cant get over 10pt deduction (8 Viewers)

[RoboCCFC90]

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?

"I agree they'd have to go about this in the correct manner and pay the market cost for it."

If it costs Sisu 25M to negotiate a deal for the Ricoh then this would be money well spent in getting us home then building a stadium with inferrior potential.

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

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.

He could be interested in anything he wanted; but he would be unable to link ground ownership with club ownership as they're not connected - are they? He can't buy the Ricoh from CCC and by default get CCFC as they're owned by different parties; in the same way, buying CCFC from SISU (or the administrator) wouldn't grace him ownership of the Ricoh.

As long as the are paying their bills, and staying out of administration; no change of ownership, or investor could be 'foisted' upon SISU, could it; and CCC would be powerless to influence any such move?!? It's frankly farcical to suggest otherwise

 

[The Gentleman]

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.

Do you think CCFC will return to the Ricoh under a rental agreement?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

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).

Sorry whom should they put that offer into? Has that been made clear, Ann Lucas has been stating "I will get the best deal for the Taxpayers of Coventry" yet apparently it's not even CCC that Sisu need to be talking too! God give me strength! I assume your first part of your post is sarcasm, but Labo did state reently that the Ricoh remains priority (orwords to that effect)

 

[Rusty Trombone]

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.

So you think it's not clear, but don't understand why it's hard to grasp.

When do you think they will go about it in the correct manner?

I am sure about the new stadium, it isn't going to happen. It won't generate any money for them, the interest costs on financing the build would be £1m per year at least, they could rent a ground cheaper than that I think. How will a new stadium generate any return for their investors.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Do you think CCFC will return to the Ricoh under a rental agreement?

Under Sisu? Not a chance.. Perhaps before but not now. Like I asked MMM (and as he always does dodge my questions and ask's his own ) if the latest deal had been offered when the whole thing when pear shaped it would of been different IMO.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

He could be interested in anything he wanted; but he would be unable to link ground ownership with club ownership as they're not connected - are they? He can't buy the Ricoh from CCC and by default get CCFC as they're owned by different parties; in the same way, buying CCFC from SISU (or the administrator) wouldn't grace him ownership of the Ricoh.

As long as the are paying their bills, and staying out of administration; no change of ownership, or investor could be 'foisted' upon SISU, could it; and CCC would be powerless to influence any such move?!? It's frankly farcical to suggest otherwise

I agree that PH4 can't obtain CCFC by default, but would of they been able to had he PH4 had the Ricoh under the Admin Saga?? Possibly so, a better offer on the table then what Sisu had.

It Sisu's eyes it's another public move to the contrary..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

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'.

But you're taking a view so myopic it's frankly astonishing.

The JV claims three of four points; I recall. One pertains to 'state aid', but SISU haven't tried to take Sixfield's owners to court for the £12m-worth of state aid gifted from Northampton council for redevelopment of their current home, have they? There's a claim that CCC may have 'overpaid' in buying ACL's bank debt for £14 million. But if they've 'moved on', what interest would they honestly have in whether their ex-landlord's borrowing was agreed at the correct level or not? And of course, there's there issue of 'foisted' ownership; which I've addressed above.

Do you really and honestly think one, or a collection of the above are their primary interest in pursuing the JV at their cost; or do you not think there's a slither of an ambition that proving the loan to be illegal and forcing it's roll-back, and the resultant turmoil that may cause ACL's finances might be the true ambition?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

So you think it's not clear, but don't understand why it's hard to grasp.

When do you think they will go about it in the correct manner?

I am sure about the new stadium, it isn't going to happen. It won't generate any money for them, the interest costs on financing the build would be £1m at least, they could rent a ground cheaper than that I think. How will a new stadium generate any return for their investors.

I hope you mean all parties..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I agree that PH4 can't obtain CCFC by default, but would of they been able to had he PH4 had the Ricoh under the Admin Saga??

You're going to have to explain that one again; as it makes to sense to me whasoever. What are you saying?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Sorry whom should they put that offer into? Has that been made clear, Ann Lucas has been stating "I will get the best deal for the Taxpayers of Coventry" yet apparently it's not even CCC that Sisu need to be talking too! God give me strength! I assume your first part of your post is sarcasm, but Labo did state reently that the Ricoh remains priority (orwords to that effect)

Well if they want to buy the freehold they would need to speak to the owners of the freehold, that's the Council. If they want to buy ACL and have access to the revenues of the stadium, they would need to speak to ACL. Depends whether today is Plan A or Plan B. If Labovitch says the Ricoh is the priority then I'm sure that's true, I wonder what they are doing to try and make that happen.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

But you're taking a view so myopic it's frankly astonishing.

The JV claims three of four points; I recall. One pertains to 'state aid', but SISU haven't tried to take Sixfield's owners to court for the £12m-worth of state aid gifted from Northampton council for redevelopment of their current home, have they? There's a claim that CCC may have 'overpaid' in buying ACL's bank debt for £14 million. But if they've 'moved on', what interest would they honestly have in whether their ex-landlord's borrowing was agreed at the correct level or not? And of course, there's there issue of 'foisted' ownership; which I've addressed above.

Do you really and honestly think one, or a collection of the above are their primary interest in pursuing the JV at their cost; or do you not think there's a slither of an ambition that proving the loan to be illegal and forcing it's roll-back, and the resultant turmoil that may cause ACL's finances might be the true ambition?

Oh dear chap really? What in away state of form does that have to do with CCFC, Sisu or CCC?? :facepalm:

 

[shmmeee]

Firstly: about the "no lease" thing:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/buying-land-new-coventry-city-6404266

He [Fisher] added it did not exclude the possibility of Sisu buying a long leasehold, not the 50-year lease currently held by Arena Coventry Limited.
But he said the council would first have to negotiate with 50per cent ACL stakeholder, the Alan Edward Higgs Charity, who the club would no longer deal with.

I agree that PH4 can't obtain CCFC by default, but would of they been able to had he PH4 had the Ricoh under the Admin Saga?? Possibly so, a better offer on the table then what Sisu had.

It Sisu's eyes it's another public move to the contrary..

Secondly, let's rewind and remember what was happening at that time. This was at a time where everyone believed that the club (with GS) was going into admin and a normal admin process would be followed.

Surely, as the people charged with the economic wellbeing of the city, not to mention most of them being CCFC fans, it would make sense for the council to pursue a new owner if they knew one was about? No-one believed Sisu would manage to convince not only the Administrator, but the FL as well that CCFC Ltd was a property company. We all thought that it mattered who bought CCFC Ltd out of admin. As such, by their actions (rent strike and refusal to stop admin) it looked like Sisu had in effect put the club up for sale. It's hardly being forced out.

Remember at the time Fisher said that even the Football League don't recognise him as CEO of the club.

You can't look back knowing what we know now.

Sorry Rob, but you (and a few others) seem to be willing to contort logic and reason in any manner just to find an angle where our owners come out as good guys.

Occam's razor my man. The simplest answer isn't conspiracy theories and hard done by hedge funds. It's organisations tasked with looking after the wellbeing of Coventry doing just that and organisations tasked with making investors large amounts of money doing just that.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You're going to have to explain that one again; as it makes to sense to me whasoever. What are you saying?

Let's say PH4 had obtained the Ricoh before the Admin saga began.

So when it comes to making a serious offer during the Admin saga we had, one bloke who owned nothing (PH4), One company that owned the Club and no ground (Sisu), if PH4 had owned the Ricoh during those negotiations I think things would have been seriously interesting..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Oh dear chap really? What in away state of form does that have to do with CCFC, Sisu or CCC?? :facepalm:

Feck me, you're on form today. SISU has one landlord in receipt of 'state aid'. It persues a judicial review at it's own cost. It then moves to another ground, owned by another landlord in receipt of the same 'state aid', yet doesn't pursue a judicial review. Why one and not the other?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Oh dear chap really? What in away state of form does that have to do with CCFC, Sisu or CCC?? :facepalm:

I think SISU are keen on upholding morality because I seem to recall Fisher said they were carrying on with the JR because it's wrong for Councils to use their money in this way. He wasn't bothered about it from the clubs point of view because this statement was on a day where the new stadium was the priority.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Let's say PH4 had obtained the Ricoh before the Admin saga began.

