cant get over 10pt deduction (1 Viewer)

[Paxman II]

All very well, but leaving Sisu out of it for a moment, what exactly do you want the Council to do? what can they do? bearing in mind they have to get the best deal possible and not let it go for peanuts. As has been said before, whether Sisu own the Ricoh or build a new stadium, it will not be CCFC's and we will still be paying rent, we don't know what that is likely to be as Tim Fisher dodged the question when he was asked which in itself worries me because as everyone is this mess likes to score points then Sisu could have made strides by saying rent will be X (a very low figure) and thereby gaining support because of the previous rent deal we had.

You are right. If SISU build their own stadium they will most likely keep ownership and rent it to the football club. That being said what would stop the football club seeking a better deal from the Ricoh and thereby leaving SISU's stadium empty?
I think the most likely outcome is SISU build in order to sell a football club with stadium.

As for 'owning' the Ricoh. I said many times in the past that a long lease would be a good scenario but if freehold was granted then a caveat to that would be it iis solely owned by the football club and not a pawn in a companies portfolio such as SISU's. This can be achieved. Contractually complex but not extraordinary. I would hazard a guess that SISU would not like this.

 

---

[Astute]

I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

Maybe you should consider not supporting it then.

So where do we start? You say murmurings of a rent free offer. It has been proven. You say a crazy rent of 1.2m. How about the crazy mismanagement fees of 2.5m or crazy interest charges of 1.2m? And this was 2011 when they last showed the books.

They say they want unencumbered freehold or they will build a stadium. What they want would be illegal for CCC to do. It would cost them much more than Joy is willing to pay. There is no benefit to our club at all having the freehold over a long term low rent. The benefit would be all a hedge funds only. They have admitted that the ground would not belong to our club. As things now stand they would hardly get anything if they liquidated our club. But if they were handed the Ricoh as they are trying to get they would walk away with the stadium as all debts are owed to them. I have said that I would be happy for the stadium to be sold to them.......but not on the cheap.

We are going to be stuck like this until they run out of ways of bringing litigation. Or they get a judge that don't see through their lies unlike the last one Joy came up against last time. How many JR appeals will they be allowed? What will happen to our club whilst they do it?

 

[Astute]

So you are saying the council had every right to own the freehold to the stadium?

They have more rights to own it than a hedge fund that has ripped our club apart whilst trying to get it on the cheap. CCC got it built not SISU. CCC got the funding for it. CCC own the land.

 

[Astute]

They have more rights to own it than a hedge fund that has ripped our club apart whilst trying to get it on the cheap. CCC got it built not SISU. CCC got the funding for it. CCC own the land.

If they want it why don't they try putting in an offer for it? This would be for more than the building of a 12,000 stadium that won't get built. So there is no chance. Maybe if they tried having talks instead of throwing litigation all over the place. Try building a bit of trust back up.

 

[duffer]

I don't disagree with you Prefect. My point really is about the history involved around this whole situation that makes the case for both sides to consider their positions and while I agree most events are of the clubs making as you say, there are mitigating circumstances that can't be ignored.
The Stadium was originally started by the football club before they ran out of money. The completion of the project was made possible by others (including Tesco) and the council it could be argued, sailed in and reaped the rewards appointing a management company it shares ownership of (ACL) and taking the freehold for themselves.

So some responsibility towards the football club should have been forthcoming. Charging them a crazy rent level for playing every other week without access to any of the other income streams that their support (up to 32k people) produced was negligent in my opinion.
The fact the football club accepted such a rent deal in the first place was down to past management of which our old friend Joe was a member of.

SISU made a stance, admittedly once they realised their mistakes running the football club were costing them dearly. Any other owner would have drawn the same conclusion.
I don't like the way SISU went about it and shame on them for doing so but the council refused to budge for so long. Only recent murmurings suggest they are willing to offer rent free and a lease but none of that leads to what the football club will need going forward - regardless of owner. I support SISU only as owners of our football club in trying to get the stadium for the club. If they want it for themselves so they can screw the club afterwards then I would not support it.

