Statement from ACL ? When ? (1 Viewer)

As you said, we need a statement first.

Pressure needs to be applied on both as both have the ability to do the right thing by the football club.

There is a deal/offer to play at the Ricoh but according to Mr Fisher on CWR last night hasn't been discussed yet and when pressed by Stuart Linnell Fisher did say it could be and yet again blamed acl for not recognising Otium and would only talk to Paul Appleton. Why then did Sepalla attend that quickly arranged meeting then the other Thursday ?

we will play at least 22 league games at the ricoh this year

if the deal can be done quickly it will be 23 - but i suspect there will be 1 game at northampton

Definitely pressure on both sides for me, although I'm still really annoyed with ACL for rejecting the CVA.

Hope so! We belong in Cov!

I think pressure only comes from real action, if the Trust put firm plans in place for a phoenix club and began negotiations with ACL I'm pretty sure Sisu would come to the table. Sisu clearly don't think that the fans will be able to stay away and will slowly come back, we have to provide an alternative which can build momentum.

skybluepete1987 said:

I think pressure only comes from real action, if the Trust put firm plans in place for a phoenix club and began negotiations with ACL I'm pretty sure Sisu would come to the table. Sisu clearly don't think that the fans will be able to stay away and will slowly come back, we have to provide an alternative which can build momentum.

Click to expand...

My personal view is the Trust should be trying to get dialogue with the club and ACL to bring them together, not organising a replacement club.

Voice_of_Reason said:

When can we expect a statement from ACL regarding yesterday's decisions ? I think the ball is now firmly in ACL's court to come up with a deal acceptable to the new owners to ensure that CCFC plays at the Ricoh. Sorry, ACL but SISU has you by the short and curlies. Who should we now put the pressure on? ACL or SISU ?

1. Starve SISU of revenue whilst CCFC plays at Sexfields - Not One Penny Moor

2. Put pressure on ACL/Council to put forward a package to SISU.

Any thoughts ?

Click to expand...

Definitely put pressure on both:-

1. NOPM on SISU to minimise its income, regardless of semantics over individual interpretation of this.

2. Put pressure on CCC/ACL to offer to sell the 77% of IEC that ACL owns at a reasonable market price to the football club, to give access to revenues to aid FFP for the football club, and add a value that with a long lease makes the club more saleable. If SISU then turns this down it would finally confirm the majority belief that its only real agenda is distressed acquisition of the Ricoh and that it has absolutely no interest in the football club. If CCC through ACL is not prepared to offer to sell 77% of IEC, then CCC/ACL cannot seriously expect to agree a deal. No investors, even new ones that most would like to see, are likely to accept any deal that includes only match day revenues and profits, as this doesn't enable the club to benefit from all activities at the Ricoh, as was originally envisaged when the stadium was planned.

I personally agree with CCC protecting the asset of the Ricoh for the community by continuing with at least part ownership of the freehold, but I don't agree with it continuing with its fingers in the pie of revenues, or frankly management of the stadium.

stupot07 said:

Definitely pressure on both sides for me, although I'm still really annoyed with ACL for rejecting the CVA.

Click to expand...

Best wait until the reasons Stu.

Let's wait and see what they have to say for themselves first. I'm not annoyed and won't be until they come up with a reason I feel is completely wrong and not in anyone's interest.

The bottom line is ACL need the club and want the club playing in Coventry. There then surely must be a valid reason for the rejection.

Otis said:

Best wait until the reasons Stu.

Let's wait and see what they have to say for themselves first. I'm not annoyed and won't be until they come up with a reason I feel is completely wrong and not in anyone's interest.

The bottom line is ACL need the club and want the club playing in Coventry. There then surely must be a valid reason for the rejection.

Click to expand...

I just can't see what that reason is though, from the various reports it seems as they went in and said "agree the rent deal and drop the judicial review and we will sign the CVA"

But the judicial review is against CCC and not ACL isn't it?

The longer it goes without a statement from ACL the more I think they've been out manoeuvred by SISU. Surely last night they should have released a statement saying they still want CCFC in Coventry and the rent offer they made previously still stands, that would be the very least I would expect.

Otis said:

But the judicial review is against CCC and not ACL isn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, but could have major implications for both organisations.

Thing is, if this now means that this week a deal can be done to enable us to play at the Ricoh, would people still be angry over this CVA rejection then?

Could be, just could be, that now free from the lease and the CVA out of the way, a new deal can be drawn up.

I would be elated at being back at the rich, but still annoyed with the 10 point deduction

ACL also come out with a statment: “The Board of ACL was informed that its amendments to the CVA were not accepted. They were therefore asked to vote on the proposals put forward by the Administrator Paul Appleton.

“ACL, jointly owned by the Alan Edward Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council, voted not to approve the Administrator’s proposals.

“This decision was based on ACL’s twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond. This last point is especially important given that CCFC has been the subject of a ‘catastrophic insolvency’ in the hands of its previous owners.

“The CVA proposals put forward by Mr Appleton simply do not address these obvious concerns. And these concerns are not only the concerns of ACL – they are the concerns of all Sky Blues’ supporters, and should be the central concerns of both The Football League and The Football Association.

“Mr Appleton has the ability to put forward new proposals, and we would welcome these as soon as possible.”

Mr Appleton said: "At today's reconvened creditors' meeting, all parties except Arena Coventry Limited and HMRC accepted the CVA proposals.

"At the meeting held on Tuesday, ACL had put forward modifications that were not compliant with the terms of the Insolvency Act and Rules. This was explained to both them and their legal representatives at the time.

"The adjournment provided them with an opportunity to put forward modifications that were compliant with the law in order to make use of the time made available by the adjournment that they themselves proposed.

"However, despite being given this further opportunity, they declined. Accordingly, when asked whether they were in favour or not of the Proposals, ACL confirmed their rejection.

"Therefore, the CVA has been rejected."

Reacting to ACL's statement, Mr Appleton added: "I have noted ACL's statement released today with some interest.

"Put simply, we do not understand the comments being made by ACL with regard to the ability to put forward new proposals.

"As I said in my earlier statement, the proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.

"The Company will now proceed according to our proposals made as Administrator that were accepted by the majority of creditors including ACL."

Thanks Stupot, I was just going to post those,

I don't see anything defensible in ACL's position!


imp:

It does appear the ACL are advised by a firm of Lawyers - as most statements come from them.
Are Lawyers interested in reconciliation or interested in their fees ie litigation. route, that they appear to be taking as of late.

This might be clearer to read,

Arena Coventry Limited have issued a press release explaining why they voted against the CVA proposals made by Administrator Paul Appleton.
The statement reads as follows:
The board of ACL was informed that its amendments to the CVA were not accepted. They were therefore asked to vote on the proposals put forward by the administrator Paul Appleton.
ACL, jointly owned by the Alan Edward Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council, voted not to approve the administrator's proposals.
This decision was based on ACL's twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond.
This last point is especially important given that CCFC has been the subject of a 'catastrophic insolvency' in the hands of its previous owners.
The CVA proposals put forward by Mr Appleton simply do not address these obvious concerns.
And these concerns are not only the concerns of ACL - they are the concerns of all Sky Blues' supporters, and should be the central concerns of both The Football League and The Football Association.
Mr Appleton has the ability to put forward new proposals, and we would welcome these as soon as possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr Appleton said:
At today's reconvened creditors' meeting, all parties except Arena Coventry Limited and HMRC accepted the CVA proposals.
At the meeting held on Tuesday, ACL had put forward modifications that were not compliant with the terms of the Insolvency Act and Rules. This was explained to both them and their legal representatives at the time.
The adjournment provided them with an opportunity to put forward modifications that were compliant with the law in order to make use of the time made available by the adjournment that they themselves proposed.
However, despite being given this further opportunity, they declined. Accordingly, when asked whether they were in favour or not of the Proposals, ACL confirmed their rejection.
Therefore, the CVA has been rejected.

Reacting to ACL's statement, Mr Appleton added:

I have noted ACL's statement released today with some interest.
Put simply, we do not understand the comments being made by ACL with regard to the ability to put forward new proposals.
As I said in my earlier statement, the proposals ACL required simply did not comply with the law. They were offered the chance to submit modifications, which DID comply with the law, yet for reasons best known to themselves, they chose not to do so.
The Company will now proceed according to our proposals made as Administrator that were accepted by the majority of creditors including ACL.

Stafford_SkBlue said:

Are Lawyers interested in reconciliation or interested in their fees ie litigation. route, that they appear to be taking as of late.

Click to expand...

That's a rhetorical question, right?

grego_gee said:

(ACL)
This decision was based on ACL's twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond.
This last point is especially important

Click to expand...

What planet are ACL on? !!!!!

imp:

grego_gee said:

What planet are ACL on? !!!!!

imp:

Click to expand...

Planet Haskell. The implication is they thought this would force sisu out and get everyone's favourite second best bidder in.

The management company is now deciding its own "fit and proper" test - a test it wouldn't pass itself.

only a couple of weeks ago there were lots people on here wanting what happened yesterday and shouting their mouths off

given the doom and gloom on this platform since the decision I now realise most of the mouths promoting liquidation are very quiet

this forum has become a joke

where are they now? you know who you are !

explain the positives please !

Sorry, but this part of ACL's statement is also bullshit:-

ACL’s twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond.

If that was the case CCC would at least allow ACL to offer to sell the 77% of IEC that ACL owns at a reasonable market price to the football club. Even the rent reduction wouldn't make the club viable without drastically reducing the squad unless future owners were prepared to continue ploughing in funds.

Grendel said:

Planet Haskell. The implication is they thought this would force sisu out and get everyone's favourite second best bidder in.

The management company is now deciding its own "fit and proper" test - a test it wouldn't pass itself.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh..........

they still believe in fairies!

imp:

grego_gee said:

What planet are ACL on? !!!!!

imp:

Click to expand...

I would guess one that may be having a look at the legality of authorising and permitting a plan that is obvious even to the amateur eye, to be completely economically unviable for the long term survival of the football club.

CCFC_GT said:

Sorry, but this part of ACL's statement is also bullshit:-

ACL’s twin aims: first, to keep Coventry City Football Club playing in Coventry; and second, to ensure that Coventry City Football Club is financially viable for the next few years and beyond.

If that was the case CCC would at least allow ACL to offer to sell the 77% of IEC that ACL owns at a reasonable market price to the football club. Even the rent reduction wouldn't make the club viable without drastically reducing the squad unless future owners were prepared to continue ploughing in funds.

Click to expand...

Would 77% of the F&B rights would be more beneficial than building a new stadium?

imp:

There's plenty of people on here who don't want concessions given to the club by ACL, i dont really and truly understand why, maybe its because they hate sisu that much they want it to become financially impossible for them to continue and some white knight like Haskell or the Chinese will come in take over. Or maybe it's a moral thing and they hate contracts being broken, or even they see the stadium as an asset of the city and profits made there should somehow go to the city rather than the team that generates them.

I've honestly no idea. I just want a club that can be as successful as possible in a stadium that was built for them in the first place. I don't want sisu running the club, but until a more attractive business model is in place at the Ricoh, I can't see it happening.

Good luck to the boys today and fair one to those that've gone down to Crawley.
PUSB

dongonzalos said:

I would guess one that may be having a look at the legality of authorising and permitting a plan that is obvious even to the amateur eye, to be completely economically unviable for the long term survival of the football club.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a problem with the long term plan!
its only the first 3 years that are questionable!

imp:

grego_gee said:

What planet are ACL on? !!!!!

imp:

Click to expand...

dongonzalos said:

I would guess one that may be having a look at the legality of authorising and permitting a plan that is obvious even to the amateur eye, to be completely economically unviable for the long term survival of the football club.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Yesterday at last proved ACL have zero interest in the club. They want owners who will pay them theist regardless of the club. Their are a disgrace.

grego_gee said:

Thanks Stupot, I was just going to post those,

I don't see anything defensible in ACL's position!


imp:

Click to expand...

And you're so open minded lol

grego_gee said:

Would 77% of the F&B rights would be more beneficial than building a new stadium?

imp:

Click to expand...

How much rent/mortgage are we paying there?

How many supporters have come back to the club after XX years in the wilderness at Sixfields?

M&B Stand said:

There's plenty of people on here who don't want concessions given to the club by ACL, i dont really and truly understand why, maybe its because they hate sisu that much they want it to become financially impossible for them to continue and some white knight like Haskell or the Chinese will come in take over. Or maybe it's a moral thing and they hate contracts being broken, or even they see the stadium as an asset of the city and profits made there should somehow go to the city rather than the team that generates them.

I've honestly no idea. I just want a club that can be as successful as possible in a stadium that was built for them in the first place. I don't want sisu running the club, but until a more attractive business model is in place at the Ricoh, I can't see it happening.

Good luck to the boys today and fair one to those that've gone down to Crawley.
PUSB

Click to expand...

Very level headed post MB.
You put forward several good arguments why the SISU hatred is difficult to understand, but then at the end you say yourself "I don't want SISU running the club".
I am not really criticising - it just typifies the angst that we all feel.
but the two lines I have picked in bold contradict each other,
you cannot have a club that can be as successful as possible in a stadium that was built for them in the first place if the profits made there should somehow go to the city rather than the team that generates them.

imp: