italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Linnell said again it was only offered to the administrator.
What does that exactly mean?
What does that exactly mean?
Still unsure about the 150K offer. (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter italiahorse
- Start date
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
This is the point ......... nobody knows.
Sky Blues
Active Member
As I understand it, the lease for Coventry City to play at the Ricoh was between CCFC Ltd and ACL. So negotiations would be between those companies while the lease was in effect. At the time of the £150,000 offer in the summer, Paul Appleton was running CCFC Ltd as the company's administrator so the offer was made to him. If I recall correctly, Mr Appleton said he had no team to play at the ground and he would not or could not alter the CVA to take account of that offer. Therefore, the offer got no play. Meanwhile, Mr Appleton had sold CCFC Ltd's league share to Otium, which had a deal to play in Northampton agreed and had indicated they did not want to return to the Ricoh.
Happy to be corrected if my memory is faulty.
Happy to be corrected if my memory is faulty.
It was offered to PA as he was in effect running the club. Perhaps we should ask why he didn't pass this information on
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
I think that the offer was made to the administrator and he stated it was not legal in respect to the CVA. What stuns me is that it has not been followed up by SISU nor ACL / CCC. I think that it will be raised again but not until the Judicial Revue has been completed, and if the Judge again finds in CCC favour. Then I think SISU will have to talk.
He didn't need to pass it on, it was all over the media, ACL made sure of that. It was in effect an empty gesture though. What ACL should do now is make a public statement stating that they are prepared to offer Otium a rent deal based on £150K a year and put the ball firmly back in SISU's court. They will not do that however, because they still refuse to recognise Otium as the owners of the football club. They are still clinging on to the hope that the administration process will be re-run, and until they accept the inevitable, they will not be offering Otium any such deal. It's a stalemate. ACL are hoping SISU come back cap in hand to them, and SISU are hoping they can distress ACL further and get big concessions and a stake in the ownership on the cheap. Meanwhile we all bicker and call each other names.
Last edited:
And meanwhile both sides lose a bundle of cash and all the business' around CV6 also miss out on vital revenue !!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
That's spot on you complete twat.
thaiskyblue
New Member
this is how i saw it too.
The offer should have been passed on, PA is at fault there
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Passed on to SISU? Why? ACL have already said they didn't recognise SISU as owners of the club. CCFC Ltd was offered the deal, but PA had no players or team, there was no way he could have accepted it.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But if he accepted the offer on behalf of CCFC then the CVA would be agreed and it would still be in Ltd.
Ltd would transfer to Otium because they had bought it. Then the Team, The Golden Share, The Players Contracts and a peppercorn Ricoh rent would all be with Otium.
The only thing I can think of that would stop this is that the deal was not on the table when Ltd was put up for sale.
So, why did Appleton not say he would run the bidding again and include the offer?
Still not 100% on this.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
And so would the agreement.
Hadn't the assets from Ltd been transfered to Holdings before ACL made the offer? If they had offered it before it would have made sense.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Did the CVA need to be signed that day ?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The CVA proposal signing had already been delayed, however I am not sure it was deadline by law, maybe someone with a better knowledge of that can reiterate it.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It was delayed a few days because of the offer. Surely Appleton would have known the answer there and then, instead of raising our hopes for a few days and then not explaining in the following few Months.
Completely agree
I blame SISU entirely and ACL not at all for our plight. However SISU have had the upper hand strategically and tactically throughout. They have a clear and unshakeable plan (and I think that most people agree on this) to force ACL / CCC / AHT into a fire sale. ACL on the other hand do not appear to have a coherent approach and are continually on the back foot reacting rather than setting the agenda. They now seem to be sitting back and waiting for the JR appeal and the 19/9 report
Making an offer, publicly, as suggested is the obvious thing to do, one would think, put the ball in SISU's court and prove them, once and for all, to be the bad guys
The problem with such an offer, however, is that if it was accepted then the two parties would have to agree HOT going forward eg rent increase upon promotion, decrease upon relegation, match day costs and revenues etc. I would like to think that the reason for the current "radio silence" from everyone is that these things are being discussed and negotiated away from the glare of the (local) media and fans in readiness for a return to the Ricoh next season. There's no harm in blind optimism...
Exactly, PA was in charge of the club at that point not SISU. He should have passed the information on to any potential buyers
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Yeah but CCFC Ltd was not deemed to be the club and all the players contracts were under Holdings before the deal was offered.
Appleton could have spoken to SISU about the offer, but they wanted out of the place and the agreement with ACL, they were hardly going to take up any last ditch offer on ACL's terms..
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Adds to the list of negative actions that took place during the Admin process.
thaiskyblue
New Member
normal sisu business practice they want everything their way, or nothing, they are not doing this for the good of club by the way.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Nobody knows who is talking to who, about what nor any offering...if indeed anyone IS talking to anyone else at this stage. It might be that someone somewhere HAS managed to get this situation by the scruff of the neck - & do things IMO properly - privately rather than publicly (which they are all perfectly well witching their rights to do).
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But Ltd if the CVA had been signed would still be in business and passed to Otium.
On the second point the rent was reduced drastically to 150K in a move towards (perhaps better) what SISU wanted. Hardly ACL terms.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Well they want is best for their business and in our case their asset and felt being stuck under some rental agreement at the Ricoh with limited revenue streams wasn't the way forward which it isn't this club needs to be bringing it 100% of its revenues to strive.
Whether you believe anything I have said regarding SISU having good intentions for the club and the Arena is up to you.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
On the second point you say perhaps, yet it is rumoured and talked about muchly on here, that SISU want the Arena freehold how is a £150K Rental offer going to help towards their goal?
Your first point is if's and but's there is no way to say that this would have been the case especially based on what we have seen so far.
Fisher is saying that the offer was
never made because it was not offered to him directly, so therefore he can blame ACL
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Which is partly correct.
In part that Fisher runs CCFC Holdings (Ltd) and had all the assets including the players contracts and what not owned by Holdings, ACL knew he was running the club and they could have made the offer to him but didn't, because they didn't believe that, that's where the Golden Share had been. Fisher thought Holdings was the club through beneficiary circumstances.
Appleton on the other hand was a total liability from the start.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
You are also forgetting the so called 'offer' was not just a 150k rent. It involved a 10 year agreement and other clauses that made it ridiculous, though on face value it grabbed headlines for the 150k rent only deal. Hmmm.
Legally ACL did not offer the deal to the company that could accept it. Frankly as I have said before, both these sides SISU and ACL are complicit to our current position with ACL acting just as underhandedly as SISU.
Someone said all the businesses around the Ricoh and the knock on effect are being affected. Yes and the football club is one of those.
As for ACL they need to take responsibility for some of this and try and ensure they do right by all those affected. That means attempting at least, to bring back the football club and I don't think anyone will deny ACL would be better off with the cities football club at the Ricoh?
There are a couple of legal processes to see out first and then the talking will start...
Legally ACL did not offer the deal to the company that could accept it. Frankly as I have said before, both these sides SISU and ACL are complicit to our current position with ACL acting just as underhandedly as SISU.
Someone said all the businesses around the Ricoh and the knock on effect are being affected. Yes and the football club is one of those.
As for ACL they need to take responsibility for some of this and try and ensure they do right by all those affected. That means attempting at least, to bring back the football club and I don't think anyone will deny ACL would be better off with the cities football club at the Ricoh?
There are a couple of legal processes to see out first and then the talking will start...
