Some on here have mentioned a possible transfer embargo as sanctions by the fl. Would that not be helping Sisu, they like transfer embargos ???
The FL will make some excuse to not deal with this situation once and for all, they don't have the teeth, guts or desire to stand up to owners of football clubs..A points deduction could be issued and more deadlines put in place, but the pattern emerging is alarming. If not dealt with properly it will only allow the situation to carry on causing more pain for fans which not 1 party involved are considering...
Yes, let's hope Sisu are ordered to pay money. That's always resolved quickly with few problems.
It would make a lot of sense if someone confirmed how much money was put into the escrow account.
Also, does anyone actually have a copy of the exact conditions that SISU had to adhere to in order to receive the GS? The football league statement at the time doesn't say anything about and amount payable to ACL. Am curious when that condition was put in place?
http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/football_league_issue_city_statement_801646/index.shtml
Ian, you make a good point. I read your post and thought I'll soon find that, 25 mins later I cant.
Anyone else remember when the ACL payment came up as a condition?
Any conditions imposed by the FL on CCFC/SISU have never been disclosed, I've asked the FL more than once and they just say "We can't disclose them, try asking CCFC".
Does that explain why they don't seem too perturbed by it all?
If they haven't disclosed the full terms to anyone, how do we know that the deadline is 31st May as opposed to end of the liquidation?
Just thinking out loud.
It's a bizarre condition for a governing body to put in, really.
Objectively, one question that would be nice to know the answer to is... why.
Money over points ?? Deduction?
But I repeat... why?
When has the football league ever intervened like that in an administration process before?
Why would they put on such a condition that effectively guarantees any CVA would be rejected, as there's no monetary loss to do so?
At the end of the day, this is a landlord/tenant dispute. Surely in such instances the football league can't intervene and, if they do, they may as well have gone the whole hog and imposed a condition that we play there!
So... what happened, that made them impose this condition?
You are assuming the FL said pay £590K BEFORE the CVA was rejected, I reckon the arrangement was most likely imposed AFTER the creditors meeting on Aug 2nd 2013
The club was liquidated on August second and the club was saved in the 2-3 hours following the announcement of it.
I seem to recall the meeting on August 2nd to accept or reject the CVA was 10 minutes. No messing around. In and out. Fisher and co met with the FL who then kept Coventry in the league under "exceptional circumstances" rule if the club met certain conditions one being the CVA payment to ACL of 590k.
The problem is the deadline on this payment. There are two times that is the issue here. 1 is the league stating it was before the end of the season hence may and then the other one was before finishing the liquidating process.
Now the end of may has gone and it hasn't been paid but the liquidation hasn't finished. Otium wouldn't not pay it if it had to be paid before end of may, they would of as risking more points deductions etc. It's clear it's before the liquidation process ends now which of course it hasn't. Why? I don't know seems to have taken ages. Maybe deliberately I certainly believe so and I have no doubt it will coincide with after the JR hence the delay. If the JR was in may this would of been resolved by now.
The JR is such a key event. It may get us back to the Ricoh it may not but also a lot will happen as a result. Money, liquidation, selling players, signing players, sell up or cease the club.
So many variables but us fans will most likely lose out as always.
The club was liquidated on August second and the club was saved in the 2-3 hours following the announcement of it.
I seem to recall the meeting on August 2nd to accept or reject the CVA was 10 minutes. No messing around. In and out. Fisher and co met with the FL who then kept Coventry in the league under "exceptional circumstances" rule if the club met certain conditions one being the CVA payment to ACL of 590k.
The problem is the deadline on this payment. There are two times that is the issue here. 1 is the league stating it was before the end of the season hence may and then the other one was before finishing the liquidating process.
Now the end of may has gone and it hasn't been paid but the liquidation hasn't finished. Otium wouldn't not pay it if it had to be paid before end of may, they would of as risking more points deductions etc. It's clear it's before the liquidation process ends now which of course it hasn't. Why? I don't know seems to have taken ages. Maybe deliberately I certainly believe so and I have no doubt it will coincide with after the JR hence the delay. If the JR was in may this would of been resolved by now.
The JR is such a key event. It may get us back to the Ricoh it may not but also a lot will happen as a result. Money, liquidation, selling players, signing players, sell up or cease the club.
So many variables but us fans will most likely lose out as always.
Wasn't there a complaint re the liquidation? Could that have caused the hold-up?
I agree - some people think the deadline was 31st May, some people think it is at the end of the liquidation. No one appears to have anything conclusive that says one way or the other. Was the 31st May mentioned as it was expected that the liquidation would have been done and dusted by now, and it was the cut-off point for the end of the season.
But we were ordered to pay the money up until yesterday and it didn't happen.. Why should Sisu get anymore extensions? The rules are there for a reason, what point is their having them if you can't enforce them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I repeat... why?
When has the football league ever intervened like that in an administration process before?
Why would they put on such a condition that effectively guarantees any CVA would be rejected, as there's no monetary loss to do so?
At the end of the day, this is a landlord/tenant dispute. Surely in such instances the football league can't intervene and, if they do, they may as well have gone the whole hog and imposed a condition that we play there!
So... what happened, that made them impose this condition?
When has the football league ever intervened like that in an administration process before?
Truthfully, as irritating as it is that SISU are still pissing around with all this, who can blame them? Apparently the FL aren't going to make a decision on this until 6th June, after their conference finishes? What a bunch of tossers - how long would it take for a board meeting to talk this through, an hour? Maybe they could go without a lunch break and sort it out, wouldn't hurt em.
The FL are completely unfit for purpose - I hope SISU keep dicking them around and taking the piss. Perhaps someone in the government will eventually take notice and the useless, spineless, lazy, money-grabbing, fat bastards that run the FL are thrown out on their ears. If they could take the FA with them so much the better.
I would imagine that if there was a points deduction there would be delight amongst many "fans"
Anyone who would want this is a complete twat.
You seem to want it?
I would imagine that if there was a points deduction there would be delight amongst many "fans"
Anyone who would want this is a complete twat.
You seem to want it?
D-Day 6th June ... how appropriate.
It would seem sisu want it more than anyone. The responsibility of making any punishment not happen lies solely at there feet. Yet some twats fail to either recognise this or accept this and instead turn on fellow fans for expressing concerns of possible consequences from sisu's actions.
Who objected? I'm willing to bet it was SISU/ARVO so they could delay paying the £590K they agreed.. there will no doubt be a lengthy appeal process, when they claim that GR & MM's payments cover or reduce their liability.
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?