Sky Blues owners to bid for Higgs' shares in ACL (3 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Yes, being temporary is totally different to permanent isn't it? Hence if it was permanent I'd never have gone and given up with football.

We knew the move to Suxfields was temporary but we didn't know for sure that we would ever come back to Coventry. So unless you had a crystal ball you could never say that the move away from the city was temporary at the time. In my experiance you always prepare for worse case scenario.

 

---

[The Gentleman]

Yes, being temporary is totally different to permanent isn't it? Hence if it was permanent I'd never have gone and given up with football.

As I said before, each to their own but for me if it was for 1 game or forever, it wasn't for me. But everybody is different and with this forum you run (well I might add) we all see that. Same with this Wasps thing, there are some on here completely up in arms about it but in the grand schemes of things the people of Cov probably aren't fussed. Good mate of mine (who is a Chelsea lad but born and bred in Cov) is looking forward to watching Wasps at the Ricoh along with quite a few from his works as is their choice.

 

[oldfiver]

oldfiver, the board of ACL do not have to judge them hostile , just not in the best interest of ACL. At that point the directors are duty bound to act in what they believe the best interests of ACL.

I agree with that BUT the Directors have to give their reasons why the Shares should not be registered. The reasons have to be such they feel the underlying activities of ACL will be affected.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I agree with that BUT the Directors have to give their reasons why the Shares should not be registered. The reasons have to be such they feel the underlying activities of ACL will be affected.

The directors have to minute the meeting of the ACL board that discusses any bid and record the decision they arrive at. This is a private limited company and any decision does not have to be made public (there is no longer a public body involved either). I suspect that legally all they have to do in reply to the liquidator or any owner of CCFC ltd is to say the directors considered the offer and after discussion declined to take it further because the interests of ACL are best served by other proposals. They could choose to give more detail but why would they, given the preference shown by SISU for legal action.

Only way the board of directors at ACL have to disclose more is if required by a court of law, and to get that the aggrieved party would have to demonstrate a good possibility that the decision by the ACL directors was taken improperly......... takes a bit of a stretch to believe that having been so careful so far ACL/AEHC/Wasps would not take great care to get it done correctly at the board meeting.

before that of course CCFC Ltd has to make a bid to AEHC that the Charity finds acceptable, and having considered it thoroughly and properly believe it to be better for the Charity objectives than the Wasps bid

 

[fernandopartridge]

The directors have to minute the meeting of the ACL board that discusses any bid and record the decision they arrive at. This is a private limited company and any decision does not have to be made public. I suspect that legally all they have to do in reply to the liquidator or any owner of CCFC ltd is to say the directors considered the offer and after discussion declined to take it further because the interests of ACL are best served by other proposals. They could choose to give more detail but why would they, given the preference shown by SISU for legal action.

Only way the board of directors at ACL have to disclose more is if required by a court of law, and to get that the aggrieved party would have to demonstrate a good possibility that the decision by the ACL directors was taken improperly......... takes a bit of a stretch to believe that being been so careful so far ACL/AEHC/Wasps would not take great care to get it done correctly at the board meeting.

before that of course CCFC Ltd has to make a bid to AEHC that the Charity finds acceptable, and having considered it thoroughly and properly to be better for the Charity objectives than the Wasps bid

What's the charity's objective in this case? They have no further link with the Arena beyond any sale? Is there anything in the mooted building of a training ground for Wasps in the area?

I can see the charity has moved on to new ventures (Briwnds and Drapers Hall). Is it looking to leave sport as a means to achieve its aims?

