Bad news for City fans (2 Viewers)

[Grendel]

That's a statement that's a complete fabrication of the truth, a lie almost.

Mr Appleton liquidated the club. Acl merely found the terms of the CVA he proposed to be unacceptable. Appleton then took it upon himself to liquidate our 130 year old club.

Acl rejecting the CVA did not require the club to be liquidated.

The "terms" being the cancelation of the JR.

ACL have never acted in the clubs interests and have have shown greed and spite to be their primary motivation since inception.

If ACL face liquidation that truly would be a day for celebration.

 

---

[NortonSkyBlue]

The "terms" being the cancelation of the JR.

ACL have never acted in the clubs interests and have have shown greed and spite to be their primary motivation since inception.

If ACL face liquidation that truly would be a day for celebration.

Getting the Ricoh built and therefore bailing out the club, asking for the payments to spread over a long period so the club could survive, making an agreement where the club could purchase their way back in to stadium at a fair price, but did not do so.....no I would rather the club in its current form went under.

50 years of supporting my hometown team and 35 years of home and away travel and I genuinely couldn't give a shit about their results any more......They are a disgrace and the day they are reborn will be a day for celebration.

 

[Grendel]

Getting the Ricoh built and therefore bailing out the club, asking for the payments to spread over a long period so the club could survive, making an agreement where the club could purchase their way back in to stadium at a fair price, but did not do so.....no I would rather the club in its current form went under.

50 years of supporting my hometown team and 35 years of home and away travel and I genuinely couldn't give a shit about their results any more......They are a disgrace and the day they are reborn will be a day for celebration.

Well I don't "give a shit" about the council and its poxy management company. Given by their own repricing they admit to over charging the club by several millions of pounds they really should be handing over a share in ACL for nothing shouldn't they? The council share preferably.

Still that would be a decent thing to do. Words like decent and CCC are strangely uncomfortable bedfellows I suspect.

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

Well I don't "give a shit" about the council and its poxy management company. Given by their own repricing they admit to over charging the club by several millions of pounds they really should be handing over a share in ACL for nothing shouldn't they? The council share preferably.

Still that would be a decent thing to do. Words like decent and CCC are strangely uncomfortable bedfellows I suspect.

Then we disagree to the fundamental root cause of the demise of something dear to both our hearts.........decent though? trying to drive a charity to the wall, classy.

All the council and acl were doing was what was agreed with the football club to finish the stadium. Nothing sinister abut that, says more about the bufoons who ran the club previously and the charlatans who took it over.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

ACL's final offer was made on condition of dropping the JR, the subsequent offers have happened since the ground share was approved. If the FA had of refused the ground share, and said Ricoh or nothing then 'supply vs demand' would mean that ACL could charge whatever they want because it's accept it or being kicked out the league.

I still think their would have been a possibility of us being at the Ricoh had ACL accepted the CVA then offered the cheap rent deal, rather than use the CVA to try and get the club to sign a 10 year deal and drop the JR. Not to mention ACL seemingly back a potential hostile takeover off ccfc by backing ph4.

Wait there, what about the rent offers that preceded any notion of a move to Northampton or even administration? Where was inflation by supply-and-demand there, then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685

Where were ACL trying to foist 'regime change' in that action, or promote PH4's case?

I'm sorry, your recollection don't bear scrutiny against events

 

[stupot07]

Wait there, what about the rent offers that preceded any notion of a move to Northampton or even administration? Where was inflation by supply-and-demand there, then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685

Where were ACL trying to foist 'regime change' in that action, or promote PH4's case?

I'm sorry, your recollection don't bear scrutiny against events

The £400k deal as a whole package was deemed not acceptable by the club (rightly or wrongly). The subsequent 'league one average £150k' and 'short term 3 year deal' where offered after the club left. You're completely missing the point. Without the threat of being able to leave ACL would not of had to offer the £400k and definitely wouldn't have offered the £150k.

ReH4 do you have inside information? The full truth? All of the facts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The £400k deal as a whole package was deemed not acceptable by the club (rightly or wrongly). The subsequent 'league one average £150k' and 'short term 3 year deal' where offered after the club left. You're completely missing the point. Without the threat of being able to leave ACL would not of had to offer the £400k and definitely wouldn't have offered the £150k.