The council must face up to where we are now. It's not just any old football club. It's not Nuneaton or Bedworth Utd. It's a major football club with a long historical position in Coventry. It's a huge representation of the town.

The council clearly tried to play SISU's own game attempting to undermine the process and slide in Hoffman and co waiting in the wings with backers. SISU saw that coming and reacted. The council refuse the CVA and the warring factions continue.
What we need is an arbitrator to resolved all the issues and the council to be willing to accept they have no need to own a stadium in the city which will continue to have it's own financial difficulties without it's main anchor tenant in place. That should be the football club, not SISU per sae but the football club. That can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Jobs and investment await the outcome.

There's some interesting stuff here - but I think you could turn it on it's head. The council didn't sail in, they stepped in reluctantly. One vote sealed the deal, otherwise the Ricoh wouldn't have been built at all.

The rent represented the cost of the build. Financing CCFC's share of the build would have cost far, far more. I don't see that there was much wrong there, the failure was in considering what would happen if the club was relegated - there was a discussion about that, but neither party seemed too fussed about progressing the sliding scale deal (or negotiating further about it).

The club sold their rights to income streams, and didn't seem too interested in buying them back, even when SISU were in charge.

The CVA rejection was because ACL (not just the council, who do not have a controlling interest in ACL) were clearly unhappy with a process that saw a company that held most of the football business, suddenly become a company that held a lease and £60m debt. They said it themselves, accepting the CVA would have shown an acceptance of that process. I don't doubt that ACL thought that administration might lead to new ownership, but if SISU had paid the rent or negotiated in reasonable good faith, then I can't see that ACL could have attempted that outcome (whether they wanted to or not).

Conversely, it seems that relatively early on in the rent strike, SISU had taken the decision to break ACL regardless of the cost to club or fans. They are still clearly set down that path, hence us now playing at Northampton.

Regardless of your opinion on all of the above, we are now where we are.

As far as the council having responsibility to the club, what can they do now? By law they are not allowed to sell public assets, of which the Ricoh freehold is one, undervalue. They've said they will listen to offers for the encumbered freehold, but that isn't sufficient for SISU, who seem to expect the council to wind up ACL (which they can't, because they don't have a controlling interest) and presumably settle any sub-leases, and then do a deal to sell whatever remains to them and them alone. Fundamentally, and not for the first time, SISU are asking for something that's impossible to deliver.

The solution here, to me, is actually surprisingly obvious.

SISU should forget about breaking ACL, and take up the rent-free/low rent deal for now. This would actually make them money compared with playing in Northampton. Whilst in situ, they can either negotiate in good faith for some sort of share of revenue streams (or even look to purchase ACL and/or the freehold). If that turns out for whatever reason to be impossible, they can continue their plan for an alternative stadium.

At the moment, imho, the stubborness and responsibility for playing in Northampton seems to be with one side, and one side only. The owners.

 

[Paxman II]

There's some interesting stuff here - but I think you could turn it on it's head. The council didn't sail in, they stepped in reluctantly. One vote sealed the deal, otherwise the Ricoh wouldn't have been built at all.

The rent represented the cost of the build. Financing CCFC's share of the build would have cost far, far more. I don't see that there was much wrong there, the failure was in considering what would happen if the club was relegated - there was a discussion about that, but neither party seemed too fussed about progressing the sliding scale deal (or negotiating further about it).

The club sold their rights to income streams, and didn't seem too interested in buying them back, even when SISU were in charge.

The CVA rejection was because ACL (not just the council, who do not have a controlling interest in ACL) were clearly unhappy with a process that saw a company that held most of the football business, suddenly become a company that held a lease and £60m debt. They said it themselves, accepting the CVA would have shown an acceptance of that process. I don't doubt that ACL thought that administration might lead to new ownership, but if SISU had paid the rent or negotiated in reasonable good faith, then I can't see that ACL could have attempted that outcome (whether they wanted to or not).