So when it comes to making a serious offer during the Admin saga we had, one bloke who owned nothing (PH4), One company that owned the Club and no ground (Sisu), if PH4 had owned the Ricoh during those negotiations I think things would have been seriously interesting..

How would that have been CCC trying to 'foist' new owners onto CCFC though? If they decide to sell their freehold, or leasehold to anyone; that's their business. Ditto the Higgs share of the Arena.

The fact that the same chap might have been able to get his hands on the football club is as a function of it's owners putting it into administration. This only coming as a function of paying it's rent.

Paying the rent is linked to administartion which is linked to the possible ownership change.

Who owns the stadium leasehold, freehold or business opportunities therein is wholly irrelevant

 

[shmmeee]

Let's say PH4 had obtained the Ricoh before the Admin saga began.

So when it comes to making a serious offer during the Admin saga we had, one bloke who owned nothing (PH4), One company that owned the Club and no ground (Sisu), if PH4 had owned the Ricoh during those negotiations I think things would have been seriously interesting..

Except he wasn't on the scene. Haskell wasn't even a figure until March last year. A full 3 months after ACL had a court order for the rent to be paid.

The "admin sage" started the day Sisu made it clear publically they are willing to liquidate the club and privately when they decided to stop paying the rent.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Feck me, you're on form today. SISU has one landlord in receipt of 'state aid'. It persues a judicial review at it's own cost. It then moves to another ground, owned by another landlord in receipt of the same 'state aid', yet doesn't pursue a judicial review. Why one and not the other?

Stop being so obtuse. You know the reason.

 

[Paxman II]

There are a lot of entrenched positions. What needs to happen is for both sides to reconsider what they have said before, what looks more feasible now and move the process in the right direction which in all honesty has to be the ownership of the Ricoh Arena for the football club. Any owner of the football club would require the same.

The first question is what if SISU are successful at the JR?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Stop being so obtuse. You know the reason.

Yes. I do. As does anyone prepared to peddle in reality

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The first question is what if SISU are successful at the JR?

ACL need a new investor to replace CCC. If they get that on the open market, who knows. If their accounts are as positive as has been suggested; maybe so. If ACL secure this backing, then I don't think it changes anything. Unless there's a possible damages claim against the council for stepping in, which could enrich SISU?!?

 

[shmmeee]

There are a lot of entrenched positions. What needs to happen is for both sides to reconsider what they have said before, what looks more feasible now and move the process in the right direction which in all honesty has to be the ownership of the Ricoh Arena for the football club. Any owner of the football club would require the same.

The first question is what if SISU are successful at the JR?

Mind if I save time and type both of our posts out here:

Why is the "right" direction the ground being owned by the club (owners) and not revenue streams?

Oh I get that, but our owners have made it quite clear they want to own the ground.

I still don't see how that's an argument. CCC have said they don't sell freeholds. If both of these positions are true what are Sisu still talking about the Ricoh?

We'll have to agree to disagree

Yes. Yes we will.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Mind if I save time and type both of our posts out here:

The fact it's even going to full JR is mad, especially after you said it had zero chance.

 

[duffer]

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

Threats of legal action by SISU? There was this statement by ACL.

"Ms Seppala also stated at this meeting her intention to continue to threaten ACL and its shareholders with expensive litigation at every possible opportunity."

http://www.supporters-direct.org/ne...joy-seppala-threats-to-aclfl-must-bring-in-fa

Ms Seppala also stated at this meeting her intention to continue to threaten ACL and its shareholders with expensive litigation at every possible opportunity. Perhaps the fact that Mr Fisher was not himself present at this meeting has distorted his view of what was really discussed. - See more at: http://www.supporters-direct.org/ne...o-aclfl-must-bring-in-fa#sthash.XpTG3deT.dpuf

Appreciate that it's one sided, but I note that it's never really been denied, and the recent actions of SISU (threatening to sue the trust, counter-claiming against Higgs, and the JR, all tend to suggest a clear strategy).

 

[shmmeee]

The fact it's even going to full JR is mad, especially after you said it had zero chance.