ReH4 do you have inside information? The full truth? All of the facts?

No. Check the dates. That article is dated February 2013, and it makes reference to an agreement made in January 2013.

Talk (or threats, use whichever term you like) on moving or ground-share didn't start until April and it May of 2013. QED: flexibility was being shown ahead of the threat of moving.

And not taken up, I hasten to add....

As for PH4, no, I don't possess those facts - but he comes on the scene almost a year after these events. If SISU take the January 2013 deal, he's irrelevant, surely?

 

[stupot07]

That's a statement that's a complete fabrication of the truth, a lie almost.

Mr Appleton liquidated the club. Acl merely found the terms of the CVA he proposed to be unacceptable. Appleton then took it upon himself to liquidate our 130 year old club.

Acl rejecting the CVA did not require the club to be liquidated.

Excuse me please don't call me a lier.

It was quite clear in May that options were to either exit via a CVA or liquidate:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-administrator-leaves-3862802

They met to discuss the CVA, ACL wanted to include 2 conditions which Appleton said couldn't be lawfully included, they adjourned, returned 2 weeks later and ACL hadn't removed them despite being told they couldn't be included. As the options we're (as agreed in court in May) accept the CVA or liquidate, ACL knew full well that rejecting it would liquidate CCFC Ltd and with it the lease.

Now we can all debate, whether it could be agreed outside the CVA, whether Appleton ran the process properly, but at the end of the day ACL knew that being the majority creditor that rejecting the CVA meant liquidation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Now we can all debate, whether it could be agreed outside the CVA, whether Appleton ran the process properly, but at the end of the day ACL knew that being the majority creditor that rejecting the CVA meant liquidation.

You're wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, they did oppose and we weren't 'liquidated' FFS

 

[skybluetony176]

Well I don't "give a shit" about the council and its poxy management company. Given by their own repricing they admit to over charging the club by several millions of pounds they really should be handing over a share in ACL for nothing shouldn't they? The council share preferably.

Still that would be a decent thing to do. Words like decent and CCC are strangely uncomfortable bedfellows I suspect.

Is it not true that the rent deal was the one that the club insisted on and not the one ACL/CCC wanted, linked to the clubs status in the leagues? is it not also true that the club sold its access to revenue?

the blame doesn't belong to one party and one party alone for the failings off the club, everybody has a share. However only one party is keeping us away from the city, i would suggest it would be more constructive to direct your anger at them. getting the team HOME is the first of many hurdels if this club is to have a future. you continually whining on about ACL/CCC and Andy Thorn is not contributing anything to the club returning home.

 

[stupot07]

No. Check the dates. That article is dated February 2013, and it makes reference to an agreement made in January 2013.

Talk (or threats, use whichever term you like) on moving or ground-share didn't start until April and it May of 2013. QED: flexibility was being shown ahead of the threat of moving.

And not taken up, I hasten to add....

As for PH4, no, I don't possess those facts - but he comes on the scene almost a year after these events. If SISU take the January 2013 deal, he's irrelevant, surely?

Ah the infamous 'handshakegate'.

Ccfc claimed that some of the detail to the deal was unacceptable as outlined in the q and a. That was ACLs best and final never to be lowered offer which was subsequently lowered to £150k...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[torchomatic]

Don't feed the troll

Just get him to help out the kcic campaign.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Ah the infamous 'handshakegate'.

Ccfc claimed that some of the detail to the deal was unacceptable as outlined in the q and a. That was ACLs best and final never to be lowered offer which was subsequently lowered to £150k...

Now you're changing tac twice. Firstly you said it was only the threat of leaving that gave rise too any movement on rent. Now you're acknowledging there was flexibility before this threat; although then scoffing as even further reductions were offered at a later date.

As for the deal being deemed unacceptable in the Q&A; does that sequence of answers also make reference to the fact it's not a rent deal that's being sought at all, but an 'unencumbered freehold'? If not, what stock can we put by it, and why do you use it as the gospel it obviously isn't?

 

[chiefdave]

Still not sure what the fl or the fa were supposed to do, short of saying no groundshare and telling the club they have to pay whatever ACL want or no golden share.

That's exactly what they should have done, called SISU's bluff. What option would SISU have had, they could have either agreed a deal to play at the Ricoh or walked away losing all their money. Sure some will say they could have liquidated the club but they did that anyway and 'new' owners were allowed to come in.

 

[stupot07]

Now you're changing tac twice. Firstly you said it was only the threat of leaving that gave rise too any movement on rent. Now you're acknowledging there was flexibility before this threat; although then scoffing as even further reductions were offered at a later date.

As for the deal being deemed unacceptable in the Q&A; does that sequence of answers also make reference to the fact it's not a rent deal that's being sought at all, but an 'unencumbered freehold'? If not, what stock can we put by it, and why do you use it as the gospel it obviously isn't?

I don't think I actually said that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[shmmeee]

That's all well and good but to do that would've given ACL carte blanche to charge what they want because the club have to agree it or be expelled...unless they also have the power to make ACL offer league one average rent.

(Yes I know they did in the end but that was mainly due to the threat of being able to leave, without that there would never have had to offer lower deals, it would be put up or go)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Well, yes. That's the benefit ACL get from being in a monopoly. If Sisu wanted to break that monopoly they should've built a new ground. Guess what Manchester City have to pay rates to Manchester Council if they want to play in Manchester! Someone call Watchdog!

If you want to do certain businesses there are certain things you have to do, well you do if you don't want to kill your business of course.

We're a football club, not a bargaining chip, frankly if you can't see that you shouldn't buy a fucking club.

Pricks. (Sisu, not you)

 

[stupot07]

That's exactly what they should have done, called SISU's bluff. What option would SISU have had, they could have either agreed a deal to play at the Ricoh or walked away losing all their money. Sure some will say they could have liquidated the club but they did that anyway and 'new' owners were allowed to come in.

Problem is you're coming from it from a fans perspective, not a a member of the football club family. They looked after their own.

You say sisu agree a deal or walk away, what's to stop ACL saying sorry but the original £1.2m is the deal take it or leave. That would had put all power in ACLs court which would have been completely unfair. That would also set a precedent and have wider implications for other clubs who rent their stadiums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I don't think I actually said that.

I'm sorry, you did. You stated: Without the threat of being able to leave ACL would not of had to offer the £400k and definitely wouldn't have offered the £150k.

And I've now copied you a link to the story pertaining to the £400K offer in January 2013; which was three to four months ahead of the threatened move to Walsall, and six months ahead of the Sixfields option; this being in June of 2013.

Elsewhere in this thread, you've made references to ACL seeking to 'liquidate' the club; despite the fact they did oppose the CVA, and the club hasn't subsequently 'come to an end' - and never would have done within the context of it's administration; and also referred to Fisher's Q&A document, which is a farce of a document as it makes no reference to the carte blanche freehold now being sought. In precis, it's not all coming together cohesively

 

[stupot07]

I'm sorry, you did. You stated: Without the threat of being able to leave ACL would not of had to offer the £400k and definitely wouldn't have offered the £150k.

And I've now copied you a link to the story pertaining to the £400K offer in January 2013; which was three to four months ahead of the threatened move to Walsall, and six months ahead of the Sixfields option; this being in June of 2013.

Elsewhere in this thread, you've made references to ACL seeking to 'liquidate' the club; despite the fact they did oppose the CVA, and the club hasn't subsequently 'come to an end' - and never would have done within the context of it's administration; and also referred to Fisher's Q&A document, which is a farce of a document as it makes no reference to the carte blanche freehold now being sought. In precis, it's not all coming together cohesively

Yes I see it now. I agree that the threats came after the £400k, but it's the fact that I was always an option, if you removed that option then ACL would not have had to lower it. I.e a club can never ever ever groundshare.

Re: liquidate the club. I said liquidate ccfc ltd not the 'club'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Yes I see it now. I agree that the threats came after the £400k, but it's the fact that I was always an option, if you removed that option then ACL would not have had to lower it. I.e a club can never ever ever groundshare.

Re: liquidate the club. I said liquidate ccfc ltd not the 'club'.

Without wishing to be pedantic, that's a hypothesis. ACL may have entered into talks or agreed another deal with may other factors coming into play, other than the threat to leave. My preference would have been a clear explanation to the fans, who would then apply pressure with a view to the club's liabilities to ACL reducing over time, in proportion to AL's non-footballing activities increasing. Plus access to match day income, naturally

Of course, the fatal flaw in the plan is that it assumes SISU 'only' want low rents and match day income; whereas we now know they want an unencumbered freehold. That's the flaw with my notion above, the 'average League One rent', or any other idea for that matter. As such, what were SISU thinking when they were demanding such? Did they really have a sub-plot that they 'really' wanted the freehold, or did they change stance when some flexibility was shown? Again, I come back to my central point; how can you negotiate with people like this; and where does the move to Sixfields sit within this context?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

ACL's final offer was made on condition of dropping the JR, the subsequent offers have happened since the ground share was approved. If the FA had of refused the ground share, and said Ricoh or nothing then 'supply vs demand' would mean that ACL could charge whatever they want because it's accept it or being kicked out the league.

I still think their would have been a possibility of us being at the Ricoh had ACL accepted the CVA then offered the cheap rent deal, rather than use the CVA to try and get the club to sign a 10 year deal and drop the JR. Not to mention ACL seemingly back a potential hostile takeover off ccfc by backing ph4.

Our scenario is much more complex than the Hull scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

None of this was anything to do with the FA-the golden share was in the FL's hands and they had the power not to let us compete. There would have always been the possibility of us being at the Ricoh had our owners gone about negotiating it in the right way in the first place, and not made a deliberate attempt to sabotage the business. We left Coventry of our own volition, plain and simple.

As for your point on hostile takeover, SISU shrewdly guarded against that by filing the ARVO charge just before the withholding of rent, making them able to call for administration at a moment's notice, which is precisely what they did when ACL were about to. If they hadn't, ACL's administration would most likely have rid us of the kind people making us play in Northampton in front of the worst crowds in the division.

 

[stupot07]

None of this was anything to do with the FA

so back to the OP, nothing to do with the FA. Close thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[shmmeee]

so back to the OP, nothing to do with the FA. Close thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[shmmeee]

Problem is you're coming from it from a fans perspective, not a a member of the football club family. They looked after their own.

You say sisu agree a deal or walk away, what's to stop ACL saying sorry but the original £1.2m is the deal take it or leave. That would had put all power in ACLs court which would have been completely unfair. That would also set a precedent and have wider implications for other clubs who rent their stadiums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Why would it be unfair? Not more unfair than the FA/FL saying you have to play those overpaid players after relegation, or you have to pay the transfer fee for that player who got injured in their first match.

Shit happens, the FL shouldn't have got involved. IMO a smart lawyer could pretty much break apart all the other rules now on the same basis as you are using.

There's a rule that clubs must play in their conurbation. They should've enforced that rule.

 

[Nick]

Why would it be unfair? Not more unfair than the FA/FL saying you have to play those overpaid players after relegation, or you have to pay the transfer fee for that player who got injured in their first match.

Shit happens, the FL shouldn't have got involved. IMO a smart lawyer could pretty much break apart all the other rules now on the same basis as you are using.

There's a rule that clubs must play in their conurbation. They should've enforced that rule.

How can they if there is only 1 stadium in the area? That gives the landlord an easy way to charge whatever they want as the club would have no choice but to pay it or cease to exist.

I agree that if it was standard that all clubs own their ground that they shouldn't be able to move away etc.

 

[Grendel]

Why would it be unfair? Not more unfair than the FA/FL saying you have to play those overpaid players after relegation, or you have to pay the transfer fee for that player who got injured in their first match.

Shit happens, the FL shouldn't have got involved. IMO a smart lawyer could pretty much break apart all the other rules now on the same basis as you are using.

There's a rule that clubs must play in their conurbation. They should've enforced that rule.

So if sisu surrender the club and the golden share transfers elsewhere and ACL say to new owners play on our ground and its £20 million a season are you saying the league should force the owners to do that as its in the conurbation?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

As for your point on hostile takeover, SISU shrewdly guarded against that by filing the ARVO charge just before the withholding of rent, making them able to call for administration at a moment's notice, which is precisely what they did when ACL were about to. If they hadn't, ACL's administration would most likely have rid us of the kind people making us play in Northampton in front of the worst crowds in the division.

