Cwr (3 Viewers)

Diehard Si · Mar 14, 2013

How the likes of Grendel and Co can still be defending SISU is beyond me.

SISU publicly threatened liquidation = end of ccfc. ACL are the only ones taking to steps to stop that. This action will be better than liquidation for all parties bar SISU themselves.

I've heard SISU are going to threaten legal action and drag it out. Why? Because you were stopped from liquidating and killing our club so you could get a few more pounds?

dongonzalos · Mar 14, 2013

theferret said:
That second point was quite telling though - a veiled acknowledgement that ACL need the football club. They can claim this is all about saving the club for the fans, but ultimately they are acting in their own self-interest.

Others seem to have convinced themselves ACL can survive without the club, but at the slightest hint of liquidation ACL have taken drastic measures because they know that they can't.

I don't really care what their motivation is.

One side wants to get rid of us forever.
The other side wants us in admin to be bought on the cheap by someone else.

As a Cov fan do you really need to debate which is the best option?

torchomatic · Mar 14, 2013

This latest move by ACL is about ACL not about the football club. Dongo said we are lucky that they are fighting our corner, they are not. They are protecting their own interests as depite all the "we don't need 'em" bullshit, it's plain for all to see that they patently do need this football club to survive.

Sub said:
Thought it was about both torchy seen as they need each other ?

Sub · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
This latest move by ACL is about ACL not about the football club. Dongo said we are lucky that they are fighting our corner, they are not. They are protecting their own interests as depite all the "we don't need 'em" bullshit, it's plain for all to see that they patently do need this football club to survive.

but arnt SISU protecting their own intrests aswell ? both are seperate businesses that need to make money to trade, ACL have made consessions on the rent which SISU have agreed to but still will not sign the contract, they have the option to buy 50% of the ground but have not, these things are there to benifit the club but the options have not been taken which seems madness to me surley its better to own 50% instead of nothing ? Then hopefully look at getting the rest later on when things are more on an even keel?

Voice_of_Reason · Mar 14, 2013

What people fail to see is that ACL has got SISU by the balls... SISU cannot liquidate the club now so that blackmailing threat has been taken from them. SISIU now has to do something -- either contest any Administration Order and prove CCFC is viable (difficult) or give in and walk away.
I applaud ACL's move... our club will continue to exist in some form. Hopefully any Administering Management will oversea someone with finance and foresight to come in and take over. May take time, but at least we will still have CCFC at the Ricoh. SISU has nothing left to threaten with now.

Houdi · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
THis is all about ACL not about Coventry City.

Agree ,funny that it is SISU who are always seen as the ruthless scum.If we are led to believe one thing,it is that both sides have finally agreed to is an annual rent of £400,000 as a fair market rate,so seemingly ACL in the past were quite happy to rip the club off with a exorbitant rent,.Yes SISU were at fault initially in agreeing these onerous terms,however it clearly indicates that ACL saw CCFC as a cash cow to be milked,safe in the knowledge that the club couldn't realistically play anywhere else.ACL had in effect had a monopoly power over the club,which they have been only to happy to abuse.

torchomatic · Mar 14, 2013

Agree SISU were stupid not to look at the rent the day they took over. After all, the previous regime were also complaining the rent was too high for our club. And we had an average of 20K then too.

Houdi said:
Agree ,funny that it is SISU who are always seen as the ruthless scum.If we are led to believe one thing,it is that both sides have finally agreed to is an annual rent of £400,000 as a fair market rate,so seemingly ACL in the past were quite happy to rip the club off with a exorbitant rent,.Yes SISU were at fault initially in agreeing these onerous terms,however it clearly indicates that ACL saw CCFC as a cash cow to be milked,safe in the knowledge that the club couldn't realistically play anywhere else.ACL had in effect had a monopoly power over the club,which they have been only to happy to abuse.

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 14, 2013

Funny really-had we not sold our share we would be part of this ruthless cold hearted 'quango'.

Flying Fokker · Mar 14, 2013

SISU have tried so many different ways to manage this situation. But they used divisive tactics and were prepared to liquidate the club.

I get your point about the rent prices. But they were the agreed terms before sisu took the business on. Maybe they thought there was potential to renegotiate? That worked well didn't it. My feeling is that once SISU saw potential to make ACL fold it was game on for them. They didn't think ACL would find a backer though did they?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
This latest move by ACL is about ACL not about the football club. Dongo said we are lucky that they are fighting our corner, they are not. They are protecting their own interests as depite all the "we don't need 'em" bullshit, it's plain for all to see that they patently do need this football club to survive.

Whilst self-interest may have been at the heart of this; did you not read The Guardian, and Fisher threatening to fold the club? They obviously heard more of the same at the game on Tuesday; and faced with this rhetoric, tell me - what would you have done? Stop incessantly criticising blindly, what would you have done?

If they'd have sat back and seen if the liquidation threats manifest themselves in reality, you'd criticise them for sitting on their hands. I can see it now 'stupid councillor milkmen do feck all whilst the club is closed'.

They've tried to be proactive whilst your mates have dangled this club by a gossamer-thin thread, and threatened it's very exexistence. That you can't even see a level of measure in their actions is - I'm afraid - deplorable

Diehard Si · Mar 14, 2013

Whether ACL are doing it for themselves or not ( and I still think they care about ccfc more than Sisu), it's still in our benefit if they succeed.

Fisher threatened liquidation. Was it a bluff or posturing? Doesn't matter now, they threatened it. So it's this or no more ccfc.

If anyone is playing the risky game it's Sisu. Not paying their landlord, going back on agreements, trying to blackmail publicly, threatening to end the club.

They've played us for fools for too long. They are still playing some people.

torchomatic · Mar 14, 2013

Couldn't agree more. That's why I blame previous regimes more than I blame SISU. And I blame ACL for taking advantage and strangling the club of income as Chris Brady said this morning on CWR.

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Funny really-had we not sold our share we would be part of this ruthless cold hearted 'quango'.

fernandopartridge · Mar 14, 2013

Since when has this issue ever been about investment in the area around the Ricoh?

To file for administration on the basis that you want somebody to takeover the club to invest in the land around it is complete and utter fucking lunacy.

The stadium, exhibition hall and surrounding land need to have their ownership separated.

wal3590 · Mar 14, 2013

have we ever averaged 20k?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
Couldn't agree more. That's why I blame previous regimes more than I blame SISU. And I blame ACL for taking advantage and strangling the club of income as Chris Brady said this morning on CWR.

Again, the club never had any rights to these incomes; never invested in the infrastructure that supports them, nor the contract negotiations associated therewith. If they wanted them, they should have negotiated them when buying the club, or candidly and fairly since. They haven't. Not even close.

Whilst you're happy to quote Brady, he wasn't asked about the mechanism SISU have used in order to try and secure this income to which they currently have no lawful right. We all agree the income should ideally come to the club; or at least some of it. It's SISU's methods that have seen us arrive where we have - and he wasn't asked about such.

Accordingly, to quote a part of what might be a bigger opinion seems disingenuous

fernandopartridge · Mar 14, 2013

wal3590 said:
have we ever averaged 20k?

Yes, 2005 to 2007 the average was above 20k and it also was 1999 to 2001 and pretty close to 20k for a number of seasons otherwise.

Moff · Mar 14, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Whilst self-interest may have been at the heart of this; did you not read The Guardian, and Fisher threatening to fold the club? They obviously heard more of the same at the game on Tuesday; and faced with this rhetoric, tell me - what would you have done? Stop incessantly criticising blindly, what would you have done?

If they'd have sat back and seen if the liquidation threats manifest themselves in reality, you'd criticise them for sitting on their hands. I can see it now 'stupid councillor milkmen do feck all whilst the club is closed'.

They've tried to be proactive whilst your mates have dangled this club by a gossamer-thin thread, and threatened it's very exexistence. That you can't even see a level of measure in their actions is - I'm afraid - deplorable

Your post was decent until you let yourself down with the childish 'whilst your mates' line.

It seems all and sundry cant get over themselves. :facepalm:

mattylad · Mar 14, 2013

Diehard Si said:
How the likes of Grendel and Co can still be defending SISU is beyond me.

SISU publicly threatened liquidation = end of ccfc. ACL are the only ones taking to steps to stop that. This action will be better than liquidation for all parties bar SISU themselves.

I've heard SISU are going to threaten legal action and drag it out. Why? Because you were stopped from liquidating and killing our club so you could get a few more pounds?

But they didn't did they, what they threatened was to wind up the part of the business that is tied in to a deal with ACl and to transfer the company to the next rung up the ladder. This would have led to them breaking the lease and not having to repay ACl it would not have led to the football club dropping down the leagues as ACL claim this morning....why is that so hard to understand!

torchomatic · Mar 14, 2013

No he wasn't asked about the mechanism SISU have used. However, he pointed out that the whole ACL model is flawed and that no business or investor in their right mind would touch the Club with a barge pole. While ACL call the shots that will always be the case and always be a huge problem for Coventry City.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Again, the club never had any rights to these incomes; never invested in the infrastructure that supports them, nor the contract negotiations associated therewith. If they wanted them, they should have negotiated them when buying the club, or candidly and fairly since. They haven't. Not even close.

