Bad news for City fans (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
What is the statement anyway?
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Torch the summary is the fa saying nothing to do with us. The football league have rules and we can't make them help you
 
Senior Vick from Alicante

Senior Vick from Alicante

Well-Known Member
Wonder what would happen if a group got together and threatened legal action against the FA or FL for letting a business take a club away from a community. Wonder if it would be possible to do?
 
C

Chipfat

Well-Known Member
Basically the FA would prefer a shit run club than no club at all, which has been told is the alternative...They have been told a stadium will be built, Coventry area is the location and because funding of the club is to carry on CCFC is no problem....

The one thing said by the FA which was negative about the situation was a falling gates, now imagine a few games with no fans at all, not only a football story but a way if done the FA would have to step in..Also i'm not one to slag off anyone who goes and thought as its not effecting Sisu makes no odds, but maybe it does... So if it could be arranged for 1 half or 1 game to test the reaction maybe its the way to get us back to where we belong..
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Of course. They could then release a statement saying "it's a concern that no one is turned up at Sixfields, but we cannot interfere...", etc etc

diggerdaley said:
They are concerned about the attendance figures,perhaps a total boycott would concern them. :thinking about:
Click to expand...
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
Of course. They could then release a statement saying "it's a concern that no one is turned up at Sixfields, but we cannot interfere...", etc etc
Click to expand...

'It's up to the Midland Alliance, who have strict rules in place on these matters, to administer this issue.'
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
'It's up to the Midland Alliance, who have strict rules in place on these matters, to administer this issue.'
Click to expand...

For a minute there I thought you were taking about the Phoenix club...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
JohnWH

JohnWH

Well-Known Member
Pretty lousy cop-out to pass the blame. It might be best to go ahead and roll over. NOT.
Find a phone book, obtain any and all phone numbers for the Football League. Directors, communications, advertising dept, accountants, public relations, media contracts, cafeteria, mail room, utilities maintenance, EVERY SINGLE PHONE LINE THE FL HAS AVAILABLE... And then start calling.... Politely inquire what the FL can do for CCFC. After a few thousand phone calls to EVERYBODY in the organization, tying up their phone lines on a round-the-clock basis, frustrating everyday operations, surely they will call some sort of emergency meeting to "assuage CCFC fans concerns."
Just remember, be polite and no verbal abuse! Smile! Smile, and dial!
 
A

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
It's pathetic really.

It's organisations such as the fa and the fl that give sisu/Otium/whoever the ammo to do what the fuck they like.
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert said:
I'd disagree with that. The FA has never publicly admitted that, frankly, it doesn't seem to care all that much about what's going on with CCFC.

Maybe the reaction they get from supporters to that statement could help sway that stance. Then again, it might not.

Either way I thought you deserved an answer to some of the many questions that remain unanswered by the football authorities. Unfortunately, this is all they are willing to say at this stage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think my lottery numbers have more chance tomorrow night. Thanks for the update though.
 
B

Buster

Well-Known Member
The target of action now must be the FL . If they can't manage the balls to step in ,they will have to decide what happens to us after the JR and SISU drop us because they can't have the Ricoh for peanuts. The FL were complicit in the decision to take our club away from us so they ,as the custodians of the game, are partly responsible and unlike SISU they ultimately are answerable to the supporters.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
All quite simple. The FA are willing to tackle Hull City's owner in court if necessary - he hasn't anything like the skilled, experienced legal budget or team behind him that SISU has so they feel on safer ground taking a stand against him.


PUSB
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Our 'temporary' groundshare and Hulls proposed 'rebranding' are 2 completely different issues.

Still not sure what the fl or the fa were supposed to do, short of saying no groundshare and telling the club they have to pay whatever ACL want or no golden share.
 
B

Buster

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Our 'temporary' groundshare and Hulls proposed 'rebranding' are 2 completely different issues.

Still not sure what the fl or the fa were supposed to do, short of saying no groundshare and telling the club they have to pay whatever ACL want or no golden share.
Click to expand...
They could try telling them to stick to the contract/agreement they signed when they took control of the club
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Our 'temporary' groundshare and Hulls proposed 'rebranding' are 2 completely different issues.

Still not sure what the fl or the fa were supposed to do, short of saying no groundshare and telling the club they have to pay whatever ACL want or no golden share.
Click to expand...

Had the League told the club that it was play in Coventry or face expulsion, they would very quickly have seen sense. They showed no qualms at all about interfering with Portsmouth's case to make sure that the previous owners, of which there were several, got no chance of regaining control.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Had the League told the club that it was play in Coventry or face expulsion, they would very quickly have seen sense. They showed no qualms at all about interfering with Portsmouth's case to make sure that the previous owners, of which there were several, got no chance of regaining control.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but to do that would've given ACL carte blanche to charge what they want because the club have to agree it or be expelled...unless they also have the power to make ACL offer league one average rent.

(Yes I know they did in the end but that was mainly due to the threat of being able to leave, without that there would never have had to offer lower deals, it would be put up or go)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
They didn't choose that. At the time from their perspective it was thought to be their best option as a business.


PUSB
Click to expand...

Hadn't turned out to be other than the 'moral' high ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
That's all well and good but to do that would've given ACL carte blanche to charge what they want because the club have to agree it or be expelled...unless they also have the power to make ACL offer league one average rent.

(Yes I know they did in the end but that was mainly due to the threat of being able to leave, without that there would never have had to offer lower deals, it would be put up or go)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

ACL's final offers to the club weren't much higher than what we're paying at Northampton and arguably Northampton will have jacked up the price knowing we were apparently so desperate not to play in Coventry. It's a feeble excuse on the League's part when they have made big efforts for other sides.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
ACL's final offers to the club weren't much higher than what we're paying at Northampton and arguably Northampton will have jacked up the price knowing we were apparently so desperate not to play in Coventry. It's a feeble excuse on the League's part when they have made big efforts for other sides.
Click to expand...

ACL's final offer was made on condition of dropping the JR, the subsequent offers have happened since the ground share was approved. If the FA had of refused the ground share, and said Ricoh or nothing then 'supply vs demand' would mean that ACL could charge whatever they want because it's accept it or being kicked out the league.

I still think their would have been a possibility of us being at the Ricoh had ACL accepted the CVA then offered the cheap rent deal, rather than use the CVA to try and get the club to sign a 10 year deal and drop the JR. Not to mention ACL seemingly back a potential hostile takeover off ccfc by backing ph4.

Our scenario is much more complex than the Hull scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
The once that ceased to exist once ACL chose to liquidate CCFC Ltd....
Click to expand...

Hardly true that Is It. After all that's that part everyone thought was the Club until a certain point in 2012 when assetts were shifted .That would be the reason for LTD and Holdings being Liquidated and books being buried .

But they're not yet are they?
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
The once that ceased to exist once ACL chose to liquidate CCFC Ltd....
Click to expand...

That's a statement that's a complete fabrication of the truth, a lie almost.

Mr Appleton liquidated the club. Acl merely found the terms of the CVA he proposed to be unacceptable. Appleton then took it upon himself to liquidate our 130 year old club.

Acl rejecting the CVA did not require the club to be liquidated.
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top