Astute
Well-Known Member
What do you see that is wrong with the rest of it? If nothing you can see why I think and say what I do and CCC are not to blame as some try to make out.
They didn't offer the pie money, they offered to cross invoice it for the purpose of FFP.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It's also wrong, downright wrong, when offers are presented that are not presented.
To me, that offer was made via the FL so that SISU couldn't deny it - it seems obvious to me.
I was talking about more than one, tbh.
And as I also said above, I have no problem with them doing that. Exactly the right approach...
Assuming they actually tell the club directly, too!
Otherwise it's more game play, especially when the media are told.
Why would you say that the last offer was made through the FL? SISU tried to make out that the offer wasn't made although there was undeniable truth on the matter.
Why would you say that the last offer was made through the FL? SISU tried to make out that the offer wasn't made although there was undeniable truth on the matter.
It's not just this latest offer, wasn't the offer to play at the Ricoh while in Administration made to Paul Appleton who had no players contracted to CCFC Ltd to accept a deal?
The latest deal was made to the FL I will find the comment from the FL chairman.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I await the "yeah but..., yeah but..." replies.
They should have made the offer direct to the Club rather than through third parties.
I await the "yeah but..., yeah but..." replies.
They should have made the offer direct to the Club rather than through third parties.
Why would you say that the last offer was made through the FL? SISU tried to make out that the offer wasn't made although there was undeniable truth on the matter.
They could have done both of course.
Saying that doesn't therefore make SISU a pure, innocent investment fund, unwise in the ways of the world who stumbled blinkingly into the light, finding they'd accidentally bought a football club.
I await the "yeah but..., yeah but..." replies.
They should have made the offer direct to the Club rather than through third parties.
Why? Companies do things through third parties all the time, such as getting a third party to phone a local council to enquire about land for the building of a mythical stadium. Would you want to speak to a company that has withheld a years rent, spread lies and constantly muddied waters about you? The fact is the offer was made and quite frankly anyone who moans about the fact it wasn't direct sounds a lot like the childish Labovitch. Do you really think the council would have retracted it if Sisu said yes? No of course they wouldn't.
How true was it about the CVA that a condition for them to accept was for the JR to be dropped or just rumour??
Bit different when your employing a company to do so..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe they see how costly the whole charade will be after the initial verdict and the subsequent appeals that arise from it and think that the money saved from it will be better spent on services in the city.
Why is it?
What do you see that is wrong with the rest of it? If nothing you can see why I think and say what I do and CCC are not to blame as some try to make out.
I believe all parties are to blame for the mess we're in, to varying degrees, but all have a share of that blame.
It's not just this latest offer, wasn't the offer to play at the Ricoh while in Administration made to Paul Appleton who had no players contracted to CCFC Ltd to accept a deal?
The latest deal was made to the FL I will find the comment from the FL chairman.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe all parties are to blame for the mess we're in, to varying degrees, but all have a share of that blame.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
But Appleton was supposed to be running our club at that time. Appleton couldn't find players registered in CCFC LTD when they were. Couldn't find the golden share. Couldn't do a lot he was supposed to. But the offer was still supposed to be made to him.
Can we just be clear here - the Council does not have a controlling interest in ACL. I can't understand why there's so much confusion around this. They can't wind up or sell ACL all on their own. You're asking the council to do something that they simply can't do.
True - but ccc and higgs can agree to sell their shares. Higgs have many times said they would be interested in selling their part. CCC haven't - they have on more than one occasion said they would never sell to sisu. Buying only Higgs shares doesn't give the club control and so it wouldn't be possible to include ACL revenue in the FFP calculation.
You're also conflating the pricing of ACL and a long lease for what SISU were requesting for the freehold (two valuations, etc). As a private company, ACL can value themselves at what they wish - a fair price is one at which they wish to sell, should they wish to sell.
Yes, ACL can make their own valuation, but it won't be ACL who decide if a price is right or wrong or even if they want to be sold or not - that is purely a decision the shareholders can make ... Higgs and CCC.
Again, SISU had the opportunity to buy 50% of ACL, but walked away.
They walked when CCC turned their back to the plan they had jointly with sisu. That, I believe will be part of sisu's argumentation in court (JR).
Anyway, politely, I think there's a reversal of logic here.
Because SISU say they won't accept a rental deal (even though it's clearly financially in the best interests of the club), you're saying we should pressurise the council to sell.
I think, politely, that's all backwards. For the good of the club we should pressure SISU to return to the Ricoh, and then negotiate on everything else. If there's no deal that can then be found with regard to access to income streams, sale of freehold, ACL, long lease, etc etc., then the club should just press on and build the new stadium if it genuinely makes better financial sense.
I think history have told us we (the fans) cannot pressure sisu into anything. We can't make them leave, we can't make them stay (at the Ricoh), we can't force them to sell etc. Nothing we the fans have done so far have had any bearings on sisu's strategy.
(Also, fwiw, I see ARVO as just an extension of SISU - I can't see that they'd let a third party that they do not control having a complete hold on the club. It's just a mechanism to allow them to retain the club in the event of Administration, as already demonstrated. In my opinion, that is.)
I have already argued a few times that ARVO could well be sisu rel 2.0 and that they are likely to take over if/when sisu leaves. That's actually a point I have tried to make very clear as that could enter any sisu-out and NOPM campaign worthless.
Do we know how many players were registered to CCFC Ltd? I think in the interest of balance with respect to my earlier comments Paul Appleton was useless
Do we know how many players were registered to CCFC Ltd? I think in the interest of balance with respect to my earlier comments Paul Appleton was useless
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Club had employed CBRE on it's behalf, ACL has made an offer to entity that had previously mentioned that it has no bearing on where the Club plays nor can it influence the Club to accept a deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But my point is so what if they used a third party give the offer to Sisu. It would have been through a third party if CCC gave me the sodding offer and I dropped it off on a motorbike. They still would have got it and they still could have taken it up. The fact that people moan about this whole third party business is beyond me when we do it all the time in life for our own means such as buying houses, buying things online to getting a cheap holiday. Just because the CCC used a third party, why the big fuss?
If you want to be angry as a CCFC fan, then why not point that anger at Sisu for employing CBRE as a third party for what seems to be a pointless excercise and potentially putting the cost onto our already skint club. Cost me nothing as a taxpayer in Coventry for CCC to put the offer through the FL.
Pointless being in your view? I am angry with Sisu along with many others, however I am also angry with many other parties.
The big fuss by the way is that CCC/ACL offered a deal to an entity that does not have any weight in it's words, the Football League can't influence the Football Club as the Football Club is a business as well as a member of the local community.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've a headache from all this banging my head thing.
I would advise against any more head banging if I was you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is that then?
Pointless being in your view? I am angry with Sisu along with many others, however I am also angry with many other parties.
The big fuss by the way is that CCC/ACL offered a deal to an entity that does not have any weight in it's words, the Football League can't influence the Football Club as the Football Club is a business as well as a member of the local community.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought the club were not talking to ACL so they offered via the football league in a vain attempt for them to push it into Sisu.
FL gets some balls.
I await the "yeah but..., yeah but..." replies.
They should have made the offer direct to the Club rather than through third parties.
There is no "yeah, but" here. Again, I'm really amazed by the logic here. The rental deal was made to the FL so that everyone was aware there was an offer and what the nature of the it was.
Does anyone here really believe that if SISU had agreed to accept the offer (or even talk about it), that ACL would have taken it off the table. What could they have said... "Ah, no, sorry, that offer was just to the Football League.".
It's just untenable, to my mind, to pretend that this wasn't a genuine offer because it went through the Football League.
The real question here is why didn't SISU accept it, given that it wouldn't have stopped any of their plans for a new stadium, and might have even helped them to negotiate for the other things they say they need?
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?