Conversely, it seems that relatively early on in the rent strike, SISU had taken the decision to break ACL regardless of the cost to club or fans. They are still clearly set down that path, hence us now playing at Northampton.

Regardless of your opinion on all of the above, we are now where we are.

As far as the council having responsibility to the club, what can they do now? By law they are not allowed to sell public assets, of which the Ricoh freehold is one, undervalue. They've said they will listen to offers for the encumbered freehold, but that isn't sufficient for SISU, who seem to expect the council to wind up ACL (which they can't, because they don't have a controlling interest) and presumably settle any sub-leases, and then do a deal to sell whatever remains to them and them alone. Fundamentally, and not for the first time, SISU are asking for something that's impossible to deliver.

The solution here, to me, is actually surprisingly obvious.

SISU should forget about breaking ACL, and take up the rent-free/low rent deal for now. This would actually make them money compared with playing in Northampton. Whilst in situ, they can either negotiate in good faith for some sort of share of revenue streams (or even look to purchase ACL and/or the freehold). If that turns out for whatever reason to be impossible, they can continue their plan for an alternative stadium.

At the moment, imho, the stubborness and responsibility for playing in Northampton seems to be with one side, and one side only. The owners.

I agree with most of that. If we can all be sensible then I see we can all be on the same page.
I can't hang around a forum all day or spend time researching to catch up if I have missed something but I would like to know where a formal offer had been made regarding free rent to Otium and what the attached conditions were?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Well unfortunately you are going to have to get over it because it is not going to change.

Exactly like people should 'get over it' that the Club didn't pay the extortionate rent..

 

[duffer]

I agree with most of that. If we can all be sensible then I see we can all be on the same page.
I can't hang around a forum all day or spend time researching to catch up if I have missed something but I would like to know where a formal offer had been made regarding free rent to Otium and what the attached conditions were?

Appreciate what you're saying.

The one I'm thinking of here would be the formal offer that went via the FL.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/sisu-boss-joy-seppala-rejects-6363684

Or the rolling ten-year £150,000 one that I think was made during admin.

Either of those deals would see the club in a far, far better position financially than playing at Northampton. SISU could then negotiate in good faith for whatever else they wanted, and if it still made more sense to move on, progress building a new stadium whilst making more money and playing in Coventry.

 

[The Gentleman]

I agree with most of that. If we can all be sensible then I see we can all be on the same page.
I can't hang around a forum all day or spend time researching to catch up if I have missed something but I would like to know where a formal offer had been made regarding free rent to Otium and what the attached conditions were?

Not sure what you are getting at with regard to rental offers made to Otium, whether made by a third party or not, Otium have accepted that an offer was made. If you are trying to make the point that it wasn't made directly to Otium then that is irrelevant in my opinion. The offer was formally made. Lots of things get done through third parties from when a house is sold and offers made through estate agents to Sisu talking to Nuneaton & Bedworth Council through a third party about land (this is where Sisu moaning about the councils offer not being direct cracks me up). Why would ACL/CCC want to do business directly with them after what has happened? I was wondering as I asked you before, what would you want the council to do bearing in mind the restrictions that they have upon them?

 

[The Gentleman]

Exactly like people should 'get over it' that the Club didn't pay the extortionate rent..

Not quite sure who this is aimed at? and why?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So what you are saying is that an organisation must put its investors first and if that included a plan to increase the asset base with a five year plan you'd support it?

No. What he stated was fact. You're trying to tie it up into a crazed comparison. I note you don't like to dwell on this issue, as it irks you.

Let me ask you a direct question. It is stated the reason ACL opposed the administration, as structured, was that they wanted to tie in supporting it, with a short term deal to stay at the Ricoh at a reduced rental level.

So, in such a scenario, SISU had an option: sign up to stay at the Ricoh and ACL support the administration order. No 10 point deduction. Remain in Coventry.

