ACL Statement (14 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

No smoke without fire

Extend that, and SISU have a case for a judicial review then.

 

---

[SydneySkyBlue]

Extend that, and SISU have a case for a judicial review then.

As far I see it, the Council were protecting a community asset from being taken on the cheap.

What are you suggesting?

 

[skybluehugh]

Or maybe PH4 mtgs there were discussions about him supporting them if they can convince his legal team that the case is pretty water-tight?

That's great if true, as it is looking more and more like ACL have a very good case don't you think?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As far I see it, the Council were protecting a community asset from being taken on the cheap.

What are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that taking as gospel anything that's said in a labyrinth of public statements from both sides that are designed to influence and manipulate public opinion is a dangerous thing to do.

Let's take some other no smoke without fire examples, after all.

The clock is ticking;

Fans must sign over their shares or the club dies;

SISU are hard nosed business people, what we've needed for ages is people who'll stand up even as far as the courts;

Westwood, Dann, Fox, Gunnarson all demanded to go, honest;

We never offered Morrison a contract verbally;

We are debt free.

All examples of public statements that, I believe, have influenced public opinion previously.

So I'm not going to start believing one group's set of public statements above the other's, because it's clearly a media strategy being put in place to sway public opinion. Somewhere the truth will come out, the truth may well be that ACL have come under undue pressure and that SISU have backtracked repeatedly.

That truth won't be proven by rhetoric extorted by one side or another however, the same as the SISU statements above haven't, in fact, proven their hard nosed good business sense, as was claimed at the time.

 

[skybluehugh]

In fairness - PWKH statements cannot be taken as proof. They are statements to be either believed or not, disputed or not, proven or not.

I have more trust in statements that come from ACL than anything that comes out of Fisher's mouth. I have no proof that ACL have lied to me, but plenty that he has.

 

[skybluehugh]

That bit was specifically denied by Labovich too.

Doesn't make Labovich right either of course, but once again it's one group's word against another's.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if there are any lies in this statement from ACL, she will have ACL in court faster than the ink is dried on the charges.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

No smoke without fire - it's very likely she said something close to that.

Past court documents suggesting she is a liar and, frankly, heading up an asset stripping venture capitalist itself, makes it all seem very plausible.

Let's face it. You'd have to be a cold hearted bitch to disregard the feelings of tens of thousands for your own benefit and to spite others.

It's a no brainier.

So she could re-jig words or claim brinkmanship quite easily in court... or if she has previously lied in court - what would stop her doing it again?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if there are any lies in this statement from ACL, she will have ACL in court faster than the ink is dried on the charges.

...at which point she'll be accused of trying to distress ACL by using the court to cost them money.

The argument then won't be 'no smoke without fire' for sure.

And so it goes on.

And on, and on, and on, and on...

 

[Jack Griffin]

In fairness - PWKH statements cannot be taken as proof. They are statements to be either believed or not, disputed or not, proven or not.

It was an ACL statement, I don't think PWKH was at the meeting they were allegedly made.

If the statements were untrue then let Joy sue for slander, if she doesn't then I think we can all agree that the statement was factual.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

That's great if true, as it is looking more and more like ACL have a very good case don't you think?

Having a case, & having the proof, to get the decision that justifies the cost of bringing the case, are miles apart once you get to see the bill mounting up.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

I'm suggesting that taking as gospel anything that's said in a labyrinth of public statements from both sides that are designed to influence and manipulate public opinion is a dangerous thing to do.

Let's take some other no smoke without fire examples, after all.

The clock is ticking;

Fans must sign over their shares or the club dies;

SISU are hard nosed business people, what we've needed for ages is people who'll stand up even as far as the courts;

Westwood, Dann, Fox, Gunnarson all demanded to go, honest;

We never offered Morrison a contract verbally;

We are debt free.

All examples of public statements that, I believe, have influenced public opinion previously.

So I'm not going to start believing one group's set of public statements above the other's, because it's clearly a media strategy being put in place to sway public opinion. Somewhere the truth will come out, the truth may well be that ACL have come under undue pressure and that SISU have backtracked repeatedly.

That truth won't be proven by rhetoric extorted by one side or another however, the same as the SISU statements above haven't, in fact, proven their hard nosed good business sense, as was claimed at the time.

SISU trying to acquire the Ricoh on the cheap is not something ACL have suggested.

It's a concussion drawn up by looking at their actions, their disregard for on the pitch matters and the opinion of the fans, and more recently, their determination to not play in Coventry and to kill off the club's fanbase and with it its long term future.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

It was an ACL statement, I don't think PWKH was at the meeting they were allegedly made.

