covcity4life
Well-Known Member
robins blamed the council dumbo. nout to do with him leaving
So Robins' reason for departing suddenly becomes clear. Well done SISU, your inability to take a reasonable deal has screwed us to the max once again!
Yestersday people were calling Robins a liar backstabber you name it they called him it. Skyblue blood here for the long haul etc
today we can take every word he says as gospel truth and fact...............if it suits
Unbelievable
"As of 1 February 2013, CCFC owes ACL £1.347 million in rent arrears. CCFC have failed to pay or contest the High Court judgment obtained by ACL in August 2012 and neither did CCFC contest the Statutory Demand served by ACL in December 2012. no challenge ? either they knew they couldnt win or there was some other plan going on that made a challenge un-necessary or a subsequent action by ACL desirable
"The rent deal offer from ACL laid out in writing on 29 January was verbally agreed following an extremely detailed discussion with the three directors of CCFC, namely John Clarke OBE, Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch. Clear to who was there, the three directors of CCFC & CCFCH and took place 29/01 ...... all a matter of fact ....... verbal agreement is ACL's understanding but why say so if not what happened...... key thing though is there was nothing in writing (contracts dont have to be)
"The offer set the rent payable by CCFC to ACL at £400,000 per annum while the club remains in Football League 1. why would they state this if not true
"It included agreement from ACL to waive more than £300,000 of the £1.347 million rent arrears, with a generous approach to clearing the balance. It also agreed the principle of ACL matchday revenues benefitting CCFC, and ACL paying a larger share of rates on the stadium. wonder what the generous approach was..... is it the term of the repayment or perhaps if other events happened then further write downs applied. Seems ACL agreed to CCFC having all matchday incomes, a key issue we have been told by TF etc and they have what they want......... on top of that they get a rates reduction...... all good i would have thought
"Instead of confirming its written acceptance, CCFC then proposed an alternative Heads of Terms, which bore no relation to that agreed. It demanded the waiver by ACL of all rent arrears claims pre-dating 1 January 2013. It demanded also the withdrawal of the statutory demand for the payment of rent arrears issued by ACL against CCFC on 5 December 2012. Heads of agreement are usually agreed by negotiation to seemingly reject those agreed and unilaterally demand new different terms is never going to acceptable....... also what were the 3 directors doing there if they didnt have the power to make an agreement. Why would ACL waive their right to a rental for the months from April to December which together with the escrow balance was the basis of the statutory demand ...... ACL can of course reduce the amount they are prepared to accept but to write it all off is an unrealistic demand. Why would anyone after all the negotiations both sides have said were going on believe that at the Heads of Agreement stage ACL could or would accept that
"It was accompanied by an emailed statement from Tim Fisher declaring that CCFC has 'no option but to build a new venue' and that CCFC’s proposals were predicated on playing at the Ricoh Arena for a 'run-off period of three years.' would guess they wouldnt say that unless they had that email............. but it doesnt stop the lease at the Ricoh or a landlords right to compensation for early termination
"This is totally unacceptable to ACL." looking at this from neither side is anyone really surprised that it is unacceptable to ACL and they have to do something
Nicholas Carter, Chairman of Arena Coventry Limited, said: "If the club directors can’t or won’t follow through on the agreement they participated in creating, then we suggest to them that the time has come to consider offering ownership of CCFC to an outside buyer better placed to run the club’s financial operations.
"Make no mistake, now is the time for Sisu to pay up or sell up and get out of Coventry."strong words in deed and says that ACL have had enough of all this
''The board of ACL believes that Sisu, have no intention of entering into a meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue. It is the board’s view that the primary aim of Sisu throughout the last 11 months has been to undermine the financial position of ACL’s business through the non-payment of lawfully owed rent and stalling on reaching an agreement." In their position then I am certain I would form the same opinion, I suspect there is an awful lot not being said that has gone on that has been obstructive to a deal taking place........... delaying tactics like further investigations, demands for due diligence perhaps on ACL and its associates etc etc. I have always believed that SISU have tried to take ACL by destroying ACL's finances but that was just my opinion. Seems that is also the opinion of the board and stakeholders of ACL
Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...ave-collapsed-92746-32810856/2/#ixzz2KsvfJzmN
So Robins' reason for departing suddenly becomes clear. Well done SISU, your inability to take a reasonable deal has screwed us to the max once again!
Yestersday people were calling Robins a liar backstabber you name it they called him it. Skyblue blood here for the long haul etc
today we can take every word he says as gospel truth and fact...............if it suits
Unbelievable
There is nothing reasonable about the deal.
Robins departure has nothing to do with this. The statement timing by ACL is deliberate and tactical.
Its quite clear SISU, pay up or feck off and if it takes the club down in its unsustainable joke form then so be it ! We will never be able to move forward with these idiots in charge, this week has proven it yet again. This slow death has to come to an end, only they won't drop it as they will lose a lot of face and a few quid into the bargain.
From what i understand the meetings to discuss this were arranged well in advance of Robbins going and took place before MR decided to go. So this statement etc would have happened had he stayed. No significance in it being today at all ............ other than it being Thursday
To be fair though, SISU should sort this out now and for all or at least pay something as a gesture.
fffin moron SISU created this problem not the council higgs trust or acl so SISU should pay up or ship out i would prefer the latter
How did Sisu create this issue you moron!!?!
The old regime signed terms with acl which were ridiculous and didn't factor in relegation to division 3 terms.
Sisu didn't have an option to negotiate terms when they purchased the club.
Moron...
grendel i cant believe that people cant see the bigger picture over the last 5 years SISU have systematicaly robbed city and now they are robbing ACL.read oldskyblues post and understand it the sooner SISU go the better.If that means the club goes then so be it personally i think another buyer will appear but not while SISU remain
Morally bankrupt? No, he left in a disrespectful manner, but remember, today's football manager is yesterday's politician, they are careerists, and he's been offered a better job on more money, not morally bankrupt, he left for a 'promotion'.
Indeed, I am annoyed at him, but there is no such thing as loyalty in today's football, there's more risk involved in his move to Huddersfield, but there's more benefits if it works out.
Make no mistake, I'm annoyed and I feel disrespected, but that's the game now.
What would you know on the ins and outs of these negotiations, MR would, so he has a respectful view on this topic, he knows stuff we don't, he gets the meat on the bones, we just get the bones.
You'd know that why?
You're an outsider, bitter with the ownership, whereas MR knows the ins and outs and has made an informed decision on the situation, have you? You know nothing compared to MR.
The people who agreed the original rent are idiots, we know that.
but
400 grand a month to rent the ricoh, what are these mongs on. I'm no fan of Sisu but ACL are killing the club.
As of 1 February 2013, CCFC owes ACL £1.347 million in rent arrears. CCFC have failed to pay or contest the High Court judgment obtained by ACL in August 2012 and neither did CCFC contest the Statutory Demand served by ACL in December 2012.
The offer set the rent payable by CCFC to ACL at £400,000 per annum while the Club remains in Football League 1.
It included agreement from ACL to waive more than £300,000 of the £1.347 million rent arrears, with a generous approach to clearing the balance.
It also agreed the principle of ACL matchday revenues benefitting CCFC, and ACL paying a larger share of rates on the stadium.
The people who agreed the original rent are idiots, we know that.
but
400 grand a month to rent the ricoh, what are these mongs on. I'm no fan of Sisu but ACL are killing the club.
errr it is 400K per year or 33.3k per month or about £16k per game ................ btw each game with average crowds of 11000 brings in £140k in ticket sales net of VAT on average
hardly killing the club
Have you ever heard the term "Oxymoron"
errr it is 400K per year or 33.3k per month or about £16k per game ................ btw each game with average crowds of 11000 brings in £140k in ticket sales net of VAT on average
hardly killing the club
Morally bankrupt? No, he left in a disrespectful manner.
Robins left purely for money.
However these threads are riddled with conspiracy theorists all desperate for him to criticise the owners. When he didn't the disappointment and desperation was hilarious.
People can't have it all ways. If he says the owners have supported him then that is that. The rental arrangements we have are the most punitive and restrictive in the football league (Walsall aside) and are definitely hampering progress.
The council have bailed ACL out. Robins admits that the board have supported the club. They should allow the club rent free terms for this and next season. Many other council owned stadiums have allowed this. Only the supporters are preventing this from happening.
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?