Open letter from Joy and Tim (19 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

It was surprising (to me at least) that the FL made the payment of the £590k a condition of the "golden share" being transferred to Otium.

...

So - on that analysis - we'd either be arguing about £0 (in the first case) or the CVA payable % (was it 25% - can't remember and can't be bothered to look it up) of either the cash received from GR and MM or the total amount that they were theoretically liable for.

So, all quite simple really.

On a slightly more pointed note, it really does bother me that the FL appear so unconcerned about this whole matter that they're happy to wait until a few days before the season starts before they'll condescend to turn their attention to it. - Another G&T old chap? - Don't mind if I do - I say what's all this about that shower from Coventry? Why are they playing in Nottingham anyway?.......

Yup, this is why their inability to reach a decision is utterly baffling. As far as I can tell it's an arbitrary decision by the league that's been agreed to by Otium, so as it's an arbitrary decision, the league shouldn't have much difficulty in giving an arbitrary answer now!

 

---

[Grendel]

I'm pretty sure £890K minus the £300K MM & GR get back is £590K. whichever way you look at it, its going to cost sisu the £590K the FL said they have to cough up for otium to obtain the golden share.

You seem desperate for ACL to not get a penny even though this has become a bridge that needs crossing before we can move forward with a return to the Ricoh - why?

I want ACL to get what they are owed which the football league will decide.

Agreed?

 

[spider_ricoh]

I want ACL to get what they are owed which the football league will decide.

Agreed?

So you think the FL are independent and objective, and not utterly biased towards the club? They are a club of football club owners and they have given CCFC far more leeway than they should have done.

 

[Grendel]

So you think the FL are independent and objective, and not utterly biased towards the club? They are a club of football club owners and they have given CCFC far more leeway than they should have done.

What are you on about. Having rejected the CVA ACL are entitled to no payment at all. Idiot.

 

[Hobo]

What are you on about. Having rejected the CVA ACL are entitled to no payment at all. Idiot.

They weren't the only ones to reject it though were they? Yet the only ones blamed for a points reduction! You know that is factual don't you Grendel.

 

[spider_ricoh]

What are you on about. Having rejected the CVA ACL are entitled to no payment at all. Idiot.

That's not what the FL say - they have stated the amount has to be paid as a condition of playing this season. Keep up!

 

[wingy]

That's not what the FL say - they have stated the amount has to be paid as a condition of playing this season. Keep up!

Could this £590K have bought us five points last season.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Yup, this is why their inability to reach a decision is utterly baffling. As far as I can tell it's an arbitrary decision by the league that's been agreed to by Otium, so as it's an arbitrary decision, the league shouldn't have much difficulty in giving an arbitrary answer now!

You know what puzzles me is why the FL deferred payment of the £590k. It was clearly an arbitrary figure that equates to a non existent CVA. Why say wait until next year? Had they said at the start pay this or there is no share what choice would SISU have had? That aside why impose the sum at all?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You know what puzzles me is why the FL deferred payment of the £590k. It was clearly an arbitrary figure that equates to a non existent CVA. Why say wait until next year? Had they said at the start pay this or there is no share what choice would SISU have had? That aside why impose the sum at all?

Indeed. So many baffling things about this decision. You'd also hope the decision to force payment was made after the rejection of the CVA, as even if informally ACL had got a whiff of this happening, where would the incentive have been to accept the CVA on the back of it?!?

 

[Jack Griffin]

You know what puzzles me is why the FL deferred payment of the £590k. It was clearly an arbitrary figure that equates to a non existent CVA. Why say wait until next year? Had they said at the start pay this or there is no share what choice would SISU have had? That aside why impose the sum at all?

Because they are as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

 

[Grendel]

They weren't the only ones to reject it though were they? Yet the only ones blamed for a points reduction! You know that is factual don't you Grendel.

They are the only ones to blame for the points reduction as the revenue were not a sufficient enough creditor to cause the rejection of the CVA.

Sorry but that's all down to good old ACL.

 

[Grendel]

That's not what the FL say - they have stated the amount has to be paid as a condition of playing this season. Keep up!

That has nothing to do with legal process though and they will decide if the payment is due or a reduced payment is now required.

 

[Hobo]

They are the only ones to blame for the points reduction as the revenue were not a sufficient enough creditor to cause the rejection of the CVA.

Sorry but that's all down to good old ACL.

But they were legally entitled to reject it under company law. The points deduction was sanctioned by FL under their rules...so surely either FL are responsible for authorising it or SISU are for mis managing the club?

 

[Grendel]

But they were legally entitled to reject it under company law. The points deduction was sanctioned by FL under their rules...so surely either FL are responsible for authorising it or SISU are for mis managing the club?

The rejected caused the points reduction and achieved nothing whichever way you spin it.

