Was it or wasn't it? (7 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Getting a little bit bored with this. PWKH was the £150,000 rent arrangement ever offered to Otium post liquidation? If so was there an escalating arrangement if promotion was achieved and what was the rent in the championship? Also if offered what was the length of the deal?

 

---

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

If you're bored of it.. why re raise it can I ask?

 

[RFC]

Can't believe anyone's still on about this 'Red Herring', NEVER OFFERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Can't believe anyone's still on about this 'Red Herring', NEVER OFFERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have the data to back up that claim.. or is it just your assumption..?

 

[Mick Scoop]

Do you have the data to back up that claim.. or is it just your assumption..?

No it's just in his humble opinion apparently

 

[Samo]

I don't think it matters anyway but... I believe that offer was only made to the administrator, who ACL believed was (but clearly was not) running the club.

 

[Astute]

Can't believe anyone's still on about this 'Red Herring', NEVER OFFERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your comment is as truthful as when you said that the atmosphere at Northampton is great :laugh:

Why don't you check Ann's comments. She said there was an offer of £150,000 a year. SISU would have sued by now if she said anything wrong. She said they were being untruthful also. They never sued for that either. But they have people that believe anything that Joy or Timothy says.

You are one of them.

 

[Astute]

I don't think it matters anyway but... I believe that offer was only made to the administrator, who ACL believed was (but clearly was not) running the club.

And should have been running by law but clearly doesn't seem that way..........all decisions seem to have been made by Joy still.

 

[Samo]

Your comment is as truthful as when you said that the atmosphere at Northampton is great :laugh:

Why don't you check Ann's comments. She said there was an offer of £150,000 a year. SISU would have sued by now if she said anything wrong. She said they were being untruthful also. They never sued for that either. But they have people that believe anything that Joy or Timothy says.

You are one of them.

Do you believe all Anne's 'comments'?

 

[Astute]

Do you believe all Anne's 'comments'?

Considering that there wasn't anything on the offal refuting what she said or any threats of litigation then yes. We all know that it is how they work by now. Or would you disagree with this?

 

[Samo]

And should have been running by law but clearly doesn't seem that way..........all decisions seem to have been made by Joy still.

By law huh? Surely they have been arrested?

 

[dongonzalos]

Also did SISU ever post liquidation ask for that rent deal offered during the CVA meetings, or even try to negotiate a better one?
Or have they always stated that they will only come back if they buy the freehold at their price?

 

[Samo]

Considering that there wasn't anything on the offal refuting what she said or any threats of litigation then yes. We all know that it is how they work by now. Or would you disagree with this?

I'm quite aware of how they work and I'm no fan of it, but... I do not blindly believe all CCC say either and I do believe AL was referring the same offer.

 

[Astute]

I'm quite aware of how they work and I'm no fan of it, but... I do not blindly believe all CCC say either and I do believe AL was referring the same offer.

I don't believe everything anyone says but I can work out the truth from any sort of reply from SISU. They never disputed any points made. What does this tell you?

 

[Samo]

I don't believe everything anyone says but I can work out the truth from any sort of reply from SISU. They never disputed any points made. What does this tell you?

What exactly were the points made?

 

[kingharvest]

Tim Fisher has always said the offer was made to the administrator not SISU/Otium. ACL have never disputed that either as far as I know.

 

[dongonzalos]

Tim Fisher has always said the offer was made to the administrator not SISU/Otium. ACL have never disputed that either as far as I know.

I don't suppose he said if he was interested in taking up that offer or does he just like Joy only want to return as owners.

 

[Astute]

By law huh? Surely they have been arrested?

The deal to go to Northampton was arranged and deal completed whilst Appleton was supposed to be running our club. So are you saying it was Appleton and not Joy that took our club to Northampton? You know the move that has cost our club a lot of income which he was supposed to be doing his best to get the best for our club? Which was also the same time he couldn't even find the GS or not even notice that players were not registered where they were said to be and even the FL admitted to mistakes.

 

[Samo]

has it ever been claimed anywhere by anyone involved that the offer was made directly and specifically to OTIUM?

 

[Astute]

What exactly were the points made?

Wednesday 30 October 2013
Coventry City Council Leader Cllr Ann Lucas has today issued a statement on the Sky Blues and the Ricoh Arena.
I am responding to the article in the Coventry Telegraph of 30 October 2013 headlined 'Coventry city owners invite Council to talks over Sky Blues returning to Ricoh Arena', and a statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.

Let me deal with areas of agreement first of all. Coventry City Football Club is absolutely right that we should try to avoid 'tit for tat' press releases. I do not wish to be secretive where there is no need for secrecy. I would rather be open and I recognise that openness and transparency are important to everyone involved in this issue. However, there are issues of commercial sensitivity and on-going legal issues that make it impossible to comment fully on every issue that is raised by every party in this dispute.
That said, and to paraphrase the words of the Coventry City Football Club statement, let me cut through the spin and focus on the specifics and put everyone in the picture.
One. The statement that I made to the Full Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday 22 October was not 'rushed out' following the demonstration by fans outside the Council House. I had been considering making a statement to Council about these issues for some two or more weeks beforehand, and had discussed doing so with my closest political colleagues. I recognise that the demonstration by fans outside the Council House on Tuesday 22 October was important to them, and I and my fellow councillors are extremely mindful of their concerns. But it is ridiculous to suggest that I rushed out a statement because of their presence or their petition. If I responded in that manner, I would be making a statement on every issue of contention at every Full Council meeting.

Two. The statement was not drafted by ACL's London-based PR Consultants. It is a lie to suggest that it was drafted by them. The statement was my words and my words alone. The statement was checked for factual inaccuracy and to ensure that nothing within it was defamatory by council officers. I will have to disagree with Coventry City Football Club as to whether or not it contained more generalisations than specific action points.

Three. For those who missed it, I attach a copy of my original statement in full.

Four. It is public knowledge I have written to Joy Seppala, inviting her to meet with me. She has not done so. She has given a personal interview to the Coventry Telegraph about this issue but she has been unprepared to meet with me. My offer to meet with her remains open. If she wishes to meet with me then she should contact my office to make arrangements to do so. I am prepared to meet with her privately if she is prepared to enter into a constructive, meaningful and mature discussion about the Ricoh Arena. I am not prepared to enter into an adversarial or confrontational discussion which would achieve nothing. Time is running out. If Joy Seppala is serious about wanting to discuss a possible deal, then we need to talk soon. This is something else I agree with the football club about. There will be a point, in the very near future, where we will be overtaken by events, not least the outcome of Sisu's renewed Application to the High Court for Judicial Review which is listed for 28 November.

Five. My statement to Full Council on Tuesday 22 October confirms that all options are available for discussion. I am prepared to discuss, subject to contract, and without prejudice to the on-going court case, the issue of stadium ownership with Joy Seppala just as I have been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other interested third parties in the past. The difference is they came to meet with me, whereas I have yet to meet with Joy Seppala. If Joy Seppala does not wish to meet with me at the Council House, then I am prepared to meet with her at another mutually agreed neutral venue. But I remind everyone, it takes two to tango!

Six. The statement from Coventry City Football Club contains another wholly factual inaccuracy. It states:
"We believe that Councillor Lucas' predecessor as Leader, Councillor John Mutton, met with her very recently to confirm that he had been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other parties and urged her to negotiate with us."
I have not met with Councillor Mutton to discuss the issue of stadium ownership with other parties, nor has he urged me to negotiate with Coventry City Football Club, nor Sisu/Otium. I am sure that Councillor Mutton will be prepared to confirm the wholly erroneous nature of this part of the statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.

Seven. The statement by Coventry City Football Club states "there is never any legal bar on the truth". Again, I agree with Coventry City Football Club on that point so I ask why their statement claims:
"..and we'd still like to know the real reason why Councillor Lucas authorised ACL's rejection of the CVA which cost "my beloved Sky Blues" another ten points."
That statement suggests that I authorised ACL's rejection of the CVA. That is untrue. The decision to reject the CVA was made by the Board of ACL. Neither I nor any other councillor serves on that board. To claim, as Coventry City Football Club did, that I authorised the refusal of the CVA credits me with an authority and a power that I did not and do not possess. I am aware that ACL took the position it did on the CVA to persuade the club to come back to the Ricoh Arena as a condition of accepting the CVA and accept a rental offer of £150,000 a year. Unfortunately the club did not want to accept the offer. I suppose it is too much to expect the humility of an apology from Coventry City Football Club for such a misleading statement?

To summarise, I am disappointed but not surprised by the inaccuracies within the statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.
I am disappointed but not surprised by the personal nature of the attack upon me by Coventry City Football Club. I can reassure the football club and its fans that it will not stop me doing what I believe to be right for the city, for the Ricoh Arena, and for the football club.
I am disappointed but not surprised that Joy Seppala has not yet met with me. I cannot understand why she is so fearful or reluctant to do so because I had hoped that we might develop a professional working relationship that would be to the benefit of all parties concerned.
So for one last time, I say, quite clearly, that I am prepared to meet with Joy Seppala and to have a discussion with her without prejudice and subject to contract in relation to all and any issues in relation to the Ricoh Arena, the land around it, and Coventry City Football Club.
But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena.

 

[Samo]

The deal to go to Northampton was arranged and deal completed whilst Appleton was supposed to be running our club. So are you saying it was Appleton and not Joy that took our club to Northampton? You know the move that has cost our club a lot of income which he was supposed to be doing his best to get the best for our club? Which was also the same time he couldn't even find the GS or not even notice that players were not registered where they were said to be and even the FL admitted to mistakes.

No, Joy took us to Northampton, nobody else. But... we can scream and shout about how unfair it all is until our throats are raw but there's the way it should be and the way it is. It's a big shit sandwhich and we all have to take a bite! SISU it seems are experts at slithering within a degree of the law but thus far they remain unchallenged. So, however you FEEL about it, lets face facts... was the offer ever made to OTIUM?

 

[blueflint]

Wednesday 30 October 2013
Coventry City Council Leader Cllr Ann Lucas has today issued a statement on the Sky Blues and the Ricoh Arena.
I am responding to the article in the Coventry Telegraph of 30 October 2013 headlined 'Coventry city owners invite Council to talks over Sky Blues returning to Ricoh Arena', and a statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.

Let me deal with areas of agreement first of all. Coventry City Football Club is absolutely right that we should try to avoid 'tit for tat' press releases. I do not wish to be secretive where there is no need for secrecy. I would rather be open and I recognise that openness and transparency are important to everyone involved in this issue. However, there are issues of commercial sensitivity and on-going legal issues that make it impossible to comment fully on every issue that is raised by every party in this dispute.
That said, and to paraphrase the words of the Coventry City Football Club statement, let me cut through the spin and focus on the specifics and put everyone in the picture.
One. The statement that I made to the Full Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday 22 October was not 'rushed out' following the demonstration by fans outside the Council House. I had been considering making a statement to Council about these issues for some two or more weeks beforehand, and had discussed doing so with my closest political colleagues. I recognise that the demonstration by fans outside the Council House on Tuesday 22 October was important to them, and I and my fellow councillors are extremely mindful of their concerns. But it is ridiculous to suggest that I rushed out a statement because of their presence or their petition. If I responded in that manner, I would be making a statement on every issue of contention at every Full Council meeting.

Two. The statement was not drafted by ACL's London-based PR Consultants. It is a lie to suggest that it was drafted by them. The statement was my words and my words alone. The statement was checked for factual inaccuracy and to ensure that nothing within it was defamatory by council officers. I will have to disagree with Coventry City Football Club as to whether or not it contained more generalisations than specific action points.

Three. For those who missed it, I attach a copy of my original statement in full.

Four. It is public knowledge I have written to Joy Seppala, inviting her to meet with me. She has not done so. She has given a personal interview to the Coventry Telegraph about this issue but she has been unprepared to meet with me. My offer to meet with her remains open. If she wishes to meet with me then she should contact my office to make arrangements to do so. I am prepared to meet with her privately if she is prepared to enter into a constructive, meaningful and mature discussion about the Ricoh Arena. I am not prepared to enter into an adversarial or confrontational discussion which would achieve nothing. Time is running out. If Joy Seppala is serious about wanting to discuss a possible deal, then we need to talk soon. This is something else I agree with the football club about. There will be a point, in the very near future, where we will be overtaken by events, not least the outcome of Sisu's renewed Application to the High Court for Judicial Review which is listed for 28 November.

Five. My statement to Full Council on Tuesday 22 October confirms that all options are available for discussion. I am prepared to discuss, subject to contract, and without prejudice to the on-going court case, the issue of stadium ownership with Joy Seppala just as I have been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other interested third parties in the past. The difference is they came to meet with me, whereas I have yet to meet with Joy Seppala. If Joy Seppala does not wish to meet with me at the Council House, then I am prepared to meet with her at another mutually agreed neutral venue. But I remind everyone, it takes two to tango!

Six. The statement from Coventry City Football Club contains another wholly factual inaccuracy. It states:
"We believe that Councillor Lucas' predecessor as Leader, Councillor John Mutton, met with her very recently to confirm that he had been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other parties and urged her to negotiate with us."
I have not met with Councillor Mutton to discuss the issue of stadium ownership with other parties, nor has he urged me to negotiate with Coventry City Football Club, nor Sisu/Otium. I am sure that Councillor Mutton will be prepared to confirm the wholly erroneous nature of this part of the statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.

Seven. The statement by Coventry City Football Club states "there is never any legal bar on the truth". Again, I agree with Coventry City Football Club on that point so I ask why their statement claims:
"..and we'd still like to know the real reason why Councillor Lucas authorised ACL's rejection of the CVA which cost "my beloved Sky Blues" another ten points."
That statement suggests that I authorised ACL's rejection of the CVA. That is untrue. The decision to reject the CVA was made by the Board of ACL. Neither I nor any other councillor serves on that board. To claim, as Coventry City Football Club did, that I authorised the refusal of the CVA credits me with an authority and a power that I did not and do not possess. I am aware that ACL took the position it did on the CVA to persuade the club to come back to the Ricoh Arena as a condition of accepting the CVA and accept a rental offer of £150,000 a year. Unfortunately the club did not want to accept the offer. I suppose it is too much to expect the humility of an apology from Coventry City Football Club for such a misleading statement?

To summarise, I am disappointed but not surprised by the inaccuracies within the statement issued by Coventry City Football Club.
I am disappointed but not surprised by the personal nature of the attack upon me by Coventry City Football Club. I can reassure the football club and its fans that it will not stop me doing what I believe to be right for the city, for the Ricoh Arena, and for the football club.
I am disappointed but not surprised that Joy Seppala has not yet met with me. I cannot understand why she is so fearful or reluctant to do so because I had hoped that we might develop a professional working relationship that would be to the benefit of all parties concerned.
So for one last time, I say, quite clearly, that I am prepared to meet with Joy Seppala and to have a discussion with her without prejudice and subject to contract in relation to all and any issues in relation to the Ricoh Arena, the land around it, and Coventry City Football Club.
But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena.

you can't expect RFC to read all that m8

 

[Grappa]

Wednesday 30 October 2013

...I am aware that ACL took the position it did on the CVA to persuade the club to come back to the Ricoh Arena as a condition of accepting the CVA and accept a rental offer of £150,000 a year. Unfortunately the club did not want to accept the offer...

The administrator said they couldn't put those offers in the CVA, plus that makes no mention of the offer being made outside the CVA, which was Grendel's question.

