D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hmmm dead or no, my general desire is to offend unwittingly if at all however, if it's unjustified offence anyway
Sky Blues owners to bid for Higgs' shares in ACL (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Hmmm dead or no, my general desire is to offend unwittingly if at all however, if it's unjustified offence anyway
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Not true. Have you've forgotten that they're the illegal state aid police?
But as I've already said, the morale issue regarding ccfc had absolutely nothing to do with franchise sport, so I'm not applying one rule in two different ways, but as usual you are incapable of reading. I've also never had any strong views on franchise sport, I would say generally I disagree with it but it depends on the situation if anything since I've had a season ticket a few times at the Blaze I've supported it, I've never boycotted anything due to franchising.
and again as I've already said I'm not going to watch wasps so even if the situations were the same my actions have been the same, not going to watch ccfc in northampton, not going to watch wasps in coventry.
I vote based on what I think is right, completely pointless it is though, to many stupid people in the country (and posting on forums), but you have to keep trying.
As for the rest, you're an idiot, you don't for a second get outraged at everything that deserves it, it's not possible, so you're an idiot for chastising me for the same.
and yet you are the one who brought it up and you are disgusted that I'm not morally outraged.
Samo
Well-Known Member
I can assure you I am outraged by many more deserving things than this. You keep banging on about franchise sport even though I've never mentioned it. My question to you is; Is it morally wrong to move a sporting club away from it's home? It either is or its not. Perhaps you 'don't have the room' for other moral questions? Perhaps you disapprove of abuse or exploitation? But only around here, I'm sure you don't have the room for that kind of thing elsewhere. Spineless bastard.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So if SISU succeed with a bid that presumedly needs to be more than 2.77 million.
They would then get the 50% of ACL they were trying to get for 2 million for 3 million.
They would owe half the loan to the council.
So they would be in debt to the council for anywhere between 5-7 million depending if any of the loan is written off.
Will the council be confident that SISU will honour its repayments of the loan?
They would then get the 50% of ACL they were trying to get for 2 million for 3 million.
They would owe half the loan to the council.
So they would be in debt to the council for anywhere between 5-7 million depending if any of the loan is written off.
Will the council be confident that SISU will honour its repayments of the loan?
Last edited:
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
Morality aside, we need to buy 50% of the Ricoh. If the club want a premier league ground that is. Other than that we will build a small 15-20k basic and cheap stadium just outside coventry which will resemble the rubbish that Doncaster and many others have.
I don't want to move again and want to play in a stadium that is forward looking and capable of producing nights like gills at home. The SISU stadium will not be that.
I don't want to move again and want to play in a stadium that is forward looking and capable of producing nights like gills at home. The SISU stadium will not be that.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Here's to hoping that the Club or Sisu purchase the 50% share of ACL from the Higgs 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did Higgs have a veto on CCC selling to WASPs do we know?
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
No doubt spinning in his grave.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Of course you are, who for a second suggested otherwise? my point is you are also NOT outraged by many more important things than this, which is perfectly normal and there are many things that I'm sure you will agree are more outrageous yet you don't boycot them so its ridiculous for you to be so insulting and getting your panties in such a bunch just because I'm not outraged about the Wasps situation, despite me saying it sucks for their fans and despite me not supporting it, nore going to the games. I'm sure you watch at least one of the world cup/olympics/f1 all of which have much greater reasons to be outraged than the wasps situation, yet you call me a Spineless bastard. The simple fact of the matter is it's just not possible to stand up against everything that is wrong. Despite you throwing a mardy I know you know that.
No, it isn't either is or its not morally wrong, it sometimes is and it sometimes isn't. like I said I'd have supported our move away had been necessary but it wasn't necessary in the slightest. I don't know enough about the wasps situation to know if its necessary or not, I know it sucks for their fans but so would losing the club completely, I sway towards it being morally wrong on this occasion but since I already won't be supporting it with my money I don't need to have any more of a strong viewpoint than that. I've never taken a moral stand on moving a football club, I took a moral stand against moving our football club despite it being against the clubs best interests in order to destroy another company, while manipulating insolvency law to avoid paying debts. The fact I've had season tickets at the blaze for 3 seasons shows I don't have a its always morally wrong to move a sporting club and I must always stand against it mantra.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
There is usually a general power within the memorandum & articles of any company that the directors can refuse in their absolute discretion to register any share transfer of shares whether they have been paid for or not. Any stakeholders agreement is in addition to that. The current board of directors will be made up from AEHC/Wasps/Mr Robinson
My understanding is that the power of veto worked in both directions. I seem to remember though that there was a back up position for AEHC whereby CCC could step in and buy the shares at the same price as offered by a 3rd party. I think the option CCFC/AEHC ranks first though.
My understanding is that the power of veto worked in both directions. I seem to remember though that there was a back up position for AEHC whereby CCC could step in and buy the shares at the same price as offered by a 3rd party. I think the option CCFC/AEHC ranks first though.