 

[The Lurker]

Yes, being temporary is totally different to permanent isn't it? Hence if it was permanent I'd never have gone and given up with football.

seriously... at one point it looked like will be there for 3-5 years, temporary or not it was wrong. as the gentleman says, seems like you, torch grendel etc.. are more bothered about wasps coming to cov then playing in Northampton. for me wasps playing in cov doesn't effect me or ccfc. ccfc playing in Northampton effected me

thats the differnce

 

[oldfiver]

The directors have to minute the meeting of the ACL board that discusses any bid and record the decision they arrive at. This is a private limited company and any decision does not have to be made public (there is no longer a public body involved either). I suspect that legally all they have to do in reply to the liquidator or any owner of CCFC ltd is to say the directors considered the offer and after discussion declined to take it further because the interests of ACL are best served by other proposals. They could choose to give more detail but why would they, given the preference shown by SISU for legal action. Only way the board of directors at ACL have to disclose more is if required by a court of law, and to get that the aggrieved party would have to demonstrate a good possibility that the decision by the ACL directors was taken improperly......... takes a bit of a stretch to believe that having been so careful so far ACL/AEHC/Wasps would not take great care to get it done correctly at the board meeting. before that of course CCFC Ltd has to make a bid to AEHC that the Charity finds acceptable, and having considered it thoroughly and properly believe it to be better for the Charity objectives than the Wasps bid

Companies Act 2006 S 771?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I would guess (and it is only a guess) that they will want to ensure that any purchaser is in some way committed to continuing to develop the site, to providing opportunities for youngsters, to playing a part in the regeneration, that the buyer can play a greater part in those aims than the Charity can. What is perceived by the Charity as necessary to do that you would have to ask them. That would I suspect mean sight of detailed business plans for 5 to 10 years ahead.

It has always been a problem in the past that CCFC in what ever guise has failed to provide a business plan.

Not sure how the owners of CCFC ltd assuming it is SISU get past a lot of past baggage let alone form a financial bid that AEHC believe to be better in all aspects than what might already be on the table.

With that I am dipping out of this discussion. The more I think about it and write about it the angrier I get that our club has been led to this sorry state of affairs. It should have been so very different. Plenty of other characters/bodies involved certainly but they are not the custodians of CCFC

 

[oldfiver]

What's the charity's objective in this case? They have no further link with the Arena beyond any sale? Is there anything in the mooted building of a training ground for Wasps in the area? I can see the charity has moved on to new ventures (Briwnds and Drapers Hall). Is it looking to leave sport as a means to achieve its aims?

Coventry Sports Foundation = Higgs http://www.covsf.com/our-centres/the-alan-higgs-centre.html

 

[oldskyblue58]

Companies Act 2006 S 771?

Still doesn't get them rights to the directors minutes. This is not a bidding situation CCFC Ltd has one shot at it. Is it unreasonable for the directors to say we had a better offer elsewhere and leave it at that?

In any case s771 will only come in to play should AEHC accept a bid from CCFC Ltd complete the deal and ACL directors refuse to register the transaction.

like I said that's me done on this, it is mostly hypothetical unless CCFC Ltd actually puts a bid in, let alone the Charity actually accepts it .................. whats the odds on that I wonder?

 

[Nick]

seriously... at one point it looked like will be there for 3-5 years, temporary or not it was wrong. as the gentleman says, seems like you, torch grendel etc.. are more bothered about wasps coming to cov then playing in Northampton. for me wasps playing in cov doesn't effect me or ccfc. ccfc playing in Northampton effected me

thats the differnce

So it is only wrong if it affects you? I find both wrong, I also find the way people have 180'd quite good. Somebody justifying it the other day by saying sports clubs move all the time.

 

[The Lurker]

So it is only wrong if it affects you? I find both wrong, I also find the way people have 180'd quite good. Somebody justifying it the other day by saying sports clubs move all the time.

for me yes. how does wasps playing at the ricoh affect us? did you see fans from other clubs boycott sixfields last season? no. im not justifying but showing facts. facts are many people are going to the ricoh for wasps alot more then cov got at sixfields. hopefully wasps coming to cov might have a positive impact i.e cov eventually owning 50% of the ricoh and working alongside wasps. Look at the website they created for the ricoh/wasps experience. really sells the ground/facilities. why cant cov try a different approach and try and sell the ricoh experience? http://www.waspsnewhome.co.uk/

 

[oldfiver]

Still doesn't get them rights to the directors minutes. This is not a bidding situation CCFC Ltd has one shot at it. Is it unreasonable for the directors to say we had a better offer elsewhere and leave it at that? In any case s771 will only come in to play should AEHC accept a bid from CCFC Ltd complete the deal and ACL directors refuse to register the transaction. like I said that's me done on this, it is mostly hypothetical unless CCFC Ltd actually puts a bid in, let alone the Charity actually accepts it .................. whats the odds on that I wonder?

