Ann Lucas plea to Joy Seppala (1 Viewer)

true sky blue said:

“But you need to understand, on behalf of the city council as freeholder, 50per cent shareholder of ACL and owner of 7.5 acres of development land I will protect the asset of the Ricoh Arena for the city and its people.

what??!!!!!!! oh dear - no chance now Anne. what a joke you are

Click to expand...

Do not come on here very often but read most days.
The only Joke on here is YOU, what a 100% plonker.
If Ann Lucas was to send any sort of Apology I for one would be furious.
On another note where the hell was Sepala at that meeting.

I suggest you just shut the *&$£ up.

Here lies the problem.
A woman who has risen successfully in a very male chauvinistic financial business world.
Unfortunately she will have felt rightly or wrongly that she has to prove herself tougher than others.
She has been applying these so called hard ball tactics, that she has felt have given her credibility in this financial world.
Now she is up against people who can't just make decisions singularly on the basis of profit.
People whose decision making is also based on moral and social accountability as well as financial.
Hence the two striking differences in background you have highlighted True Sky Blue.
As oppose to identifying this as an area of potential or a door to be opened. (The social and moral responsibilities )
Mrs Seppala has continued with what she knows. The tried and trusted way. No doubt she has been flabbergasted when the responses and reactions in her mind defy all financial and business logic.
This is when she really should think very hard about what Mrs Lucas has just done.
There will not be a better opportunity to negotiate.
Than when you are talking to the newly elected council leader. Desperate to save the day and succeed where others have failed.

Matty_CCFC said:

On another note where the hell was Sepala at that meeting.

Click to expand...

She took the bean bag because all the comfy chairs were already taken by the time she arrived?

hill83 said:

A Reflex, a Flares, a Walkabout, 3 Wetherspoons and a Go-Kart Track.

And a waterslide.

Click to expand...

A rebuild of crazy daisys&the eclipse would be nice.

hill83 said:

Technically she should. But from a purely selfish perspective I couldn't care less. The Ricoh means nothing to me and there is absolutely no reason at all to go there if we aren't playing there. It's in the middle of a shit hole for starters.

Click to expand...

I've always judged a football ground on whether it has beautiful scenery or not....TIT!

Joy Sepalla is on the run and when this cva isn't signed today (hopefully) lets see where this goes then. SISU do not want a probe into this or the massive cost Sixfields will cost them.

wal3590 said:

I've always judged a football ground on whether it has beautiful scenery or not....TIT!

Click to expand...

Obviously not, but my point is, if we aren't playing there it's no longer a football ground is it. And there is nothing else there, hence 'shit hole'.

You boob.

Why leave this plea till now?

oldskyblue58 said:

I think the letter from Anne Lucas is a last ditch effort to broker something, something you might expect a reasonable person to do, but I wouldnt read in to it that the council are about to roll over and sell the freehold to SISU or even 50% of ACL.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I would, however, read into it that talks on that are at least an option or consideration now, as opposed to the entrenched position of Mutton.

Does that mean that they would sell? No, of course not, but I'd say it's encouraging if the offer is there to at least discuss the option, even if no deal can be reached. It at least shows a willingness to try and move the game forward.

hill83 said:

Obviously not, but my point is, if we aren't playing there it's no longer a football ground is it. And there is nothing else there, hence 'shit hole'.

You boob.

Click to expand...

If we don't play there it will probably end up derelict within 10 years.. Surely this would bother you?

robbieray said:

Why leave this plea till now?

Click to expand...

Actually it's the expected move at this time - it happens in all situations when negotiations have broken down and the deadline is fast approaching.
The deadline in this case is in 7 days - assuming the decision to sign the CVA is delayed a second and last time for another week.
My concern is that Ann Lucas don't have a negotiation mandate to agree a deal.

wal3590 said:

If we don't play there it will probably end up derelict within 10 years.. Surely this would bother you?

Click to expand...

Without the club it will go from strength to strength.

Godiva said:

My concern is that Ann Lucas don't have a negotiation mandate to agree a deal.

Click to expand...

That would indeed be a problem.

And similar to the notorious SISU handshake if so.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Agreed. I would, however, read into it that talks on that are at least an option or consideration now, as opposed to the entrenched position of Mutton.

Does that mean that they would sell? No, of course not, but I'd say it's encouraging if the offer is there to at least discuss the option, even if no deal can be reached. It at least shows a willingness to try and move the game forward.

Click to expand...

Was Mutton's position entrenched or was it just that they were at a different point in the negotiation?

wal3590 said:

If we don't play there it will probably end up derelict within 10 years.. Surely this would bother you?

Click to expand...

How about you derelict my balls.

In all honestly though, I did state if I was being selfish. Of course I really want the place to flourish, as I'm sure we all do.

To be honest this is all one big soap opera now.

Ann Lucas has been in her role for a few months now, Why has it suddenly taken up until the day before the CVA decision to come up with a letter of peace talks?

This whole situation is a mess, I have read a few things this morning regarding the CVA being rejected, is an apparent good thing for CCFC, it truly won't be anything but terrible and will prolong this agonising mess, for example;

a) - -15 Points Deduction
b) - Possible Relegation to the 4th Tier of English Football
c) - No new players to enter the madhouse
d) - No probable return to the Ricoh
e) - Continuing warring off the field between SISU and the Council
f) - Fans seperated from their club still
g) A continous bleak looking future

ACL OUT, COUNCIL OUT, SISU OUT!!!

Time for all these parties to stop having anything to do with the club and the Ricoh Arena as this just damaging the Football Club and the People of Coventry.

Time to go!!

(Should also mention, it's now 4 days until our first game of the season, no fan has had excitement or expectations for months, it's all been financial agony and a game of chess on the largest scale. This shouldn't be the way it has to be!!)

Godiva said:

Actually it's the expected move at this time - it happens in all situations when negotiations have broken down and the deadline is fast approaching.
The deadline in this case is in 7 days - assuming the decision to sign the CVA is delayed a second and last time for another week.
My concern is that Ann Lucas don't have a negotiation mandate to agree a deal.

Click to expand...

Who has the mandate then? I thought elected members trumped officers, i.e. she can instruct the CEO but not the other way round.

something i took from the legal thread i just started nice to see how the judge sees Ms seppalla!!! and a few lines of how they may of broke the law!

The breaches by CCFC Ltd and CCFCH Ltd were acknowledged by the Football League as serious; hence the transfer embargo. So it makes no sense to think that life will be better with the proposed new owner as they too are in breach of the law – so much so that on 23rd April, Companies House announced, with a statutory notice in the London Gazette, that they were beginning the statutory process to strike Otium Entertainment Group Ltd off the register of companies.
But “common sense” isn’t relevant when the decision as to whether a proposed director or owner is fit and proper is down to written rules.
What do the Rules say?


I said at the start that the Football League Rules define a “club” as “any Association Football club which is, from time to time, a member of The League”.
It expands this definition for the purpose of the Owners and Directors Test, to say that “club” includes “any associated undertaking, fellow subsidiary undertaking, group undertaking, parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of such club.”


This is important, because the Rules go on to define who is covered by the term “directors” – and it is much wider than you think. Under Football League Rules, a director is not only the statutory directors and any shadow directors as defined in the Companies Act 2006, and any directors registered with Companies House and people elected to become directors by the board of members, but also: “a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act” and “a person who exercises or is able, legally or beneficially, to exercise Control over the affairs of the Club.”


This means that it is not just the directors of the immediate owning company – which would be Otium Entertainment Group should the sale go through – but also the directors of all the companies detailed above, whether in the UK, the Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands.
The test that the directors must meet is laid out in Appendix Four of the Rules.


The most interesting of the rules is is “disqualifying condition (e)”. I use the word “interesting” rather than “relevant” deliberately. Disqualifying condition (e) relates to criminal convictions and I make no accusation, inference or suggestion that any of the companies or directors have any criminal convictions.
But it is interesting because it specifies the type of offence that would be relevant, including:
(i) dishonesty
The chief executive of CCFCH Ltd has made a number of statements which have subsequently proved to be untrue – including his description of CCFC Ltd as a “non-trading property subsidiary.”

(iii) perverting the course of justice
In 2005, Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others sought to overturn a Company Voluntary Agreement on the basis that they claimed was “unfairly prejudicial” to their interests. In his judgment, Mr Justice Warren produced a structural diagram of the various companies involved which showed that it too was a complicated multi-layered cross-border undertaking. He described Sisu Company Secretary Joy Seppalla as “the least satisfactory of all the witnesses”, saying: “I fear Ms Seppala has a distorted recollection of some events … and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a ‘spin’ which suits the Applicants’ case. She is also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her the benefit of the doubt on that.”
He added: “She is, I am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor” ([2005] EWHC 2170 (Ch)).
It is important to stress that judges often indicate the strength or weaknesses of particular witnesses; and Mr Justice Warren did not seek to accuse Ms Seppalla of perverting the course of justice.

fernandopartridge said:

Was Mutton's position entrenched or was it just that they were at a different point in the negotiation?

Click to expand...

A fair point, although there did indeed seem a willingness to embrace certain parties ahead of others, which always looked from the outside like playing politics with our football club.

Of course this could be too(!) but if so at least it's a more subtle effort!

jesus-wept said:

Joy Sepalla is on the run and when this cva isn't signed today (hopefully) lets see where this goes then. SISU do not want a probe into this or the massive cost Sixfields will cost them.

Click to expand...

Spot on!

How many meetings with ACL did Seppala send Fisher et al to - people who couldn't actually do a deal? And when they did Seppala went back on on it.

With less than 300 season tickets sole they're in complete meltdown. Revenue for the club at Sixfields could be under £1m which would give a wage cover of about £500k. Permanent transfer embagos and consecutive relegations will follow as the current bomb squad will take up the majority of £500k!

ACL need to be strong and reject the CVA - then all hell breaks loose for Seppala with her investors...

So why didn't Reeves attend? And why does Lucas break her silence NOW!? Surely, she could have "ended this nonsense" a week ago, two weeks, a month....

If you want to send a letter to someone asking for private talks, why plaster the letter all over the press? What's the motive there?

As far as I can see there's little chance that these talks will even happen, even less chance that anything will actually be agreed. This is just the council getting in the first punch in the inevitable blame game that will start after the rejection of the CVA.

torchomatic said:

So why didn't Reeves attend? And why does Lucas break her silence NOW!? Surely, she could have "ended this nonsense" a week ago, two weeks, a month....

Click to expand...

because of the judical review that was pending maybe ??

torchomatic said:

So why didn't Reeves attend? And why does Lucas break her silence NOW!? Surely, she could have "ended this nonsense" a week ago, two weeks, a month....

Click to expand...

Yep, it's the concern indeed.

But then aren't we going to slit each others' throats if we go on and on about who's done what in the past? Maybe we need to (somehow) try and find a way forward?

Sutty said:

If you want to send a letter to someone asking for private talks, why plaster the letter all over the press? What's the motive there?

As far as I can see there's little chance that these talks will even happen, even less chance that anything will actually be agreed. This is just the council getting in the first punch in the inevitable blame game that will start after the rejection of the CVA.

Click to expand...

You could also ask: If Seppala has Lucas' phone number as AL says in the 'letter' ... wouldn't Lucas have Seppala's?
Or maybe she has misplaced it.

Well, she's said something now anyway so what's the difference?

Sub said:

because of the judical review that was pending maybe ??

Click to expand...

Sutty said:

If you want to send a letter to someone asking for private talks, why plaster the letter all over the press? What's the motive there?

As far as I can see there's little chance that these talks will even happen, even less chance that anything will actually be agreed. This is just the council getting in the first punch in the inevitable blame game that will start after the rejection of the CVA.

