stupot07
Well-Known Member
It was never going to happen. Most people said this when they rejected the CVA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
They wanted the process revisited, hence their approaches to the FL, etc. Or a situation whereby their proposed side deal could be entered into; so at least one outcome gave rise to them having at least something their directors could run with.
The fact that neither transpired isn't to question the motivation; but hindsight is a fine tool with which to look wise. If you're that desperate to appear so
ACL's obligations were to their shareholders to recover the maximum amount of monies owed. The amount of money they would receive was the same whether they rejected or accepted the CVA? So again - where is their benefit?
The only benefit ACL could have got with the process being revisited would be if they wished to acquire the company. So was that their intention?
You've answered your own question. They have an obligation to their stakeholders. Which would have been served by the administration process being revisited, or via the side agreement; both of which they tried to secure via their CVA rejection. Subscribe to that, and you're wholly agreeing with me
It was never going to happen. Most people said this when they rejected the CVA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
But 'most people' and their commentary don't have the directors responsibility to their shareholders/stakeholders, do they? It's okay for you to express a view. The directors have a legal prerogative to act in the best interests if their business; even if that goes against the grain of any opinion
Their only stakeholders were Higgs and CCC. Higgs agreed to it. So given they rejected it we can only assume CCC did not. Revisiting the process would not have benefited any stakeholder unless they were trying to purchase the business themselves, as the settlement amount was the same irrespective of their decision.
But 'most people' and their commentary don't have the directors responsibility to their shareholders/stakeholders, do they? It's okay for you to express a view. The directors have a legal prerogative to act in the best interests if their business; even if that goes against the grain of any opinion
Best interests would have been accepting the CVA then trying to get the club to stay. Rejecting the CVA was like sticking 2 fingers up at the club.
By rejecting the CVA they were always going to make a return to the Ricoh less likely, therefore how can it be in their best interests?
You can bury your head in the sand, and use your condescending words to belittle those like me who don't 100% share your view, it won't change my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Every political, economic and sports pundit agrees that Coventry City must own its stadium.
Whether because of ideology, ignorance, ambition or politics, the refusal to complete the restructure based on heads of agreement we signed in 2012 and the subsequent rejection of the CVA, forced the club to leave the stadium and start the season on minus ten points, testing the mettle of supporters, investors, players and managers to the limit.
Rejecting the CVA was vindictive and in the end has achieved ACL nothing.
He's right though - what did ACL 'achieve' by rejecting the CVA? How did it benefit CCFC, or the City of Coventry?
So how come the Higgs side of ACL wanted to accept but the council side wanted to reject the CVA? Surely if they were unhappy with the process there would have been unanimity?
Interesting the tone of the article in the cet compared to the higgs one
That's a frankly incredible view. You honestly think that accepting the CVA would have given ACL any more leverage in negotiation with a view to getting SISU to stay at the Ricoh; as opposed to trying to secure it when they had the leverage of their position pre-CVA rejection? You really think that?!?
Where is their any evidence that they wanted any aspects of any process investigated. This is a made up hypothesis.
Where is their any evidence that they wanted any aspects of any process investigated. This is a made up hypothesis.
They didn't reject it because they wanted the process revisited. Despite the dictionary going into overdrive in attempt to sound intellectual as usual you sound condescending and faintly absurd.
How's Peter doing by the way?
So hurry up and build it already, give us a sign that you're serious. We're obviously not going back to the Ricoh so we need to get on with this. We don't want the exclusivity period on these sites to run out.Owner Joy Seppala has spoken.
"Every political, economic and sports pundit agrees that Coventry City must own its stadium.
That would be the Academy the board considered during your custodianship of CCFC closing to save money? The Academy that having not paid the lawnmower repair costs and 'confusion' over who the agreement was with, couldn't train at the only Cat 2 facilities in the area.Owner Joy Seppala has spoken. The club must benefit from every element of revenue generated and that money we must be used to fund the team – from the Academy to the first team.
Owner Joy Seppala has spoken. "We are moving forward with plans to build a stadium.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Their only stakeholders were Higgs and CCC. Higgs agreed to it. So given they rejected it we can only assume CCC did not. Revisiting the process would not have benefited any stakeholder unless they were trying to purchase the business themselves, as the settlement amount was the same irrespective of their decision.
Two points. You use the word 'assume'. I need not tell you about that word, should I? Let's wait until the JR and see what cones out and form opinion based in fact, not wild conjecture. To use terms like 'spite' ahead of that time is frankly infantile. Like Grenduffy's glee when reading SISU's edited, redacted bundle for the court case, and seeing it as a factual, complete narrative. It's not.
My second point, is that they could have opposed the process and not wished to buy. Just secured a different view if where assets and liabilities lay, thereafter making subsequent negotiations different. If, fir you example, the Golden Share, players contracts and lease were viewed in the same entity, I suggest we'd still be playing at The Ricoh now
This statement from August 2013 any good for you?
Ricoh Arena landlord ACL today launched a bitter attack on Sky Blues owners Sisu and the Football League.
The lengthy statement read: "The Board of Arena Coventry Limited is extremely disappointed by the Football League's decision yesterday evening relating to Coventry City Football Club.
"There are many more questions to be asked now of both the Joint Administrator Paul Appleton and Football League itself.
“That both these parties appear to have been complicit in allowing a company which has refused to pay its debts and fallen into administration, to then buy itself back with little or no consequence, beggars belief.
It has to be said I don't want bullshit from Joy Seppala, I want facts, Who are Sisu's investors? What's there long term aim for the Club? How do they intend to repair damages? Will they sell up and move on? Who are the people in behind the mist of Sisu?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So a quote about their unhappiness with the process. So unhappy they then offered an alternate rent deal in the process. Nice to see nothing changes. A quote that proved nothing.
So are you seriously telling me if the club had accepted the rent deal the CVA would have been rejected? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?
They didn't reject it because they wanted the process revisited. Despite the dictionary going into overdrive in attempt to sound intellectual as usual you sound condescending and faintly absurd.
How's Peter doing by the way?
Unlucky Robbo, not much in the way of facts in this article just more spin based upon the owners end game it would seem.
Firstly there would be no other set of circumstances them at could have occurred. If Higgs directors accepted it, and overall ACL rejected it, then it can only have been that CCC rejected it.
Secondly, the only transaction between CCFC and ACL was the rental deal. Admin was sought to recover the unpaid monies. Upon admin taking place, ACL knew the money they would get back would he less than the actual rental debt. So it comes to pass that ACL would receive the same monies irrespective of accepting or rejecting CVA, there was no benefit to them commercially for asking for the process to be revisited. Additionally rejection of the CVA leads to liquidation. So how would that get the process revisited.
Surely only the court could reopen the admin process, and only if something illegal had occurred. But it appears there is oh proof ( so far) so ACL were basically pissing in the wind.
Apart from the piece, and I quote "If I had known then what I know now, we would certainly have done things differently. Sadly, everything always looks clear with the benefit of hindsight. I say this by way of explanation not excuse. I cannot change the past, but players, management, supporters and investors can shape the future. I take my share of the responsibility for where we are"
Yeah she's monumentally cocked up, yeah they're pretty crap owners, but lets not say she blames everyone else when she says 'I take my share of responsibility for where we are'.
Pretty accurate statement if you ask me.
The CET article is party their opinion aswell remember before the direct quote from JS
The part blend is referring to is not really opinion, more a factual statement. What Sepalla has written clearly points the blame elsewhere as opposed to the judge who stated all sides, including SISU, had no appetite to complete the deal. if you look at what Sepalla has written she is saying that they would have completed the deal but for the other parties, which is contradictory to what was stated by the judge.
I guess in the instance you have to choose if you believe a high court judge or Sepalla.
If I remember righty ACL wouldn't speak to Sisu directly at the time, ACL wanted to speak to Paul Appleton.
The HOT exclusivity period expired July 2012 after which Judge Leggatt stated that all sides had no appetite for the deal, the administration process didn't start until March 2013.
The part blend is referring to is not really opinion, more a factual statement. What Sepalla has written clearly points the blame elsewhere as opposed to the judge who stated all sides, including SISU, had no appetite to complete the deal. if you look at what Sepalla has written she is saying that they would have completed the deal but for the other parties, which is contradictory to what was stated by the judge.
I guess in the instance you have to choose if you believe a high court judge or Sepalla.
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?