Bickering MP's (1 Viewer)

[sw88]

Just read that two City MP's have been bickering between themselves in Parliament regarding our current situation.

Well that's going to help our cause, isn't it :facepalm:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mps-bob-ainsworth-geoffrey-robinson-6234485

 

---

[mds]

Would be nice to think that a bunch of MPs who`s usual underhand tactics are to help themselves in one way or another could exert some underhand pressure on SISU to get City home!

 

[Otis]

Just read that two City MP's have been bickering between themselves in Parliament regarding our current situation.

Well that's going to help our cause, isn't it :facepalm:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mps-bob-ainsworth-geoffrey-robinson-6234485

At least they are talking about us.

Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2

 

[oldskyblue58]

Would like to see Robinson questioned properly as to his role in all this and as to whether he has any financial liability because of it. Think that might be interesting. But not sure that would add much to solving the mess

It would seem there wasnt much bickering between Ainsworth and Cunningham

 

[dadgad]

The long standing threat of increased Govt interference in footy.
As footy cannot govern itself then they need help. The situation with regard to us is a case in point.

 

[olderskyblue]

Given Robinson's history with CCFC, you have to suspect his real motives in all of this.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Would like to see Robinson questioned properly as to his role in all this and as to whether he has any financial liability because of it. Think that might be interesting. But not sure that would add much to solving the mess

It would seem there wasnt much bickering between Ainsworth and Cunningham

You have to ask the question! Because of the liquidation then ACL get virtually nothing from the adminstrator as to what is owed to them from CCFC, looking back it was shown that GR was gaurantor for the CCFC rental payments so why have ACL not chased his up to honour his commitment to them

 

[dadgad]

Well that's going to help our cause, isn't it :facepalm:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mps-bob-ainsworth-geoffrey-robinson-6234485

What a moronic comment.
Surely we want our club to be run fairly and honestly and see it back in Coventry. Any debate which sets out with that in mind clearly has to be a step in the right direction.
Ffs

 

[oldskyblue58]

You have to ask the question! Because of the liquidation then ACL get virtually nothing from the adminstrator as to what is owed to them from CCFC, looking back it was shown that GR was gaurantor for the CCFC rental payments so why have ACL not chased his up to honour his commitment to them

I thought that he was, or more exactly a guarantor to the escrow account. Is it ACL or the administrator that has to chase up on that account though? Perhaps who ever should has and some agreement is being or has been made?

Wouldnt say ACL were due nothing, I understood that as part of Otium getting the League share they had to pay ACL £590k

 

[jesus-wept]

Not a lot of love between Ainsworth and Robinson. Bob was trade union conveynor in his Jaguar days, at the same time Geoffrey was Managing director

 

[dadgad]

So we think that this little spat could go back to their ideological roots? Who would we trust? Majority would choose Bob, Think that's a given.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Just read that two City MP's have been bickering between themselves in Parliament regarding our current situation.

Well that's going to help our cause, isn't it :facepalm:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mps-bob-ainsworth-geoffrey-robinson-6234485

Why don't you watch the discussion. Follow this SBT thread http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/38225-CCFC-in-Parliament-Today

Until I had watched this I hadn't fully appreciated just how well GR does at making him self look a dick. BA Owned him in this exchange.

 

[Warwickhunt]

I thought that he was, or more exactly a guarantor to the escrow account. Is it ACL or the administrator that has to chase up on that account though? Perhaps who ever should has and some agreement is being or has been made?

Wouldnt say ACL were due nothing, I understood that as part of Otium getting the League share they had to pay ACL £590k

OSB yes you are right there was a clause from the FL that SISU/OTIUM pay the sum of £590k to ACL to get the Golden Share awarded, i think ACL should have chased GR up before applying to the court to put us into administration (i know I would have). As the Liquidation process is not completed yet do you think the ACL have received their monies yet?

 

[Warwickhunt]

OSB yes you are right there was a clause from the FL that SISU/OTIUM pay the sum of £590k to ACL to get the Golden Share awarded, i think ACL should have chased GR up before applying to the court to put us into administration (i know I would have). As the Liquidation process is not completed yet do you think the ACL have received their monies yet?

