ACL: "We are absolutely flabbergasted by Tim Fisher's statement today" (2 Viewers)

Jack Griffin said:

I liked this well argued post on the Telegraph Website... thought I'd share it..

Click to expand...

My Chelsea supporting mate just sent me a message asking If the bloke quoted on the newspaper website (which I've checked and he means TF and the CET) is aware of what the process of administration involves given he put the club into it.:thinking about:

Johnnythespider said:

I like the word Penile, and i like the word disfunction, but i don't like them when used together

Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Premature................Prefer Punctual

:facepalm:

Frottage.......

I will get in the boxing ring with both parties,Last man/woman standing wins!!! Fcuking hell it's like a kids birthday party listening to both sides arguing.
Fcuking sort it out for the fans sake !!!

Johnnythespider said:

I like the word Penile, and i like the word disfunction, but i don't like them when used together

Click to expand...

There was a band called Penile Dementia. Takes some beating...

If we are back onto words I love the word 'twat'

Often used, and in terms of our owners past and present is such a great description.

In the film Donnie Darko, Drew Barrymore's character claims that the most beautiful phrase in the English language is "cellar door". Turns out they stole it from Culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_door

"We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher's statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL."


From the Trust's Q&A:

"ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."

They're ignoring you LSI. :wave:

Haven't you got anything better to do than point out glaring discrepancies?

Clemin. I had to look it up to find what it was after Family Guy said they were going to tell us, then didn't. It's nice and sleazy. Definition 4 is particularly gruesome http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clemin

square root of fuck all - that's what sisu have done for my club

12 pages and not one person mentions the word 'shenanigans'

I'mARealWizard said:

12 pages and not one person mentions the word 'shenanigans'

Click to expand...

They're probably just being languid... Or lackadaisical. That's not to say they don't think this discussion is important. If they didn't they would be engaging in floccinaucinihilipilification.

Samo said:

Yes I do. I also like Balderdash and Poppycock!

Click to expand...

I like 'Freep' (to pass wind discreetly) - Frankly I'd like to fart in SISU's face without any discreetion whatsoever!

Baginton said:

why are ACL flabbergasted??

talks are in total breakdown between landlord and tenant, tentant seeks future property.:thinking about:

Click to expand...

Obviously not .......

SkyBlue_Taylor said:

You're full of shit, I've criticised SISU on a number of occasions, just because I don't shriek 'SISU out!' doesn't mean I'm pro SISU.

I'll reiterate my question, which to my knowledge hasn't been answered:

What are CCFC supposed to do if ACL rejected approaches to renegotiate the rent agreement!?

Click to expand...

Accept the revised offer for a short term. Say a year and continue to negotiate.

I am beginning to see a problem with SISU being upset by ACL and playing some brinkmanship here.
Unfortunately ACL know that the Ricoh is the only option financially for SISU as an out of town option would finish the club.

lordsummerisle said:

"We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher's statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL."


From the Trust's Q&A:

"ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."

Click to expand...

I think the board of CCFC are out the equation now. If I read this right the administrator is running the club and any decision (based on finance) will be his until the new owners move in. The only financially viable option at this minute is that CCFC play at the Ricoh.

Of course when the administrator hands over the reins the new owners can then try a different plan. If it's SISU then we may have a problem between them and ACL.

This is almost a SISU death rattle.

I suggest CCFC fans do not worry about this until we see the new owners.

lordsummerisle said:

"We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher's statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL."


From the Trust's Q&A:

"ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."

Click to expand...

and where's the problem with that accept the deal play at ricoh no problem

Just who IS speaking the truth two voices two different sets of lies AGAIIN .
Neither party could ly straight in bed .

Its the usual problem isnt it

Timmy claims ACL wont talk to the company he is running which claims ownership of the share CCFCH and CCFC (the club) but doesnt own the lease at the Ricoh. He is in a situation where legally he has no rights at the stadium, no one is locking him out he simply has no legal right to trade from there. If CCFC Ltd only held the lease there is no reason why it would not have been liquidated day 1 of Mr Appletons appointment and TF would be in a much stronger position to do a deal at the Ricoh, so you would have to conclude CCFC Ltd has more than the lease to it.

The lease itself is in CCFC Ltd and until that company is wound up remains active, it is if you like suspended but still in force. What that means is that there is an existing lease that blocks a new one until it is resolved. Of course CCFC Ltd can not be liquidated as yet because there is good evidence that the golden share in that company which is the key to CCFC having any existence at all. ACL for good reasons of their own do not want CCFC Ltd lliquidated. This leaves Mr Appleton in a quandry, he should arguably liquidate CCFC Ltd but that could leave CCFC H in a position of no longer being a member of the League

ACL say they want the Club at the stadium. Certainly that would be the best solution for all if there were a new better deal for the club that is acceptable to all parties. There is still a current lease with CCFC Ltd and the ACL relationship is with that company. Under the terms of the lease, which is still valid, ACL are owed a substantial amount of money. No one has disputed that the lease is in CCFC Ltd. Currently CCFC Ltd is not run by TF it is run by the administrator. When it comes to administration which is a process governed by a court the basis of what goes on is the contracts that exist, anyone stepping away from that puts themselves at risk. It suits ACL to rely on the law yes because it leaves the CCFC owners in a difficult position, and of course they will use that "advantage" who wouldnt? But they have to deal with things on the basis of their contract. Legally the ACL relationship is now with the administrator of CCFC Ltd - might not like it but thats the reality.

