skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?
CCFC should have been offered the same deal as Wasps.
CCFC should have been offered the same deal as Wasps.
Okay - but honestly - do you not recall someone else saying, and I'm sure it was Deleted member 5849 - stating hat he was clearly told it was freehold only?
Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?
In the bottom 6 of division 3 and with division 4 looming large and then the conference, yet again there's another bullshit thread about the council, the Ricoh add a bit of Wasps.
Can't there be a separate forum dedicated to those who just want or even need to talk the politics probably not though as nick thrives on it.
Was at the same meeting as NW, don't recall, but to be honest he was going on for so long I''d decided just to drink and was possibly having a cigarette outside with LAST if he said it.
Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?
How? The club's owners had numerous opportunities to have 'a deal' and didn't (JR judge stated they, as Higgs, had 'no appetite' for a deal). Then, after categorically stating that they were building anew, another party comes along offering a deal for what would then have been an empty bit of grass, but under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement, and you expect CCC to break that agreement to go back to SISU again? Really?
How? The club's owners had numerous opportunities to have 'a deal' and didn't (JR judge stated they, as Higgs, had 'no appetite' for a deal). Then, after categorically stating that they were building anew, another party comes along offering a deal for what would then have been an empty bit of grass, but under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement, and you expect CCC to break that agreement to go back to SISU again? Really?
Yes, and it could have been offered to other clubs in Coventry that have historical ties to the city. Everyone should have been informed what an out of town franchise was offering and then asked if they would match it. Balls to the confidentiality agreement.
After categorically stating that time was needed to rebuild trust before talking about ownership again, wouldn't that actually have been the best course of action?
Regardless of what was said in the JR about a deal, it related to a different point in time. When there was a (slim) chance of buying into ACL with a long lease, SISU at least engaged and attempted to do it. It's not right to say that there was no appetite for a deal, when in reality no serious discussions had taken place with the club in 2015.
Yeah - great thinking. Now, imagine if CCC broke the confidentiality agreement and Wasps walk away. Fisher builds his new stadium and the Ricoh is left unused. What then? What the hell would the 95% of the City's population who don't go to the football say about the council then?
Your wasting your time with these guys. They have as much idea of the real world as Sisu.
Labovitz said they would accept a very long lease as long as all revenues were in place to me.
Yeah - great thinking. Now, imagine if CCC broke the confidentiality agreement and Wasps walk away. Fisher builds his new stadium and the Ricoh is left unused. What then? What the hell would the 95% of the City's population who don't go to the football say about the council then?
You have to look at this with skyblue tinted glasses only. You start considering the rest of Coventry then you will get really frustrated. ...
Balls to the confidentiality agreement.
The issue here is Fisher's stance, because everything thereafter stems from that.
Would normal city residents not be annoyed that there are loads of cuts while loads of money is tied up in ACL?
I think they would be really pissed off if CCFC did as they were absolutely resolute that they were going to do - 'Move out of Coventry'. Then the public discover the council had an opportunity for a alternative use for the Ricoh and they blew it. Leaving it empty and by what it now seems not breaking even.
Hang on, Fishers stance from day one was that ACL was reliant on CCFC and that the rent was too high. CCC denied this and we now know Fisher was correct. If you're making a statement that everything stems from Fishers stance then does it not follow that had CCC been truthful at that point we may well be in a very different position now.
The rent was too high. That's clear. ACL being financially reliant on CCFC is only pertinent to the distressing process. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered, would they?
If rather than distress, they'd have paid a fair price, instead of spunking it on legal fees, we certainly wouldn't be where we are now. So, yes, this whole process starts with Fisher's stance, and continues right through to the 'new stadium' farce
How can CCFC distress ACL by withholding rent or moving out if ACL are no way reliant on that rent from CCFC?
By saying ACL were in no way reliant on CCFC it artificially inflated any asking price. That's why, for example, a company listed on the stock exchange can not make false statements, it impacts their share price and value of the company.You're making a circular debate. Whether ACL was viable with or without CCFC is irrelevant to our contract to pay rent against an agreement. It's like you rent a house, and you think your landlord's private finances have anything to do with your contract with him. It sits apart from your contract. ACL's stand-alone health was only pertinent to the distressing process, which was ruled, an illegal rent-strike.
A housing association builds houses reliant on the income from those houses to support it's borrowing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial arrangements when the viability of the landlord or lender is influenced, either partially or totally, by payments from the tenant.
But how is it pertinent? Other than to the illegal rent-withholding distressing process?
Wasps should at the very least pay that 14 million back and arrange their own funding. If they did that then I don't think their would be as much of a who har as their is now.
Liblabcon all the same. Labour take high ground yet seem to be at the centre of any treachery. Tory not much better.
Labour Council should now help the club, for their own, and the People of Cov's good.
I can see this being appealed to EU Court (higher than Appeal court, higher than UK Supreme). They may well lose there, it seems that the evidence is coming out.
Labour are not part of the Establishment in the EU circles, so their influence (Gov does have influence in UK Legal system, at the moment the Court action is against the UK Government by extension and SISU will have a tougher time than they will if they get to appeal up under EU State aid).
Just my views, I'm a Eurosceptic yet it seems that EU law may have a part to play, ironically.
I didn't think new evidence could be submitted in the case?? it can only be judged on the information available at the time of the original case. more expense and waste of money by our useless fecking owners
You're making a circular debate. Whether ACL was viable with or without CCFC is irrelevant to our contract to pay rent against an agreement. It's like you rent a house, and you think your landlord's private finances have anything to do with your contract with him. It sits apart from your contract. ACL's stand-alone health was only pertinent to the distressing process, which was ruled, an illegal rent-strike.
A housing association builds houses reliant on the income from those houses to support it's borrowing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial arrangements when the viability of the landlord or lender is influenced, either partially or totally, by payments from the tenant.
But how is it pertinent? Other than to the illegal rent-withholding distressing process?
In the JR it was mentioned that the Council would use cash reserves for a while, before then getting a loan. Hadn't noticed that before.
The Council’s net interest return whilst it uses its cash balances to fund the
loan (estimated to be for at least 3-5 years) would be about 4% or £500,000
per year.
In the JR it was mentioned that the Council would use cash reserves for a while, before then getting a loan. Hadn't noticed that before.
Liblabcon all the same. Labour take high ground yet seem to be at the centre of any treachery. Tory not much better.
Labour Council should now help the club, for their own, and the People of Cov's good.
I can see this being appealed to EU Court (higher than Appeal court, higher than UK Supreme). They may well lose there, it seems that the evidence is coming out.
Labour are not part of the Establishment in the EU circles, so their influence (Gov does have influence in UK Legal system, at the moment the Court action is against the UK Government by extension and SISU will have a tougher time than they will if they get to appeal up under EU State aid).
Just my views, I'm a Eurosceptic yet it seems that EU law may have a part to play, ironically.
I bet Sisu get comfort from this thread ?
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?