If the statements were untrue then let Joy sue for slander, if she doesn't then I think we can all agree that the statement was factual.

Actually that it correct (apologies to PWKH) it was an ACL statement...but the rest is still valid argument.

 

[RPHunt]

The meeting will presumably have been minuted and it would be pretty idiotic to claim something had been said at this meeting if it could easily be disproved by the minutes.

I didn't hear Labovitch, did he deny the words attributed to Seppala?

 

[skybluehugh]

...at which point she'll be accused of trying to distress ACL by using the court to cost them money.

The argument then won't be 'no smoke without fire' for sure.

And so it goes on.

And on, and on, and on, and on...

It was also quoted that all of the said meeting was conducted in front of HER lawyers. Shouldn't be too difficult to prove ACL guilty should it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It was also quoted that all of the said meeting was conducted in front of HER lawyers. Shouldn't be too difficult to prove ACL guilty should it.

If only things were that easy, life would be black and white, and lawyers would be poor.

 

[skybluehugh]

If only things were that easy, life would be black and white, and lawyers would be poor.

So now it's the lawyers fault, absolute classic. They blew the chance to sue ACL. Sack the lot I say

 

[Snozz_is_god]

It's not legal to move assets out without paying the going rent for those assets though especially if you leave the debts and then move to administration. I'm not saying this is whats happened but the evidence we see very much suggests that and if it wern't true it would have been very easy to show.

Too right, moving assets out of one company so that it can then be put into administration is called asset stripping and it's fraud

 

[longjohnskyblue]

Thing is the ACL statement clearly stated it had documented evidence. If they have, then it is irrefutable, if not, then then it is libel/slander (depends if written or verbal - take your pick it was both!).

Point is, ML only denied from a verbal point of view (she never said that, she never said this). Verbal agreements are only worht the paper they are written on! Minutes must exist of any and all meetings, and whoever organises those meetings are responsible for those.

Sisu are used to the courtrooms, it is their bread and butter. It is standard practice for them to intimidate and threaten. Hardly Fit & proper!

 

[lordsummerisle]

Has anybody got the document that people are going on about? Couldn't find it on that 200 percent site?

Not so sure about this statement in the article though?

"and to get the final £400,000 per year rent offer into perspective, we might consider the £100,000 a year paid by FC United of Manchester, who had an average home crowd of 1,794 people last season paying considerably lower season ticket prices than Coventry supporters do and without the access to sponsorship money that Football League clubs have, to rent Gigg Lane in the Northern Premier League -"

Think that FC United pay £3000 per game, which would mean that they'd be playing around 33 home games a season??

It doesn't mention that FC United in order to avoid paying this rent(whatever the level), and get access to full revenues are now building their own ground!

 

[Noggin]

That bit was specifically denied by Labovich too.

Doesn't make Labovich right either of course, but once again it's one group's word against another's.

was it specifically denied by Labovich? or was it wishy washy denied by Labovich with words like I don't think so, or I didn't witness that, or I don't believe so. I thought he answered a few questions where he should have been using the word no with answers like that. I didn't believe him multiple times in that interview and felt he was attempting to protect himself by not definitively answering something.

 

[Noggin]

Has anybody got the document that people are going on about? Couldn't find it on that 200 percent site?

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=23866 if you are using chrome I found the article didn't appear for me untill I used internet explorer. seems to be there for me now with chrome though.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

was it specifically denied by Labovich? or was it wishy washy denied by Labovich with words like I don't think so, or I didn't witness that, or I don't believe so. I thought he answered a few questions where he should have been using the word no with answers like that. I didn't believe him multiple times in that interview and felt he was attempting to protect himself by not definitively answering something.

Now admittedly the passing of night makes me forget clearly, and I'm blowed if I'm going to go and check when I can hope you will instead , but I was pretty sure he said he was there at the supposed time too?

 

[jesus-wept]

I listened to Labovich and I thought he was a bit wishy washy but still stuck up for Joy, as he called her, but you would expect that. What I did think though is Labovich could be a weak link, two or three times he stressed he was an independent director, whatever that is and also made sure to say Tim Fisher was a director, I think he said full director. What is an independent director compared to a full director. What are the implications for ML compared to TF.

Could Labovic be lured over for self preservation.

 

[stupot07]

He isn't employed by the club or sisu or any other associated companies. I think that was what Hoffman was

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I listened to Labovich and I thought he was a bit wishy washy but still stuck up for Joy, as he called her, but you would expect that. What I did think though is Labovich could be a weak link, two or three times he stressed he was an independent director, whatever that is and also made sure to say Tim Fisher was a director, I think he said full director. What is an independent director compared to a full director. What are the implications for ML compared to TF.

