Why are the FL taking so long? (1 Viewer)

[Paxman II]

Why so long to determine where the 'Golden Share' lies and if that means an immediate points deduction?

I would have to guess that the whereabouts of which company legally has the 'Golden Share' is proving a bit of a conundrum?

ACL say the FL told them it was with CCFC LTD and Fisher and the administrator understand it to be with CCFC Holdings Ltd.

Now just how can either side be so adamant? It suggest there is some ambiguity probably arising out of how and when those shares were transferred from one entity to the other and within the scope of the FL rules.

I find it difficult to see how SISU (lets just call them that) would make such a faux par?
I find it more likely to think the FL jumped too quickly with a simple response to ACL and in so doing brought ACL to the quick conclusion of petitioning the court.

Which side had all their ducks lined up correctly? ACL or SISU?

This is never a question of which side you agree with or hate the most. It's simply a case of legal strategy.
Even if the FL come out and state the shares are with CCFC Ltd and thus making ACL correct it will not go unchallenged by SISU unless they then state they lied? I doubt very much they lied on a legal stance and I think the FL will be in a difficult corner.

The end problem for me is whether the FL lawyers decide that CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings Ltd are extricable linked. It looks it on the surface but if CCFC Ltd don't have shares, player registrations etc then that is not the case. Think that will be SISU's ultimate argument.

The years have rolled on and at various times SISU have manipulated their position legally (to their belief) so they control as much as possible the outcomes in order to protect their investors money, with the long term hope that they will eventually find a deal with stadium owners which will give them ability to survive as a football club otherwise it will be unsustainable.

ACL have known this all along it must be said. They did offer a compromise on rent which SISU accepted but did not go much further on other vital access to revenue streams.
The upshot is they will have to if they want a football club at the Ricoh for Coventry and to exist.
Any other prospective owner will simply need the same considerations anyway. So if ACL had managed to bring about an intended admin purchase from say Mr Haskell he would want the same if not more of the revenue streams.
So I can't help thinking all this got lost in personal vendettas (more so from ACL) who felt cheated and undermined but that's business. You may hate the firm in situ but you can't act any differently towards them or anyone else.

I worry that should that should the points be deducted and the two entities be proven as one then SISU will reluctantly and eventually stop funding the football club with bad money after bad without a solid deal over the stadium forthcoming. They would eventually wind up the company and we will have no football club after 125 years.

A deal MUST be done.

 

---

[torchomatic]

Maybe their calculator doesn't show enough digits.

 

[hutch1972]

Maybe their calculator doesn't show enough digits.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[theferret]

It's the key question - just how deep did the FL dig in order to establish with which entity the GS resided? Have they jumped the gun?

Perhaps, or equally maybe they have their statement and punishment ready to go and are just sitting on it until later in the day. If no statement (of any sort) emerges from the FL today you would start to wonder.

And still we wait..

 

[Baginton]

its called investigating every signle thing that has gone on and not making the wrong decision.

I think any team going into administration should just get relegated down one league, so theres no pissing about and teams won't go in easily! and theres no waiting about seeing how long the hangmans rope is.

 

[Tad]

Maybe their calculator doesn't show enough digits.

Or maybe they've seen the numbers and they haven't managed to stop laughing yet..

 

[LarryGrayson]

waitin til they see if we play friday and if not add another 3 points on

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Why so long to determine where the 'Golden Share' lies and if that means an immediate points deduction?

I would have to guess that the whereabouts of which company legally has the 'Golden Share' is proving a bit of a conundrum?

ACL say the FL told them it was with CCFC LTD and Fisher and the administrator understand it to be with CCFC Holdings Ltd.

Now just how can either side be so adamant? It suggest there is some ambiguity probably arising out of how and when those shares were transferred from one entity to the other and within the scope of the FL rules.

I find it difficult to see how SISU (lets just call them that) would make such a faux par?
I find it more likely to think the FL jumped too quickly with a simple response to ACL and in so doing brought ACL to the quick conclusion of petitioning the court.

Which side had all their ducks lined up correctly? ACL or SISU?


This is never a question of which side you agree with or hate the most. It's simply a case of legal strategy.
Even if the FL come out and state the shares are with CCFC Ltd and thus making ACL correct it will not go unchallenged by SISU unless they then state they lied? I doubt very much they lied on a legal stance and I think the FL will be in a difficult corner.

The end problem for me is whether the FL lawyers decide that CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings Ltd are extricable linked. It looks it on the surface but if CCFC Ltd don't have shares, player registrations etc then that is not the case. Think that will be SISU's ultimate argument.

The years have rolled on and at various times SISU have manipulated their position legally (to their belief) so they control as much as possible the outcomes in order to protect their investors money, with the long term hope that they will eventually find a deal with stadium owners which will give them ability to survive as a football club otherwise it will be unsustainable.

ACL have known this all along it must be said. They did offer a compromise on rent which SISU accepted but did not go much further on other vital access to revenue streams.
The upshot is they will have to if they want a football club at the Ricoh for Coventry and to exist.
Any other prospective owner will simply need the same considerations anyway. So if ACL had managed to bring about an intended admin purchase from say Mr Haskell he would want the same if not more of the revenue streams.
So I can't help thinking all this got lost in personal vendettas (more so from ACL) who felt cheated and undermined but that's business. You may hate the firm in situ but you can't act any differently towards them or anyone else.

I worry that should that should the points be deducted and the two entities be proven as one then SISU will reluctantly and eventually stop funding the football club with bad money after bad without a solid deal over the stadium forthcoming. They would eventually wind up the company and we will have no football club after 125 years.

A deal MUST be done.

Again, I would not do business with someone with your imoral/amoral attitude. You actually seem to think that it is OK for SISU to manipulate and cheat and lie because "that is business".
That is disgusting and is indicative of so much that is wrong in the business world today, and your passive (or is it active?) acceptance of such behaviour shows just how corupt morals have generally become today.

And no, a deal must NOT be done with people that "manipulte" and "cheat and lie". You are as bad as Grendel who seems to genuinely believe that anything is acceptable as long as it saves the football club.
Disgusting!

 

[withers]

Agree with above - better for ACL to give the same or better deal to a business they can trust than one that has used every underhand trick in order to ultimately get them the standium on the cheap

 

[theferret]

Again, I would not do business with someone with your imoral/amoral attitude. You actually seem to think that it is OK for SISU to manipulate and cheat and lie because "that is business".
That is disgusting and is indicative of so much that is wrong in the business world today, and your passive (or is it active?) acceptance of such behaviour shows just how corupt morals have generally become today.

And no, a deal must NOT be done with people that "manipulte" and "cheat and lie". You are as bad as Grendel who seems to genuinely believe that anything is acceptable as long as it saves the football club.
Disgusting!

Easy tiger.

Where did he say he thought it was OK to manipulate, cheat and lie? Just asking like.

 

[Paxman II]

Skyblueswiss:

No not saying that at all.

I said they manipulate legally in other words within the law. That's a big difference.
It's how business is conducted many times. Use the law to your advantage, don't break the law.
I said ACL 'feel' cheated never said they were. A business can only make decisions and agreements on hard evidence and facts.

Just to add ACL have manipulated within the law to get CCFC Ltd placed in admin and find a buyer.
By the same token then they are attempting to stitch up SISU from under them and get control of their own administrator....but within the law. That failed. Can SISU feel 'cheated'?

Surely you get my point? I don't take sides, I just look at facts as I see them.

 

[mattylad]

its called investigating every signle thing that has gone on and not making the wrong decision.

I think any team going into administration should just get relegated down one league, so theres no pissing about and teams won't go in easily! and theres no waiting about seeing how long the hangmans rope is.

Not gone in easily!! We have been trying to avoid it for 10 years

 

[Jack Griffin]

Skyblueswiss:

No not saying that at all.

I said they manipulate legally in other words within the law. That's a big difference.
It's how business is conducted many times. Use the law to your advantage, don't break the law.
I said ACL 'feel' cheated never said they were. A business can only make decisions and agreements on hard evidence and facts.

The law is an ass and ever thus was, morals & ethics are a different thing.

 

[Jack Griffin]

More delays, the situation must be delicate.

Darryl Murphy ‏@darryljoemurphy 14m
Am being told it's 'unlikely' we're going to get a statement from @football_league re: @Coventry_City this evening. #skyblues

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Skyblueswiss:

No not saying that at all.

I said they manipulate legally in other words within the law. That's a big difference.
It's how business is conducted many times. Use the law to your advantage, don't break the law.
I said ACL 'feel' cheated never said they were. A business can only make decisions and agreements on hard evidence and facts.

Just to add ACL have manipulated within the law to get CCFC Ltd placed in admin and find a buyer.
By the same token then they are attempting to stitch up SISU from under them and get control of their own administrator....but within the law. That failed. Can SISU feel 'cheated'?

