don't Sign It ACL. We can't go on with current owners and the finances remaining un-researched.

The Administration process has already investigated the "murky finances" of Ltd and current directors. Any further investigation as part of liquidation will I believe only go deeper into the "murky finances" of past directors.

Of course in any case the Murkyness might be squeaky clean!

Is that something you would pay £590k for?

imp:

 

[fernandopartridge]

Banned from running the club or any football club for that matter.
Still believes he's owed money.

Yes, I'm sure SISU would be quaking in their boots at the prospect of not being able to run another football club!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

tbf if they have done anything illegal it would be nice to know (as indeed it would with any other previous board members who might, hypothetically, have done something).

I just don't understand why refusal of the CVA is the only way to get to that. Surely that risks ACL getting no money and, if nothing is turned up on an investigation, risks them open to counter-claims also, for wilfully distressing a business, and not taking the offer that was most financially appropriate for them?

Hoping one of the accounting genii around here can pop along and explain what alternatives, if any, are open in such a scenario, where there was sufficient suspicion and/or proof to warrant an investigation

 

[Paxman II]

Good. And to that end what would be best for club right now, AND in the medium term?

I put my view on this dadgag on plenty of post previously.
To answer you with my opinion on that very question:

Short term ACL need to do a deal to entice the SISU owned football club back to the Ricoh for the foreseeable future. Sign the CVA.
This season maybe even rent free with match day cost being paid. That will appease all the other interested parties affected by the otherwise loss of foot fall such as Casino, Compass, Ricoh sponsorship etc etc. There is still a net advantage for ACL.

Negotiations with the council, ACL should continue to find a permanent solution to the football club staying at the Ricoh. This will require some lease/ownership of some/part of the arena complex to improve the football clubs earnings from the 10's of thousands of customers they bring. Some form of 'asset' that ensures a price can be sort for a football club with a permanent base and therefore SISU's exit strategy realised in the next few years. This would form part of the agreement. Any reassignment of the lease given to SISU as the football club would have to be approved by Council/ACL. This would pave the way for say Haskell or other bidders.

Long term the Ricoh stadium should become the asset of the football club on a long term 125 year lease at a sensible low rent with incremental reviews, the freehold kept by the council as an asset of the City. At the moment the council are effectively a commercial operation with ACL acting as it's conduit.

The only other alternate is sell the freehold at a price with the football club having first refusal.

The point is somehow the Ricoh has to become the permanent home of it's Cities football club. Pointless to build a new stadium when there is one we already made earlier!

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

It is clear that ACL wont just sign the CVA without conditions!!!
So what might the conditions be:

1. Guaranteed rental term of the Ricoh for N years (basically re-establishing a lease)
2. Conditional publishing and review of the CCFC accounts (including OK by Football League insolvency team) , as currently Ltd are in criminal breach
3. Removal of Tim Fisher

Ideas???

 

[Buster]

When it comes to non payment of rent ---- some people side with SISU
When it comes to taking on the council-----some people side with SISU
When it comes to trying to buy the Ricoh for peanuts ------some people side with sisu
When it comes to traveling 35 miles to a home game-------some people side with sisu
When it comes to signing a cva-------------------- ?

 

[oldskyblue58]

it would seem that the issue of the CVA is the only thing that has brought the two sides together to talk....... each must have their reasons as to why it is so important because each place such importance on it.

Is it really that SISU want the club out of admin to build the team, it is certainly a valid reason but I remain sceptical.

Is it that ACL feel they have a bargaining chip to force SISU in to a deal. Certainly could look that way but I dont see SISU doing it

In the meantime politicians use it for their own purpose and the Football League sit back and say its nothing to do with us we just run a competition for our members at our discretion

All just thoughts and opinion

The one thing i am certain of is that i am heartily fed up of the whole affair. Hope fully the truth will come out, those that need to be are brought to account, the most impotent useless force in this the FL is restructured to stop these shennanigans ever happening again (mainly that they lose most of their discretion to make things up as they go along), that above all the club survives (with new owners sooner than later imo but survives)


I just want CCFC, the Sky Blues, The old five, Singers what ever you want to call it to be about the damn football in my home city of Coventry financially viable and secure

 

[stupot07]

It is clear that ACL wont just sign the CVA without conditions!!!
So what might the conditions be:

1. Guaranteed rental term of the Ricoh for N years (basically re-establishing a lease)
2. Conditional publishing and review of the CCFC accounts (including OK by Football League insolvency team) , as currently Ltd are in criminal breach
3. Removal of Tim Fisher

Ideas???

cant see sisu agreeing to that.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

When it comes to non payment of rent ---- some people side with SISU
When it comes to taking on the council-----some people side with SISU
When it comes to trying to buy the Ricoh for peanuts ------some people side with sisu
When it comes to traveling 35 miles to a home game-------some people side with sisu
When it comes to signing a cva-------------------- ?

Are they the people that say the are just being 'neutral' whilst never saying a good word about ACL/CCC- despite them moving to a 400k rent proposal 6 months ago?

 

[duffer]

tbf if they have done anything illegal it would be nice to know (as indeed it would with any other previous board members who might, hypothetically, have done something).

I just don't understand why refusal of the CVA is the only way to get to that. Surely that risks ACL getting no money and, if nothing is turned up on an investigation, risks them open to counter-claims also, for wilfully distressing a business, and not taking the offer that was most financially appropriate for them?