Could Labovic be lured over for self preservation.

I'd suspect he was stressing the independent bit in a bid for authority as an objective voice in what he was saying, so it would be believed as truth ahead of those with a vested interest.

Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes in how people present themselves, and the continued stresses on 'independent' could have been for genuine reasons, but I'd have thought in this particular instance it was to give him credence in what he was saying.

 

[Noggin]

I'd suspect he was stressing the independent bit in a bid for authority as an objective voice in what he was saying, so it would be believed as truth ahead of those with a vested interest.

Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes in how people present themselves, and the continued stresses on 'independent' could have been for genuine reasons, but I'd have thought in this particular instance it was to give him credence in what he was saying.

Agreed and while he might technically be an independent director it would of course be ludicrous to consider him independent and without a vested interest.

I'll see if I can find his actual answer to what we were talking about, I do agree with you that I think he said he was there.

 

[Noggin]

Now admittedly the passing of night makes me forget clearly, and I'm blowed if I'm going to go and check when I can hope you will instead , but I was pretty sure he said he was there at the supposed time too?

Ok listened to it, his response to that wasn't really wishy washy at all, I was mistaken sorry.

His response to the question about weather far more than the golden share in limited and weather players, gate receipts etc were in limited was wishy washy though, his responce was I don't think so and then talked about the hunt for the golden share instead of answering the proper question.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I'd suspect he was stressing the independent bit in a bid for authority as an objective voice in what he was saying, so it would be believed as truth ahead of those with a vested interest.

Labovich has some vested interests alright... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/24/tony-blair-mark-labovitch-resignation

ony Blair's business operations are under scrutiny after the departure from his investment firm of a high-profile banker with connections to some of the world's richest investors and the revelation that the former prime minister secured big deals in the Middle East.

Mark Labovitch's resignation as chief operating officer of Blair's Firerush Ventures, little more than a year after he was appointed to the post, threatens to leave a hole in Blair's business empire.

Labovitch, 48 – who was appointed at the same time as a former Lehman Brothers banker, Varun Chandra, joined Firerush as an adviser – was seen in financial circles as someone who could open doors for Blair. The Financial News newspaper described him as possessing "an expansive Rolodex of contacts and relationships built up during more than a decade as a senior investment banker".

Firerush is crucial to Blair's fortunes, not to mention the 130 people who work for him. Blair explained a couple of years ago, when his staff was much smaller, that he had to "earn £5m a year to pay the wages". Firerush, which gives its address as a PO box in west London, is licensed by the Financial Services Authority to offer investment advice in a number of countries, including three that have low-tax environments – Gibraltar, Lithuania and Romania.

Records filed at Companies House show that the Oxford-educated Labovitch joined Firerush on 1 June last year. He resigned on 28 July this year.

It is unclear why Labovitch – who is reportedly to become a director at Coventry City football club and has joined Gems, a Dubai-based provider of private education (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/02/quality-education-public-schools-half-price) – parted company with Blair. In an email sent to the Observer, he declined to comment. Blair's spokesman also declined to answer emailed questions regarding Labovitch.

News of his departure comes as a Channel 4 Dispatches programme to be broadcast on Monday reveals Blair's role in two multi-billion-dollar contracts in Palestine.

The programme shows how, in his role as the Quartet's representative to the Middle East, Blair helped persuade the Israeli government to open up radio frequencies so that a mobile phone company, Wataniya, could operate in the West Bank.

He also championed the development of a huge gas field off the coast of Gaza operated by British Gas. Both Wataniya and British Gas are major clients of JP Morgan, the US investment bank that pays Blair £2m a year for a role as a senior adviser.

A spokesman for the former prime minister said on Saturday: "Tony Blair has advocated for the both the Wataniya project and the Gaza gas development at the direct request of the Palestinians. It is his responsibility as Quartet representative to work to build the Palestinian economy and the Wataniya project represented the single largest foreign direct investment there has been into the Palestinian Authority."

The spokesman added that in neither case was Blair aware JP Morgan had a connection with the company.

Blair's business empire sparked interest in his relationship with the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), the $70bn fund used to invest the country's oil money abroad. Blair's close links to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the country's former leader, are well documented.

Last week a senior executive of the fund suggested that the former prime minister had made representations to Gaddafi on behalf of JP Morgan. It also emerged that, after he stepped down from No 10, Blair wrote to Muammar Gaddafi offering investment advice for projects in Africa.