Whilst you're happy to quote Brady, he wasn't asked about the mechanism SISU have used in order to try and secure this income to which they currently have no lawful right. We all agree the income should ideally come to the club; or at least some of it. It's SISU's methods that have seen us arrive where we have - and he wasn't asked about such.

Accordingly, to quote a part of what might be a bigger opinion seems disingenuous

Moff · Mar 14, 2013

Diehard Si said:
How the likes of Grendel and Co can still be defending SISU is beyond me.

SISU publicly threatened liquidation = end of ccfc. ACL are the only ones taking to steps to stop that. This action will be better than liquidation for all parties bar SISU themselves.

I've heard SISU are going to threaten legal action and drag it out. Why? Because you were stopped from liquidating and killing our club so you could get a few more pounds?

Its funny I dont see them defending SISU what I see is them questioning ACL's tactics.
Each to their own I suppose.

chiefdave · Mar 14, 2013

so ACL, who keep telling us that SISU can't be trusted and don't tell the truth, have rushed into this based on something they were told on Tuesday night? Doesn't ring true to me.

To be honest I trust anything coming out of ACL about as much as I do those that come out of SISU, they both have their own agendas and are working to make it look in public like they're doing the right thing for the club. Reality is neither are, their both acting in the own selfish interests.

There's far too much "maybe", "we believe", "possibly" etc coming out of ACL for my liking. It's all well and good saying you're putting the club into administation to stop the threat of SISU liquidating but there's only 2 ways to come out of admin, new owner or liquidation. Unless they are very sure there is a buyer then they aren't saving us from anything. And even if there is we don't know who it is and if they can actually get us out of this mess. The one thing I've leart as a City fan is never to say it can't get worse. Things may look bad under SISU but no matter who's been in charge in the last 20 plus years we've always found a way to continue our downward spiral and unless they have a billionaire in place to 'do a Southampton' I'm not sure we're going to end up any better off, not many clubs do after admin.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 14, 2013

Moff said:
Your post was decent until you let yourself down with the childish 'whilst your mates' line.

It seems all and sundry cant get over themselves. :facepalm:

Okay - I see youir point, I retract it. The issue being that those of us who have been criticised for not seeing virtue in SISU's stance have long-since been labelled; and sometimes it's hard not to do the same in return.

With that now established, I'll expect Torchy to answer the pertinent question he's ignored to date. I know he's read it as he's quick to 'like' your point; whilst being slow to answer that's pertinent.

Over to you Torchy.....

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
No he wasn't asked about the mechanism SISU have used. However, he pointed out that the whole ACL model is flawed and that no business or investor in their right mind would touch the Club with a barge pole. While ACL call the shots that will always be the case and always be a huge problem for Coventry City.

Okay. And how do you solve 'problems'. By negotiation, or bullying and threats?

You see, for me - and many, I guess - SISU's actions were always about more than the rent. It was the rent plus match-day income. But do the maths, it's still not enough to make the club viable. So what did they really want? ACL. ACL's whole business model - for which they're currently only contributing less than 20% of turnover towad. That's one hell of a gimme.

That's what they pitched for. Surely to God you can see that.

And they were prepared for our club - and it's very existence - to be the bargaining chip to get it

ajsccfc · Mar 14, 2013

Gang wars in 5...4...3...2...

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 14, 2013

Sub said:
so ACL have a choice of having a tennant who doesnt pay the rent or SISU threatening to Liquidate the club which means ACL will end up with no tennant and no rent anyway, Looks like ACL were left with no option but to go down the administration route and hopefully find a new owner for CCFC to help build a future for the club and ACL together

That's my take until more information comes out

CCFCDan87 · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
This latest move by ACL is about ACL not about the football club. Dongo said we are lucky that they are fighting our corner, they are not. They are protecting their own interests as depite all the "we don't need 'em" bullshit, it's plain for all to see that they patently do need this football club to survive.

Latest move from SISU was to mention liquidation'!!! Surely that's no good for the club either?

Diehard Si · Mar 14, 2013

mattylad said:
But they didn't did they, what they threatened was to wind up the part of the business that is tied in to a deal with ACl and to transfer the company to the next rung up the ladder. This would have led to them breaking the lease and not having to repay ACl it would not have led to the football club dropping down the leagues as ACL claim this morning....why is that so hard to understand!

The part where the football league would step in and stop that ends your theory re liquidating one of the companies and moving it up. I doubt it would get past the court of law either.

torchomatic · Mar 14, 2013

But so are ACL. They've taken this action due to "fear" of liquidation by reading between the lines of Fisher's interview in the Guardian and words apparently spoken to PKHW on Tuesday night. So, they’ve chewed it over for a few hours and decided to force us into administration.

ACL have also gambled. They've gambled that SISU would liquidate - why? To what ends?. They’ve gambled on the “hope” or “belief” that someone out there will want us, despite what independent experts believe, and they’ve now derailed our promotions hopes for either this year or next. Maybe both.

I just want to follow my football team. I don’t want to argue with you or anyone. However, I can’t see how this is a good move for Coventry City, unless ACL have a buyer willing to pay their rent.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And they were prepared for our club - and it's very existence - to be the bargaining chip to get it

Flying Fokker · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
But so are ACL. They've taken this action due to "fear" of liquidation by reading between the lines of Fisher's interview in the Guardian and words apparently spoken to PKHW on Tuesday night. So, they’ve chewed it over for a few hours and decided to force us into administration.
ACL have also gambled. They've gambled that SISU would liquidate - why? To what ends?. They’ve gambled on the “hope” or “belief” that someone out there will want us, despite what independent experts believe, and they’ve not derailed our promotions hopes for either this year or next. Maybe both.
I just want to follow my football team. I don’t want to argue with you or anyone. However, I can’t see how this is a good move for Coventry City, unless ACL have a buyer willing to pay their rent.

It's not just about the rent though is it? ACL should not be arbiters of how CCFC should be run but they must have had some major run ins with SISU to be going down this route. They cannot work with the current owners.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
But so are ACL. They've taken this action due to "fear" of liquidation by reading between the lines of Fisher's interview in the Guardian and words apparently spoken to PKHW on Tuesday night. So, they’ve chewed it over for a few hours and decided to force us into administration.
ACL have also gambled. They've gambled that SISU would liquidate - why? To what ends?. They’ve gambled on the “hope” or “belief” that someone out there will want us, despite what independent experts believe, and they’ve not derailed our promotions hopes for either this year or next. Maybe both.
I just want to follow my football team. I don’t want to argue with you or anyone. However, I can’t see how this is a good move for Coventry City, unless ACL have a buyer willing to pay their rent.

And to come back to the question you seem to be avoiding like a Frenchman does his bathroom..... what would you have done? If not this, do you think ACL should have 'waited' until SISU's public threats were real or not? Because surely that's the reality they had to come to terms with

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 14, 2013

torchomatic said:
Couldn't agree more. That's why I blame previous regimes more than I blame SISU. And I blame ACL for taking advantage and strangling the club of income as Chris Brady said this morning on CWR.

Yeah happy with that, that's balance and we should question them about that if sisu do move on and they treat another set of investors the same wsy

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 14, 2013

mattylad said:
But they didn't did they, what they threatened was to wind up the part of the business that is tied in to a deal with ACl and to transfer the company to the next rung up the ladder. This would have led to them breaking the lease and not having to repay ACl it would not have led to the football club dropping down the leagues as ACL claim this morning....why is that so hard to understand!

You don't know what labovitch said to be fair

mattylad · Mar 14, 2013

Diehard Si said:
The part where the football league would step in and stop that ends your theory re liquidating one of the companies and moving it up. I doubt it would get past the court of law either.

Who knows, but given my dealings with debt recovery through courts in the past ten years it may well very much of depended on how subjective a particular bench member felt when getting out of bed that morning....I have won as many weak cases as I have lost sure fire ones

rupert_bear · Mar 14, 2013

Well i have read these topics to death. So here's my take, ACL/council and whoever have acted in the long term interest of OUR football club and it's place within the football league. It's taking time but slowly but surely SISU have been backed into a corner IMO they are now f##ked. SISU didn't bank on Ainsworth getting a debate in the House attended by a Minister about our situation, don't underestimate the significants of that, SISU's name being banded about in the seat of British government will cost them dear, we might not think so but foriegn business/investors will have taken note big time. Those criticising ACL for taking legal action to put club into administration which protects our future existance, why ? unless of course you are Leicester or Villa fans having a laugh.

chiefdave · Mar 14, 2013

Sky Blue Pete said:
Yeah happy with that, that's balance and we should question them about that if sisu do move on and they treat another set of investors the same wsy

ACL have been lucky in that respect, peoples hate of SISU has left them able to do pretty much what they want without being questioned too much.

TF isn't the first person to say ACL are impossible to deal with, indeed even before SISU here it was the same story. Obvioulsy none of our owners in recent years have been exactly trustworthy but you do have to wonder when you hear the same thing over and over if there isn't something to it and ACL are causing more issues than most blame them for.

Cwr (3 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency