Private Eye Todays Issue (16 Viewers)

[sky blue john]

Anyone know why ccfc holdings/ltd has not been liquidated yet ?
Has CCFC option on the Higgs share of Acl ended ?
Or only ends when holdings/ ltd is liquidated ?

 

---

[shmmeee]

Yawn. More insults. Still failing to address any points raised.

I notice that despite several requests in this thread for clarification so that I can understand the points made, none are forthcoming.

I'm guess then that you either don't understand the points you're making yourself (considering your spelling and grammar, G, I'd guess that's the case) or that you don't actually have any points at all.

What are you so scared of? Why won't you defend your statements?


In fact, if it wasn't for your spelling Grendel, I'd assume you were him. However I assume that even local journalists need GCSE level English.

 

[Grendel]

Anyone know why ccfc holdings/ltd has not been liquidated yet ?
Has CCFC option on the Higgs share of Acl ended ?
Or only ends when holdings/ ltd is liquidated ?

Perhaps one of the parties is delaying liquidation by some means.

 

[sky blue john]

Perhaps one of the parties is delaying liquidation by some means.

Which ?
Acl to prevent the lease being broken ?
Sisu to stop the Higgs selling to someone else ?

 

[The Gentleman]

You sound ridiculously gullible and naive. The council don't want the football club and have never tried to offer any assistance whatsoever.

Before you start bleating about rent free deals and £100,000 deals why don't you get some clarification from PWKH about matchday costs and was there a sizeable increase in these costs in these new deals. If that was the case perhaps you can then ask why and why they were called matchday costs and who made the decision to call them such.

Didn't they help out to finish the stadium so we would not have to be playing at the Memorial park?

 

[shmmeee]

Didn't they help out to finish the stadium so we would not have to be playing at the Memorial park?

NO! The council, made up almost entirely of CCFC fans, wants to destroy the club that their friends and family love and that provides huge economic benefit to the city because....because... BECAUSE....

JUST BECAUSE ALRIGHT!

 

[The Gentleman]

You can only base your opinion on the facts you know so far as presented in the skeleton argument. It is you who is assuming that there is evidence on the other side that refutes those facts.

Your assumption is that the council cannot possibly be complete bastards determined to stitch the club up, but that SISU are complete bastards out to stitch everybody up.

Hi mate, passed on your regards as asked last week. Ended up as a typical Irish wedding too!

What do you think will happen if CCC are found to be in the wrong and lose the JR? Because by what you are saying it reads like you are not assuming that CCC have any evidence after what has come to light recently.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Talking about HoT. Can someone slot this event in on the timeline of what we know since the court case?

http://www.ricoharena.com/news/acl-statement-february/

From Feb 2013

Funny how Ian's detailed searches failed to turn up evidence that might show up Tim Fisher & other CCFC directors in a less than favourable light.

 

[shmmeee]

Funny how Ian's detailed searches failed to turn up evidence that might show up Tim Fisher & other CCFC directors in a less than favourable light.

He seems a nice enough guy, like RobS, you gotta take him at his word.

 

[skybluetony176]

Perhaps one of the parties is delaying liquidation by some means.

Can one of the parties delay it just because they say they dont agree or would they have to actually provide factual evidence of why it should be delayed (presumably for further investigations to be carried out) to make this happen?

 

[Grendel]

Yawn. More insults. Still failing to address any points raised.

I notice that despite several requests in this thread for clarification so that I can understand the points made, none are forthcoming.

I'm guess then that you either don't understand the points you're making yourself (considering your spelling and grammar, G, I'd guess that's the case) or that you don't actually have any points at all.

What are you so scared of? Why won't you defend your statements?


In fact, if it wasn't for your spelling Grendel, I'd assume you were him. However I assume that even local journalists need GCSE level English.

How amusing. Sadly Schmeee my English qualifications are significantly above GCSE and I am not auto correcting my phone just to support you state education standards.

So as les Reid attacks your chums in The Party he is not fit for purpose. When you say "normal" fans who are they? Those like the lookout, jack, James who never seem to show any interest in the actual club at all.

You are imbedded in labour council culture and dogma and are incapable of freeing yourself from these shackles.

Your comment regarding being scared of defending statements is bewildering. I think you may need to book a vacation after the JR - you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

 

[shmmeee]

How amusing. Sadly Schmeee my English qualifications are significantly above GCSE and I am not auto correcting my phone just to support you state education standards.

So as les Reid attacks your chums in The Party he is not fit for purpose. When you say "normal" fans who are they? Those like the lookout, jack, James who never seem to show any interest in the actual club at all.

You are imbedded in labour council culture and dogma and are incapable of freeing yourself from these shackles.

Your comment regarding being scared of defending statements is bewildering. I think you may need to book a vacation after the JR - you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Again. No answers, just insults. This is too easy.

Look on Twitter for evidence of Reid's insults, or the comments section of blogs at the time. He's just like you, never addresses the point made, instead goes off on some tangent.

Part of my job is to teach how to judge the reliability of a source, including their links, their previous history and their angle. Reid fails that test on every level. But I notice that you STILL haven't answered my question of "What specifically has Simon not told us?". Or was that another baseless insult.

And you have some information about the JR do you? Great, do share.

Oh, and the spelling and grammar thing is nothing autocorrect would do. Nice try though.

 

[mrtrench]

The only person I know who would be so complimentary about Reid is Reid. I suspect he has a new job chez Lord Gnome.

 

[duffer]

Oh dear, hit a nerve today - your argument is collapsing, you sound really bizarre continuing to defend the councils actions when all the evidence is now pointing to something far more complex.

What evidence, precisely?

 

[chiefdave]

The council don't want the football club and have never tried to offer any assistance whatsoever.

Wasn't it the council who completed the Ricoh project when the club made a total pigs ear of it? Of course you can make an argument that the council could do more to assist the football club but to say they have never tried to offer any assistance whatsoever is stretching the truth somewhat isn't it?

Les Reid is an established journalist who writes for the guardian amongst other journals.

Is that where he's gone off to, explains why he's not at the CT anymore. Was aware that he had done some freelance reporting for them several years ago but wasn't aware he was back in the fold there. Wonder if we will see any CCFC related pieces appear in the Guardian in the near future.

 

[shmmeee]

What evidence, precisely?

The secret evidence they all know but we don't. The evidence that will all come out at the JR that they can't talk about.

AKA the imaginary evidence.

 

[shmmeee]

Is that where he's gone off to, explains why he's not at the CT anymore. Was aware that he had done some freelance reporting for them several years ago but wasn't aware he was back in the fold there. Wonder if we will see any CCFC related pieces appear in the Guardian in the near future.

He's not "at" the Guardian any more than David Cameron is. They take pieces from all over the place.

 

[mrtrench]

To misquote Shakespeare:

"I know Les to be an excellent reporter - marry he told me so himself and he said he cared not who knew it."​

 

[sky blue john]

I'm expecting the JR to be a bit of a damp squib !!
I expect that out of the 5000 pages that have been submitted by Sisu 4998 are probably irelevent he said she said.
The only thing that the judge will be interested in is ascertaining if the 14 million was illegally funded, end of.
Is he likely to be interested in Sisu's and the councils squabbles ?
I think not !!

 

[Houdi]

I think that does sum up two of the key factors. That will be what the JR will tell us. But at some point negotiations did occur - and some kind of deal was agreed - even if only provisionally. That's not one sides version of events.

Even if you accept all or most of what you are saying in your interpretation of events and what was said/produced at the recent court case, the question still remains, so what?. Millions of deals are done every day, and millions more aren't, whether in business or personal life. Deals can breakdown for a multitude of reasons, and if a seller wishes to change their mind then that is there prerogative. For a deal to be done you need a willing seller as well as a willing buyer. If the Higgs Charity no longer wanted to do a deal with SISU for whatever reason, then that is their right.

 

[Grendel]

Les Reid is a hack

He's not "at" the Guardian any more than David Cameron is. They take pieces from all over the place.

So when you research a point and you describe someone as a hack - is that a term for an award winning journalist? Or is Les Reid not an award winning journalist? Are there two Les Reids?

You are in overdrive today Schmeee. Are the paymasters at Town Hall getting a bit stressed? Never mind - it will be over soon and then you can get back to the day job.

 

[Grendel]

I'm expecting the JR to be a bit of a damp squib !!
I expect that out of the 5000 pages that have been submitted by Sisu 4998 are probably irelevent he said she said.
The only thing that the judge will be interested in is ascertaining if the 14 million was illegally funded, end of.
Is he likely to be interested in Sisu's and the councils squabbles ?
I think not !!

The arguments will be lengthy as many aspects will need to be considered;

Were the parties all complicit in the rent strike and agreed the non payment for example as only on issue. If that can be proved it alone will mean a very long haul

 

[sky blue john]

The arguments will be lengthy as many aspects will need to be considered;

Were the parties all complicit in the rent strike and agreed the non payment for example as only on issue. If that can be proved it alone will mean a very long haul

The rent strike is irrelevent to whether funding for the loan was acquired illegally/unlawfully by the council ?

 

[chiefdave]

Were the parties all complicit in the rent strike and agreed the non payment for example as only on issue. If that can be proved it alone will mean a very long haul

If all parties were complicit could we see some action taken by YB? Labovich has said more than once two organisations can't work together against another (or words to that effect) as it is illegal. Of course he was referring to ACL, Higgs and CCC working against SISU but if he is correct and it is illegal wouldn't ACL, Higgs, CCC and SISU conspiring to make it appear ACL were distressed to enable to the loan to be purchased at far below its true value also be illegal?

 

[njdlawyer]

In common with the vast majority of fans I have always been in the anti-SISU camp, blaming them almost entirely for the current dire fate of the club I have supported and followed for 40 years.

I have also been a reader of and subscriber to Private Eye through most of my adult life and I have an almost complete faith and trust in the accuracy of what they report. It is probably the only outlet in any media that really shines a light on the workings and (mis)management of those who have money, power and the ability to manipulate the truth. So as of yesterday I find my hitherto concrete beliefs about this whole sorry saga starting to change

It seems to me that if the PE article has any truth in it at all then I, in common with most fans have been misled and manipulated into accepting a version of events that was, at best, distorted

It doesn't change the fact that SISU have behaved appallingly and continue to engage in acts of corporate bullying


It doesn't change the fact that SISU have lied repeatedly (new stadium etc etc)


And it doesn't change the fact that Fisher is a smarmy ****


But I think that even the most rabid anti-SISU-ite will have to concede that in all probability they have been wrong

 

[shmmeee]

The rent strike is irrelevent to whether funding for the loan was acquired illegally/unlawfully by the council ?

No it's not. Sisu's argument is that ACL wasn't under threat because ACL agreed to the rent strike.

Well actually it's not even that, it's that one of ACL's board members didn't disagree when someone said a rent holiday would help the club.

Calling it a tenuous argument is being generous.

 

[Ian1779]

I'm not disputing that HoT was agreed, or that it obviously failed. But you're piling into the Council here and blaming them for the failure, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm pointing out that that's an opinion based on what you've heard from one side.

As the Higgs case shows, that's a mistake to my mind. Look at the court transcripts if you want to see how SISU's argument was pulled apart, Higgs too for that matter. But if you take SISU's skeleton argument and the 'facts' therein at face value, as it seems you and others are doing for the JR, then you're basing your opinion on incomplete knowledge (imho).

As I've said, if you think there's a clear fact that nails your case (seemingly that the council are complete bastards determined to stitch up the club), then point to it. At the moment the only thing I can see you've mentioned is the HoT. We've already seen in court that they can go wrong through the fault of more than one party.

I'm not trying to completely blame the Council for all of this... What I am proposing is that they took a course of action, and it's not unreasonable for us to know the reasons why. Why did they do the deal with the council for £14m. They knew (and said as much) that it would cause huge tension between parties and affect their working relationship. So what was the rationale? That's what we want to know.

Incidentally I only mentioned the SoF because someone asked where a source may have got some of their information from.

 

[Ian1779]

Funny how Ian's detailed searches failed to turn up evidence that might show up Tim Fisher & other CCFC directors in a less than favourable light.

You don't need me for that.... CET have that covered.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not trying to completely blame the Council for all of this... What I am proposing is that they took a course of action, and it's not unreasonable for us to know the reasons why. Why did they do the deal with the council for £14m. They knew (and said as much) that it would cause huge tension between parties and affect their working relationship. So what was the rationale? That's what we want to know.

Incidentally I only mentioned the SoF because someone asked where a source may have got some of their information from.

Out of interest, what reasons would be acceptable to you? Would a simple lack of trust in Sisu do?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Accountable?? I will ask my mum if she was consulted about 14M of her council tax going on proping up a failed property venture.

Actually before they made that decision I wrote to my councillor putting the view that the council should support the build and get the Arena built.

They had a vote, and the story featured prominently in the Coventry Telegraph at the time.

If I knew then what i know now I would have taken the opposite viewpoint and written to insist that the council do not spend public money or commit to multi-million pound loans debts in order to support an almost insolvent football club.

And they shouldn't be giving away assets to them either, CCFC have to pay a fair price if they want the Ricoh.

 

[AndreasB]

Actually before they made that decision I wrote to my councillor putting the view that the council should support the build and get the Arena built.

They had a vote, and the story featured prominently in the Coventry Telegraph at the time.

If I knew then what i know now I would have taken the opposite viewpoint and written to insist that the council do not spend public money or commit to multi-million pound loans debts in order to support an almost insolvent football club.

And they shouldn't be giving away assets to them either, CCFC have to pay a fair price if they want the Ricoh.

Spoken like a True Citizen.

 

[Ian1779]

Out of interest, what reasons would be acceptable to you? Would a simple lack of trust in Sisu do?

Not really no... Because we are talking about the financial security and long term future of our football club. So that's not good enough in my opinion.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Actually before they made that decision I wrote to my councillor putting the view that the council should support the build and get the Arena built.

They had a vote, and the story featured prominently in the Coventry Telegraph at the time.

If I knew then what i know now I would have taken the opposite viewpoint and written to insist that the council do not spend public money or commit to multi-million pound loans debts in order to support an almost insolvent football club.

And they shouldn't be giving away assets to them either, CCFC have to pay a fair price if they want the Ricoh.

You're talking about an actual investment in infrastructure they made in 2003. Not about the deal they made in 2013 to prop up a struggling company.

 

[fernandopartridge]

No it's not. Sisu's argument is that ACL wasn't under threat because ACL agreed to the rent strike.

Well actually it's not even that, it's that one of ACL's board members didn't disagree when someone said a rent holiday would help the club.

Calling it a tenuous argument is being generous.

You've just lost the JR - i thought the bail out was to protect the asset?

Are you saying it was to protect a company?

 

[Jack Griffin]

You're talking about an actual investment in infrastructure they made in 2003. Not about the deal they made in 2013 to prop up a struggling company.

Yes they raised ~£22M to complete the build and left ACL having to pay it off.

The £14M is what is left to repay from that original loan (more or less).

If they'd never done the 2003 deal then CCC wouldn't be sitting owning a stadium and acting as guarantors to that £14M debt today.

I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.

If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).