fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
However you dress it up or however you try to deconsruct it an "offer" was made. In any negotiation or dispute the making of any kind of proposal represents an indication of willingness to compromise
Whether such a proposal could be incorporated into the CVA (which it clearly couldnt) or whether Labovitch was "hearing" the offer as a director of Holdings, Otium, Arvo, SISU, SBS&L or anyone else is irrelevant because as Fisher, Seppala and all their acolytes have made abundantly clear, they have no intention or desire to rent and neither do they have any intention or desire to discuss rental terms
ACL can ONLY offer rental / leasehold terms, they do not have it in their gift to do anything else
SISU / Otium / Arvo then as now had / have no intention of reaching compromise otherwise they would have recognised that the "offer" - whatever it's legal status - represented an opening and an opportunity to enter discussions for a resolution.
To question (even rhetorically) whether ACL should continually repeat the "offer" on a regular basis (weekly? monthly? daily?) is absurd
Our owners want the freehold AND the stadium management (ie ACL) business. Neither is much use to them and their investors without the other and it seems very unlikely that SISU / Otium will ever have the funds and / or a willingness to pay what would have to be a proper market valuation, as is required by law, for the Ricoh
Think you're right, I don't buy that "I can't hear the offer cos I haven't got my Otium hat on".....
Then again, I also don't buy that a board member of ACL who also is employed by Coventry City Council can't use any counter offer as a starting point discuss the sale of the freehold, or at least move that process on.