Your third sentence mixes apples and pairs. Higgs may not have to accept the offer if it does not follow the formula laid down However if they do then s771 applies I am quite prepared to think that Higgs will seriously consider a SISU offer so long as SISU : Gives a valid reason why they want the shares Say what they will do about supporting CCFC and playing at the Ricoh Say what Community benefits they will bring

 

[fernandopartridge]

Wonder why none of the non financial elements of the Wasps bid have been disclosed considering their importance? They're surely not commercially confidential either

 

[oldfiver]

Wonder why none of the non financial elements of the Wasps bid have been disclosed considering their importance? They're surely not commercially confidential either

And the structure of the WASPS business? Put ACL shares ( with debt ) into one company under the Hedge Fund Parent? So if things go wrong - drop the subsidiary? Just randomly thinking

 

[AndreasB]

I would guess (and it is only a guess) that they will want to ensure that any purchaser is in some way committed to continuing to develop the site, to providing opportunities for youngsters, to playing a part in the regeneration, that the buyer can play a greater part in those aims than the Charity can. What is perceived by the Charity as necessary to do that you would have to ask them. That would I suspect mean sight of detailed business plans for 5 to 10 years ahead.

It has always been a problem in the past that CCFC in what ever guise has failed to provide a business plan.

Not sure how the owners of CCFC ltd assuming it is SISU get past a lot of past baggage let alone form a financial bid that AEHC believe to be better in all aspects than what might already be on the table.

With that I am dipping out of this discussion. The more I think about it and write about it the angrier I get that our club has been led to this sorry state of affairs. It should have been so very different. Plenty of other characters/bodies involved certainly but they are not the custodians of CCFC

Youngsters already have access to be able to "play a part in regeneration" via the Casino (once they are 18 of course)

Lets be clear.There is nothing on the whole site,Ricoh, Arena park shopping etc that does anything but drive retail or leisure consumerism. Even the gym at the ricoh closed.

Quicker the ties with Higgs can be severed and any pretense this whole development has done anything for the people of Coventry other than give them more shops and a big empty football ground the better.

 

[Samo]

No, it isn't either is or its not morally wrong, it sometimes is and it sometimes isn't. like I said I'd have supported our move away had been necessary but it wasn't necessary in the slightest. I don't know enough about the wasps situation to know if its necessary or not, I know it sucks for their fans but so would losing the club completely, I sway towards it being morally wrong on this occasion but since I already won't be supporting it with my money I don't need to have any more of a strong viewpoint than that. I've never taken a moral stand on moving a football club, I took a moral stand against moving our football club despite it being against the clubs best interests in order to destroy another company, while manipulating insolvency law to avoid paying debts. The fact I've had season tickets at the blaze for 3 seasons shows I don't have a its always morally wrong to move a sporting club and I must always stand against it mantra.

What a convenient moral compass you have, It's wrong when it suits, it's not when it doesn't. On mine North is always North and South is always South.

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

OSB has already said it friends, this is a done deal and the process that is going through at the moment is a tick box exercise to confirm it. Unless Sisu can purchase a part share from the Wasps I think they are all but done, their may already be shady things going on in the background to facilitate this but who knows what 2 owners of hedge funds could cook up between themselves. There not known for doing things conventionally are they?

 

[Noggin]

What a convenient moral compass you have, It's wrong when it suits, it's not when it doesn't. On mine North is always North and South is always South.

Then your moral compass is so rigid as to be useless.

It's morally wrong to kill but there are times when it's not, it's morally wrong to steal but there are times when it's not etc etc etc if you are incapable of judging a situation on it's merits then you are going to be on the wrong side of alot of issues.

And again there is nothing "convenient" about my views, I'm not going to wasps games so my actions are going to be the same whatever my view is on the morals of the situation so really it's a complete irrelevance.

 

[Johnnythespider]

Anyone know why Joe Elliott would be at the Higgs on allard way today. Only I saw him in reception when I droppex my lad off there earlier

 

[wingy]

Keeping fit

 

[Nick]

Discount Sun Beds?

 

[wingy]

Discount Sun Beds?

HaHa.........

 

[Samo]

Then your moral compass is so rigid as to be useless.

It's morally wrong to kill but there are times when it's not, it's morally wrong to steal but there are times when it's not etc etc etc if you are incapable of judging a situation on it's merits then you are going to be on the wrong side of alot of issues.

And again there is nothing "convenient" about my views, I'm not going to wasps games so my actions are going to be the same whatever my view is on the morals of the situation so really it's a complete irrelevance.

I do of course take your point, but again... how convenient for you that feel able to view CCFC and Wasps so differently. Tell me... what make one a case for moral outrage and the other not?

 

[Noggin]

I do of course take your point, but again... how convenient for you that feel able to view CCFC and Wasps so differently. Tell me... what make one a case for moral outrage and the other not?

but I already have explained it in this thread and I've not said the wasps situation is fine, I've said I don't know enough facts but that I sway towards it being morally wrong, I don't have any issue with people being morally outraged against it, but people shouldn't have any issue with me not being morally outraged.

 

[Samo]

but I already have explained it in this thread and I've not said the wasps situation is fine, I've said I don't know enough facts but that I sway towards it being morally wrong, I don't have any issue with people being morally outraged against it, but people shouldn't have any issue with me not being morally outraged.

What facts do you really need to know about the Wasps move? Their owners have moved them 3 times further than we were moved! And permanently! Sorry Noggin but it smacks of picking and choosing what to be outraged about. And selfishness to be honest.

 

[italiahorse]

What facts do you really need to know about the Wasps move? Their owners have moved them 3 times further than we were moved! And permanently! Sorry Noggin but it smacks of picking and choosing what to be outraged about. And selfishness to be honest.

But are people really concerned about Wasps moving because of the morals or are they more concerned that they have done what Sisu should have done ?

 

[torchomatic]

Eh? You think SISU should have moved us three times and then moved permanently 80 miles from Coventry?

But are people really concerned about Wasps moving because of the morals or are they more concerned that they have done what Sisu should have done ?

 

[skybluefred]

Eh? You think SISU should have moved us three times and then moved permanently 80 miles from Coventry?

Torchy, We both know that is not what the OP meant. He was saying that sisu should have bought the Ricoh at a fair price.
Instead they resorted to subterfuge and dismally failed in their attempts to distress ACL and get the Stadium on the cheap.
This has been catastrophic for CCFC with the sale of any player with a value, add that to the total lack of any transfer fees
to bolster our inadequate squad,and even you should understand. Under sisu's regime the Club is being dragged painfully
into oblivion, but that will not dampen your support for sisu.

 

[Grendel]

Torchy, We both know that is not what the OP meant. He was saying that sisu should have bought the Ricoh at a fair price.
Instead they resorted to subterfuge and dismally failed in their attempts to distress ACL and get the Stadium on the cheap.
This has been catastrophic for CCFC with the sale of any player with a value, add that to the total lack of any transfer fees
to bolster our inadequate squad,and even you should understand. Under sisu's regime the Club is being dragged painfully
into oblivion, but that will not dampen your support for sisu.

By fair price do you mean double the price wasps were offered and for a sixth of the lease time?

Yeah sounds rely fair.

 

[torchomatic]

Fred, I don't support SISU. I support Coventry City Football Club.

 

[covcity4life]

Fred, I don't support SISU. I support Coventry City Football Club.

weirdo!

 

[skybluefred]

By fair price do you mean double the price wasps were offered and for a sixth of the lease time?

Yeah sounds rely fair.

By rely do you really mean really.

 

[Grendel]

By rely do you really mean really.

What a crunt. I rely mean that.

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, really really.

By rely do you really mean really.