OSB would that be binding in Law that SISU must pay the £590K to ACL as a result of being awarded the Golden Share? or is a request by the FL and would the FL recind the Golden share if they did not payup (track record says they will not pay)

 

[davebart]

I think it is instructive that GR was more interested in point scoring over BA's belated involvement than actually offering anything constructive for the people of coventry he represents.
To suggest the council is at fault for not entering discussions when the club has said publicly they will have nothing to do with them is pitiful.
Why didn't he suggest an independent arbiter? Surely he knows a few.

 

[asb]

Having listened to the debate, the headline "Coventry MPs clash in Parliament over Sky Blues" seems a little strong. The clash was an exchange between Ainsworth and Robinson, and lasted no more then a couple of sentences. It is the typical playground exchanges that pass across the floor of Parliament on a daily basis, and much shorter then some of the childish stuff on here at times.

Robinson seemed to offer nothing to the debate apart from what is quoted in the article. It was as if he was there to make it seem that the debate was a personal attack on the owners, by someone who had no real interest in the club.

Ainsworth did deal with what Robinson said well and the debate moved on.

The headline seems to suggest that all the Coventry MPs do not agree on the issues surrounding the club. It would appear that Ainsworth and Cunningham agree on much, Robinson however appears to disagree with them.

 

[oldskyblue58]

OSB would that be binding in Law that SISU must pay the £590K to ACL as a result of being awarded the Golden Share? or is a request by the FL and would the FL recind the Golden share if they did not payup (track record says they will not pay)

As i understand it there is nothing that can make the administrator/liquidator of ccfc ltd pay ACL the money. They can only apportion what is left in the pot to all creditors in proportion to their debt (after deducting the admin/legal/liquidation costs of course) The intention of the FL is that ACL would receive a total of £590k from the admin/liquidation process and Otium share grant. So that say ACL get £50k out of the liquidation then there is a condition of the golden share being given to Otium that Otium top the figure up by £540k to equal the £590k. I would assume that contracts have been signed that stipulate this. Of course we all know contracts can be broken and that the Football League are not good at paperwork.

So in insolvency law it is not binding but there must be a contract between FL and Otium that makes the payment mandatory ....... over what period would be a different question, and would it be open to challenge if say Otium couldnt afford it and the fulfilment of fixtures was at risk.......

I would guess ACL are not exactly hanging their hat on receiving it any time soon...... pretty certain they have not received any of it yet

 

[chiefdave]

So in insolvency law it is not binding but there must be a contract between FL and Otium that makes the payment mandatory ....... over what period would be a different question, and would it be open to challenge if say Otium couldnt afford it and the fulfilment of fixtures was at risk.

They did exactly the same thing with Portsmouth, they had to agree to make certain payments to be issued with the golden share. Of course the follow on question would be what will the league do if and when Otium fail to make the payment.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

They did exactly the same thing with Portsmouth, they had to agree to make certain payments to be issued with the golden share. Of course the follow on question would be what will the league do if and when Otium fail to make the payment.

Dave, I think the answer to that question is "nothing".

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Not a lot of love between Ainsworth and Robinson. Bob was trade union conveynor in his Jaguar days, at the same time Geoffrey was Managing director

Surely you are not suggesting that any previous history these two may have had is clouding their judgement this time round, are you? Tut tut!

 

[sw88]

What a moronic comment.
Surely we want our club to be run fairly and honestly and see it back in Coventry. Any debate which sets out with that in mind clearly has to be a step in the right direction.
Ffs

Moronic? :laugh:

The only thing moronic is that you see MP's of the same City, albeit different parties, squabbling in public is a good thing for our cause, yet both claim to want the same outcome.

Is politics like this that have got us in the position we're in today

 

[RPHunt]

As i understand it there is nothing that can make the administrator/liquidator of ccfc ltd pay ACL the money. They can only apportion what is left in the pot to all creditors in proportion to their debt (after deducting the admin/legal/liquidation costs of course) The intention of the FL is that ACL would receive a total of £590k from the admin/liquidation process and Otium share grant. So that say ACL get £50k out of the liquidation then there is a condition of the golden share being given to Otium that Otium top the figure up by £540k to equal the £590k. I would assume that contracts have been signed that stipulate this. Of course we all know contracts can be broken and that the Football League are not good at paperwork.