If that - as reported - was what happened, and SISU reused; who now sits culpable?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Not quite sure who this is aimed at? and why?

I qouted your post Gent because you told the OP to 'get over it' so in a sense this is aimed at you as this arguement can be used both ways, but many more posters as well. People are saying the Club tried to distress ACL now whether they did or didn't is irrelevant for a moment, because everyone is saying ACL aren't as bad, but could the 10 point deduction also be considered as a method of distressing a business of the Clubs nature? I would agree with that, meaning both are as a bad as one another and they're all playing little games.

To answer the OP I would say that ACL were trying to distress the Club, there is no doubt the Club and energy behind it would be better if we had not been deducted those 10 points..

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Again a lot of people mentioning the word 'distress' in this thread. Were they really trying to do that though? This isn't a Sisu-Apologist type post but a real question, there is no proof that this was their motive, most people can now accept that the rent was too high and the issues weren't helped by McGinity and his lark selling over the only revenue rights we had left before Sisu came in.

When a companies employee's go on strike they don't do it because they are trying to distress the company (some may argue that), but they do it because the terms of their employment aren't beneficial or because they feel they're under valued, Sisu felt as if they were being taken for a ride by ACL with the rent, but the question I have is if ACL are able to offer this magnificent low rent now, then why couldn't they before and save 8-16 months of absolute heartache and petulance?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Again a lot of people mentioning the word 'distress' in this thread. Were they really trying to do that though? This isn't a Sisu-Apologist type post but a real question, there is no proof that this was their motive, most people can now accept that the rent was too high and the issues weren't helped by McGinity and his lark selling over the only revenue rights we had left before Sisu came in.

When a companies employee's go on strike they don't do it because they are trying to distress the company (some may argue that), but they do it because the terms of their employment aren't beneficial or because they feel they're under valued, Sisu felt as if they were being taken for a ride by ACL with the rent, but the question I have is if ACL are able to offer this magnificent low rent now, then why couldn't they before and save 8-16 months of absolute heartache and petulance?

Okay, two questions:

1) Why continue the JR at their expense, on an issue pertaining to an Arena they've 'moved on' from?
2) Why insist on this farcical move to Sixfields?

Both look like they could be actions intended to bring about further distress to ACL and their business. That atop the rent strike gives rise to only one conclusion, surely; or do you have a better one for me??!?

 

[duffer]

Again a lot of people mentioning the word 'distress' in this thread. Were they really trying to do that though? This isn't a Sisu-Apologist type post but a real question, there is no proof that this was their motive, most people can now accept that the rent was too high and the issues weren't helped by McGinity and his lark selling over the only revenue rights we had left before Sisu came in.

When a companies employee's go on strike they don't do it because they are trying to distress the company (some may argue that), but they do it because the terms of their employment aren't beneficial or because they feel they're under valued, Sisu felt as if they were being taken for a ride by ACL with the rent, but the question I have is if ACL are able to offer this magnificent low rent now, then why couldn't they before and save 8-16 months of absolute heartache and petulance?

Entirely accept that you're not coming from this as a SISU-apologist.

I think the evidence that they were trying to break ACL comes from a number of places: Agreeing and then walking away from the purchase of the Higgs share, doing something similar with the £400k deal with ACL, completely ignoring the £150k offer, moving to Northampton (at a huge financial loss), and continuing to refuse to return under any rent deal.

Moving assets from Ltd to elsewhere just prior to the admin process looks a bit like a company formulating a plan too, at least to me.

(Edit: And the JR, I'd forgotten about the JR.)

Strikes are generally used as a negotiating tactic, I'd agree - but it seems clear that there wasn't (and certainly isn't) any negotiation with ACL that SISU were prepared to accept.

 

[Captain Dart]

I agree with most of that. If we can all be sensible then I see we can all be on the same page.
I can't hang around a forum all day or spend time researching to catch up if I have missed something but I would like to know where a formal offer had been made regarding free rent to Otium and what the attached conditions were?

Labovich discussed it on TV & made various objections to the offer so clearly OTIUM are aware of it & declined to engage.

As I understand it the rent is zero but match day costs were up to CCFC to finance, they would come to aprox £400,000pa, but then that is the cost of these things for a large crowd,

I've no doubt costs at Northampton are very much lower as the crowds are limited but as far as I'm aware there are no publicly available details to compare value for money.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Okay, two questions:

1) Why continue the JR at their expense, on an issue pertaining to an Arena they've 'moved on' from?
2) Why insist on this farcical move to Sixfields?

Both look like they could be actions intended to bring about further distress to ACL and their business. That atop the rent strike gives rise to only one conclusion, surely; or do you have a better one for me??!?

1) Tim Fisher and Sisu believe CCC/ACL has been underhanded (Fisher has said this often that he believes that ACL tried to wrest control of the Club) if he has a genuine arguement then by all means let him present it in a JR, I am not saying he will be successful my personal opinion is he will be far from it, but if he believes he has an arguement and the judge rules for it let them get the JR done, the worst that can happen is all new facts come to light in actuallity for the fans might be better.

2) Fisher ad Sisu have said they will not return to the Ricoh under tennancy agreement I am not sure in those words with no disrespect intended MMM how that is hard to understand.

They could look that way, but that is the way you choose to look at them, it doesn't mean that is their intention.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Entirely accept that you're not coming from this as a SISU-apologist.

I think the evidence that they were trying to break ACL comes from a number of places: Agreeing and then walking away from the purchase of the Higgs share, doing something similar with the £400k deal with ACL, completely ignoring the £150k offer, moving to Northampton (at a huge financial loss), and continuing to refuse to return under any rent deal.

Moving assets from Ltd to elsewhere just prior to the admin process looks a bit like a company formulating a plan too, at least to me.

(Edit: And the JR, I'd forgotten about the JR.)

Strikes are generally used as a negotiating tactic, I'd agree - but it seems clear that there wasn't (and certainly isn't) any negotiation with ACL that SISU were prepared to accept.

Duffer I see your arguement and as with MMM's it has many valid points, but Sisu will be looking at the PH4 situation and thinking that ACL tried to move someone into position who could take the Club from Sisu.. As they've stated they won't return to a tenenacy agreement with ACL, trust has gone and relationships are broken.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

1) Tim Fisher and Sisu believe CCC/ACL has been underhanded (Fisher has said this often that he believes that ACL tried to wrest control of the Club) if he has a genuine arguement then by all means let him present it in a JR, I am not saying he will be successful my personal opinion is he will be far from it, but if he believes he has an arguement and the judge rules for it let them get the JR done, the worst that can happen is all new facts come to light in actuallity for the fans might be better.

2) Fisher ad Sisu have said they will not return to the Ricoh under tennancy agreement I am not sure in those words with no disrespect intended MMM how that is hard to understand.

They could look that way, but that is the way you choose to look at them, it doesn't mean that is their intention.

I think you're moving the point, dear chap. You asked about apparent distress; and I gave you three examples. Rent being withheld, the Judicial Review at SISU's cost, and the Sixfields movein the face of very fair rent offers.

Now you're moving the debate onto CCC trying to 'wrest' control of the club. That's a different debate. What I gave you - in response to your question - were three examples of SISU - pro-actively and without influence from CCC, Walt Disney or Captain Birdseye for that matter -engaging in actions that could appear to 'distress' ACL. Do you want to comment on that first, before shimmying on somewhere else?

 

[Astute]

And if they never tried to distress ACL why won't they bring CCFC home on rent free this season and 100k for the next two? If they are really planning to build a stadium as CCC can't by law give them what they want they should be able to get it planned and built in this time if they took it seriously. They are nearly a year into these plans

So they wanted reduced rent. They got a few reduced rent offers. So it become about the pies. It ended up unencumbered freehold or nothing. So what do you say all this was about if it wasn't distressing ACL? Why did they try and get the distressed mortgage? Why do they keep lying to us?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Duffer I see your arguement and as with MMM's it has many valid points, but Sisu will be looking at the PH4 situation and thinking that ACL tried to move someone into position who could take the Club from Sisu.. As they've stated they won't return to a tenenacy agreement with ACL, trust has gone and relationships are broken.