I know right! As my daughter says "You're daddy, you know everything!"

The law in an ass.

Will be very interesting to see what happens in court. And also if they then continue on their moral crusade and launch a JR against Northampton Council

 

[torchomatic]

Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.

Appreciate that it's one sided, but I note that it's never really been denied, and the recent actions of SISU (threatening to sue the trust, counter-claiming against Higgs, and the JR, all tend to suggest a clear strategy).

 

[shmmeee]

Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.

At the end of the day Torch. It all comes down to balance of opinion.

None of us will ever know all the ins and outs, even those in the middle are only on one side. All we can ever do is look at the available info and make a best guess.

I think the fact that it was followed up with several instances of legal action are more what Duffer is relying on rather than the fact that it hasn't been denied mind.

 

[James Smith]

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.

What I think is that if Sisu had bothered to negotiate instead of just going on the rent boycott we might not be in this mess. Yes the rent was too high and needed to be re-assessed but doing what they did when and in the manner Sisu did it was wrong.

Most things can (for me at any rate) be traced back to that one act of starting the boycott & not negotiating. We couldn't buy the Higgs share at the formula price, once the boycott had started as we owed money to ACL. We were lucky in that they were still willing to talk to us even then, before Sisu allegedly walked away from the talks with them.

Tim then talks about liquidation in a national newspaper whilst owing ACL a sizeable sum which wasn't particularly clever given the likely response from the main creditor ACL. Then after ACL do take legal steps to recover the cash, Sisu put us into administration on Black Thursday so that they can beat ACL to the punch and appoint their own administrator. Our club then left the Ricoh and we ended up in Northampton playing to our lowest ever attendances.*

Why on earth did they not negotiate?

For the record I am happy for Sisu to build their new stadium and wish they'd hurry up and announce progress on it.

* This is a bit simplistic in that it ignores the lower rent offers etc.

 

[sky blue john]

Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been
denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.

The old try and discredit the information trick !!!!

 

[duffer]

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 think you're confusing your arguments here - you're certainly confusing me!

Let's just stick with what we know.

There's an offer to move back to the Ricoh that would make financial sense to the club. There's no remaining threat to sue NTFC, no way that ACL or anyone else can change the owners at the club.

The move would make financial sense even if the club wanted to build their own ground for £25m. They'd make more money whilst they're at the Ricoh planning and building a new stadium, than being in Northampton doing it.

So, let's keep it simple. Explain why SISU won't do this?

 

[duffer]

Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.

It does. Which is why I offered the supporting evidence of SISU's willingness to pile into legal threats and action.

I forgot to offer the "We batter people in court" line, which I think was Fisher at one of the fan's forums.

But for sure, use your own judgement as to whether this is something that Ms Seppala might have said or not. I would think that the probability is that she did, personally, it seems to fit with what's going on.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The move would make financial sense even if the club wanted to build their own ground for £25m. They'd make more money whilst they're at the Ricoh planning and building a new stadium, than being in Northampton doing it.

So, let's keep it simple. Explain why SISU won't do this?

It's the same issue I cited at #'s 82 and 85 on this thread; and the reality is, it cannot be answered. I know I get frustrated upon occasion on here, but it's primarily by folk who simply won't face up to the logical extrapolation of events such as this

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Feck me, you're on form today. SISU has one landlord in receipt of 'state aid'. It persues a judicial review at it's own cost. It then moves to another ground, owned by another landlord in receipt of the same 'state aid', yet doesn't pursue a judicial review. Why one and not the other?

Yeah great form thanks, the loan from Northampton Council isn't to Sisu though is it? It's to Northampton Town, plus the loan or "state aid" from CCC wasn't to our Club it was to a bank, two different scenarios, it's like trying to compare a Boot and a Sandle when considering if they will give you the same benefits.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Except he wasn't on the scene. Haskell wasn't even a figure until March last year. A full 3 months after ACL had a court order for the rent to be paid.

The "admin sage" started the day Sisu made it clear publically they are willing to liquidate the club and privately when they decided to stop paying the rent.

Maybe so, but there was no reason why he couldn't of purchased the Arena from ACL before the deadline final offer was needed by this is my point.