Email from FL (14 Viewers)

[Ian1779]

It doesn't help that you have ML spinning practically right up to the week it was due that they would meet their commitment they made to this FL in return for the golden share only for the GR/MM story to conveniently break in a work place canteen days before the payment is due and then we read yesterday that they aren't meeting their commitment as they previously said they would and are indeed challenging it.

Wouldn't it just have been easier if this was completely transparent and laid out on the table by the FL the day the golden share was handed over. Still the FL don't do transparent and they certainly don't show the real fans enough respect be transparent.

Agree it should have been done then. Even so now the FL could just state what the deal was to clear any confusion.

I'm just starting to wonder if it was agreed as a good-will gesture rather than anything contractually agreed or signed on.

 

---

[Rusty Trombone]

Agree it should have been done then. Even so now the FL could just state what the deal was to clear any confusion.

I'm just starting to wonder if it was agreed as a good-will gesture rather than anything contractually agreed or signed on.

Found a bit here...

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp...sisu-appeals-against-judges-rejection-5720009

Extract
The letter from the League’s chief operating officer Andy Williamson, dated August 5, states: “...In order to keep the club alive, the Football League board agreed to offer the Otium Entertainment Group the club’s share in the Football League, providing it accepted various entry conditions, including a commitment that it meet the financial offer made to creditors under the proposed CVA.”

and more here....

http://bobainsworthmp.wordpress.com/2013/10/

Extract
Now they have done it again. In a letter to me on the 5 August 2013, the Football League’s Chief Operating Officer, Andy Williamson explained the entry conditions imposed by the Football League and accepted by Otium Entertainment Group Limited (OEG) as part of the process to transfer the ‘golden share’ to OEG. He said:“The Football League Board agreed to offer Otium Entertainment Group the club’s share in the Football League providing it accepted various entry conditions including a commitment that it meet the financial offer made to creditors under the proposed CVA.”
However, when Arena Coventry Limited’s (ACL) representative wrote seeking clarification as to the condition the Football League had imposed on OEG, and when ACL might receive payment, the Football League wrote back to say:
“We are not in a position to disclose the terms of the agreement between The Football League Limited and Otium Entertainment Group Limited and any queries about payment to creditors should be addressed to David Ruben & Partners as Administrators of Coventry City Football Club Limited. They are in possession of the funds arising out of the sale of assets to Otium Entertainment Group Limited.”

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Ha 2-0 come on Grendel you have been out manoeuvred again.
Sorry but that was classic still laughing now:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Why would anyone have the remotest interest if a Cayman Island registered hedge fund paid or not?

 

[dongonzalos]

This is a CCFC forum. Why would anyone have the remotest interest if ACL ae paid or not?

Grendel you did this before

SISU = CCFC so anything SISU do is for the good of CCFC

CCFC moved to Northampton = for good of SISU not good for CCFC.

You got your fingers burnt on that one, but still fail to separate the two.

They manage the money of the unknown people who own our club. They are not our club.

 

[torchomatic]

Why would anyone be interested in a court case between a hedge fund and a local authority? Yet some can't shut up about it and then gang up on anyone who points out the futility of doing it before then coming on another thread and having a go at someone for commenting on something as equally relevant to a CCFC forum. Still I'm sure they got some likes of their minions.

well done. at least you're man enough to admit the behaviour of yourself and astute towards godiva was out of line.

that is what you mean isn't it....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

well done. at least you're man enough to admit the behaviour of yourself and astute towards godiva was out of line.

that is what you mean isn't it....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I stand by what I said. Nearly every post he did was points from the SISU QC which of course was showing in favour of SISU so was biased. When he did a post that was more like what is happening he got a 'like' from me. He even tried to say that SISU won the case against Higgs. The judge even called it a draw. They spent much more than the 29k that they saved. They got more bad publicity. Their counter claim got thrown out straight away. How could that be a win?

We can't take anything as gospel from the QC's of SISU, ACL or CCC. They are all putting their own sides to it. We need to see what judgement is made before we can saywhat is right and wrong from what the QC's have said and not make out that any of them have come out with the full truth like he was saying about the SISU QC.

 

[Tank Top]

Apologies if this is stating information that we all know however i recently emailed the football league due to there lack of support and had a response in which i thought i would share and see what everyone else thoughts are on this. After my rant i asked two questions:

If I'm not mistaken,? a spot on example of "sitting on the fence"

Question 1.
Why did you firstly allow SISU (Otium Entertainment or whatever they are called this week) retake the club from administration and how did they pass a 'fit and proper person' test?


Question 2.
What action are you taking to ensure we return to the city within 3 years that was 'promised'? What are the consequences if this doesn't happen?

Below is the response,

Thank you for your email.
The Football League has responded to a large number of questions in relation to Coventry City and their relocation to Northampton Town since the summer.
At the time we clarified that, in order for Coventry City Football Club to compete in League 1 last season, the Board agreed to transfer the club’s share to Otium under its ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision. This effectively sought to ensure the club continued to operate as a member of The League. Without this there would not be a Coventry City in The Football League.
As a condition Otium had to accept a ten point deduction, due to the fact that the club had been unable to agree a CVA as ordinarily required under The League’s insolvency policy. In terms of stadium relocation, whilst The League has publically urged Otium and ACL to resolve the dispute, The League has no jurisdiction to force any Club (or landlord for that matter) to come to an arrangement over land or rental agreement. With no agreement in place to play at the Ricoh Arena, reluctantly, the Board of Directors approved the application to relocate on a temporary basis only, otherwise with no venue to play at, they would not have been able to fulfil their fixtures, thus would not have been able to operate as a member of The League.
This fully outlines why the relocation to Northampton was sanctioned at the time.
As you will be aware the current situation at Coventry City remains extremely complex. The Board of The Football League has received updates on the matter and the situation continues to be closely monitored, with discussion ongoing regarding progress in returning the Club to the Coventry area.
You will understand that it is not always possible to make every detail of these meetings public, but as with all cases of clubs looking to move grounds, The League will continue to emphasise to the Club that supporters should be kept up to date as often as is practically possible.
The Board has given Coventry City permission to play its matches at Northampton Town for the next three seasons, with no agreement in place regarding the Ricoh Arena. Obviously if an arrangement is reached by the club to return to Coventry at an earlier point then this is desirable for all. The League has previously stated that ideally an agreement can be reached between parties to enable this to happen. This term can be extended for two further periods of 12 months, provided the club can demonstrate sufficient progress towards the building of a new stadium in the Coventry area. Should the club not comply with this timeframe, the matter will be considered by The Football League Board at the relevant time with reference to both the permission to relocate and the membership agreement entered into in August 2013. Expulsion from the League would be a realistic outcome at that stage.
The dispute between Arena Coventry Limited and Coventry City is ultimately one which must be resolved by the two parties themselves, if they are prepared to do so. However, The League is continuing with our efforts to get the Club playing back in the Coventry area as soon as possible and as aforementioned we have had regular discussions with the Club.
Should you not have done so already we would advise you contact the club directly with your queries.
Thank you for contacting The Football League

Two things i wasnt aware of.... we can still play in northampton for 2 years after the initial 3? expulsion from the league if the club are not showing adequate signs of coming back.

 

[skybluetony176]

well done. at least you're man enough to admit the behaviour of yourself and astute towards godiva was out of line.

that is what you mean isn't it....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

And I thought grendull was the master of reading something from nothing. It seems that the apprentice is becoming the master.

 

[Godiva]

I stand by what I said. Nearly every post he did was points from the SISU QC which of course was showing in favour of SISU so was biased. When he did a post that was more like what is happening he got a 'like' from me. He even tried to say that SISU won the case against Higgs. The judge even called it a draw. They spent much more than the 29k that they saved. They got more bad publicity. Their counter claim got thrown out straight away. How could that be a win?

We can't take anything as gospel from the QC's of SISU, ACL or CCC. They are all putting their own sides to it. We need to see what judgement is made before we can saywhat is right and wrong from what the QC's have said and not make out that any of them have come out with the full truth like he was saying about the SISU QC.

Higgs vs Sisu: It was Higgs who sued Sisu. That was the main case. Higgs lost, so in my book sisu won. Sisu lost the subsequent counter sue, but it wouldn't have been a case at all if Higgs hadn't sued sisu in the first place.
What may be more important is that sisu got access to a lot of emails, reports and notes as well as testimonials from key players that they could then use at the JR. Highly valuable for sisu, and that could maybe be their biggest gain from the Higgs case.

The JR:
I think I was still on transcript 2 early parts when you decided all I did was pulling up points apparently in sisu's favour. I don't know how you read the transcripts (if indeed you bothered), but I started from the top. As it was sisu's QC all the way to midway day 2 I hadn't really reach anything that was not in favour of sisu's case. Maybe I should have made something up or purposely misunderstand a point or two to appear more balanced, but I didn't.
Later when I came to the CCC QC's admission I did put up what I found in favour of CCC/ACL.

I made some comments on the narrative that sisu QC presented about how this whole story as I found it was way off the narrative we have been told through the press and by e.g. PWKH on this board. When I did make such comments it was when sisu QC quoted from emails, reports or sworn testimonials.

 

[Godiva]

They fit right in with sisu then. Strange they can't work together, as they have so much in common.

What the club and ACL have in common is flawed business plans and failing operations. The club can't afford the rent level and exclusion from match day income streams, and ACL can't afford to reduce the rent or give away match day income. At least that was the case when the rent strike began in April 2012.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Like when we wouldn't pay for Leon best but kept playing him?

I don't think ACL have really cared about the traditions & values of our club have they?

Neither of which changes anything about how fans (not all - I'll give you that) care about the given situation I was referring to.
And the situations you both refer to now might have provoked the same distaste for those same fans.


PUSB

 

[Grendel]

And I thought grendull was the master of reading something from nothing. It seems that the apprentice is becoming the master.

Don't be so hard on yourself - for sycophancy, gullibility and factual misrepresentation you are on a par with astute.

 

[Kingokings204]

Higgs vs Sisu: It was Higgs who sued Sisu. That was the main case. Higgs lost, so in my book sisu won. Sisu lost the subsequent counter sue, but it wouldn't have been a case at all if Higgs hadn't sued sisu in the first place.
What may be more important is that sisu got access to a lot of emails, reports and notes as well as testimonials from key players that they could then use at the JR. Highly valuable for sisu, and that could maybe be their biggest gain from the Higgs case.

The JR:
I think I was still on transcript 2 early parts when you decided all I did was pulling up points apparently in sisu's favour. I don't know how you read the transcripts (if indeed you bothered), but I started from the top. As it was sisu's QC all the way to midway day 2 I hadn't really reach anything that was not in favour of sisu's case. Maybe I should have made something up or purposely misunderstand a point or two to appear more balanced, but I didn't.
Later when I came to the CCC QC's admission I did put up what I found in favour of CCC/ACL.

I made some comments on the narrative that sisu QC presented about how this whole story as I found it was way off the narrative we have been told through the press and by e.g. PWKH on this board. When I did make such comments it was when sisu QC quoted from emails, reports or sworn testimonials.

Quote from you Godiva" Higgs lost" and "sisu lost" so it was a draw then just like the judge said it was. Or the horrible phrase he used a nil all draw.

 

[torchomatic]

Of course you do, I wouldn't expect any different.

I stand by what I said. Nearly every post he did was points from the SISU QC which of course was showing in favour of SISU so was biased. When he did a post that was more like what is happening he got a 'like' from me. He even tried to say that SISU won the case against Higgs. The judge even called it a draw. They spent much more than the 29k that they saved. They got more bad publicity. Their counter claim got thrown out straight away. How could that be a win?

We can't take anything as gospel from the QC's of SISU, ACL or CCC. They are all putting their own sides to it. We need to see what judgement is made before we can saywhat is right and wrong from what the QC's have said and not make out that any of them have come out with the full truth like he was saying about the SISU QC.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Top research Rusty..

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/46030-Email-from-FL?p=719266&viewfull=1#post719266

 

[The Gentleman]

Higgs vs Sisu: It was Higgs who sued Sisu. That was the main case. Higgs lost, so in my book sisu won. Sisu lost the subsequent counter sue, but it wouldn't have been a case at all if Higgs hadn't sued sisu in the first place.
What may be more important is that sisu got access to a lot of emails, reports and notes as well as testimonials from key players that they could then use at the JR. Highly valuable for sisu, and that could maybe be their biggest gain from the Higgs case.

The JR:
I think I was still on transcript 2 early parts when you decided all I did was pulling up points apparently in sisu's favour. I don't know how you read the transcripts (if indeed you bothered), but I started from the top. As it was sisu's QC all the way to midway day 2 I hadn't really reach anything that was not in favour of sisu's case. Maybe I should have made something up or purposely misunderstand a point or two to appear more balanced, but I didn't.
Later when I came to the CCC QC's admission I did put up what I found in favour of CCC/ACL.

I made some comments on the narrative that sisu QC presented about how this whole story as I found it was way off the narrative we have been told through the press and by e.g. PWKH on this board. When I did make such comments it was when sisu QC quoted from emails, reports or sworn testimonials.

So you choose to ignore what the judge said about the case and formed your own opinions. Is this you prepping us for when the judge rules on the JR and you ignoring what he says to give your opinion.

You seem absolutely obsessed with all of this, more so than CCFC itself because we are the big losers in all this. This for me was compounded the other day when you said a comment about not wanting us to move forward.

 

[Godiva]

Quote from you Godiva" Higgs lost" and "sisu lost" so it was a draw then just like the judge said it was. Or the horrible phrase he used a nil all draw.

No, it was not a draw. The case was made by Higgs to recover costs for the due diligence that was part of the 'roadmap'. The claim was £29t. Higgs lost that case.
The subsequent counterclaim made by sisu would never been put before the judge if not for Higgs suing sisu. Sisu lost the counterclaim, but it was merely a 'side show' to the main event.

 

[Godiva]

So you choose to ignore what the judge said about the case and formed your own opinions. Is this you prepping us for when the judge rules on the JR and you ignoring what he says to give your opinion.

You seem absolutely obsessed with all of this, more so than CCFC itself because we are the big losers in all this. This for me was compounded the other day when you said a comment about not wanting us to move forward.

Really?
I thought I said something like 'we need the parties to agree on the history before we can move on'.
Why would I even want us not to move forward?

 

[Kingokings204]

No, it was not a draw. The case was made by Higgs to recover costs for the due diligence that was part of the 'roadmap'. The claim was £29t. Higgs lost that case.
The subsequent counterclaim made by sisu would never been put before the judge if not for Higgs suing sisu. Sisu lost the counterclaim, but it was merely a 'side show' to the main event.

So you disagree with what the judge said about it being a draw?

You concede both sides lost their case so how can anyone "win"?

The original claim made by Higgs was not even liable for court action it was sisu 10times counterclaim that took it to court using clear bullying tactics against a local kids charity. Yeah sisu won didn't they.

 

[Godiva]

So you disagree with what the judge said about it being a draw?

You concede both sides lost their case so how can anyone "win"?

The original claim made by Higgs was not even liable for court action it was sisu 10times counterclaim that took it to court using clear bullying tactics against a local kids charity. Yeah sisu won didn't they.

So if I sue you and lose the case - would you not consider it a 'win'?

It's true that Higgs didn't have to sue, so you could say they lost to an own goal.
It was not the counterclaim that took the case to court. It was the claim from Higgs that brought it to court.
And playing the 'local children's charity' card doesn't help winning cases in the court.

 

[Grendel]

So you disagree with what the judge said about it being a draw?

You concede both sides lost their case so how can anyone "win"?

The original claim made by Higgs was not even liable for court action it was sisu 10times counterclaim that took it to court using clear bullying tactics against a local kids charity. Yeah sisu won didn't they.

Kids charity? So what? Higgs had no right to the money end of.

 

[Grendel]

So you disagree with what the judge said about it being a draw?

You concede both sides lost their case so how can anyone "win"?

The original claim made by Higgs was not even liable for court action it was sisu 10times counterclaim that took it to court using clear bullying tactics against a local kids charity. Yeah sisu won didn't they.

So if I sue you and lose the case - would you not consider it a 'win'?

It's true that Higgs didn't have to sue, so you could say they lost to an own goal.
It was not the counterclaim that took the case to court. It was the claim from Higgs that brought it to court.
And playing the 'local children's charity' card doesn't help winning cases in the court.

If he was that Interested in a kids charity he'd be more worried about the council taking one million pounds of assets at no cost of a company they half own.

 

[Bennets Afro]

If he was that Interested in a kids charity he'd be more worried about the council taking one million pounds of assets at no cost of a company they half own.

What's assets are them Grendel? I ain't been keeping up the last few days

 

[Godiva]

If he was that Interested in a kids charity he'd be more worried about the council taking one million pounds of assets at no cost of a company they half own.

It's not widely known.
But I find it interesting that many say nothing new came out at the JR. This was definitely new.

 

[Astute]

So if I sue you and lose the case - would you not consider it a 'win'?

It's true that Higgs didn't have to sue, so you could say they lost to an own goal.
It was not the counterclaim that took the case to court. It was the claim from Higgs that brought it to court.
And playing the 'local children's charity' card doesn't help winning cases in the court.

But Higgs had no choice but to sue. Charities have to if advised that they should win. They have to answer to the charities commission. The only winners were those representing each side.

 

[Godiva]

But Higgs had no choice but to sue. Charities have to if advised that they should win. They have to answer to the charities commission. The only winners were those representing each side.

Ok, then let's blame their legal advisers.
But they still lost

 

[torchomatic]

And it's not even solely a children's charity either.

And playing the 'local children's charity' card doesn't help winning cases in the court.

 

[Grendel]

What's assets are them Grendel? I ain't been keeping up the last few days

The council took car park C at no cost from ACL as part of the loan restructure.

 

[Kingokings204]

So if I sue you and lose the case - would you not consider it a 'win'?

It's true that Higgs didn't have to sue, so you could say they lost to an own goal.
It was not the counterclaim that took the case to court. It was the claim from Higgs that brought it to court.
And playing the 'local children's charity' card doesn't help winning cases in the court.

Please check the one thing you put there Godiva, sisu brought the case to court with the counterclaim. I realise £29,000 claim originally by Higgs but this amount isn't big enough to demand court action and it was only the sisu counterclaim worth 290k that deemed it for for high court. I will find the quote if you don't believe me.

So there you have it a hedgefund taking a local kids charity to court over 29k. I'm not saying Higgs were entitled for it but they were advised to seek it and were not successful. That's all.

 

[torchomatic]

Woah, leave my heartstrings alone.

Please check the one thing you put there Godiva, sisu brought the case to court with the counterclaim. I realise £29,000 claim originally by Higgs but this amount isn't big enough to demand court action and it was only the sisu counterclaim worth 290k that deemed it for for high court. I will find the quote if you don't believe me.

So there you have it a hedgefund taking a local kids charity to court over 29k. I'm not saying Higgs were entitled for it but they were advised to seek it and were not successful. That's all.

 

[Kingokings204]

Woah, leave my heartstrings alone.

It's just a fact and the truth is all I'm saying.

 

[Bennets Afro]

Would that make ACL be worth even less?

Greedy fookers, I heard after the blitz, they took back the freeholds on most of the city centre

The council took car park C at no cost from ACL as part of the loan restructure.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Please check the one thing you put there Godiva, sisu brought the case to court with the counterclaim. I realise £29,000 claim originally by Higgs but this amount isn't big enough to demand court action and it was only the sisu counterclaim worth 290k that deemed it for for high court. I will find the quote if you don't believe me.

So there you have it a hedgefund taking a local kids charity to court over 29k. I'm not saying Higgs were entitled for it but they were advised to seek it and were not successful. That's all.

It only got that far because they brought the case in the first place!

 

[Godiva]

Please check the one thing you put there Godiva, sisu brought the case to court with the counterclaim. I realise £29,000 claim originally by Higgs but this amount isn't big enough to demand court action and it was only the sisu counterclaim worth 290k that deemed it for for high court. I will find the quote if you don't believe me.

So there you have it a hedgefund taking a local kids charity to court over 29k. I'm not saying Higgs were entitled for it but they were advised to seek it and were not successful. That's all.

You are saying that Higgs suing sisu would not require court action?
I agree it was elevated to high court due to the size of the counterclaim.

 

[shmmeee]

Woah, leave my heartstrings alone.

You know, you do a really poor impression of Grendel.

We get it, you have an issue with anyone who has an issue with Sisu. We're all shit heads because someone once said people shouldn't go to Sixfields. Those stupid City fans with their "emotions" and "morals" will never be as cool as you and your autistic self.