Click to expand...

That alas is a fair point too.

Changed my mind, maybe we should slit each others' throats and put an end to the Sky Blue Sect!

True Sky Blue - you're nothing of the kind.

“But you need to understand, on behalf of the city council as freeholder, 50per cent shareholder of ACL and owner of 7.5 acres of development land I will protect the asset of the Ricoh Arena for the city and its people.

Click to expand...

Can we read anything into that statement? For me it sounds like Lucas rejected an offer from SISU as she says she's protecting an asset belonging to the city of Coventry. Now knowing SISU like we do what do we think the offer was from them? And what do they want in return apart from a signed CVA?

torchomatic said:

Well, she's said something now anyway so what's the difference?

Click to expand...

wonder if the council been given the all clear by the lawyers?? :thinking aboutn this i really do not know but wish something had been said alot earlier to sort this mess out like you suggested torchy

I would guess if the CVA is not signed then we can expect a raft of SISU legal claims against all parties involved at the Ricoh. (not saying it will be decided today, they can still adjourn for 7 days and Anne Lucas letter might be a tool to get that adjournment)

The SISU preferred weapon for conquest is legal challenges. Some seem to think that because SISU go to the law that (a) they must have a good case (b) must be right and (C) will win. The fact is that SISU believe that such actions drain the opposition of funds and interfere with the proper running of the ACL business...... which it does, so none of a, b or c have to be right. Rather it becoming a battle of who is right or wrong it is simply a question of who has the deepest pockets.

For all we know everything that SISU has done could be wrong (and i dont think it is) but if they have the deepest pockets then they will win. That is not something that sits well with me, yes I know it is just business, but I dont have to like it do i. Life and business are not fair but such a situation goes against such principles.

Whether certain characters were at meetings, whether the CVA is approved, whether the JR is successful or not etc is in the end simply more distraction. The only thing that matters now is who can ride this out the longest.

Sadly the end result will have nothing at all to benefit CCFC imho. Yes i hear those who say that CCFC will own the stadium should SISU succeed, got to be honest my accounting back ground says they wont. SISU are here for the stadium not the football club. If SISU do not succeed then the club is at even more risk (is that possible?) it could be gone for ever...... not because ACL wont do a deal (i think there is one to be done on a lease basis that benefits the club) but because SISU will have saddled it with impossible debt

Reading another thread has got me thinking although it's a leap of faith believing tsb

true sky blue said:

the secret talks (back on thursday) are regards the ownership of the arena. if the coucil sell to SISU of course we will be playing in the Ricoh - obviously. so why are our fans not camped outside the council houses in city centre protesting and demanding the council sell to the club, so we can play at home? any other club the fans would be tearing the council offices up, us ? no we want to tie blue ribbons everywhere, basically moving the morgue with in the ricoh arena to the streets of the city. stop moaning and crying and get to protest at the council. support the owners - start on the council and we play at home. simple really

Click to expand...

If the talks on Thursday were about ownership of the Ricoh is that what SISU wanted from the negotiations - ownership of the Ricoh?

James Smith said:

Reading another thread has got me thinking although it's a leap of faith believing tsb
If the talks on Thursday were about ownership of the Ricoh is that what SISU wanted from the negotiations - ownership of the Ricoh?

Click to expand...

As far as SISU are concerned there is nothing else they are willing to accept I would expect

oldskyblue58 said:

As far as SISU are concerned there is nothing else they are willing to accept I would expect

Click to expand...

Probably right. Did you or anyone else on here know that the talks were about ownership of the Ricoh??? I certainly didn't and am wondering how tsb knows that they were.

torchomatic said:

So why didn't Reeves attend? And why does Lucas break her silence NOW!? Surely, she could have "ended this nonsense" a week ago, two weeks, a month....

Click to expand...

Non attendance of certain parties is a complete red herring.

As long as the attendees had a mandate to agree a deal it is not important that any particular person attended.