Moff
Well-Known Member
Yep, its ground hog day again..................................... :facepalm:
Fucking hell, not 'sisu apologist' shit again.
No not at all, just anti Sisu, there is a difference.......
There are those who don't take as harsh a stance in judging their actions as might be expected given their track record in charge. Threatened liquidation, unnecessary move out of the City, habitual and incessant economies of truth.
Why would people not greet such with the indignation it deserves? Surely it has to show some sympathy of ambition? And is not such leaning - either large or small - 'pro'?
Why did ACL reject the CVA and liquidate us when they claimed to apply for admin to prevent liquidation? It's ok only another 7 points to 0.
Not really, those who were labelled pro sisu were labelled because they question ACL's role in this debacle.
Question ACL = pro sisu
Why did ACL reject the CVA and liquidate us when they claimed to apply for admin to prevent liquidation? It's ok only another 7 points to 0.
No. The fact that some refrain from the more vitriolic, foaming at the mouth anti-SISU rhetoric has more to do with the fact that they do not posses the somewhat crude two-tone view of the world that you seem to suffer from; an unfortunate affliction that renders the sufferer prone to uncontrollable hyperbolic episodes and the inability to think rationally. Four legs good, two legs bad hey comrade?
Somewhat inevitably, it is very difficult for the blackandwhitists to comprehend the reasoned arguments put forward regarding culpability for this mess by those able to see in shades of grey (or even colour); and so resort to their base instincts and start name calling. A bit like the chimps at Twycross Zoo who hurl shit at onlookers. The mob mentality on here is a living example of evolution in reverse.
Not really, those who were labelled pro sisu were labelled because they question ACL's role in this debacle.
Question ACL = pro sisu
Why did ACL reject the CVA and liquidate us when they claimed to apply for admin to prevent liquidation? It's ok only another 7 points to 0.
Fucking hell, not 'sisu apologist' shit again.
It looks as if you decide to type that to look clever without actually reading, or absorbing the words that gave rise to your response.
You accuse me of being binary. Didn't I state 'And is not such leaning - either large or small - 'pro''? Isn't the 'large or small' bit discussing a range of views, and therefore not the digital stance you now claim I have?
You grow up
Cool. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said that either.
It is a point worth making though I think. If a new ground was in Exhall, Bedworth, Binley Woods or in greenbelt within 1 mile of the city boundary in any direction it would not contravene FL rules.
That's a crap smiley, isn't it? What's he meant to be doing exactly? Doesn't even have a tongue as such, just a gaping maw. Just sort of drooling like a fool who is smug but doesn't really have any reason to be. Must be what Fisher sees in the mirror every morning
There won't be a new ground though, not in the Coventry conurbation, the Kenilworth Road, the market or the fecking Rose and Crown car park, it's all bullshit !
Well that and his self imagined halo!
But then EVERYTHING you type is seemingly done in an effort to make yourself look clever.
I am actually disappointed that you failed to pick up that I was deliberately trying to mimic that pompous, all-knowing, pseudo-intellectual tone that permeates just about everything you post. I failed clearly. Maybe I would be more at home with those shit-hurling chimps.
And sorry, but your final point is a rather poor attempt at wriggling out of what you said. Your point was, when referring to "those who don't take as harsh a stance in judging their actions as might be expected..", that they are, by definition, 'pro' regardless as to the extent of their leaning. That is nonsense. It is like suggesting that those people who choose not to wave copies of Socialist Worker in the faces of shoppers on a Saturday are somehow pro-Tory as they are not as critical of the Government as they might be. I fear I may just have dipped my toe in the river of crap analogies that runs torrent-like through this website, but I think it stands up.
No at this stage we must not give up the idea of getting the football league to reconsider their decision. WE MUST keep asking the question HOW did the FL come to this decision. The statement Clark gave was it was with regret and that they had insisted on a £1million to return to the CITY OF COVENTRY now Fisher has categorically stated that this will not be the case the league have a duty and indeed an excuse to re address their initial decision and make them play at the RICOH or take away their right to run a football team in their league!! We must keep on that theme!!As difficult a decision as it might be the only way now is for SISU to have competition, by that I mean another Coventry club playing at the Ricoh. If Haskell or Byng's lot could buy the Ricoh and fund a phoenix club to play at the Ricoh then SISU would have competition. Protests are not working and Fisher thinks they will dwindle over the next few months (and he is probably right). I cannot see any other way to get rid of SISU -- they would continue to fund CCFC even if no fans turned up at Sixfields. The only way to get rid of SISU is out of our hands -- it needs someone to persue this in Court now. If protests are not working -- can anyone else come up with a serious suggestion (other than protests) to get rid of SISU ?
People should be up in arms over this travesty. I mean incandescent with rage. I know I am, and I make no excuses for such.
But there are those who still find mitigation for SISU's actions. Who jump on here if the receptionist at ACL wears the wrong coloured blouse; but who listen to Fisher's cringe-worthy, juvenile and ill-judged 'when ACL give us our 10 points back' on radio this morning, yet remain silent. I'm sorry - but that's leaning by default.
No at this stage we must not give up the idea of getting the football league to reconsider their decision. WE MUST keep asking the question HOW did the FL come to this decision. The statement Clark gave was it was with regret and that they had insisted on a £1million to return to the CITY OF COVENTRY now Fisher has categorically stated that this will not be the case the league have a duty and indeed an excuse to re address their initial decision and make them play at the RICOH or take away their right to run a football team in their league!! We must keep on that theme!!
Angry? We're all angry - the only difference is how we choose to channel that anger, and in which direction.
Let's be clear, there is FAR more criticism channeled at SISU on these forums, and that is both understandable and right. I have not seen the same sort of vitriol directed at any ACL or council representative that I have TF, JS or any of the previous SISU stooges. I doubt any ACL representative will be requiring private protection anytime soon.
Do I lay some blame at the door of ACL and CCC? Damn right, and I refer back to events last December.
SISU withheld rent payments while at the same time opening talks about acquiring a 50% stake in ACL. They should not have withheld payments, but their argument at time was that they had real intentions of buying in, and were of the opinion that while that deal went through ACL could draw on the monies in the ESCROW account to cover any shortfall. Not an entirely unreasonable position, and it was never the intention that the dispute would spill into the new year and beyond.
People say they were trying to 'distress' ACL, but the deal on the table at that time was, on the face of it, a decent one. Under the terms of that deal, the council would retain ownership of the freehold and a 50% stake in the management company, and SISU would also have paid off the mortgage, and additionally would bring in external management to better run the events management side of things. What was so bad about the deal? Well, it was agreed to, by all sides, but then the council reneged at the 11th hour. Huge mistake in my opinion. Had that deal gone through, we would not be having this conversation. We would be playing at the Ricoh, there would not have been a transfer embargo, there would have been no administration, no points deductions and Mark Robins might conceivably still be manager. I fail to understand how anybody can argue how that council decision was in the interests of the football club, either short term or long term.
More recently, I have been critical of ACL for refusing to sign the CVA. Nobody has adequately explained how they can possibly benefit from making that decision, and the damage it has caused to the football club in the form of yet another points deduction is clear for all to see.
But then, all this has been done to death, and nobody really shifts their position. For most, SISU are entirely to blame, and any attempt to apportion some of the blame elsewhere is met with the usual derision and cries of 'rent-boy' or 'apologist'.
We now have reached a position where the only way forward is that SISU sell up. Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later so that all this nonsense can stop.
I don't think anyone right-minded has suggested that TF should be physically attacked. But maybe the hatred of SISU stems from the fact that it's their actions that have led us to Northampton. They've been able to step back from the brink a number of times, and negotiate honestly - but they've refused. Fisher's interview today shows that they they'd rather lose money at Northampton than bring the club to the Ricoh, even on a deal that would make them more money. Why would they do that, unless it's just about breaking ACL?
Actually - that wasn't their argument at that time at all. Their argument at that time was that the rent was too high.
Then, when they got to a negotiated rent of £400k, they moved their position and it became about access to income streams.
Now, when the rent offer apparently stands at £150k, it's about owning the freehold.
How can you tell what their 'intention' ever was?
It seems that at the same time that they were discussing the rent they were busy shifting assets away from CCFC Ltd, whilst at the same time loading it with debt.
If you take those shifting negotiation positions along with the asset transfer and debt load, I think it's not unfair to presume they never intended to negotiate honestly with ACL. Indeed if SISU wanted to buy into ACL they always had the option of doing that via the Higgs Trust share - another deal that SISU walked away from. So what was their real intention here - it doesn't look like it was to do an honest deal, does it?
There's a lot of supposition here as to the terms of the deal and also whether the the council reneged. We're a bit light on evidence regarding what went on, but would SISU getting their hands on the freehold really be in the interests of the football club in any case?
And I don't much care for deal breakers, but look at the proposal here - we'll distress ACL by not paying the rent, and then try to pick up the mortgage on the cheap. That isn't something that the Council should be getting involved in any case, imho, and I wonder if the legal ramifications here caused concern. Either way, it doesn't quite sound like SISU's way of breaking deals, "gentlemen, we have a deal", or stiffing a local charity for money after agreeing HoT.
As for embargos, when was the last time we weren't under one with SISU. Robins went where the money was better, even according to TF.
If SISU pay the rent and/or negotiate honestly, there's no deduction at all. And the point of not signing the CVA is obvious - it allows for a full and proper analysis of CCFC Ltd. There are huge questions here in regard to the conduct of the directors and one particular shadow director. If they are found wanting, then even the FL may have to accept that the club needs new ownership.
Actually, I have shifted my position slightly. We could do without ACL, or at least the Council, banging on about how great a business it is. What they should be doing is to keep the pressure on to move CCFC back. Getting another franchise in is the last thing we want as fans, imho. ACL should be constantly saying, we're ready to talk, the door's always open. FWIW I think CCFC under SISU goes bust long before ACL, but that's not the point - we need a deal done before that happens.
Couldn't agree more - which is personally why I think NOPM is the right strategy.
Angry? We're all angry - the only difference is how we choose to channel that anger, and in which direction.
Let's be clear, there is FAR more criticism channeled at SISU on these forums, and that is both understandable and right. I have not seen the same sort of vitriol directed at any ACL or council representative that I have TF, JS or any of the previous SISU stooges. I doubt any ACL representative will be requiring private protection anytime soon.
Do I lay some blame at the door of ACL and CCC? Damn right, and I refer back to events last December.
SISU withheld rent payments while at the same time opening talks about acquiring a 50% stake in ACL. They should not have withheld payments, but their argument at time was that they had real intentions of buying in, and were of the opinion that while that deal went through ACL could draw on the monies in the ESCROW account to cover any shortfall. Not an entirely unreasonable position, and it was never the intention that the dispute would spill into the new year and beyond.
People say they were trying to 'distress' ACL, but the deal on the table at that time was, on the face of it, a decent one. Under the terms of that deal, the council would retain ownership of the freehold and a 50% stake in the management company, and SISU would also have paid off the mortgage, and additionally would bring in external management to better run the events management side of things. What was so bad about the deal? Well, it was agreed to, by all sides, but then the council reneged at the 11th hour. Huge mistake in my opinion. Had that deal gone through, we would not be having this conversation. We would be playing at the Ricoh, there would not have been a transfer embargo, there would have been no administration, no points deductions and Mark Robins might conceivably still be manager. I fail to understand how anybody can argue how that council decision was in the interests of the football club, either short term or long term.
More recently, I have been critical of ACL for refusing to sign the CVA. Nobody has adequately explained how they can possibly benefit from making that decision, and the damage it has caused to the football club in the form of yet another points deduction is clear for all to see.
Two examples of how ACL/CCC have contributed to the ever-worsening situation at this car crash of a football club.
But then, all this has been done to death, and nobody really shifts their position. For most, SISU are entirely to blame, and any attempt to apportion some of the blame elsewhere is met with the usual derision and cries of 'rent-boy' or 'apologist'.
We now have reached a position where the only way forward is that SISU sell up. Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later so that all this nonsense can stop.
So in essence because ACL rejeceted the proposed CVA, SISU won't negotiate with ACL to return to the Ricoh??
Fisher your an idiot and could have put it in more of an adult manner instead of "When they give us our 10 points back"
A lot of people are cursing and swearing about what being said by Tim Fisher, but I know this will be a hated comment, but the majority wanted this scenario because you all wanted the proposed CVA to be rejecetd by ACL, you can't have things both ways, it was said that if ACL accepted the CVA then they maybe talks could continue, I am not defending SISU or Fisher, but people are cursing and swearing like this is new news and it's not.
You're getting your timings mixed up. Yes, their argument was that the rent was too high, but this was the basis of their attempts to secure a half share in ACL last December. Negotiations concerning the rent (and offers of a reduction) came after that original deal had been scuppered by the council, by which time the gloves were off.
You say, "would SISU getting their hands on the freehold really be in the interests of the football club in any case?" Well, no, but then sale of the freehold was never on the table; SISUs offer was for half of ACL, plus an extended lease, in return for paying off the mortage. The council would have retained the freehold and half of ACL, and the ACL debt burden would have gone.
You then talk about "picking up the mortgage on the cheap". How does that work? What was owed to the bank was what was owed to the bank - it was not a figure that could be negotiated up and down. SISU offered to pay it all off. Supposition? To an extent yes, but no attempt by ACL or the council has ever been made to question or deny the deal was not as SISU have described it; and they have been very quick to set the record straight on other issues when SISU have been caught twisting the truth.
But again, we go round in circles...
You're getting your timings mixed up. Yes, their argument was that the rent was too high, but this was the basis of their attempts to secure a half share in ACL last December. Negotiations concerning the rent (and offers of a reduction) came after that original deal had been scuppered by the council, by which time the gloves were off.
You say, "would SISU getting their hands on the freehold really be in the interests of the football club in any case?" Well, no, but then sale of the freehold was never on the table; SISUs offer was for half of ACL, plus an extended lease, in return for paying off the mortage. The council would have retained the freehold and half of ACL, and the ACL debt burden would have gone.
You then talk about "picking up the mortgage on the cheap". How does that work? What was owed to the bank was what was owed to the bank - it was not a figure that could be negotiated up and down. SISU offered to pay it all off. Supposition? To an extent yes, but no attempt by ACL or the council has ever been made to question or deny the deal was not as SISU have described it; and they have been very quick to set the record straight on other issues when SISU have been caught twisting the truth.
But again, we go round in circles...
If I say "Give me a million quid or ill kill your Mum" and you don't, is it your fault your Mum died?
The only conspiracy theory I can see that fits.
Labovitch has been moved into the spotlight recently, emphasis on independent director, and a desire to get the club back in Coventry;
Fisher and council won't talk to one another anyway, Fisher and SISU know this is flogging a dead horse;
Fisher makes accidentally deliberate ridiculous statement, making position 'untenable';
Fisher leaves, to be replaced by Labovitch, who has established his credentials about wanting to find a solution;
Parties now willing to talk to one another;
Deal agreed.
It's a pretty short straw to be clinging to though! More likely it's just a daft, plain daft thing for him to say that helps nobody!
Some real interesting points in this interview.....
1. Would you entertain a short term deal with ACL giving the fans what they want and you kind get what you want - If they can give us our ten points back then we may sit down and have a chat.
2. So are you going to entertain a discussion with ACL and give the fans what they want - No not at all Shane
3. Are the accounts in - Yeah the auditors are in this week, a matrix bullet moment indeed.
4. Who's fault is it - The blame game is boring I think if you are mature about it you look at the situation today and you look to move on!
The only objective seems to be mind games with ACL whilst having no regard for our fanbase. Point 1 came before point 4 which is ironic when we are talking about maturity.
Not one penny more, total disgrace. I have no problem with people who want to go to Northampton but will not understand why anybody would want to shake the hand of the man who took our club away from Coventry.
You then talk about "picking up the mortgage on the cheap". How does that work? What was owed to the bank was what was owed to the bank - it was not a figure that could be negotiated up and down. SISU offered to pay it all off. Supposition? To an extent yes, but no attempt by ACL or the council has ever been made to question or deny the deal was not as SISU have described it; and they have been very quick to set the record straight on other issues when SISU have been caught twisting the truth.
But again, we go round in circles...
That's different.
Because you are threatening to do that.
A majority of the fans called for ACL to reject the CVA, I am hardly calling for you to kill my Mother..
Sisu were threatening the club, first with liquidation, then that they wouldn't even entertain the idea of staying in Cov unless ACL signed. Purely so that they could spin it as "ACL cost us points, wah wah wah". No they didn't. Pay your bills and noone can put you in admin.
Otium was set up 2-3 years ago, prior to the rent "negotiations" beginning. It's been dormant until this point.
Are you telling me Sisu ever had any plan other than to put the club into admin/liquidation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?