skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I thought you were sure that the issue was what the guarantors had paid. So assumed you must have known of a link to be so sure.
Sisu pays council £100k (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Sorry. I thought you were sure that the issue was what the guarantors had paid. So assumed you must have known of a link to be so sure.
Nick
Administrator
Isn't that why it was being questioned in the first place and that we are waiting for the FL to decide if it is linked or not? If they decide it isn't then they pay it all, if somehow they feel it is linked to what they said the original money was for then they will work it out and give a figure.
Pretty sure it wouldn't take them 10 minutes to decide.
Have a look at why they set the 590k and what grounds they set it for, let's say it was for bum tickling services between 1976 and 1980 and then get the contract for the guarantors that was paid and see what they actually gave money for, if it turns out they paid the money for bum tickling between those dates then it is linked. If it turns out that they were in fact paying for reach arounds in 1995, it is a whole different ball game and they should pay the full amount.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The affection is for the club. The payment to ACL is a barrier in the club returning. Therefore it needs paying. Is that too simple for you?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So in your opinion what's the link?
Nick
Administrator
I have no idea if there is one? Hence I have never said I know 100% for a fact there is and it is down to the FL to decide and what they rule should go, whether it is £1 or £1 million.
Nick
Administrator
I agree, on the other hand you could see that ACL are a barrier in the club returning so they should go? If they handed it over to SISU for 50p then the club would be back, so ACL is also a barrier?
The way you speak / post and the impression it gives is that the club should do anything ACL say to get us back, which is what got us in a big mess in the first place isn't it? Sorry if that impression is wrong.
On the other hand it could be said that SISU won't pay the full amount because they believe some money has been paid for the same thing (I have no idea if it has or not) and it is down to the FL to decide as they set the demand anyway. If it is linked then why should SISU pay a bill that has been paid? I don't think they should, the same as I don't think ACL should give things away for 50p. It wouldn't take long to decide if it is linked or not, so it is simple isn't it? "Pay up the full amount you dicks it isn't linked, stop talking rubbish" or "pay £xxxx amount".
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
No one cares about Acl, despite yours and few others crazy imaginations.
Everyone wants a good deal for ccfc, so we can prosper. But those who live in the real world know it's not a case of : "here's the Ricoh for free". Debts and deals need to be sorted first.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
ACL ain't going anywhere. That became clear (to most anyway) when sisu got battered in court. So the barriers between sisu and ACL are going to have to be either dismantled or have bridges built over them.
Did ACL say that Otium had to pay £590k? No, it was the FL. I know you'd like to think that I want the club to do anything that ACL say seeing as you believe everything that Grendull says but like I've said more than once, the payment is a barrier, it's as simple as that.
Like someone said on another thread. If the FL said the full payment had to be made would you put it past sisu to challenge that decision in court?
Regardless of what the FL rule I wouldn't be surprised if it ain't the end of it. There's legs in this yet. Is anyone even sure if the FL have control of the escrow account that the money is apparently in?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I didn't say ACL did say it, that is why I said that FL set the amount and it has been disputed so it is waiting on the FL to decide?
I was just giving you an example of the other barriersNot sure why you are trying to have silly little digs?
Haven't SISU disputed what they owe before the decision has been made?
ACL's gripe is they don't know the terms of the agreement between the FL and SISU.
The other possibility is SISU owe two parties, ACL and the guarantors.
SISU's original statement, a substantial amount has been paid into the account, then several weeks later the full amount has now been paid, shows they are still messing everyone around.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I didn't say ACL did say it, that is why I said that FL set the amount and it has been disputed so it is waiting on the FL to decide?
I was just giving you an example of the other barriers
So just to be clear, what would your attitude be if the FL said the full £590K should be paid to ACL regardless of the Robinson/McGinnity payments & SISU/ARVO disputed the amount. Who would be putting up barriers then?
Nick
Administrator
My attitude would be the same as throughout this thread and the many others, then all of the £590k should be paid if that is what is ruled.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Don't you think then that if it's going to cost sisu £590k regardless they may as well pay that to ACL so the whole £590k hurdle is done and dusted and here's the novel part, instead of SISU and ACL arguing about it the guarantors and ACL can argue about it and it doesn't effect the club moving forward one iota. Too simple?
Nick
Administrator
Yes but we don't know the terms or anything do we? We don't know if the guarantors have any terms to claim it back on do we? They may well have, they may not. That is what the FL are going to decide isn't it?
We just don't know do we?
No future with SISU
New Member
It will go to pay the court bill forced on them by SISU.
Frisky blue
New Member
Something to do with CCC/ACL owning a stadium in Coventry? FFS.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I don't know why the money has to come from our club. The JR wasn't really anything to do with the club, it was Sisu chasing the Ricoh via the council loan. I don't mind Sisu launching legal cases till they're blue in the face, but I don't know why the club has to suffer to satisfy their lust for court room dramas.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Thing is (as far as I know) they haven't said that they're wanting 10bn to talk just the money that the footballing authorities and the judge have said that they're owed. The problem is that Sisu are entitled to (and have every right to) appeal against the decision not to allow them to appeal and seem intent on doing so. At the same time as ACL are entirely within their rights to say no talks with legals still in the offing as they appear to be doing.
Sisu don't (to my mind) want to drop the legals (which isn't unreasonable) because this is the last serious hold that they have over ACL/Coventry council. The council/ACL apparently don't want to start talks with anything hanging over them. That isn't unreasonable given that they will have to put money aside to cover the potential cost of these legals, which could be better used elsewhere and not tied up waiting for a potential legal case that may or may not happen.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why weren't ACL bothered about legals When they made their infamous offer via the football league? I'm sure the JR process was happening then.
Also I thought the footballing authorities are meeting on the 7th to confirm what is owed. This has nothing to do with the judge as ACL have no legal recourse regarding this money.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I have no idea why ACL weren't bothered by the JR when they made their offer via the FL, you'd have to ask them. If I had to guess maybe they're more pissed off with Sisu now than they were then, but that's a guess and I don't know the actual reason.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood I wasn't implying the two were linked in any way. There is the money that the judge has ordered as part of Sisu losing the JR (costs) and there is also the money the footballing authorities have said needs to be paid - these are two completely separate separate things that are linked for better or for worse by our club.
Last edited: