ACL introduced it as being key to even getting the negotiating table I meant by b that comment.
While I hate to agree with you I think you're right about the war of attrition.
#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth
As has been clear all along it is the only bargaining tool they've got. Otherwise, to be frank, they're at the mercy of the not so generous ACL.
#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth
Not really unexpected is it
TF can try to distance the club from the legal action but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny really does it. The two entities named on the court documents are ARVO and SBS&L who are the only share holders in Otium trading as CCFC. The only reason they can attempt a legal challenge is because they own Otium. He is trying to point attention in another direction (an old and oft repeated SISU tactic) and say "not me guv". Bottom line is that SISU and CCFC are inextricably linked at this point - they are not two separate things. Therefore CCFC is absolutely involved in any legal action - it is, has always been and remains the tool to an objective
Clearly there is a clear split however between the needs and intentions of SISU/ARVO/SBS&L and the needs of CCFC. Unfortunately I don't see how you split the involvement in all aspects of this for all of those four though. Not only that but the only one who makes decisions for all those entities is JS. Nothing gets agreed unless she says so ..... rent deals, returns to Coventry, fantasy ground builds and above all legal actions. So this TF idea of separation is to be honest sheer bunkum
ACL certainly had input in to the FL decision however there was no power held by them to accept or reject the £471k - they were not nor ever were part of the contract between FL & Otium. Therefore they had no choice in accepting the £471K to imply they did is wrong. I wonder if the FL have paid it over yet?
I am not sure they will, but there may be a chance that ACL will see beyond this latest court action and negotiate to a conclusion that brings the club back now. But I suspect they wont be inclined to after this. From their point of view why do they need to include as part of negotiations whether or not legal action continues. They have said clearly all the legal actions have to stop. I would suspect at this stage they feel confident the appeal will be rejected and their need for CCFC to be back is less than the need CCFC has to return. Is this the only legal challenges going on?
What this does do even if ACL negotiate is to harden what is going to be on offer. It will only ever be a rent deal and with the other legal distractions there is no real incentive for ACL to jump through hoops in negotiating rights to income etc. No rights to income or agreed costs for using those income streams and the decision maker at CCFC will reject any deal, most likely stating a refusal by ACL to negotiate as the reason ...... but will it really be the case? or has any negotiation been set up to fail in the first place and the objective remains as it always has.
As they say leopards do not change their spots
Altogether disheartening ............ interesting to see how this latest news affects the travelling support "home" or away
I don't see it. As a bargaining chip for what? Lower rent, better catering cut? That's all that's open to them now and they don't want it. They've ploughed millions into this venture, and a share of the £150K profit from food and drink as per the last accounts aren't it.
They need freehold, or at least long leasehold with all revenues to feather the nest of their exit strategy. Neither are on the table, so the court cases, with their dwindling likelihood of success is their only chance. Even if it's a 1% chance, they're duty bound by desperation to persue it.
That's what we're now seeing. Despite what's publicly stated, they have no interest in cutting a deal with ACL. So there's no point in gaining leverage for a discussion they don't want
Does anyone find it strange that we have not heard anything from ACL? Not one statement, City have come out with four statements regarding the subject but nothing from ACL...?
Can you tell us who and I mean which company is paying the lawyers who are doing all this court work? Is it the club i.e. Otium Entertainment Group and/or SBS&L, or Joy personally or Sisu Capital Partners etc.
Because the Club lost £7m last year I seem to recall and if we're likely to lose a similar sum again this year I don't think adding the legal fees for a case that's not got much to do with the club (well it's about the council loan to ACL not the club) to our debt mountain is fair.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to quantify your comments, especially as on the surface it appears to shut the door on a return.
If you know something... just tell everyone. If there is some good news to follow - don't you think we deserve to know?
Does anyone find it strange that we have not heard anything from ACL? Not one statement, City have come out with four statements regarding the subject but nothing from ACL...?
Everyone deserves to have it confirmed (including myself) and despite yesterday's events, I still expect a return during early September.
As soon as it's confirmed I'm sure they'll be an announcement.
I would say SISU have there own company legal team which they use for all business dealings, it wont be like you or me where we call one in. It will be part of the business structure, the shame in all this was where were their legal team when it came to signing up with ACL and the RICOH to do it properly !
BREAKING NEWS:
Once a deal is confirmed RFC is sure there will be an announcement on it.
Couldn't write it
Sorry no idea on costs or which company is paying.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, will continue with the depressing assumption that it is Otium and SBS&L.
Does anyone find it strange that we have not heard anything from ACL? Not one statement, City have come out with four statements regarding the subject but nothing from ACL...?
Does anyone find it strange that we have not heard anything from ACL? Not one statement, City have come out with four statements regarding the subject but nothing from ACL...?
Thanks for taking the time to reply, will continue with the depressing assumption that it is Otium and SBS&L.
On CWR they reported the plaintiffs are ARVO, SISU and Sky Blue Sport & Leisure Ltd (directors Tim Fisher & Mark Labovich).
I don't believe it is necessary for each party to share costs equally, so it is possible for all the costs to end up on Sky Blue Sport & Leisure's books.
What statement should ACL be making?
They briefly stated the other day they have been paid the 471k but "nothing has changed"
They set out 2 very reasonable and simple criteria and once they have been met then talks can happen. We know both haven't been met yet so we know the score.
You twattle on about respect in the other thread and then post that, straight off. Is it
national irony week?
Read the post, you thick ork. It's all in there if you read and try and ponder, as opposed to trying to play the game you're eminently I'll-equipped to play. Again.
Seriously, I'm not being funny. You're too thick for this. You don't do humour. You're unintelligent. Your forced confrontation doesn't boast grace nor subtlety to even slightly motivate me to engage with you; and your modus operandi has grown more desperate as the boredom of the school holidays have taken their toll. In essence, dear chap, you're a buffoon of biblical proportions
I would say SISU have there own company legal team which they use for all business dealings, it wont be like you or me where we call one in. It will be part of the business structure, the shame in all this was where were their legal team when it came to signing up with ACL and the RICOH to do it properly !
To my mind it is not as simple as that , I believe ACL have a moral obligation to the people of Coventry to do whatever they can (within the context of there own business requirements) to bring CCFC home, and are entrenched as much as SISU in there own petty issues. As we stand SISU own CCFC and have (Through there own negligence and scheming) put them selves in a no win position holding only one card, which is the chance of the appeal, if ACL sat down with them now they could negotiate an agreement and get the appeal revoked as part of that package.
I thought a bit more about the 'appeal as a bargaining chip' argument again this morning, after I'd calmeddown a bit.
In truth, if you're genuinely looking to seek a short-term rent deal, it still makes little sense. It's an obvious obstacle to talks, and from ACL's point, it actually gives them a stronger position in some ways. As long as this is in play they're not going to get much in the way of public pressure to strike a deal.
Of course, if SISU only want to pretend to negotiate whilst they're actually intent on prolonging the amount of time they are able to distress ACL, then I guess it makes some sense. The reason for the pretence, I assume, is to keep the FL and the fans off their backs a bit longer.
I hope that I've read this wrong, and that there really is something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Simon Gilbert gives me some hope on that front, but my gut feel is still that everyone is being played by SISU. Again.
And yet you do engage, and at length too
No I don't
But is it an obstacle for talks? Gilbert doesn't think so. I don't really see how SISU can play anyone anymore. They are roundly despised, no one believes a word they say, about the new stadium or anything else. It certainly doesnt look like ACL will be folding anytime soon. What cards do they have left to play?
I spoke to a season ticket holder the ther day and he explained why he wanted to go to "support the lads" fair enough but when asked why he said: "well the blame is 50-50, the council are joint to blame even though they won the court case, sisu aren't great owners but they wanted to buy the Higgs share at a fair price and they weren't allowed to buy it, also when the rent was 1.3m it was ripping off the club. Also Coventry and sisu only want match day Revnues is that so bad?"
I proceeded to tell him actually sisu didn't want to pay market value for the Higgs share (proved in high court) and it was that share why we don't get match day Revenues as we sold them fair and square. I also told him 1.3m rent was around 8% of the clubs actual turnover and the 1.3m was being reduced and shook on by TF at 400k,
He just completely looked blank and me and said "you won't change my mind" I said I don't want to change your mind I just wanted you to state facts that we know.
This is a true story and I believe most 100 adult season tickets they have sold him being 1 think like this and when I said it's morally wrong as Cov should play in Cov he just said "well I want to support my team and I will go wherever as it's a cheap season ticket as well."
True story
As I stated earlier on this thread (of which you will have studied every word) their real victory is the breaking of the rental deal.
Bit of a pyrrhic victory considering it cost them a bunch of fan goodwill, several million quid in lost revenue, the chance to own half of ACL, and arguably our
Championship status.
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?