So we have a position where each of the two parties can veto the other - in this case of the share transfers However Higgs agree to a pre-emption agreement to CCFC for their share ( at some agreed value - maybe ) But CCC/WASPS can veto the transfer to CCFC if they feel like it Surely the pre-emption agreement must have been known to CCC and therefore accepted it - unless they thought they were going to ignore it anyway from the outset
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think that it was a wholly different scenario when this was all set up. It was envisaged back in 2003 that CCFC would partner CCC at the Ricoh. In which case the option was thought to be the right thing to do safeguard CCFC's interest in the stadium at some point in the future. I think back in 2003 the intentions were the same for both sides and I do not think personally there was any double dealing going on by any of the parties involved at that time in respect of the option. So yes certainly CCC would have been aware of the option ......... it was hardly a secret it was disclosed on public record at Companies House in various accounts filed.
Things have moved on, things have changed drastically from 2003. I doubt it was ever envisaged that the owners of CCFC would break all ties with the arena for instance. The business landscape at the Ricoh is different and for what ever reason (we could debate those all day) the football club is no longer key to the survival of the arena or the development of North Coventry. There has been a lot of getting ducks in a row to achieve a particular solution by all parties including CCC, SISU,AEHC, CCFC. Some successful others not The position of CCFC has become weaker and weaker as each year passes it seems to me ...... very sad to see
Things have moved on, things have changed drastically from 2003. I doubt it was ever envisaged that the owners of CCFC would break all ties with the arena for instance. The business landscape at the Ricoh is different and for what ever reason (we could debate those all day) the football club is no longer key to the survival of the arena or the development of North Coventry. There has been a lot of getting ducks in a row to achieve a particular solution by all parties including CCC, SISU,AEHC, CCFC. Some successful others not The position of CCFC has become weaker and weaker as each year passes it seems to me ...... very sad to see
Last edited:
albatross
Well-Known Member
The power of Veto will work both ways in a 50-50 company to prevent the other party being saddled with a hostile partner. However approval could not be reasonably withheld. At the end of the day it will be for the board of ACL to decide not necessarily the shareholders (although they usually toe the line). Remember Liverpool as sold by the board even though the owners tried to prevent it.
So it is extremely unlikely that there s anything but a WASPs 100% ownership on the cards
So it is extremely unlikely that there s anything but a WASPs 100% ownership on the cards
How do they judge if SISU will be "hostile"? Hostile in what way?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Er no ACL would owe the debt - I don't know why you ignore the whole forum that acknowledges wasps will get a 100% even if CCFC out bid an original offer
I understand about the changes but that is what happens every day. The fact is the agreement(s) are still in place
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
yep they are still in place in so far as the right to bid for CCFC Ltd goes ............. and to my mind what is going on is the dotting of i's and crossing of t's on those agreements along a pathway to achieving a particular outcome that minimises the risk of future litigation. Sadly I fear that is not about getting CCFC ltd a stake in ACL.
Also it is a right to bid that's all ...... it is not a right to have AEHC accept any bid, nor for Wasps not to veto it
albatross
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 has it bang on. Its a process thing. Already a done deal with no legal comeback. just dotting the I's and crossing T's.
SISU will have to come to the table in good faith and cut a deal with WASPs directly. That could involve taking a stake , but that would then mean handing over pound notes
SISU will have to come to the table in good faith and cut a deal with WASPs directly. That could involve taking a stake , but that would then mean handing over pound notes
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Weird that a year ago you and others were outraged at CCFC going to Northampton and Sixfields attendees would be listed after "disgusting corruption" and "human rights" on your list. Amazing how many people can have a total 180 in their thinking when it comes to someone else doing exactly what SISU did. Twats.
I haven't had a 180 on anything, it's perfectly normal for us to care more about the things that affect those closest to us (like our football club) than other more serious things the world over. It might not be right, in fact it probably isn't but it's human nature and nothing I've said has contradicted this. The wasps situation isn't something we have emotional ties to though so it makes absolutely no sense to condemn someone for not being outraged when wasps are moved from their home when there are so many more deserving things to be outraged over.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean. The amount of people who wouldn't see no evil, speak no evil or hear no evil over SISU moving our club to Suxfields and have now done a complete 180 and won't shut up about how wrong it is for Wasps to move despite there being a considerably smaller back lash amongst Wasps fans to their move than there was from our fan base to our move is astonoshing.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The move to Northampton was not permenant if it was the outrage would have been the same.
You and the rest of the suxfields rent boys would probably still have gone .
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Yes correct, it was only until the Ricoh went bankrupt.
That was certain to happen as they were not financially viable and no one else would be interested
Nick
Administrator
If we had moved for good, I for one would have had completely different views to it compared to a temporary move.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Hmmm suxfields rent boys. Are you 10?You and the rest of the suxfields rent boys would probably still have gone .
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2
kg82
Well-Known Member
Embarrassingly, probably not
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Should it of mattered whether it was temporary or permanent? there seems to be some on here (not saying its you) more bothered about Wasps coming here than they were about CCFC being relocated to Sixfields.
Nick
Administrator
Yes, being temporary is totally different to permanent isn't it? Hence if it was permanent I'd never have gone and given up with football.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The move to Northampton was unnecessary. Something ALL CCFC fans should have been against and not backed by attending.
It's just a shame that some of these fans who did attend Suxfields didn't feel as strong about our prediciment as they do about another teams prediciment.
Me, I don't approve of either Wasps moving to the Ricoh or them Purchasing the Ricoh management company and taking controll. I'm more outraged about the second part than i am the first because this has a direct effect on my club, by the same token I'm more outraged again by our temporary (as it turned out) move away from the city than I am about Wasps moving here permenantly. Again because CCFC is my club.