Was it or wasn't it? (3 Viewers)

[Grendel]

The offer was made to Otium, not the administrator. If it was unacceptable to the administrator why did he agree to adjourn the CVA meeting for a few days? Did he need a few days to decide it was unacceptable to him?

The offer was made but in an environment where it could not be accepted is my interpretation of the gaurded statement.

It could not be accepted there and then. Then of course we had the CVA rejection. Fisher and co were hardly going to be quick off the mark then were they?

Still if PWKH posted a thread on here entitled my favourite food is tomato soup he'd get 100 likes straight away.

 

---

[lewys33]

The offer was made but in an environment where it could not be accepted is my interpretation of the gaurded statement.

It could not be accepted there and then. Then of course we had the CVA rejection. Fisher and co were hardly going to be quick off the mark then were they?

Still if PWKH posted a thread on here entitled my favourite food is tomato soup he'd get 100 likes straight away.

l
Personally I wouldn't like that one because i'm not a huge fan of tomato soup.

So now it's not that Otium didn't get the offer it's that they couldn't accept it there and then? If they couldn't accept it there and then could someone not have had a "quiet word" to say lets talk about this elsewhere.

I just cannot see why the offer was made, the CVA meeting was adjourned for a few days, and then it was decided it was unacceptable to make such an offer in such a way.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So now it's not that Otium didn't get the offer it's that they couldn't accept it there and then? If they couldn't accept it there and then could someone not have had a "quiet word" to say lets talk about this elsewhere.

If it's a non conditional offer then why hasn't it been made since the conclusion of the administration process?

 

[torchomatic]

Remember when they had talks back in July and JS attended a meeting yet Lucas and Reeves didn't bother to show. They sent two lackeys who didn't have the authority to make a decision anyway. That shows that both sides are good at spinning and playing games as witnessed in PWKH's earlier post on here.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The offer was made but in an environment where it could not be accepted is my interpretation of the gaurded statement.

It could not be accepted there and then. Then of course we had the CVA rejection. Fisher and co were hardly going to be quick off the mark then were they?

Still if PWKH posted a thread on here entitled my favourite food is tomato soup he'd get 100 likes straight away.

I'm guilty of pressing the like button on one or more previous comments by PWKH. I have done this because I find that he comments, and gives insight, about meetings that no one else is willing or able to do. He also does this without resorting to making bitter comments about the people involved, which considering his position, and how I believe he has been treated, I find commendable.

It does rather read as though you are slightly jealous of being liked. I'll send one over your way.

 

[torchomatic]

He does make bitter comments. At least he has done on CWR.

I'm guilty of pressing the like button on one or more previous comments by PWKH. I have done this because I find that he comments, and gives insight, about meetings that no one else is willing or able to do. He also does this without resorting to making bitter comments about the people involved, which considering his position, and how I believe he has been treated, I find commendable.

It does rather read as though you are slightly jealous of being liked. I'll send one over your way.

 

[Grendel]

I could almost cry with frustration reading this thread. In the name of Sweet Jesus; is there anyone on this planet that still thinks this dispute is about rent?

It's about the freehold of the Ricoh.

Who offered what to whom; at what time and wearing what colored shoes after eating a certain sandwich for lunch is all superfluous.

SISU - in whatever iteration - want the Ricoh; and the rent was one of the pantomimes they used to pull the gullible ones onside; the thread instigator being a perfect case in point

I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.

Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;

PWKH can spin it with the best

Most. People on here swallow that spin every time

Points proved case closed.

 

[sky blue john]

Remember when they had talks back in July and JS attended a meeting yet Lucas and
Reeves didn't bother to show. They sent two lackeys who didn't have the authority to make a decision anyway. That shows that both sides are good at spinning and playing games as witnessed in PWKH's earlier post on here.

Why would Lucas have been at the meeting anyway ?
As said in her recent press statement she is not involved with acl and is not involved in acl's decision making process !!!!!

 

[blueflint]

god this thread is getting boring now the offer was made doesn't matter when it was refused doesn't matter when.lets all focus on applying pressure on SISU to return to coventry as the ricoh wants them we want them why don't SISU

 

[lewys33]

I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.

Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;

PWKH can spin it with the best

Most. People on here swallow that spin every time

Points proved case closed.

At least he comes on here to spin ey

If it's a non conditional offer then why hasn't it been made since the conclusion of the administration process?

IIRC wasn't there a comment made by a certain someone that they would only be back at the ricoh as owners?

 

[blueflint]

I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.

Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;

PWKH can spin it with the best

Most. People on here swallow that spin every time

Points proved case closed.

wumming again Grendel thats utter shite and you know it

 

[sky blue john]

Grendel will be saying balloon gate was all part of the council conspiracy next !!!!!!!!

 

[torchomatic]

Because she cares about her "beloved" Sky Blues and wants them back in Coventry? Why on earth is she meeting with Seppala to thrash out a deal then? Of course she's involved (remember her "Let's end this nonsense" spiel?), CCC and ACL are inextricably linked. To deny it is stupid or deliberately misleading.

Why would Lucas have been at the meeting anyway ?
As said in her recent press statement she is not involved with acl and is not involved in acl's decision making process !!!!!

 

[Grappa]

The offer was made to Otium, not the administrator. If it was unacceptable to the administrator why did he agree to adjourn the CVA meeting for a few days? Did he need a few days to decide it was unacceptable to him?

My understanding is that the offer was made, deemed unacceptable and then the meeting adjourned to allow ACL to remove the unacceptable clauses. When the meeting reconvened I am pretty sure Appleton said he was 'baffled' or somesuch that the clauses had not been removed.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I would have thought the definition of gullibility would be someone who expected the worst manager the club have ever had would be employed again.

Anyway moving on, the main purpose here is to illustrate two thinks;

PWKH can spin it with the best

Most. People on here swallow that spin every time

Points proved case closed.

I thought it was more a third ambition; namely you banging on about relative rents between ourselves and other clubs ad infinitum - and holding this up as being the primary cause SISU had to leave due to an abhorrent act of financial exploitation by ACL - then realising it was an irrelevance, you were wrong and not wishing to admit as such....

 

[lewys33]

Because she cares about her "beloved" Sky Blues and wants them back in Coventry? Why on earth is she meeting with Seppala to thrash out a deal then? Of course she's involved CCC and ACL are inextricably linked. To deny it is stupid or deliberately misleading.

How you can spin your argument from a meeting in July to why Ann now wants to meet Seppala is idiotic. Yes CCC and ACL are linked. Does not mean Ann Lucas runs ACL. To suggest she does is stupid and misleading.

 

[lewys33]

My understanding is that the offer was made, deemed unacceptable and then the meeting adjourned to allow ACL to remove the unacceptable clauses. When the meeting reconvened I am pretty sure Appleton said he was 'baffled' or somesuch that the clauses had not been removed.

I dont remember that, but I am not going to ask for proof or anything. If that is what you think then fair enough.

 

[torchomatic]

And suggesting she won't have final say is also stupid.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lewys33]

And suggesting she won't have final say is also stupid.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Final say in buying ...... yes.

 

[duffer]

Remember when they had talks back in July and JS attended a meeting yet Lucas and Reeves didn't bother to show. They sent two lackeys who didn't have the authority to make a decision anyway. That shows that both sides are good at spinning and playing games as witnessed in PWKH's earlier post on here.

I don't doubt that both sides try to avoid awkward questions. But then I think that SISU have far, far more to answer than ACL.

To your specific point though, Lucas and Reeves didn't need to show. The club was in administration, and the dispute was about rent at that point. ACL sent two directors who presumably could have come to some agreement about that, had SISU any interest in doing so. Far from lackeys. That phrase would surely be better aimed at Labovitch and Fisher, who seemingly have to ask Joy if they can go to the toilet.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/no-talks-between-city-council-5396776

This isn't like (for example) SISU's behaviour when Fisher 'negotiated' the £400k rent ("Gentlemen, we have a deal"), accepting the terms only to roll back on it later.

The spin here, that you're repeating, is from JS - pretending she was ready to deal when clearly she wasn't. There's only one deal on the table here - SISU have finally admitted it. Give us the freehold. That's completely out of the control of ACL, and even the leader of the council isn't likely to be able to sign off on it without it going to some sort of cabinet or committee.

 

[sky blue john]

It makes me laugh when some people want to split hairs about ccfc ltd, holdings and Otium like it matters which was offered what !!!
Don't they all have the same directors ?
Do they not all claim beneficial ownership of each other?

 

[torchomatic]

It makes me laugh when some people want to split hairs about ccfc ltd, holdings and Otium like it matters which was offered what !!!
Don't they all have the same directors ?
Do they not all claim beneficial ownership of each other?