The were looking at PH4's offerings after the rent dispute began, weren't they? After their case had been upheld in court.

Can you blame them for talking to other parties, when the incumbent tenant refuses to pay?

And besides; he was looking at buying a share of the Ricoh, wasn't he? In what was would any change of ownership of the landlord, change the ownership of the football club - the tenant? There's irrelevant, surely?

 

[Astute]

Duffer I see your arguement and as with MMM's it has many valid points, but Sisu will be looking at the PH4 situation and thinking that ACL tried to move someone into position who could take the Club from Sisu.. As they've stated they won't return to a tenenacy agreement with ACL, trust has gone and relationships are broken.

The trust has gone? Who is it that seems to have tried their best to make sure there is no trust left? The side that shouldn't trust the other is the side that is still trying to come to an arrangement. The other side has said the only thing they will settle for is something they know they can't have by law. Yet some of our fans still believe them.

 

[sky blue john]

Again a lot of people mentioning the word
'distress' in this thread. Were they really trying to do that though? This isn't a Sisu-Apologist type post but a real question, there is no proof that this was their motive, most people can now accept that the rent was too high and the issues weren't helped by McGinity and his lark selling over the only revenue rights we had left before Sisu came in.

When a companies employee's go on strike they don't do it because they are trying to distress the company (some may argue that), but they do it because the terms of their employment aren't beneficial or because they feel they're under valued, Sisu felt as if they were being taken for a ride by ACL with the rent, but the question I have is if ACL are able to offer this magnificent low rent now, then why couldn't they before and save 8-16 months of absolute heartache and petulance?

How about the word devalue instead of distress ?
It was quoted somewhere at some point that JS threatened continued legal action if the ricoh freehold was not sold at a price of her choosing ?

 

[duffer]

Duffer I see your arguement and as with MMM's it has many valid points, but Sisu will be looking at the PH4 situation and thinking that ACL tried to move someone into position who could take the Club from Sisu.. As they've stated they won't return to a tenenacy agreement with ACL, trust has gone and relationships are broken.

But PH4 didn't come on the scene until well after the rent strike and all those other 'failed' negotiations had occurred.

I take your point about trust, and it's fair enough. But right now it seems that there's one side that's moved on from trying to break the other one, and one side that definitely hasn't. Financially, it makes no sense to be at Northampton under the deals currently available to the club. And yet at Northampton we remain.

I honestly don't think that's about trust, I think that is because SISU are determined to break ACL. If it wasn't I think that SISU really would have 'moved on'.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I think you're moving the point, dear chap. You asked about apparent distress; and I gave you three examples. Rent being withheld, the Judicial Review at SISU's cost, and the Sixfields movein the face of very fair rent offers.

Now you're moving the debate onto CCC trying to 'wrest' control of the club. That's a different debate. What I gave you - in response to your question - were three examples of SISU - pro-actively and without influence from CCC, Walt Disney or Captain Birdseye for that matter -engaging in actions that could appear to 'distress' ACL. Do you want to comment on that first, before shimmying on somewhere else?

You asked my why continue with the JR, I don't believe it is down to distressing ACL and I gave you my opinion on Sisu's reason for the persistance of the JR, I appreciate it's not perhaps what you wanted to hear nontheless I think this is more likely then trying to distress ACL 'dear chap'.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

And if they never tried to distress ACL why won't they bring CCFC home on rent free this season and 100k for the next two? If they are really planning to build a stadium as CCC can't by law give them what they want they should be able to get it planned and built in this time if they took it seriously. They are nearly a year into these plans

So they wanted reduced rent. They got a few reduced rent offers. So it become about the pies. It ended up unencumbered freehold or nothing. So what do you say all this was about if it wasn't distressing ACL? Why did they try and get the distressed mortgage? Why do they keep lying to us?