"You know I am doing a lot of work there and know of good worthwhile projects for investment," Blair told the despot. A spokesman said Blair never sought payment nor received it from Gaddafi or the LIA.

Since he left office, Blair's business empire has helped him sustain a jetset lifestyle. The Daily Mail claims he is a regular at Abu Dhabi's Emirates Palace hotel, one of the most expensive resorts in the world. He has acquired a £5.75m country house in Buckinghamshire and a £3.7m home in London. Blair and his wife, Cherie, have also bought properties for their children.

In addition to his work for JP Morgan, Blair is on a lucrative contract to advise insurance firm Zurich and is understood to be paid as much as £200,000 a speech. Blair has also been paid for consultancy work by a South Korean oil firm, UI Energy Corporation, which has extensive interests in the US and Iraq, and by the ruling family in Kuwait, from whom he received a reported £1m fee.

Another of his companies, Tony Blair Associates, which offers "strategic advice on both a commercial and pro-bono basis" has a contract with Mubadala, an Abu Dhabi investment fund. Blair also earns a reported £700,000 a year as an adviser to Khosla Ventures, a US venture capitalist firm founded by Indian billionaire Vinod Khosla.

Labovitch's exit follows that of another Firerush director, former No 10 staffer Jo Gibbons, who was Blair's director of corporate affairs and left last year. He advised Russian oligarchs during his time at the investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and was responsible for stitching together more than $8bn-worth of deals for oil and gas giant Gazprom. He also has strong connections to wealthy investors in the Middle East and was, until recently, an executive of the company that owns the Independent newspaper.

As COO of Firerush, Labovitch was at the centre of a complex web of companies that, due to the way they are structured, have to disclose only a minimal amount of information concerning Blair's business operations, the profits he makes or indeed how he makes his money.

However, someone familiar with Blair's business activities suggested he is keen to cultivate closer relationships with Russian oligarchs. Earlier this month he gave a speech at the eighth Yalta annual meeting organised by Yalta European Strategy, which campaigns for Ukraine to join the European Union. The Yalta meetings are promoted by a foundation set up by Victor Pinchuk, one of the world's richest men, who has an estimated fortune of $3.3bn and owns TV channels and steel plants.

 

[hutch1972]

:claping hands:Nice one Jack , another piece of the jigsaw found, not sure where it fits at the moment.

 

[shmmeee]

Has anybody got the document that people are going on about? Couldn't find it on that 200 percent site?

Not so sure about this statement in the article though?



Think that FC United pay £3000 per game, which would mean that they'd be playing around 33 home games a season??

It doesn't mention that FC United in order to avoid paying this rent(whatever the level), and get access to full revenues are now building their own ground!

Can't find them on there, I think they were linked on another thread but I couldn't read it on my phone.

Missing the point with the rent thing. We're not talking about should CCFC build a new ground, we're talking about should they rent the Ricoh in the interim and was the rent a fair offer. Slightly different but very important point. The new ground question hinges on the cost/benefit of buying the Ricoh compared to building a new ground, not the rent offer.

 

[shmmeee]

...at which point she'll be accused of trying to distress ACL by using the court to cost them money.

The argument then won't be 'no smoke without fire' for sure.

And so it goes on.

And on, and on, and on, and on...

Let's be honest, we need someone to take someone to court, it's about the only arena where most people are going to accept a decision and it's a decision that's out in the open. The he said she said crap is just noise until then.

 

[shmmeee]

Can we not use the Freedom of Information Act to try and get to the bottom of all this he said this he said that, all this Otuim/ CCFC Holdings/CCFC Ltd/Golden Share/SISU shite?

Only covers public bodies, even semi-private ones like academy schools are exempt (which is why you see some very dodgy financial dealing there too).

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

The last statement says nothing! its just crying!

ACL's first statement gave their reasons for rejecting the CVA and landing the club with a 10pt deduction.

(ACL)
This decision was based on ACL's twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond.
This last point is especially important

How exactly do you see those two points working peter?

imp:

Start by not moving to Northampton taking offer on the table and negotiating on other things I would have thought?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Let's be honest, we need someone to take someone to court, it's about the only arena where most people are going to accept a decision and it's a decision that's out in the open. The he said she said crap is just noise until then.

We do.

Question is, who pays for the winners... whoever they are?

Because isn't there a fair chance the costs of losing would send either of ACL or CCFC into oblivion?

And then who's about to pick up the tab for the winners?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Sorry Peter, that's not worth the paper its written on.
you have made no points of any merit.

imp:

A bit like Sisus accounts