All sides have contributed to this, all sides have made mistakes, all sides spin events their way..... but only one side runs CCFC..... in my eyes a company has to take the lions share of responsibility for its own actions be it CCFC Ltd, CCFC H, SBS&L ACL or SISU

the actions of a third party are secondary to the actions/decisions that the company or its directors/owners take or do not take for themselves

Hasn't the lease agreement been broken OSB, which is why the administrator had to negotiated a 3 match deal? In that case neither holdings or ltd hold the lease to play at the Ricoh?

no stupot i do not think it is .... if it had been broken then the administrator would not have been involved in the process at all to get the 3 games done.

in fact when Mr Appleton was appointed he stated that CCFC Ltd had assets including the lease

If the lease were broken then also it would be a reasonably simple process to do a deal to reunite share and player contracts and come out of administration.

beduth said:

Just who IS speaking the truth two voices two different sets of lies AGAIIN .
Neither party could ly straight in bed .

Click to expand...

Its called negotiation.........

You talk about liquidation OSB-where do prospective new owners come into the equation? Surely new ownership is the best outcome for all parties.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

You talk about liquidation OSB-where do prospective new owners come into the equation? Surely new ownership is the best outcome for all parties.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Not if a better return is had for the creditors by liquidating the business.

It's up to any prospective owners to demonstrate that their deal would be better for the creditors than that.

lordsummerisle said:

"We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher's statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL."


From the Trust's Q&A:

"ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."

Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that you've only selected part of that ACL quote from yesterday. The ACL quote is refering to where our club play next season and only that. It isn't talking about the rent negotiations which have ended unsuccessfully - as the Trust quote from a while points out.

"So that there can be no doubt whatsoever among Sky Blues fans, ACL would be delighted for Coventry City Football Club to play at the Ricoh Arena next season. Nobody connected to the football club has yet approached ACL in this regard. We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher's statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL."

Click to expand...

So put simply ACL have never said that CCFC can't play at the Ricoh just that no one from the football club (and possibly the administrator) has bothered to talk to ACL about it.

James Smith said:

So put simply ACL have never said that CCFC can't play at the Ricoh just that no one from the football club (and possibly the administrator) has bothered to talk to ACL about it.

Click to expand...

As the club were told negotiations were at an end, and the club had said the result up to then wasn't satisfactory, why would ACL be surprised that the club haven't approached them?

interesting articles on leases while in administration

http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/articles/2013/01/07/latest-forfeiture-leases-while-administration/

http://www.microscope.co.uk/feature/In-depth-How-to-exit-a-property-lease

seems to me that a landlord can be in the hands of the administrator as long as it takes ....... (perhaps we have seen the issue of time things take and the financial cost/implications of that before?) :thinking about:

but certainly seems because the purpose of an administration is to save the business that the lease remains "live" unless agreed by the landlord or the court decides otherwise

Deleted member 5849 said:

As the club were told negotiations were at an end, and the club had said the result up to then wasn't satisfactory, why would ACL be surprised that the club haven't approached them?

Click to expand...

So then there is this quote from an ACL statement made on 23/03/13

ACL Statement said:

'The board wishes also to reiterate that there is no truth whatsoever in suggestions reported by some media that ACL will prevent CCFC from playing at the Ricoh Arena,'

Click to expand...

Source http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/acl_issue_statement_788790/index.shtml

Which seems to me to say we can stay, maybe TF missed that one.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

You talk about liquidation OSB-where do prospective new owners come into the equation? Surely new ownership is the best outcome for all parties.

Click to expand...

thats up to the administrator in respect of CCFC ltd BSB ........ can he structure a deal to sell ccfc ltd given that SISU are saying they control the club from CCFC H. Unless CCFC H can be sold too then I fear there is no new buyer

I read it that they won't stop them if they pay what was concluded on ACL's part.

But, having informed CCFC that negotiations were at an end, then CCFC wouldn't come back to negotiate if they weren't happy with that. Why would they? They were told there was no negotiation?

If there is now room for negotiation, ACL could contact the club and tell them they'd like to negotiate further. They could also in their statements not spin it, and say they've changed their policy on negotiation, negotiations are now open, they have contacted the club to tell them so, and will be making no further statements as those negotiations should be in private.

Wouldn't be a hard thing to do.

Better than the spin, counter spin and hundreds of statements from each side.

The thing is NW that the last offer given to the club may have been the absolute best they could put on the table without compromising their own finances. The bailout from the evil council enabled such an offer to be made in the first place.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

The thing is NW that the last offer given to the club may have been the absolute best they could put on the table without compromising their own finances.

Click to expand...

It might, I haven't denied that.

But then if they then say negotiations are at an end, and the club won't or can't accept that deal, that still doesn't mean it's a surprise that the club won't contact ACL to negotiate something that's not negotiable, even more so if there's nowhere else for ACL to move!

Brighton Sky Blue said:

The bailout from the evil council enabled such an offer to be made in the first place.

Click to expand...

no it didn't.. according to ACL they can survive without anything from the club, so whatever they request in rent is what the desire.. not what they need!

nice spin though!

Deleted member 5849 said:

It might, I haven't denied that.

But then if they then say negotiations are at an end, and the club won't or can't accept that deal, that still doesn't mean it's a surprise that the club won't contact ACL to negotiate something that's not negotiable, even more so if there's nowhere else for ACL to move!

Click to expand...

I see your point but Fisher has openly stated that £400k rent isn't a problem, and the proposed deal significantly enhances the club's turnover. Bear in mind we have been rent free for a year and will likely still post a loss.