I wonder how hard it is for people to grasp statements that are said publically...

Maybe this example may help you Astute (please pay attention to the title of the article it may answer your question)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

There's some interesting stuff here - but I think you could turn it on it's head. The council didn't sail in, they stepped in reluctantly. One vote sealed the deal, otherwise the Ricoh wouldn't have been built at all.

The rent represented the cost of the build. Financing CCFC's share of the build would have cost far, far more. I don't see that there was much wrong there, the failure was in considering what would happen if the club was relegated - there was a discussion about that, but neither party seemed too fussed about progressing the sliding scale deal (or negotiating further about it).

The club sold their rights to income streams, and didn't seem too interested in buying them back, even when SISU were in charge.

The CVA rejection was because ACL (not just the council, who do not have a controlling interest in ACL) were clearly unhappy with a process that saw a company that held most of the football business, suddenly become a company that held a lease and £60m debt. They said it themselves, accepting the CVA would have shown an acceptance of that process. I don't doubt that ACL thought that administration might lead to new ownership, but if SISU had paid the rent or negotiated in reasonable good faith, then I can't see that ACL could have attempted that outcome (whether they wanted to or not).

Conversely, it seems that relatively early on in the rent strike, SISU had taken the decision to break ACL regardless of the cost to club or fans. They are still clearly set down that path, hence us now playing at Northampton.

Regardless of your opinion on all of the above, we are now where we are.

As far as the council having responsibility to the club, what can they do now? By law they are not allowed to sell public assets, of which the Ricoh freehold is one, undervalue. They've said they will listen to offers for the encumbered freehold, but that isn't sufficient for SISU, who seem to expect the council to wind up ACL (which they can't, because they don't have a controlling interest) and presumably settle any sub-leases, and then do a deal to sell whatever remains to them and them alone. Fundamentally, and not for the first time, SISU are asking for something that's impossible to deliver.

The solution here, to me, is actually surprisingly obvious.

SISU should forget about breaking ACL, and take up the rent-free/low rent deal for now. This would actually make them money compared with playing in Northampton. Whilst in situ, they can either negotiate in good faith for some sort of share of revenue streams (or even look to purchase ACL and/or the freehold). If that turns out for whatever reason to be impossible, they can continue their plan for an alternative stadium.

At the moment, imho, the stubborness and responsibility for playing in Northampton seems to be with one side, and one side only. The owners.

Excellent post

 

[RoboCCFC90]

The were looking at PH4's offerings after the rent dispute began, weren't they? After their case had been upheld in court.

Can you blame them for talking to other parties, when the incumbent tenant refuses to pay?

And besides; he was looking at buying a share of the Ricoh, wasn't he? In what was would any change of ownership of the landlord, change the ownership of the football club - the tenant? There's irrelevant, surely?

Yes he did MMM but I never said otherwise.

I can't blame them for talking to other parties, but how would you know that he was interested in just a share of the Arena? Were you privvy to this information, because there has never been an article that has established it was share. The added publicity of the PH4 wanting the Club and the Ricoh would have gone against Sisu, indirectly it may seem but Sisu would have seen that as a forced act of a new investor.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

How about the word devalue instead of distress ?
It was quoted somewhere at some point that JS threatened continued legal action if the ricoh freehold was not sold at a price of her choosing ?

If you have something to back that up John I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

The trust has gone? Who is it that seems to have tried their best to make sure there is no trust left? The side that shouldn't trust the other is the side that is still trying to come to an arrangement. The other side has said the only thing they will settle for is something they know they can't have by law. Yet some of our fans still believe them.

To imply that Sisu are the only party to have destroyed the trust in relationship is a little naive given not all the facts are clear. Bold statement and I'd shake your hand if true.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I wonder how hard it is for people to grasp statements that are said publically...

