D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hmmm dead or no, my general desire is to offend unwittingly if at all however, if it's unjustified offence anyway
Actually of the three of them you'd be safest talking about Sir Higgs as he's the only one who can't sue you because he's dead.
Sisu and morals in the same sentence ..........Must be a first!!!!!
I don't give a flying fuck that you 'don't have enough room'. It's either a moral stance or it isn't. If you apply it to one situation and not the other you should stay well clear of the word moral and take a look in the mirror. Is this also the way you vote; I'm alright Jack?
Too much talk about morals on this thread and others for me!
But as I've already said, the morale issue regarding ccfc had absolutely nothing to do with franchise sport, so I'm not applying one rule in two different ways, but as usual you are incapable of reading. I've also never had any strong views on franchise sport, I would say generally I disagree with it but it depends on the situation if anything since I've had a season ticket a few times at the Blaze I've supported it, I've never boycotted anything due to franchising.
and again as I've already said I'm not going to watch wasps so even if the situations were the same my actions have been the same, not going to watch ccfc in northampton, not going to watch wasps in coventry.
I vote based on what I think is right, completely pointless it is though, to many stupid people in the country (and posting on forums), but you have to keep trying.
As for the rest, you're an idiot, you don't for a second get outraged at everything that deserves it, it's not possible, so you're an idiot for chastising me for the same.
Its hard to be sure about very much of this, but why would any holder of 50% of a company not have the power to decide who to work with. The veto is known to have existed before, there's no reason to suggest the veto wouldn't still be the best thing to have in ACL or any 50/50 owned company.
Actually of the three of them you'd be safest talking about Sir Higgs as he's the only one who can't sue you because he's dead.
Did Higgs have a veto on CCC selling to WASPs do we know?
I can assure you I am outraged by many more deserving things than this. You keep banging on about franchise sport even though I've never mentioned it. My question to you is; Is it morally wrong to move a sporting club away from it's home? It either is or its not. Perhaps you 'don't have the room' for other moral questions? Perhaps you disapprove of abuse or exploitation? But only around here, I'm sure you don't have the room for that kind of thing elsewhere. Spineless bastard.
My question to you is; Is it morally wrong to move a sporting club away from it's home? It either is or its not.
So we have a position where each of the two parties can veto the other - in this case of the share transfers However Higgs agree to a pre-emption agreement to CCFC for their share ( at some agreed value - maybe ) But CCC/WASPS can veto the transfer to CCFC if they feel like it Surely the pre-emption agreement must have been known to CCC and therefore accepted it - unless they thought they were going to ignore it anyway from the outsetThere is usually a general power within the memorandum & articles of any company that the directors can refuse in their absolute discretion to register any share transfer of shares whether they have been paid for or not. Any stakeholders agreement is in addition to that. The current board of directors will be made up from AEHC/Wasps/Mr Robinson My understanding is that the power of veto worked in both directions. I seem to remember though that there was a back up position for AEHC whereby CCC could step in and buy the shares at the same price as offered by a 3rd party. I think the option CCFC/AEHC ranks first though.
How do they judge if SISU will be "hostile"? Hostile in what way?The power of Veto will work both ways in a 50-50 company to prevent the other party being saddled with a hostile partner. However approval could not be reasonably withheld. At the end of the day it will be for the board of ACL to decide not necessarily the shareholders (although they usually toe the line). Remember Liverpool as sold by the board even though the owners tried to prevent it. So it is extremely unlikely that there s anything but a WASPs 100% ownership on the cards
So if SISU succeed with a bid that presumedly needs to be more than 2.77 million.
They would then get the 50% of ACL they were trying to get for 2 million for 3 million.
They would owe half the loan to the council.
So they would be in debt to the council for anywhere between 5-7 million depending if any of the loan is written off.
Will the council be confident that SISU will honour its repayments of the loan?
I understand about the changes but that is what happens every day. The fact is the agreement(s) are still in placeI think that it was a wholly different scenario when this was all set up. It was envisaged back in 2003 that CCFC would partner CCC at the Ricoh. In which case the option was thought to be the right thing to do safeguard CCFC's interest in the stadium at some point in the future. I think back in 2003 the intentions were the same for both sides and I do not think personally there was any double dealing going on by any of the parties involved at that time in respect of the option. So yes certainly CCC would have been aware of the option ......... it was hardly a secret it was disclosed on public record at Companies House in various accounts filed. Things have moved on, things have changed drastically from 2003. I doubt it was ever envisaged that the owners of CCFC would break all ties with the arena for instance. The business landscape at the Ricoh is different and for what ever reason (we could debate those all day) the football club is no longer key to the survival of the arena or the development of North Coventry. There has been a lot of getting ducks in a row to achieve a particular solution by all parties including CCC, SISU,AEHC, CCFC. Some successful others not The position of CCFC has become weaker and weaker as each year passes it seems to me ...... very sad to see
I understand about the changes but that is what happens every day. The fact is the agreement(s) are still in place
...had much more valid reasons to be extremely morally outraged than this issue yet how many of us boycott those? despite disgusting corruption, human rights abuses and deaths.
Weird that a year ago you and others were outraged at CCFC going to Northampton and Sixfields attendees would be listed after "disgusting corruption" and "human rights" on your list. Amazing how many people can have a total 180 in their thinking when it comes to someone else doing exactly what SISU did. Twats.
Weird that a year ago you and others were outraged at CCFC going to Northampton and Sixfields attendees would be listed after "disgusting corruption" and "human rights" on your list. Amazing how many people can have a total 180 in their thinking when it comes to someone else doing exactly what SISU did. Twats.
I know what you mean. The amount of people who wouldn't see no evil, speak no evil or hear no evil over SISU moving our club to Suxfields and have now done a complete 180 and won't shut up about how wrong it is for Wasps to move despite there being a considerably smaller back lash amongst Wasps fans to their move than there was from our fan base to our move is astonoshing.
The move to Northampton was not permenant if it was the outrage would have been the same.
The move to Northampton was not permenant if it was the outrage would have been the same.
I know what you mean. The amount of people who wouldn't see no evil, speak no evil or hear no evil over SISU moving our club to Suxfields and have now done a complete 180 and won't shut up about how wrong it is for Wasps to move despite there being a considerably smaller back lash amongst Wasps fans to their move than there was from our fan base to our move is astonoshing.
Hmmm suxfields rent boys. Are you 10?You and the rest of the suxfields rent boys would probably still have gone .
Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2
Hmmm suxfields rent boys. Are you 10?
Hmmm suxfields rent boys. Are you 10?
If we had moved for good, I for one would have had completely different views to it compared to a temporary move.
Should it of mattered whether it was temporary or permanent? there seems to be some on here (not saying its you) more bothered about Wasps coming here than they were about CCFC being relocated to Sixfields.
The move to Northampton was not permenant if it was the outrage would have been the same.
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?