cant get over 10pt deduction (9 Viewers)

[Grendel]

I know, but what is the point of being able to reject it if there is no point in doing it?
Otherwise the administrator would just say what the deal is.
The process should have continued.

For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.

The problem is when pipsqueak politicians like the milkman and his eaually ridiculous successor are given the spotlight to make the big decisions their egos cloud their judgement. They see this as some kind of battle and they and us will ultimately pay a very heavy price.

 

---

[blueflint]

So they decided to make things worse?

Gentleman-your response is not one anyone would expect from a cov fan, or football fan actually

Or do ccfc just not mean that much to you?

i think the truth means more than the usual bullshit given by our owners and their followers

 

[sky blue john]

Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts

What did council gain from it?

I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please

After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating

So i take it you don't have an issue with last seasons 10point deduction going into administration ??????
We had a chance of making the play offs then ????

 

[Jack Griffin]

So i take it you don't have an issue with last seasons 10point deduction going into administration ??????
We had a chance of making the play offs then ????

ISTR that an appeal that could have warded of admin till after season end was not made because it became clear that promotion was not on the cards before the season ended. So no.. it wasn't possible to make the play offs.

 

[will am i]

Likliehood is we are gonna miss out on playoffs by less than 10pts

What did council gain from it?

I hate council and sisu so no zealot answers please

After this year we might not have finances to challenge again. So frustrating

Not finding a replacement for Wilson who was injured three weeks ago probably isnt helping. Why wont we have finances to challenge again?

 

[shmmeee]

For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.

The problem is when pipsqueak politicians like the milkman and his eaually ridiculous successor are given the spotlight to make the big decisions their egos cloud their judgement. They see this as some kind of battle and they and us will ultimately pay a very heavy price.

So no actual issues or facts you'd like to raise. Just personal insults? Good to see all is normal.

Do let us know when you start using this site as a football forum instead of some kind of cut price anger management therapy.

 

[wingy]

Not finding a replacement for Wilson who was injured three weeks ago probably isnt helping. Why wont we have finances to challenge again?

As next years player Budget is set to this years Turnover,only way to affect that will be through player sales ,equity Injections or ............return to the RICOH ??

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So they will sell anyone who they can get money for and start again next season and hope they find a few more gems in the academy.

As next years player Budget is set to this years Turnover,only way to affect that will be through player sales ,equity Injections or ............return to the RICOH ??

 

[blend]

Is it too much to ask that our owners start running the club like a Football Club rather than a bargaining tool in a murky world of who's got the biggest bollox legal bullshit. I don't think so.

 

[Paxman II]

You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.

Target them in what way? What do you want each party to do?

 

[covcity4life]

I wouldn't take to much notice of him,hes still pissed with the council at the lack of cab ranks and the amount of licence's they issue.

Lol more thinly veiled racism.

Not my fault u have a really really bad job

Also once again only sisu haters who CAN'T debate it seems. embarassing

Leave this forim for those who love the team please.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Lol more thinly veiled racism.

Not my fault u have a really really bad job

Also once again only sisu haters who CAN'T debate it seems. embarassing

Leave this forim for those who love the team please.

You're a SISU hater, you said so at the start of this thread.

 

[covcity4life]

You're a SISU hater, you said so at the start of this thread.

Sole sisu haters then

 

[The Gentleman]

You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.

What do you suggest in targeting both sides, Sisu do the right thing and make an acceptable offer for the Ricoh? The Council carry out a valuation and slap a price tag on the Ricoh? What then? How long would all this take with the backwards and forwards that will be done on both sides? Surely a sensible idea just to get the warring parties around the table to start with would ACL/CCC offer the Ricoh rent free and then a really low rent whilst all this is negotiated, wait, hold on a minute...............

 

[Paxman II]

What do you suggest in targeting both sides, Sisu do the right thing and make an acceptable offer for the Ricoh? The Council carry out a valuation and slap a price tag on the Ricoh? What then? How long would all this take with the backwards and forwards that will be done on both sides? Surely a sensible idea just to get the warring parties around the table to start with would ACL/CCC offer the Ricoh rent free and then a really low rent whilst all this is negotiated, wait, hold on a minute...............

These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.

Otium have accepted the offer was made via the Football League. There is a Q&A on the Sky Blue Trust website (can't post the link at present).

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.

Oh please not this again... defending the indefensible..... an offer was made, all that was missing was the will to listen..come on Pax stop hiding behind legal technicalities.. its bullshit with only one very clear agenda.

 

[James Smith]

For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.

The problem is when pipsqueak politicians like the milkman and his eaually ridiculous successor are given the spotlight to make the big decisions their egos cloud their judgement. They see this as some kind of battle and they and us will ultimately pay a very heavy price.

No the Higgs Centre accepted the CVA, the charity are only shareholders in ACL and couldn't reject or accept it.

 

[Grendel]

No the Higgs Centre accepted the CVA, the charity are only shareholders in ACL and couldn't reject or accept it.

That is interesting as I am sure on a prior post you said they agreed it due to their charitable status. Why then do you think they agreed it?

 

[James Smith]

That is interesting as I am sure on a prior post you said they agreed it due to their charitable status. Why then do you think they agreed it?

You really should check your facts before posting. The Centre and the Charity are two different legal entities, as I understand it. At the creditors meeting the Centre were the ones that accepted thanks to their charitable status making not doing so difficult, ACL were the ones who rejected.

 

[Grendel]

You really should check your facts before posting. The Centre and the Charity are two different legal entities, as I understand it. At the creditors meeting the Centre were the ones that accepted thanks to their charitable status making not doing so difficult, ACL were the ones who rejected.

Er that was my point, they accepted it due to the charitable status - the same principal adopted by The Revenue for rejecting it.

 

[James Smith]

Er that was my point, they accepted it due to the charitable status - the same principal adopted by The Revenue for rejecting it.

What you posted was this

For the same reason the Higgs charity accepted the CVA - out of protocol.

That isn't correct though - the Higgs Charity didn't accept the CVA, they couldn't reject it either as they weren't a creditor. The Higgs Centre on the other hand did accept it and did so because of their charitable status making it difficult to reject.
Or have I got something wrong Grendle?

 

[rondog1973]

These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.

The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.

Therefore, with the two warring parties supposedly unwilling to talk, does it not make sense that the offer was made via the Football League?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.

Therefore, with the two warring parties supposedly unwilling to talk, does it not make sense that the offer was made via the Football League?

Surely it would only make sense if the party making the offer believed that the party receiving it might misrepresent it to the wider world

 

[The Prefect]

You can't keep looking at it retrospectively all the time. The council had a choice and they made a decision that cost us 10 points. That inevitably would cause the football club further distress affecting the chances of this campaigns success which if we were promoted, give the council more confidence in the owners. They may as well tied a ball and chain around Pressley's team. SISU's attempts at distressing ACL received a payback it would seem. ACL acted for themselves and did not care about you or I or the football clubs future one bit. We can all despise SISU's tenure but what exactly have the council done to aid the cities football club to return to a stadium that it was meant to occupy? Don't just train your sites solely on SISU. We the fans need to target both sides, each as vehemently as the other.

While I go along with both sides having some level of responsibility for our club's position the reality is the ongoing future of the club lies only in the hands of its owners. Why should the club's landlord be concerned about its future when the club refused to pay its rent? Where is the club's concern about ACL's future? This isn't a two-way situation. We (the fans) can not insist that ACL have an eye on the club's future when the club don't have an eye on theirs.

ACL are the only 'victim' here - when the club refused to pay the rent on a long term lease agreement. The point deductions that followed are consequences of the club's own actions in not paying the rent. No-one to blame but the club's owners however, they continue to blame ACL and CCC for problems of their own making.

It's messy. Whatever the whys and wherefores the club refused to pay its rent having paid it for years before with no problems. The club deserved everything that followed.

It's a shame. The points deductions have blunted a season where there is hope of a play-off place. My thoughts are that we will get fewer points in the second half of the season as oppositions work out how to play our unknown youngsters. Although possible play-off are a long shot and I hope SP gets the boys there. Our only chance is for promotion this year. If we don't do it then a long decline and slow death is on the horizon.

 

[Captain Dart]

And also the academy, responsible for producing these youngsters is in new hands, only time will tell if those hands are as safe as Gregor Rioch's were.

 

[lewys33]

Realistically it has just been 1 unfortunate event in a series of how many?!?!

Paul Appleton played a very good game.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

The Football League 'reluctantly' sanctioned the move to Northampton with one of the preconditions being that every effort was to be made by all parties to bring the club back home.

Therefore, with the two warring parties supposedly unwilling to talk, does it not make sense that the offer was made via the Football League?

I believe the statement to be true, the FL did sanction the move and the handing over of the Golden Share on the basis that talks between both parties were put in place to resolve the issue. I can see where the CCC have acted positively, but can only see where SISU have further acted to distance themselves from any potential solution by making demands they know full well could never be accepted. But this is their plan, they can't afford the RICOH and any situation that emerges to make this clear weakens their hand.
The Football League should now act to remove their support from SISU. They won't however as they are a weak and wilfully incompetent group of total no hopers.

 

[Paxman II]

While I go along with both sides having some level of responsibility for our club's position the reality is the ongoing future of the club lies only in the hands of its owners. Why should the club's landlord be concerned about its future when the club refused to pay its rent? Where is the club's concern about ACL's future? This isn't a two-way situation. We (the fans) can not insist that ACL have an eye on the club's future when the club don't have an eye on theirs.

ACL are the only 'victim' here - when the club refused to pay the rent on a long term lease agreement. The point deductions that followed are consequences of the club's own actions in not paying the rent. No-one to blame but the club's owners however, they continue to blame ACL and CCC for problems of their own making.

It's messy. Whatever the whys and wherefores the club refused to pay its rent having paid it for years before with no problems. The club deserved everything that followed.

It's a shame. The points deductions have blunted a season where there is hope of a play-off place. My thoughts are that we will get fewer points in the second half of the season as oppositions work out how to play our unknown youngsters. Although possible play-off are a long shot and I hope SP gets the boys there. Our only chance is for promotion this year. If we don't do it then a long decline and slow death is on the horizon.

I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.

So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.

SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.

The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.

 

[Astute]

These are the common misconceptions. The 'offer' you talk about has not been made. Prove to me that any such formal offer was made to Otium and I will take it back.

So what happened to taking it back then?

And one question I have asked a few times now has never had a proper answer. If people see the main fault of CCC was charging 1.2m a year rent as was agreed when they pulled our club out of the shite how do you say that SISU are doing the right thing by charging 2.5m a year in mismanagement fees and 1.2m interest whilst bringing down our income to below 0.5m by having us in Northampton and refusing to have talks unless it is about the freehold without any current contracts in place or loans held in place whilst wanting it on the cheap? Would they do another JR if the council were not forbidden by law by doing so?

 

[shmmeee]

I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.

So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.

SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.

The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.

Sorry Paxman, that history is very biased.

The club and council were in a joint venture. Both stood to profit from the deal and both would have had McGinnity not thrown the balance of power away.

Remember that both sides have veto over the other. It was set up so that neither would unduly profit.

To paint it as "sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves." is either extremely naive or intentionally misleading.

The council owned the land, the freehold would always lay with them even if CCFC had build the ground. The council provided the land they needed because it was mutually beneficial. The only people that have reaped the rewards are CCFC with a world class stadium and the City of Coventry for it's economic benefits. The idea that keeps getting floated on here that the Ricoh is providing cash for some other purpose such as tax cuts or saving services is simply wrong.

I know a lot of people are bringing in personal issues with politics here, but can we please realise that this is about our club, not which colour team you support in the polls or whether you think local government is a good thing.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.

So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.

SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.

The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.

Good post Paxman. I think you make some very good points. The Summary that the Football club should own the arena, is something I very much support. This has to be conditioned by some form of covenant that prevents the owner, whoever that is (SISU or any other) separating the Club and the RICOH. If such a covenant could be established, then I would support the Sale of the RICOH & ACL on commercial term.

The big black cloud covering all of this is that I believe that the principle reason for SISU not finding a commercial solution is that they simply do not have the access to the necessary funding. And that conditions and contributes to the deplorable behaviour to date.

 

[The Gentleman]

I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.

So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.

SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.

The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.

All very well, but leaving Sisu out of it for a moment, what exactly do you want the Council to do? what can they do? bearing in mind they have to get the best deal possible and not let it go for peanuts. As has been said before, whether Sisu own the Ricoh or build a new stadium, it will not be CCFC's and we will still be paying rent, we don't know what that is likely to be as Tim Fisher dodged the question when he was asked which in itself worries me because as everyone is this mess likes to score points then Sisu could have made strides by saying rent will be X (a very low figure) and thereby gaining support because of the previous rent deal we had.

 

[Paxman II]

Sorry Paxman, that history is very biased.

The club and council were in a joint venture. Both stood to profit from the deal and both would have had McGinnity not thrown the balance of power away.

Remember that both sides have veto over the other. It was set up so that neither would unduly profit.

To paint it as "sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves." is either extremely naive or intentionally misleading.

The council owned the land, the freehold would always lay with them even if CCFC had build the ground. The council provided the land they needed because it was mutually beneficial. The only people that have reaped the rewards are CCFC with a world class stadium and the City of Coventry for it's economic benefits. The idea that keeps getting floated on here that the Ricoh is providing cash for some other purpose such as tax cuts or saving services is simply wrong.

I know a lot of people are bringing in personal issues with politics here, but can we please realise that this is about our club, not which colour team you support in the polls or whether you think local government is a good thing.

So you are saying the council had every right to own the freehold to the stadium?