Maybe this example may help you Astute (please pay attention to the title of the article it may answer your question)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

I guess its hard to grasp them as they tend to change what they say, sometimes they even tell little untruths. The article talks about wanting the freehold, now that they have realised this doesn't give them access to revenue, so they want the freehold with all the existing leases cancelled. Or do they? They also talk about building a new ground, should we believe that? They have talked to at least two local Councils about getting planning permission, or have they as the Councils say not? They are going to announce where the land is in a couple of weeks. Or are they? as isn't Labovitch now saying he's been misquoted. I don't know why it's so hard to grasp, it all so clear isn't it.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

But PH4 didn't come on the scene until well after the rent strike and all those other 'failed' negotiations had occurred.

I take your point about trust, and it's fair enough. But right now it seems that there's one side that's moved on from trying to break the other one, and one side that definitely hasn't. Financially, it makes no sense to be at Northampton under the deals currently available to the club. And yet at Northampton we remain.

I honestly don't think that's about trust, I think that is because SISU are determined to break ACL. If it wasn't I think that SISU really would have 'moved on'.

One side has moved on has it Duffer then that side would explain this action as appropiate when moving on?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046

I agree it doesn't make financial sense to be at Sixfields, but what Sisu are effectively saying is they'd rather spend £25M+ to build their own ground rather then rent a Football Ground owned by ACL/CCC/AHT and that's fair enough baring in mind that ground is Coventry, we all know that Sisu would rather purchase the Ricoh, but has that been easy? Has it heck..

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

I wonder how hard it is for people to grasp statements that are said publically...

Maybe this example may help you Astute (please pay attention to the title of the article it may answer your question)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

Not sure what you were trying to prove roboCCFC90. That article has been used so many times and discredited that it is now of no value at all. I refer you to later, more complete statements which again stated that SISU would only return to the RICOH as owners (No problem there) but with the conditionality that the freehold was unfettered. Its that last bit which is wholly unreasonable. They (and I guess you by your assertion) want the CCC to renege on established contracts with legitimate businesses, take the financial hit from the damages that would be accrued and then sell the cleared freehold it to SISU for peanuts. Can you please explain to me and everyone else how on earth that should be considered as either legitimate or ethical?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I guess its hard to grasp them as they tend to change what they say, sometimes they even tell little untruths. The article talks about wanting the freehold, now that they have realised this doesn't give them access to revenue, so they want the freehold with all the existing leases cancelled. Or do they? They also talk about building a new ground, should we believe that? They have talked to at least two local Councils about getting planning permission, or have they as the Councils say not? They are going to announce where the land is in a couple of weeks. Or are they? as isn't Labovitch now saying he's been misquoted. I don't know why it's so hard to grasp, it all so clear isn't it.

As I have stated on many previous statements on this forum Sisu's stadium priorities are to obtain the Ricoh, this is sensible and I agree they'd have to go about this in the correct manner and pay the market cost for it.

Whether you believe the new stadium is up to you Rusty, do I believe it? I am not sure, but do I believe they'd do it instead of going back to the Ricoh under a tenancy agreement? 100%.

This whole situation is not clear but one thing that is clear and has been stated is that Sisu will not return to the Ricoh under a tennancy agreement, for people who continue to ask "Why?" it will not happen, let it go.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

One side has moved on has it Duffer then that side would explain this action as appropiate when moving on?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046

I agree it doesn't make financial sense to be at Sixfields, but what Sisu are effectively saying is they'd rather spend £25M+ to build their own ground rather then rent a Football Ground owned by ACL/CCC/AHT and that's fair enough baring in mind that ground is Coventry, we all know that Sisu would rather purchase the Ricoh, but has that been easy? Has it heck..

I didn't know they wanted to purchase the Ricoh, when did they put their offer in? Why do they want the Ricoh when they are already starting to build a new ground, they're even deciding on what colour the seats are going to be so it must be fairly advanced, we've even seen a picture of ground (or plans as they like to call them).