So in insolvency law it is not binding but there must be a contract between FL and Otium that makes the payment mandatory ....... over what period would be a different question, and would it be open to challenge if say Otium couldnt afford it and the fulfilment of fixtures was at risk.......

I would guess ACL are not exactly hanging their hat on receiving it any time soon...... pretty certain they have not received any of it yet

I think the question of the payment to ACL was behind Bob Ainsworth's letter to the Football League. He published their reply a few weeks ago which seems to imply, in the quote below, that ACL will get whatever there is left after Appleton has had his snout in the trough and as far as the Football League are concerned, the matter is closed.

“We are not in a position to disclose the terms of the agreement between The Football League Limited and Otium Entertainment Group Limited and any queries about payment to creditors should be addressed to David Ruben & Partners as Administrators of Coventry City Football Club Limited. They are in possession of the funds arising out of the sale of assets to Otium Entertainment Group Limited.”

 

[asb]

The only thing moronic is that you see MP's of the same City, albeit different parties, squabbling in public is a good thing for our cause, yet both claim to want the same outcome.

Is politics like this that have got us in the position we're in today

The squabbling was typical cheap shots, normal for Parliament, and not much to even talk about. I would argue that based on the debates performance the MP's Ainsworth and Cunnigham want a very similar outcome. The outcome Robinson seems to want is to get one over Ainsworth, a totally different issue to the ones surrounding the club.

At least Ainsworth is trying to get the issues aired in public, to the dismay of some, maybe it is that openness that you consider moronic.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Moronic? :laugh:

The only thing moronic is that you see MP's of the same City, albeit different parties, squabbling in public is a good thing for our cause, yet both claim to want the same outcome.

Is politics like this that have got us in the position we're in today

Their both in the same party.

Are you saying then the council is an example of sensible politics? Leaders of both parties in agreement over Ricoh stance.

 

[dadgad]

Moronic? :laugh:

The only thing moronic is that you see MP's of the same City, albeit different parties, squabbling in public is a good thing for our cause, yet both claim to want the same outcome.

Is politics like this that have got us in the position we're in today

You're either pissed or stupid - nothing you say makes any sense.

The simple fact is that people are trying to raise awareness to our plight by exposing facts and stimulating debate.
You'd have to be moronic to think that this process is not worthwhile.
You'd have to be moronic to think (particularly as a city fan) that it would be better to do nothing.
You'd have to be moronic to believe that football governance couldn't and shouldn't be better than it is.
You'd have to be moronic (with World Cup going to Qatar and the UK's ninth biggest city without a football team) that something isn't rotten with our national game and that people shouldn't urge our governing body to examine its conscience.

 

[sw88]

You're either pissed or stupid - nothing you say makes any sense.

The simple fact is that people are trying to raise awareness to our plight by exposing facts and stimulating debate.
You'd have to be moronic to think that this process is not worthwhile.
You'd have to be moronic to think (particularly as a city fan) that it would be better to do nothing.
You'd have to be moronic to believe that football governance couldn't and shouldn't be better than it is.
You'd have to be moronic (with World Cup going to Qatar and the UK's ninth biggest city without a football team) that something isn't rotten with our national game and that people shouldn't urge our governing body to examine its conscience.

I get that any coverage is going to raise awareness. I've never said talking about it in parliament isn't worthwhile (although I'm not sure what good will come of it; I've convinced myself I'll not see another game of football at the Ricoh again, atleast while OTIUM are at he helm, and I can't see them moving anytime soon. If I do see football there again, then great. If I don't, I won't be surprised.)
I do agree the Quatar decision is moronic though, but I doubt there will be any changes to the FA, to the Football League, and regarding this last point, FIFA.

Oh, and I'm neither pissed or stupid. Maybe nothing I say makes sense to you as we obviously don't agree on a lot of things.........