 

[PWKH]

Getting a little bit bored with this. PWKH was the £150,000 rent arrangement ever offered to Otium post liquidation? If so was there an escalating arrangement if promotion was achieved and what was the rent in the championship? Also if offered what was the length of the deal?

CCFC Ltd is now in liquidation. It is not "post liquidation" so, no.

 

[PWKH]

An offer was made. It was made prior to, and repeated during the CVA meeting. It was made to Otium. Labovitch, a director of Otium said that he was not there for Otium he was there for Holdings. Therefore he heard no offer. It then becomes a philosophical question doesn't it? The man, Labovitch, was there. Labovitch was there for Holdings. As the offer was not to Holdings but to Otium he could not hear it. As a man he could hear it, but as a director of Otium he could not hear it, so it was not made....

 

[dongonzalos]

Did Otium ever approach ACL as far as you are aware seeking any form of new rent deal.
After the administration process was completed?

 

[Grappa]

CCFC Ltd is now in liquidation. It is not "post liquidation" so, no.

Are you saying you have offered the 150k rent deal whilst CCFC ltd are in liquidation? Or was the offer solely made as part of the CVA? Out of interest, why did ACL persist with the conditions that the administrator had informed you were not acceptable? I'm pretty sure he said that he had given you a week or something to remove them.

 

[stupot07]

That still doesn't clarify whether the offer was on the table and offered to Otium post CVA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[Samo]

An offer was made. It was made prior to, and repeated during the CVA meeting. It was made to Otium. Labovitch, a director of Otium said that he was not there for Otium he was there for Holdings. Therefore he heard no offer. It then becomes a philosophical question doesn't it? The man, Labovitch, was there. Labovitch was there for Holdings. As the offer was not to Holdings but to Otium he could not hear it. As a man he could hear it, but as a director of Otium he could not hear it, so it was not made....

Such is the law, let's not pretend otherwise on philosophical grounds! Real world please.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Such is the law, let's not pretend otherwise on philosophical grouds! Real world please.

So he couldn't have mentioned to Joy or whoever that he had overheard an offer being made. Real world please.

 

[Samo]

So he couldn't have mentioned to Joy or whoever that he had overheard an offer being made. Real world please.

So ACL could not have made the exact same offer the following day, away from that environment, directly to Otium? REAL WORLD PLEASE!

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Such is the law, let's not pretend otherwise on philosophical grounds! Real world please.

I read that the offer was there and made with good intentions- the will to hear it wasn't, now masquerading as a legal technicality to suit a political agenda- ridiculous.

 

[cloughie]

So he couldn't have mentioned to Joy or whoever that he had overheard an offer being made. Real world please.

No of course he couldn't mention it if he didn't want to hear it, and Joy didn't want to hear it either

 

[Samo]

I read that the offer was there and made with good intentions- the will to hear it wasn't, now masquerading as a legal technicality to suit a political agenda- ridiculous.

Only one side has a political agenda?

 

[The Gentleman]

No, Joy took us to Northampton, nobody else. But... we can scream and shout about how unfair it all is until our throats are raw but there's the way it should be and the way it is. It's a big shit sandwhich and we all have to take a bite! SISU it seems are experts at slithering within a degree of the law but thus far they remain unchallenged. So, however you FEEL about it, lets face facts... was the offer ever made to OTIUM?

What we do seem to know was that the offer was made to someone. This should have been Sisu's perfect opportunity to to show that they care about the football club and its fans. Sisu should have called ACL/CCC bluff when they (or Otium or whatever else they want to be called this week) and said for the sake of the football club let us have that deal at 150k per annum with access to revenue streams. So what if there was a ten year tie in clause, as I have said before Joy used Shrewsbury as an example and that took at least 8 years so ten years wouldn't have been to much of a bind. Think of the potential money they could have been making for themselves and the club with our current form if we would have been at the Ricoh with those terms. If ACL/CCC turned round and said no then it would have been open season on them. If they are the sharp business minded people they should have at least asked if the offer was open to them. The fact that they didn't just shows their hand even more.