You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.

Makes me laugh, etc etc

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[valiant15]

You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.

Makes me laugh, etc etc

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

And?

 

[Seymour_East]

You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.

Makes me laugh, etc etc

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

..and the wheels on the bus go.....

 

[Grappa]

I dont remember that, but I am not going to ask for proof or anything. If that is what you think then fair enough.

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."



http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-ltd-moves-towards-5431504

 

[Nick]

Does anybody know the terms that were outside of the law?

 

[olderskyblue]

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.

Be interesting to know what was required, to make their proposals comply with the law

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

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."

As I understand it, the situation with regards ACL's proposals sitting within the confines Insolvency Act and Rules or not was that they were trying to link commitment from the new party with some of the obligations of the contracted agreement of the company in administration. Normal and complaint with the law, no. But, in this instance, they as a disadvantaged party were dealing - in effect - with one entity controlling both companies, pre and post administration order.

So, could they have been tied in lawfully? No. Were they right to look toward them being so within this unique context? Well, probably yes

 

[Grappa]

Does anybody know the terms that were outside of the law?

I believe OSB58 said it was the £150k rent deal on a 10 year rolling contract and the dropping of the judicial review.

 

[Grappa]

As I understand it, the situation with regards ACL's proposals sitting within the confines Insolvency Act and Rules or not was that they were trying to link commitment from the new party with some of the obligations of the contracted agreement of the company in administration. Normal and complaint with the law, no. But, in this instance, they as a disadvantaged party were dealing - in effect - with one entity controlling both companies, pre and post administration order.

So, could they have been tied in lawfully? No. Were they right to look toward them being so within this unique context? Well, probably yes

Any chance of repeating that in English please? Sounds like you're saying it was illegal but correct? But that can't be right because you have a history on this site of being particularly moral regarding illegal activities.

 

[James Smith]

You omitted (not on purpose I'm sure) to mention that ACL and CCC also share Martin Reeves and Chris West.

Makes me laugh, etc etc

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

True but then ACL have six directors two of whom are independent of the other shareholders, two are from the Higgs, plus the council bods. So the council only have a third of the votes round the board table which hardly gives them a majority when it comes to voting on decisions. Do/did the directors of Otium/Holdings/LTD have freedom to do what they like or are they steered/told by Joy (Seppala)?

 

[skybluetony176]

was it, wasn't it?

it doesn't matter either way, sh1tsu don't want it. that's not what they want.

 

[Grappa]

was it, wasn't it?

it doesn't matter either way, sh1tsu don't want it. that's not what they want.

If you think it doesn't matter then why bother posting?

I personally am very interested to know the answer to this very simple question: Has ACL ever lawfully offered CCFC the £150k rent deal? It seems to have become a 'fact' for many on here that it actually was offered but I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth.

Peter: Yes or no?

 

[Astute]

If you think it doesn't matter then why bother posting?

I personally am very interested to know the answer to this very simple question: Has ACL ever lawfully offered CCFC the £150k rent deal? It seems to have become a 'fact' for many on here that it actually was offered but I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth.

Peter: Yes or no?

You keep saying similar. Yet never answer the same question. In what way has any offer from ACL/CCC been illegal?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Its back to spin on both sides isnt it

Fisher & Labovitch attend meetings wearing this hat or that can choose from a multitude on entities to say they represent but everyone knows that Seppala makes the decisions.

The council couldnt take part in the CVA discussions because they were not a creditor, quite the reverse they actually owed money to the process

West, Reeves etc could only legally act at the CVA for ACL because ACL is a valid creditor in the process and as such they must under Company Law act in the best interests of ACL even if that differs to the best interests of CCC. So they could only ever discuss rents. The council couldnt legally be attached as part of the CVA settlement process so couldnt be at the meeting.

Now the thing that surprises me is that a meeting to discuss the CVA that either side would think that it could ever properly involve people/entities that were not actually party to the cva. Indeed that prior to the meeting there was no agenda or list of attendees circulated that detailed who would attend and what would be discussed. Given that everything appears to be done in copious pages of legalese do we honestly think both sides didnt know who would be there what would be discussed and what couldnt be discusssed. Stretches my belief that both sides were not fully aware of who and purpose.

Of course how the meeting was then portrayed by both sides is something completely different.............. but come on really????