 

[dadgad]

I get that any coverage is going to raise awareness. I've never said talking about it in parliament isn't worthwhile (although I'm not sure what good will come of it; I've convinced myself I'll not see another game of football at the Ricoh again, atleast while OTIUM are at he helm, and I can't see them moving anytime soon. If I do see football there again, then great. If I don't, I won't be surprised.)
I do agree the Quatar decision is moronic though, but I doubt there will be any changes to the FA, to the Football League, and regarding this last point, FIFA.

Oh, and I'm neither pissed or stupid. Maybe nothing I say makes sense to you as we obviously don't agree on a lot of things.........

Your lack of sense stems from the grammar in your previous post. Much improved.
You are pessimistic about many things but that doesn't preclude others from trying to change things that are demonstrably wrong........
YOU can give up but others should be encouraged to keep trying......particularly when we, innocent bystanders, have to suffer the consequences of the failure of football to get things right, etc. etc.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Just read that two City MP's have been bickering between themselves in Parliament regarding our current situation.

Well that's going to help our cause, isn't it :facepalm:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mps-bob-ainsworth-geoffrey-robinson-6234485

That was the (misleading) headline, actually Aisnworth, Robinson & Pawsey (Rugby) were quite cordial & largely in accord, despite some differences of emphasis.

I guess 3 MPs agree doesn't make such a good headline.

Robinson challenged Ainsworth & got taken down a peg or 2 when Ainsworth pointed out he was in charge of CCFC when they got into all this shit.

 

[sw88]

I guess 3 MPs agree doesn't make such a good headline.

Your right, it doesn't

 

[dadgad]

That was the (misleading) headline, actually Aisnworth, Robinson & Pawsey (Rugby) were quite cordial & largely in accord, despite some differences of emphasis.

I guess 3 MPs agree doesn't make such a good headline.

Robinson challenged Ainsworth & got taken down a peg or 2 when Ainsworth pointed out he was in charge of CCFC when they got into all this shit.

Good post AND spot on.:guitar2::claping hands:

 

[SimonGilbert]

That was the (misleading) headline, actually Aisnworth, Robinson & Pawsey (Rugby) were quite cordial & largely in accord, despite some differences of emphasis.

I guess 3 MPs agree doesn't make such a good headline.

Robinson challenged Ainsworth & got taken down a peg or 2 when Ainsworth pointed out he was in charge of CCFC when they got into all this shit.

It was actually four MPS (as Jim Cunningham was involved) .... and Pawsey wasn't involved, it was Marcus Jones (Nuneaton).

 

[dadgad]

So BA is slowly garnering support.......fair play.:claping hands:

 

[asb]

It was actually four MPS (as Jim Cunningham was involved) .... and Pawsey wasn't involved, it was Marcus Jones (Nuneaton).

Yes Marcus Jones was involved. He did say that success comes from greater access to the stadium revenue. Which was about his only involvement in such a short debate.

Ainsworth agreed with Jones on that issue, but had concerns with the way it was being handled by the club to gain that greater involvement. So no bickering there.

Cunningham seemed to agree very much with what Ainsworth was asking for, and increased the challenge on the Football League. So no bickering here either

Robinson made a snide remark at Ainsworth, while not actually debating anything. Which received a very short response. As I have said before a typical daily Parliament exchange.

So yes four local MP's

Three of them partly / fully in agreement. One appearing to disagree.

 

[SimonGilbert]

So yes four local MP's

Three of them partly / fully in agreement. One appearing to disagree.

Three people agreed while two MPs from the same party made snide remarks at each other - or bickered if you prefer. Factual, accurate, backed up with quotes.

 

[asb]

Three people agreed while two MPs from the same party made snide remarks at each other - or bickered if you prefer. Factual, accurate, backed up with quotes.

We seem to be arguing the same point.

Where you see two I see that it was one who attempted to cause a problem to derail the debate. Who was soon forgot about in context of the debate.

Would you be happier if I provided full references with full quotes?

The point was that the snide remarks were such a small unimportant part of what was said in the debate, that leading a story on such a headline could make the debate seem something other then it was.