Hoping one of the accounting genii around here can pop along and explain what alternatives, if any, are open in such a scenario, where there was sufficient suspicion and/or proof to warrant an investigation

There's no scope for counter-claims here - if there's an investigation and it finds nothing wrong, that's it. Problem is, with the CVA signed the deal is done and that's that. ACL will get their £590k and NOPM - ever! There might be an investigation at some point in the future, but by then we're already in Northampton and at the whim of Tim-o-nomics as to whether we ever find a way back.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

cant see sisu agreeing to that.

Sisu will have to negotiate on conditions if they want the CVA signing....

 

[stupot07]

Sisu will have to negotiate on conditions if they want the CVA signing....

Yes they will, and ACL will also have to concede concessions if they want Ccfc at the Ricoh. This is a Mexican standoff.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Yes they will, and ACL will also have to concede concessions if they want Ccfc at the Ricoh. This is a Mexican standoff.

Something that they have a track record of doing, for all the good it's done them. Whereas SISU...

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

tbf if they have done anything illegal it would be nice to know (as indeed it would with any other previous board members who might, hypothetically, have done something).

I just don't understand why refusal of the CVA is the only way to get to that. Surely that risks ACL getting no money and, if nothing is turned up on an investigation, risks them open to counter-claims also, for wilfully distressing a business, and not taking the offer that was most financially appropriate for them?

Hoping one of the accounting genii around here can pop along and explain what alternatives, if any, are open in such a scenario, where there was sufficient suspicion and/or proof to warrant an investigation

Well outside my area of expertise, but my thoughts for what they're worth.

I'm quite sure that the ACL Board will have taken legal advice on their options in this matter and I'd be very surprised if they acted outside that advice.

As I understand it, the terms of the CVA include a "full and final settlement" agreement for the stadium lease, including the outstanding term. I've obviously no idea on how this is worded, but I'd have thought that there'd be a good chance that it would preclude any further action on the matter.

So if ACL thought that there were possible grounds for action against the various CCFC's on the grounds of mysteriously disappearing trade and assets, they may wish to withhold their agreement.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

cant see sisu agreeing to that.

I'd say the whole plan all along involves Fisher as the ultimate negotiating hook however.

What better way to get what you want than stick someone in to do the dirty work for you, then as that's his entire brief, happily agree to his 'removal' once you get a deal you're happy with?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well outside my area of expertise, but my thoughts for what they're worth.

I'm quite sure that the ACL Board will have taken legal advice on their options in this matter and I'd be very surprised if they acted outside that advice.

As I understand it, the terms of the CVA include a "full and final settlement" agreement for the stadium lease, including the outstanding term. I've obviously no idea on how this is worded, but I'd have thought that there'd be a good chance that it would preclude any further action on the matter.

So if ACL thought that there were possible grounds for action against the various CCFC's on the grounds of mysteriously disappearing trade and assets, they may wish to withhold their agreement.

Appreciated. Seems entirely logical.

 

[Longford]

Spot on. The council use the term 'hedge fund' as if it's illegal.

It's like a legal battle between the Morning Star newspaper and Fox news.

I suppose it depends on what you want your football club to be. Something to represent a community, whatever that may be, or not.

Hedge funds will certainly not do the former.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[true sky blue]

Ms Sinclaire said: “I am fully aware of the complicated, multi-faceted nature of this story. However, in the case of the CVA meeting tomorrow, I must look at this from a purely political perspective.
"In times of cut backs to local public services, can the council really afford to throw away taxpayers' money by blocking the CVA agreement?
"The deal on the table will see ACL, obviously half owned by the council, receive around £590,000. Rebuffing the CVA will mean that the council receives nothing”.

Why is this a political thing now ?
The council, aside from rates, takes nothing from ACL so the local taxpayer as it stands has a capital not revenue asset.
Most that the council interest could lose is the decrease in the value of the shares it owns in North Coventry Holdings Ltd which owns 50% of ACL. It certainly does not lose £590K directly so neither can the taxpayer even in these times of austerity. In any case if it did lose the CVA money directly it would accrue only 50% of that loss (but that isnt the actual situation in any case )
What does the £590k actually represent current or future income?

clearly not as fully aware as it might seem Nicki

Would be interested to see what people think ACL have potentially lost by the rent not being paid (leaving aside legal fees)

i think she means the 14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money to prop up their own business. ACL will have to sign the agreement if they want to retrieve some of that money. without the club the stadium is going to run at a bigger loss, a loss it has proven it can not stand up to. The mortgage can not be kept up by taxes, meaning eventually the coucil will lose its grip on the ricoh. maybe the 3 year plan is actually how long the sisu accountants have given ACL to go bust! just a thought

 

[James Smith]

i think she means the 14 million pounds the council used of tax payers money to prop up their own business. ACL will have to sign the agreement if they want to retrieve some of that money. without the club the stadium is going to run at a bigger loss, a loss it has proven it can not stand up to. The mortgage can not be kept up by taxes, meaning eventually the coucil will lose its grip on the ricoh. maybe the 3 year plan is actually how long the sisu accountants have given ACL to go bust! just a thought

Talking of £14m you've never answered the question about council loans (both Swansea and ours) that I asked you in this thread #143 ? Just like Swansea all parties agreed to the loans (SMC and council for Swansea) ACL and council.