 

[Ian1779]

But they were legally entitled to reject it under company law. The points deduction was sanctioned by FL under their rules...so surely either FL are responsible for authorising it or SISU are for mis managing the club?

As someone said previously on another thread... it was voluntary. ACL chose to reject it.

If they had chosen differently we may have had a significantly better position for all sides by now.

 

[Hobo]

The rejected caused the points reduction and achieved nothing whichever way you spin it.

Has the move to Northampton achieved anything?

 

[chiefdave]

I want ACL to get what they are owed which the football league will decide.

Agreed?

If you're saying the £590K is the CVA figure than any payment from GR and MM needs to be subtracted from the headline debt before the p in the £ offer the administrator made, that's a much smaller difference than just taking £300K off the £590K.

 

[Grendel]

If you're saying the £590K is the CVA figure than any payment from GR and MM needs to be subtracted from the headline debt before the p in the £ offer the administrator made, that's a much smaller difference than just taking £300K off the £590K.

The CVA figure is zero.

 

[chiefdave]

The CVA figure is zero.

So what method did the FL use to calculate their £590K figure, was it coincidence that it was the same figure as the CVA? They either used the same method as the administrator and it is a p in the £ offer based on owed rent and compensation for the remaining term of the contract or they have calculated it based on some other criteria. If it's based on the CVA figure then any payment by GR and MM would be from the total prior to the p in the £ offer. If they haven't based it on rent and compensation then any payment from GR and MM has no impact on the amount owed.

The FL have made this mess themselves. If they had said nothing was due to ACL when they gave SISU the golden share this would be a non issue.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The FL have made this mess themselves. If they had said nothing was due to ACL when they gave SISU the golden share this would be a non issue.

Indeed.

In fact the obvious yet simple question to ask is surely... why?

Why did they do this at all?!?

 

[Grendel]

So what method did the FL use to calculate their £590K figure, was it coincidence that it was the same figure as the CVA? They either used the same method as the administrator and it is a p in the £ offer based on owed rent and compensation for the remaining term of the contract or they have calculated it based on some other criteria. If it's based on the CVA figure then any payment by GR and MM would be from the total prior to the p in the £ offer. If they haven't based it on rent and compensation then any payment from GR and MM has no impact on the amount owed.

The FL have made this mess themselves. If they had said nothing was due to ACL when they gave SISU the golden share this would be a non issue.

It's independent of any legal process. However I can't see how the recovery of monies from the gruesome twosome is independent. It's compensation for loss of earnings which I assume is what the £590 k is.

 

[Astute]

So what method did the FL use to calculate their £590K figure, was it coincidence that it was the same figure as the CVA? They either used the same method as the administrator and it is a p in the £ offer based on owed rent and compensation for the remaining term of the contract or they have calculated it based on some other criteria. If it's based on the CVA figure then any payment by GR and MM would be from the total prior to the p in the £ offer. If they haven't based it on rent and compensation then any payment from GR and MM has no impact on the amount owed.

The FL have made this mess themselves. If they had said nothing was due to ACL when they gave SISU the golden share this would be a non issue.

Don't worry about the 590k. It is only a small part of what is going on. The continual litigation is the problem.

Timothy's statement should have been 'We want to bring our club home to the Coventry area, but only if we get the freehold. We will sue their arse off them until we get what we want for our investors. Don't worry, the last judge hasn't got a clue about the law. Yes what we are doing is immoral, but we might find a point of law which we can call a smoking gun. Keep blaming ACL and CCC. It is what we need you to do. We should have you back in the Coventry area within a few years'

 

[Chipfat]

Did anyone believe a word from the open letter, it was designed and timed like sisu have always done to misdirect or take the media off a sisu negative. If sisu don't do the statements they revolve the face to come out with spin where is ML since the JR,, where is Sandra since the FL are watching a court case not a stadium design.. All planned all for a reason to misdirect or to take the news as a positive spin on the owners, they never take ownership just blame others for the lack of understanding of running a club..

Today Tim's out again with condition's to a letter, he forgot to mention on Friday,, this will never change until the FL step in and tell Sisu to show the land, money and plan for a new stadium. And what will force this question is another fall in gates at NTFC, a company working outside the FFP with no future to carry on or prospect of completing fixtures... The GS needs to be taken off them with no avenue for it to be returned to Sisu under any other company name,, Sisu have no future or plan other than court, but even they have an investor timescale,,,Dec this year.....

The playing side is has fallen in standard every year and players sold are not replaced with the same quality as for the released the same apply's money moved from 1 players covers a couple of injured pro's to fill in. People defend the owners but not one as ever told me 5 positive's they have brought to the club, just like TF they pass blame and never answer straight question's...

5 positive things they have brought in ? any takers!!

 

[Colin1883]

What are Sisu after? Matchday revenues or a slice of the revenue from all events at the Ricoh...?