Well, after appointing Grant Jones - Professor of Insolvency Law, Nottingham University - as in-house counsel in 2010; or restructuring experts Cooper Parry late in 2012 - at which point Tyrone Courtman (head of Cooper Parry Restructuring team) said: "We are helping Coventry's board to explore its options in the event that a deal cannot be reached with the landlords" - they're not going to do badly out of it, are they?

In fact, in retrospect, SISU looked remarkably well equipped for the events that latterly transpired. It's almost as if they knew how things were going to work out. Which, they didn't; of course. Ahem....

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

so back to the OP, nothing to do with the FA. Close thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

No comment on the rest of the post then Stu?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So if sisu surrender the club and the golden share transfers elsewhere and ACL say to new owners play on our ground and its £20 million a season are you saying the league should force the owners to do that as its in the conurbation?

That wouldn't happen and you know it.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well, after appointing Grant Jones - Professor of Insolvency Law, Nottingham University - as in-house counsel in 2010; or restructuring experts Cooper Parry late in 2012 - at which point Tyrone Courtman (head of Cooper Parry Restructuring team) said: "We are helping Coventry's board to explore its options in the event that a deal cannot be reached with the landlords" - they're not going to do badly out of it, are they?

In fact, in retrospect, SISU looked remarkably well equipped for the events that latterly transpired. It's almost as if they knew how things were going to work out. Which, they didn't; of course. Ahem....

If anybody should have been the subject of a 'hostile takeover', I know who I'd want it to be...

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

That wouldn't happen and you know it.

Of course it wouldn't. It's on record that Grendy has been universally wrong on the Ricoh 'rent row' and I'm surprised he has the gall to comment in any way. But given his tradition of making every call incorrectly on this issue, he can really only resport to misrepresentation, fantasy and disingenuous skews of people's opinion

 

[skybluetony176]

So if sisu surrender the club and the golden share transfers elsewhere and ACL say to new owners play on our ground and its £20 million a season are you saying the league should force the owners to do that as its in the conurbation?

I would say there is more chance of sisu building never never land on the outskirts of Birmingham (AKA the Coventry "area") and charging the club that type of rent.

 

[chiefdave]

So if sisu surrender the club and the golden share transfers elsewhere and ACL say to new owners play on our ground and its £20 million a season are you saying the league should force the owners to do that as its in the conurbation?

You could easily get round that. If the FA and / or FL had forced SISU to clearly show why they couldn't accept the deal offered by ACL and why it was in the clubs best interest financially to groundshare and then build a new ground outside the city do you really think they could have provided that evidence? Of course not, everyone knows they are losing millions by insisting on playing in Northampton. The league could also have offered to arbitrate, if not themselves then at least oversee the process. They essentially did nothing but roll over and do exactly what SISU asked of them, if we could see that the FL had no other choice and had exhausted all other options it might be easier to take but the manner in which they rolled over and ignored the wishes of the fans is a disgrace.

The whole 'we can't get involved' argument completely falls down as in the Pompey takeover they refused to consider issuing the share to anyone but the supporters trust, if they can interfere with the administration process there why do they have to stand by and do nothing where we are concerned?

 

[wingy]

You could easily get round that. If the FA and / or FL had forced SISU to clearly show why they couldn't accept the deal offered by ACL and why it was in the clubs best interest financially to groundshare and then build a new ground outside the city do you really think they could have provided that evidence? Of course not, everyone knows they are losing millions by insisting on playing in Northampton. The league could also have offered to arbitrate, if not themselves then at least oversee the process. They essentially did nothing but roll over and do exactly what SISU asked of them, if we could see that the FL had no other choice and had exhausted all other options it might be easier to take but the manner in which they rolled over and ignored the wishes of the fans is a disgrace.

The whole 'we can't get involved' argument completely falls down as in the Pompey takeover they refused to consider issuing the share to anyone but the supporters trust, if they can interfere with the administration process there why do they have to stand by and do nothing where we are concerned?

Something to do with a Spurious argument that the players were registered away from the GS IIRC.