Samo
Well-Known Member
I rather like tomato soup. I'm not partial though to PWKH's brand of balloon tying silly buggery any more than I am of SISU's slippery underhand methods.
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.
I rather like tomato soup. I'm not partial though to PWKH's brand of balloon tying silly buggery any more than I am of SISU's slippery underhand methods.
You keep saying similar. Yet never answer the same question. In what way has any offer from ACL/CCC been illegal?
Yet you frequently have a go at PWKH and make excuses for SISU.
Perhaps I've never answered it because nobody has ever asked me the question. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond. Did you notice a little earlier in the thread when I quoted from the Telegraph in response to Lewys? If you actually took the time to read this rather that take your usual seemingly instinctive position of blindly defending ACL, you may have noticed this:
"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."
Not my words, the words of a legal practitioner.
Do I? This thread aside, would you like to tell me when I have done either one?
An offer was made. It was made prior to, and repeated during the CVA meeting. It was made to Otium. Labovitch, a director of Otium said that he was not there for Otium he was there for Holdings. Therefore he heard no offer. It then becomes a philosophical question doesn't it? The man, Labovitch, was there. Labovitch was there for Holdings. As the offer was not to Holdings but to Otium he could not hear it. As a man he could hear it, but as a director of Otium he could not hear it, so it was not made....
Perhaps I've never answered it because nobody has ever asked me the question. But thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond. Did you notice a little earlier in the thread when I quoted from the Telegraph in response to Lewys? If you actually took the time to read this rather that take your usual seemingly instinctive position of blindly defending ACL, you may have noticed this:
"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."
Not my words, the words of a legal practitioner.
Are you saying you have never made comments about PWKH?
So Grappa- to be absolutley clear- the offer as outlined by PWKH in the above mentioned quote you are clearly stating was illegal(not compliant with Insolvency rules) thus not worthy for consideration on a technical basis? What about on a goodwill basis to keep the club in Coventry?
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?
Again, my understanding was that they were unable to consider the offer because it wasn't really an offer. But PWKH could easily clarify the issue by responding yes or no to the question 'has a legal offer of £150k p.a. ever been made to Sisu/Otium whatever?' If the answer is yes then imo Sisu/Otium whatever are a bunch of c*nts.
Again, my understanding was that they were unable to consider the offer because it wasn't really an offer. But PWKH could easily clarify the issue by responding yes or no to the question 'has a legal offer of £150k p.a. ever been made to Sisu/Otium whatever?' If the answer is yes then imo Sisu/Otium whatever are a bunch of c*nts.
OK so I hope PWKH will answer.
Irrespective... do you not think that the WILL was there from ACL but ignored by SISU/OTIUM, and thus that is a questionable position given the backdrop of circumstance?
This was even said by Sky questioning Timothy on would he accept the offer. The one where he said he would have to think about it. This is why a lot of us have a major problem with SISU. There is no need at all for us to be in Northampton.
I believe the media broke the news to Fisher on the day, and at that point the administrator hadn't deemed the offer unlawful. Seems quite logical for him to say he would need to consider it, no?
Indeed....I'd go even further and state that I'd like to see ACL make the offer again....preferably in an open letter in the CT or published online.....
That way, we'd all be clear as to where the 2 sides actually sit.
Come on ACL.....surely an open & transparent offer of £150K per year on a rolling basis up to a maximum of 5 years, for example, would score you a massive PR win.....and would clarify a lot for a lot of suffering fans....
What do you think PWKH??
Can someone explain to me how Otium could legally agree a rental deal for Sixfields while we were in admin but it was illegal for them to agree a rental deal to play at the Ricoh.
The deal does not have to be part of the CVA, it just had to be agreed to prior to ACL agreeing to the CVA, as far as I'm aware the deal at Sixfields was agreed prior to the CVA being agreed or rejected so why was that OK but not the Ricoh?
Are you saying you have never made comments about PWKH?
At the end of the day
ACL have made about 5 rent offers to SISU. Including one where they shook hands on it only to pull out.
Now one where they said today i have one of my other companies hat's on so, I can't hear you.
The council have asked for talks about three times.
For me ACL and the council really need to do a lot more.
SISU have inundated them with what they want on the rent side of things we all know the exact figure they want.
They have also made bid after bid for the Ricoh.
ACL and the council should personally walk down to London and sit on Joy Seppela's door step. Even if she is not there and wait for her to return.
Come on you can't expect SISU to do all the running, it takes two to do a deal
At the end of the day
ACL have made about 5 rent offers to SISU. Including one where they shook hands on it only to pull out.
Now one where they said today i have one of my other companies hat's on so, I can't hear you.
The council have asked for talks about three times.
For me ACL and the council really need to do a lot more.
SISU have inundated them with what they want on the rent side of things we all know the exact figure they want.
They have also made bid after bid for the Ricoh.
ACL and the council should personally walk down to London and sit on Joy Seppela's door step. Even if she is not there and wait for her to return.
Come on you can't expect SISU to do all the running, it takes two to do a deal
No they haven't
An email, letter or phone call would have sufficed.
yes it does
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors
If it's a non conditional offer then why hasn't it been made since the conclusion of the administration process?
Plan B is ........... to build a 12,000 seater stadium.
They don't really want to do this and neither do the fans want it.
...
Nor will they build one. Never in a billion years.
Whats the point ? if ACL/CCC offered a rent deal for a fiver and a bottle of Bud they wouldn't entertain it, they want it all or nothing according to their boss.
We're homeless at the moment.If ACL move on then ccfc is homeless then?
We're homeless at the moment.
Does anyone know if Otium could have taken the offer up outside of the CVA and kept us in Coventry? The offer wouldn't have had to be part of the CVA meeting someone just says to Mr Labovitch before the meeting that the rent was obviously too high and so we're willing to drop the rent to 150k. We're also willing to agree to the CVA but you have to agree to keep the club in Coventry by accepting the 150k offer. The administrator need never have to bring the rules into it and we might never have needed to go to Sixfields.
That assumes of course that everyone was wearing the correct hat and it was possible legally to do so which is what I don't know about. Could Otium have accepted the offer?
Yes it is self inflicted but given the apparent unwillingness of Joy to bring us back unless she has the freehold at supposedly her price which is apparently too low for the council, we're therefore homeless.Self inflicted. We could be back at the Ricoh next week.
ACL will move on after Xmas and we will be homeless/finished.
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?