Joy's Programme Message - Preview (3 Viewers)

[stupot07]

They wanted the process revisited, hence their approaches to the FL, etc. Or a situation whereby their proposed side deal could be entered into; so at least one outcome gave rise to them having at least something their directors could run with.

The fact that neither transpired isn't to question the motivation; but hindsight is a fine tool with which to look wise. If you're that desperate to appear so

It was never going to happen. Most people said this when they rejected the CVA.


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

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

ACL's obligations were to their shareholders to recover the maximum amount of monies owed. The amount of money they would receive was the same whether they rejected or accepted the CVA? So again - where is their benefit?

The only benefit ACL could have got with the process being revisited would be if they wished to acquire the company. So was that their intention?

You've answered your own question. They have an obligation to their stakeholders. Which would have been served by the administration process being revisited, or via the side agreement; both of which they tried to secure via their CVA rejection. Subscribe to that, and you're wholly agreeing with me

 

[Ian1779]

You've answered your own question. They have an obligation to their stakeholders. Which would have been served by the administration process being revisited, or via the side agreement; both of which they tried to secure via their CVA rejection. Subscribe to that, and you're wholly agreeing with me

Their only stakeholders were Higgs and CCC. Higgs agreed to it. So given they rejected it we can only assume CCC did not. Revisiting the process would not have benefited any stakeholder unless they were trying to purchase the business themselves, as the settlement amount was the same irrespective of their decision.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It was never going to happen. Most people said this when they rejected the CVA.


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

But 'most people' and their commentary don't have the directors responsibility to their shareholders/stakeholders, do they? It's okay for you to express a view. The directors have a legal prerogative to act in the best interests if their business; even if that goes against the grain of any opinion

 

[stupot07]

But 'most people' and their commentary don't have the directors responsibility to their shareholders/stakeholders, do they? It's okay for you to express a view. The directors have a legal prerogative to act in the best interests if their business; even if that goes against the grain of any opinion

Best interests would have been accepting the CVA then trying to get the club to stay. Rejecting the CVA was like sticking 2 fingers up at the club.

By rejecting the CVA they were always going to make a return to the Ricoh less likely, therefore how can it be in their best interests?

You can bury your head in the sand, and use your condescending words to belittle those like me who don't 100% share your view, it won't change my opinion.


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

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Their only stakeholders were Higgs and CCC. Higgs agreed to it. So given they rejected it we can only assume CCC did not. Revisiting the process would not have benefited any stakeholder unless they were trying to purchase the business themselves, as the settlement amount was the same irrespective of their decision.

Two points. You use the word 'assume'. I need not tell you about that word, should I? Let's wait until the JR and see what cones out and form opinion based in fact, not wild conjecture. To use terms like 'spite' ahead of that time is frankly infantile. Like Grenduffy's glee when reading SISU's edited, redacted bundle for the court case, and seeing it as a factual, complete narrative. It's not.

My second point, is that they could have opposed the process and not wished to buy. Just secured a different view if where assets and liabilities lay, thereafter making subsequent negotiations different. If, fir you example, the Golden Share, players contracts and lease were viewed in the same entity, I suggest we'd still be playing at The Ricoh now

 

[Grendel]

But 'most people' and their commentary don't have the directors responsibility to their shareholders/stakeholders, do they? It's okay for you to express a view. The directors have a legal prerogative to act in the best interests if their business; even if that goes against the grain of any opinion

Where is their any evidence that they wanted any aspects of any process investigated. This is a made up hypothesis.

On this forum Peter informed us ACL would have signed the CVA had two conditions been signed - one has to logically assume these conditions were drop the JR and accept a 10 year rental deal as proposed. There is no evidence whatsoever they wanted the process revisited.

No you don't post in here often anymore. However nothing changes when you do its the same empty rhetoric with no substance. Answer this point - if the signing was conditional on two conditions how does reconcile your belief that they wanted the process investigating.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Best interests would have been accepting the CVA then trying to get the club to stay. Rejecting the CVA was like sticking 2 fingers up at the club.

By rejecting the CVA they were always going to make a return to the Ricoh less likely, therefore how can it be in their best interests?

You can bury your head in the sand, and use your condescending words to belittle those like me who don't 100% share your view, it won't change my opinion.


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

That's a frankly incredible view. You honestly think that accepting the CVA would have given ACL any more leverage in negotiation with a view to getting SISU to stay at the Ricoh; as opposed to trying to secure it when they had the leverage of their position pre-CVA rejection? You really think that?!?

 

[chiefdave]

Every political, economic and sports pundit agrees that Coventry City must own its stadium.

This is a common problem statements coming out of the club / SISU have. They state as fact things pretty much everyone agrees aren't true. There is no need whatsoever for the club to own the stadium, in fact the FL stated at one point that the majority of clubs do not own their own stadium. What they need is the revenues and we all know they can be accessed without stadium ownership. As soon as you see such obvious flaws in the piece you start to question the accuracy of everything else stated.

Whether because of ideology, ignorance, ambition or politics, the refusal to complete the restructure based on heads of agreement we signed in 2012 and the subsequent rejection of the CVA, forced the club to leave the stadium and start the season on minus ten points, testing the mettle of supporters, investors, players and managers to the limit.

Rejecting the CVA was vindictive and in the end has achieved ACL nothing.

He's right though - what did ACL 'achieve' by rejecting the CVA? How did it benefit CCFC, or the City of Coventry?

So how come the Higgs side of ACL wanted to accept but the council side wanted to reject the CVA? Surely if they were unhappy with the process there would have been unanimity?

Again an glaring inaccuracy, the judge in the recent trial stated, to paraphrase, SISU (and all other parties) had no appetite to conclude the deal yet in Sepalla's version of events it is the fault of all the other parties and not SISU that a deal was not done.

As for the CVA we've been here before. The reason Higgs Trust accepted and ACL rejected is that one is a charity and one is a private business. There are precodures to follow when responding to a CVA and they are different for different types of organisation. This does of course raise an interesting point as if you believe ACL rejected the CVA out of spite or for any other reason than follow the correct process then you are effectively accusing them of acting illegally. Does anyone really think that's the case?

Interesting the tone of the article in the cet compared to the higgs one

I think the difference in tone pretty much sums up how we ended up where we are and why it's so hard to move things forward.

 

[Grendel]

That's a frankly incredible view. You honestly think that accepting the CVA would have given ACL any more leverage in negotiation with a view to getting SISU to stay at the Ricoh; as opposed to trying to secure it when they had the leverage of their position pre-CVA rejection? You really think that?!?

They didn't reject it because they wanted the process revisited. Despite the dictionary going into overdrive in attempt to sound intellectual as usual you sound condescending and faintly absurd.

How's Peter doing by the way?

 

[chiefdave]

Where is their any evidence that they wanted any aspects of any process investigated. This is a made up hypothesis.

Equally where is the evidence to support the idea that ACL rejected the CVA for anything other than valid business reasons?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Where is their any evidence that they wanted any aspects of any process investigated. This is a made up hypothesis.

This statement from August 2013 any good for you?

Ricoh Arena landlord ACL today launched a bitter attack on Sky Blues owners Sisu and the Football League.

The lengthy statement read: "The Board of Arena Coventry Limited is extremely disappointed by the Football League's decision yesterday evening relating to Coventry City Football Club.

"There are many more questions to be asked now of both the Joint Administrator Paul Appleton and Football League itself.

“That both these parties appear to have been complicit in allowing a company which has refused to pay its debts and fallen into administration, to then buy itself back with little or no consequence, beggars belief.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

They didn't reject it because they wanted the process revisited. Despite the dictionary going into overdrive in attempt to sound intellectual as usual you sound condescending and faintly absurd.

How's Peter doing by the way?

I can ditch the dictionary and point you to the above. I think that quite clearly shows how ACL viewed the process, Appleton, and the movement of assets. Hence they wouldn't sanctify with agreeing to the CVA. Not hypothesis now, is it?

 

[James Smith]

Owner Joy Seppala has spoken.

"Every political, economic and sports pundit agrees that Coventry City must own its stadium.

So hurry up and build it already, give us a sign that you're serious. We're obviously not going back to the Ricoh so we need to get on with this. We don't want the exclusivity period on these sites to run out.

Owner Joy Seppala has spoken. The club must benefit from every element of revenue generated and that money we must be used to fund the team – from the Academy to the first team.

That would be the Academy the board considered during your custodianship of CCFC closing to save money? The Academy that having not paid the lawnmower repair costs and 'confusion' over who the agreement was with, couldn't train at the only Cat 2 facilities in the area.

Owner Joy Seppala has spoken. "We are moving forward with plans to build a stadium.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All evidence - or rather lack of - to the contrary.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Their only stakeholders were Higgs and CCC. Higgs agreed to it. So given they rejected it we can only assume CCC did not. Revisiting the process would not have benefited any stakeholder unless they were trying to purchase the business themselves, as the settlement amount was the same irrespective of their decision.

Actually it was the Alan Higgs Centre Trust that agreed to the CVA which is a separate entity from the AEH Charity which had no vote in the CVA process. The Charity was not a creditor and therefore had no vote on the CVA.

The Charity had two directors on the ACL board of 5, we have not been told whether the decision to reject the CVA was unanimous or not

If you follow the legal process that led to the administration from its inception along its linked path then it is possible to see why they had concerns. Was the process illegal ? I see no evidence or proper argument that it was, the legal process was used properly as far as i know and to its fullest extent. Was that process morally correct ? well everyone has their own opinion on that

Should the ACL directors have taken the concerns of CCFC and the City in to account possibly, certainly the fans would have wanted them to- I would have felt far happier with 10 more points right now thats for sure - but their primary duty is to ACL. They made their decision and you have to assume are comfortable with it and the reasons for it. As i understand it their advice was that the process was flawed so thats why they rejected it. I do wonder what the vote might have been had there been no right to receive the £590k any way but it may well have been the same result and was that even apparent when the decision was made.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

We shouldn't forget that ACL weren't the only entity to reject the CVA..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ian1779]

Two points. You use the word 'assume'. I need not tell you about that word, should I? Let's wait until the JR and see what cones out and form opinion based in fact, not wild conjecture. To use terms like 'spite' ahead of that time is frankly infantile. Like Grenduffy's glee when reading SISU's edited, redacted bundle for the court case, and seeing it as a factual, complete narrative. It's not.

My second point, is that they could have opposed the process and not wished to buy. Just secured a different view if where assets and liabilities lay, thereafter making subsequent negotiations different. If, fir you example, the Golden Share, players contracts and lease were viewed in the same entity, I suggest we'd still be playing at The Ricoh now

Firstly there would be no other set of circumstances them at could have occurred. If Higgs directors accepted it, and overall ACL rejected it, then it can only have been that CCC rejected it.

Secondly, the only transaction between CCFC and ACL was the rental deal. Admin was sought to recover the unpaid monies. Upon admin taking place, ACL knew the money they would get back would he less than the actual rental debt. So it comes to pass that ACL would receive the same monies irrespective of accepting or rejecting CVA, there was no benefit to them commercially for asking for the process to be revisited. Additionally rejection of the CVA leads to liquidation. So how would that get the process revisited.

Surely only the court could reopen the admin process, and only if something illegal had occurred. But it appears there is oh proof ( so far) so ACL were basically pissing in the wind.

 

[Grendel]

This statement from August 2013 any good for you?

Ricoh Arena landlord ACL today launched a bitter attack on Sky Blues owners Sisu and the Football League.

The lengthy statement read: "The Board of Arena Coventry Limited is extremely disappointed by the Football League's decision yesterday evening relating to Coventry City Football Club.

"There are many more questions to be asked now of both the Joint Administrator Paul Appleton and Football League itself.

“That both these parties appear to have been complicit in allowing a company which has refused to pay its debts and fallen into administration, to then buy itself back with little or no consequence, beggars belief.

So a quote about their unhappiness with the process. So unhappy they then offered an alternate rent deal in the process. Nice to see nothing changes. A quote that proved nothing.

So are you seriously telling me if the club had accepted the rent deal the CVA would have been rejected? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

 

[Evans1883]

honestly , just go away already joy , we have exhausted all our thoughts and opinions on sisu and mr fisher etc , this whole sharade is just boring and is destroying the heart and sole of this football club ,the fanbase .
They have no interest in the future of coventry city ,its fans or the city itself , they merely want a quick profit before they run.
thing is once this club is plying its trade in the skrill premier , we will be about as attractive to buy as a used pair of vannessa felts underpants

 

[simple_simon]

As a football club and as owners they/ we are a laughing stock.
They even spelt our name wrong on today's programme, they just do not care.

 

[blend]

It has to be said I don't want bullshit from Joy Seppala, I want facts, Who are Sisu's investors? What's there long term aim for the Club? How do they intend to repair damages? Will they sell up and move on? Who are the people in behind the mist of Sisu?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unlucky Robbo, not much in the way of facts in this article just more spin based upon the owners end game it would seem.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So a quote about their unhappiness with the process. So unhappy they then offered an alternate rent deal in the process. Nice to see nothing changes. A quote that proved nothing.

So are you seriously telling me if the club had accepted the rent deal the CVA would have been rejected? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

And you accuse me if being condescending? I would love to stay all day and chat, but the weight if intellectual proof has already marginalised you so much, that you're doing what you always do - shift the debate to endless what ifs. Why don't you do what I'm doing; wait until there's evidence there and then take a view upon, or discuss that when it's out there for us to comment upon?

 

[blend]

They didn't reject it because they wanted the process revisited. Despite the dictionary going into overdrive in attempt to sound intellectual as usual you sound condescending and faintly absurd.

How's Peter doing by the way?

How is that mystery fella doing that you once met with 'connections' to the club that you keep quoting because he told you his opinion about the council?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Unlucky Robbo, not much in the way of facts in this article just more spin based upon the owners end game it would seem.

Unfortunately I didn't expect any, however it doesn't pose any new questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Firstly there would be no other set of circumstances them at could have occurred. If Higgs directors accepted it, and overall ACL rejected it, then it can only have been that CCC rejected it.

Secondly, the only transaction between CCFC and ACL was the rental deal. Admin was sought to recover the unpaid monies. Upon admin taking place, ACL knew the money they would get back would he less than the actual rental debt. So it comes to pass that ACL would receive the same monies irrespective of accepting or rejecting CVA, there was no benefit to them commercially for asking for the process to be revisited. Additionally rejection of the CVA leads to liquidation. So how would that get the process revisited.

Surely only the court could reopen the admin process, and only if something illegal had occurred. But it appears there is oh proof ( so far) so ACL were basically pissing in the wind.

I think OSB58 deals with your first point in his post of a moment ago.

And I think you are misreading the ambition of the administration process from ACL's perspective. Yes, it was about unpaid funds; but their prime concern was to get a candid view taken on the legality on the movement of assets that left them contracting with nothing but a shell company. That was their security moving forward, which is worth many more times than the unpaid value you are concentrating upon. Moreover, rejecting the CVA does not lead to liquidation. This is an oft quoted fallacy.

I don't disagree totally with your last paragraph, but ACL's view/hope was that the movement of assets, ambiguity with regard the location of the Golden Share, etc would be proven as illegal. The fact it wasn't, didn't stop ACL taking a view it could be proven, and if it was proven, the outcome would be totally different. And it's okay to say they're pissing in the wind, but that's using hindsight to scoff at their motivation; without thinking through their ambition

 

[Hobo]

The CET has fittingly used an artists impression of a toilet seat for Joy's statement which is as bland as her grand design and absurd plan for future prosperity.

 

[blend]

Apart from the piece, and I quote "If I had known then what I know now, we would certainly have done things differently. Sadly, everything always looks clear with the benefit of hindsight. I say this by way of explanation not excuse. I cannot change the past, but players, management, supporters and investors can shape the future. I take my share of the responsibility for where we are"

Yeah she's monumentally cocked up, yeah they're pretty crap owners, but lets not say she blames everyone else when she says 'I take my share of responsibility for where we are'.

Pretty accurate statement if you ask me.

Yeah but equally......
"Ms Seppala also seemed to blame others for a deal, which could have seen the club secure a share in Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL, falling apart in 2012. However, a High Court judge recently ruled negotiations between the football club and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity had fallen apart because neither side had the appetite to complete a deal."

Quoted from CET article

 

[Ian1779]

The CET article is party their opinion aswell remember before the direct quote from JS

 

[chiefdave]

The CET article is party their opinion aswell remember before the direct quote from JS

The part blend is referring to is not really opinion, more a factual statement. What Sepalla has written clearly points the blame elsewhere as opposed to the judge who stated all sides, including SISU, had no appetite to complete the deal. if you look at what Sepalla has written she is saying that they would have completed the deal but for the other parties, which is contradictory to what was stated by the judge.

I guess in the instance you have to choose if you believe a high court judge or Sepalla.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

The part blend is referring to is not really opinion, more a factual statement. What Sepalla has written clearly points the blame elsewhere as opposed to the judge who stated all sides, including SISU, had no appetite to complete the deal. if you look at what Sepalla has written she is saying that they would have completed the deal but for the other parties, which is contradictory to what was stated by the judge.

I guess in the instance you have to choose if you believe a high court judge or Sepalla.

If I remember righty ACL wouldn't speak to Sisu directly at the time, ACL wanted to speak to Paul Appleton..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chiefdave]

If I remember righty ACL wouldn't speak to Sisu directly at the time, ACL wanted to speak to Paul Appleton.

The HOT exclusivity period expired July 2012 after which Judge Leggatt stated that all sides had no appetite for the deal, the administration process didn't start until March 2013.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

The HOT exclusivity period expired July 2012 after which Judge Leggatt stated that all sides had no appetite for the deal, the administration process didn't start until March 2013.

Apologies I thought you were talking about the negotiations during Admin..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

So what is the restructured HOT's Joy refers to. What is that deal exactly and why is she not pushing to renegotiate it if it is such a shame it was not sorted?

 

[dongonzalos]

The part blend is referring to is not really opinion, more a factual statement. What Sepalla has written clearly points the blame elsewhere as opposed to the judge who stated all sides, including SISU, had no appetite to complete the deal. if you look at what Sepalla has written she is saying that they would have completed the deal but for the other parties, which is contradictory to what was stated by the judge.

I guess in the instance you have to choose if you believe a high court judge or Sepalla.

People have been left with that choice in the past as well haven't they .....