 

[italiahorse]

It's independent of any legal process. However I can't see how the recovery of monies from the gruesome twosome is independent. It's compensation for loss of earnings which I assume is what the £590 k is.

It's a percentage of what they are owed according to the biased administrator.

 

[italiahorse]

What are Sisu after? Matchday revenues or a slice of the revenue from all events at the Ricoh...?

It depends what they want to buy into.

 

[Grendel]

It's a percentage of what they are owed according to the biased administrator.

No they are owed nothing as they rejected the offer from the CVA. This is entirely different.

 

[skybluetony176]

What are you on about. Having rejected the CVA ACL are entitled to no payment at all. Idiot.

That being the case that must mean that the MM & GR payment isn't linked to the CVA and the FL payment isn't linked to the CVA. So other than because ML said so, on what basis are you linking the the MM/GR & the FL payments together?

 

[Nick]

That being the case that must mean that the MM & GR payment isn't linked to the CVA and the FL payment isn't linked to the CVA. So other than because ML said so, on what basis are you linking the the MM/GR & the FL payments together?

What basis aren't they linked? Won't the fl decide and send the right amount?

People are obsessed!

 

[Ian1779]

What are Sisu after? Matchday revenues or a slice of the revenue from all events at the Ricoh...?

If they have any sense they will buy the latter option.

 

[skybluetony176]

What basis aren't they linked? Won't the fl decide and send the right amount?

People are obsessed!

What's the right amount Nick? Surely the right amount is the amount that means we can cross this rickety bridge on the road back to the Ricoh in order to get to the next rickety bridge in the road. From the last ACL statement that amount is £590k. Sisu have paid that exact amount into an escrow account so the FL should stop messing around get it paid and we can all move forward.

If MM & GR feel they are entitled to their money back let them take it up with ACL while the club moves forward. MM & GR are not connected to the club so them pursuing a £300k refund does not hinder a return of the club home. Sisu pursuing a £300k refund however does.

It's that simple.

 

[skybluefred]

If they have any sense they will buy the latter option.

Ha Ha Ha sisu buy !!! Ha Ha Ha--that will be a first then.

 

[Nick]

What's the right amount Nick? Surely the right amount is the amount that means we can cross this rickety bridge on the road back to the Ricoh in order to get to the next rickety bridge in the road. From the last ACL statement that amount is £590k. Sisu have paid that exact amount into an escrow account so the FL should stop messing around get it paid and we can all move forward.

If MM & GR feel they are entitled to their money back let them take it up with ACL while the club moves forward. MM & GR are not connected to the club so them pursuing a £300k refund does not hinder a return of the club home. Sisu pursuing a £300k refund however does.

It's that simple.

The right amount is whatever they are owed and what the FL say they are owed. If they deem that the money MM and GR gave them is linked then SISU should pay the debt minus that, then it is up to MM and GR to chase SISU and speak to them to get their money back. If it is the same, ACL shouldn't be paid twice. The FL have said that SISU have put the full amount into an Escrow account, so it isn't really that much of an issue now is it?

You are saying the right amount is the amount that means we can cross the bridge? Surely that means ACL can just make up a number and you will say that should be paid so we can cross the bridge?

 

[skybluetony176]

The right amount is whatever they are owed and what the FL say they are owed. If they deem that the money MM and GR gave them is linked then SISU should pay the debt minus that, then it is up to MM and GR to chase SISU and speak to them to get their money back. If it is the same, ACL shouldn't be paid twice. The FL have said that SISU have put the full amount into an Escrow account, so it isn't really that much of an issue now is it?

You are saying the right amount is the amount that means we can cross the bridge? Surely that means ACL can just make up a number and you will say that should be paid so we can cross the bridge?

On what basis would MM & GR have grounds to reclaim their money back of sisu? Other than because ML said so how are ACL getting paid twice? ACL want the £590k figure that the FL made up as a condition of otium receiving the right to play in the league.

To be honest I wish the FL never put this financial clause in it. All its done is complicate things further and the quickest and simplest way out of it is for the FL to pay ACL in full and we can all move onto the next hurdle of the JR. If it's going to cost sisu £590k regardless of if they pay it all to ACL or £300k to MM/GR and the balance to ACL lets get it all paid to ACL and leave MM/GR to argue the toss with ACL rather than ACL & sisu arguing about it instead of getting the club home. Why would you want anything else?

Once the £590k is sorted we can then move onto this nonsense about not being able to do a deal while the JR is still going on. They were willing to do a deal last season while the JR was going on so why not this year. I think this is something Rob S can lead the way on and something we should all get behind him on.

One bridge (excuse) at a time.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Once the £590k is sorted we can then move onto this nonsense about not being able to do a deal while the JR is still going on. They were willing to do a deal last season while the JR was going on so why not this year. I think this is something Rob S can lead the way on and something we should all get behind him on.

Every now and again you surprise me