stupot07
Well-Known Member
But PWKH said they would have signed it if they were allowed to include the 2 clauses - presumably drop the JR and agree 10-year rent deal. They would have happily signed if they had been able to include them.
Acl were right to reject the cva as it has since come to light that all information wasn't available to Paul Appleton when he was putting it together.
Would you sign something you knew wasn't right?
But PWKH said they would have signed it if they were allowed to include the 2 clauses - presumably drop the JR and agree 10-year rent deal. They would have happily signed if they had been able to include them.
And would you have been happy if they had agreed to this........as in not take us to Northampton and stop the stupid judicial review that the judge had a go at them for the way they have done business at our club.
So you think it is good that they keep piling up debts at our club that won't get them anywhere? You think it is bad for ACL trying to keep us in Coventry?
And would you have been happy if they had agreed to this........as in not take us to Northampton and stop the stupid judicial review that the judge had a go at them for the way they have done business at our club.
So you think it is good that they keep piling up debts at our club that won't get them anywhere? You think it is bad for ACL trying to keep us in Coventry?
the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.
I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...
I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.
Here you go again. You have a guess on what happens and state it as a fact. Then make it sound bad on ACL and give a good excuse for SISU.
I ask the same question again. If it was about keeping us in Coventry and saving our club from getting more into debt would you have been happy if it would have happened? If it was about a reduced rent and a minimum 10 year contract......which is the minimum allowed by the FL.........there would have then been a chance of talks about SISU getting the Ricoh at a later date.
I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.
There are no excuses for sisu. However you seem to be making plenty for ACL. You accuse me of guessing and stating as fact - pot, kettle, black.
Oh, and of course I want them in cov, I was a st holder and haven't been to any games this season.
Even more of a reason to raise and discuss it prior to purchase!So basically, raise it on day of purchase or put up and shut up? Didn't you hear Adams? Rent and lack of additional income was a big issue pre-sisu.
Acl were right to reject the cva as it has since come to light that all information wasn't available to Paul Appleton when he was putting it together.
Would you sign something you knew wasn't right?
I hear what you say and all good points BUT at the end of the day it was for Shitsu to raise these issues on the day of purchase. THEY DID NOT. We have to assume therefore that the rent was not an issue then. It has become an issue only because of their mis-management of our club. ACL have since accepted that the rent was too high and made offer after offer but all have been rejected. I really don't think that any blame can be attached to them.
I wouldn't - ACL would though if the "two clauses" were agreed. At least that's one tired old argument we can put to rest now.
i thought you said the "two clauses" didn't exist. so i they "didn't" how can you say ACL would have "signed". Do you have a source? where is your link?
PWKH tonight on ACL help thread
"ACL proposed two changes to the CVA and proposed two conditions precedent which would have to be agreed by the Otium Entertainment Group. These conditions precedent could not be a part of the CVA but without them ACL could not approve the CVA."
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/36796-ACL-amp-Council-need-your-advice/page6
As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...
I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.
Sorry don't get that argument at all as to how that helps the football club. It's just a pointless argument.
As to blame well plenty blame the club when it sells players to balance the books.
ACL never have accepted the rent was too high they were forced to address the issue by non payment.
But can't say what they are so we are left to guess.
Well thanks to a number of reasons the club didn't have a pot to piss in did they and therefore almost any deal on a fab new ground was a good deal !
So basically, raise it on day of purchase or put up and shut up? Didn't you hear Adams? Rent and lack of additional income was a big issue pre-sisu.
Sorry don't get that argument at all as to how that helps the football club. It's just a pointless argument.
As to blame well plenty blame the club when it sells players to balance the books.
ACL never have accepted the rent was too high they were forced to address the issue by non payment.
Isn't that what due diligence is for?
Things change.
As a long time lurcher (from the other side) on here thought I'd reply to this one, and I'm sure will be labelled as a SISU lover but...
I don't think ACL have strictly done anything wrong at all. But at the same time I don't believe they've ever had the clubs best interests at heart. ACL did everything they could to maximise their profits from hosting the football club at their stadium. The high rent, selling off the catering, car park charges that at most football clubs would be chastised for, selling corporate packages back to the club for a profit. All of these things were great for ACL, but simply not good for the club. And when a company is run like that, it means that the club are missing out on vital finances to fund themselves and to build a competitive squad. When there are no income streams for the club, playing at the Ricoh becomes very undesirable. And if you're ACL offering this to the club, then the club is bound to look elsewhere to play their games. So what ACL did wrong, from the clubs point of view, was to make playing at the Ricoh an extremely undesirable option. Even of you then offer better terms, why would the club want to continue a relationship with their landlords who have profited so greatly from their tenancy? You could say because of the fans, but I just think it says more about how SISU view their relationship with ACL. Doesn't make it right, and it's the fans who suffer, but it doesn't surprise me that SISU have taken the stance they have.
the rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.
ACL have tried to negotiate.
30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?
ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.
So your a dog then.
Paul Appleton said: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 rent didn't have to be part of the CVA, ACL made it part of the CVA and wouldn't agree the CVA without it. They then say that they rejected for the fans because the accounts need investigating. If they felt that strongly about the accounts then they should have just rejected it, trying to use the CVA to include the rent and JR has nothing to do with the good of the fans.
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?