Surely you get my point? I don't take sides, I just look at facts as I see them.

Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, and if I have done you an injustice then I apologise.
Living abroad and unable to go to games, my perspective may well be diferent to those of you who are threatened by not being able to go and watch the game if admin turns to liquidation or points deductions/penalties mean we slip down to division 2 or even slip down several leagues into non-league oblivion.
From my more distant perspective, I have to state that I was against any hedge fund - let alone one with the reputation of SISU - becoming owners of our football club. If you look back to the methods they used to get full ownership, forcing out anyone who had any real say in the club and the manner in which they got all of the shares off the fans, this should have been a warning to all and sundry that underhand tactics and nastiness were going to become the order of the day, and so it has proved.
From this distant perspective it has perhaps been easier to percieve who was doing what to whom without the threat of losing Saturday's match. To me, it was very, very clear that SISU have been lying and cheating from day one, and they they have been bringing their big city manipulative methods into the world of football where they do not belong. SISU, in my opinion, are quite clearly the evildoers and ACL and the council have quite clearly bent over backwards time and again to try and make the deal work, and every time they thought a something had been agreed, SISU renaged and moved the goalposts yet again. It is unbelievable to me when I read posts on here that want ACL and the council to give in and give SISU everything for free "for the sake of the club", or when I must read people saying "they are as bad as each other" or "ACL and the council are to blame". To blame for what? For not giving in to lyers and cheats and manipulators that should never have been found fit and proper owners by the FL in the first place?
I truly despair of what I read on here, and I can only think that such willful blindness is driven by the fear of losing our club. And it must be willful blindness, because the truth is there for everyone to see if they take their blinkers off, set their fear for the club to one side and look at the facts of the matter instead of being emotional and full of fear.
And Pax, while I doubt you are afraid, I find it disappointing that someone such as yourself who clearly understands business and to an extent the laws governing business would make such posts without reviling the true instigators of our current position and our potential downfall.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant! End of

 

[Jack Griffin]

Swiss be careful what you say, or at least 'how' you say it.

 

[theferret]

Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, and if I have done you an injustice then I apologise.
Living abroad and unable to go to games, my perspective may well be diferent to those of you who are threatened by not being able to go and watch the game if admin turns to liquidation or points deductions/penalties mean we slip down to division 2 or even slip down several leagues into non-league oblivion.
From my more distant perspective, I have to state that I was against any hedge fund - let alone one with the reputation of SISU - becoming owners of our football club. If you look back to the methods they used to get full ownership, forcing out anyone who had any real say in the club and the manner in which they got all of the shares off the fans, this should have been a warning to all and sundry that underhand tactics and nastiness were going to become the order of the day, and so it has proved.
From this distant perspective it has perhaps been easier to percieve who was doing what to whom without the threat of losing Saturday's match. To me, it was very, very clear that SISU have been lying and cheating from day one, and they they have been bringing their big city manipulative methods into the world of football where they do not belong. SISU, in my opinion, are quite clearly the evildoers and ACL and the council have quite clearly bent over backwards time and again to try and make the deal work, and every time they thought a something had been agreed, SISU renaged and moved the goalposts yet again. It is unbelievable to me when I read posts on here that want ACL and the council to give in and give SISU everything for free "for the sake of the club", or when I must read people saying "they are as bad as each other" or "ACL and the council are to blame". To blame for what? For not giving in to lyers and cheats and manipulators that should never have been found fit and proper owners by the FL in the first place?
I truly despair of what I read on here, and I can only think that such willful blindness is driven by the fear of losing our club. And it must be willful blindness, because the truth is there for everyone to see if they take their blinkers off, set their fear for the club to one side and look at the facts of the matter instead of being emotional and full of fear.
And Pax, while I doubt you are afraid, I find it disappointing that someone such as yourself who clearly understands business and to an extent the laws governing business would make such posts without reviling the true instigators of our current position and our potential downfall.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant! End of

What I despair of is how people who share your view entirely on SISU, cannot also be critical of ACL where they feel it is warranted, without being accused of being 'willfully blind', an 'apologist' or sometimes just a twat.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Swiss be careful what you say, or at least 'how' you say it.

I understand what you are saying Jack, but is that not yet another indication of what the country has come to that one cannot freely say what one percieves to be the truth? It's alright for someone to say "in their opionion" SISU are God's gift to football and can do no wrong and ACL and the council are cheats and not to be trusted, but turn that around and say the same of SISU and one is under threat all of a sudden? What a pathetic and litegious world the Americans have given us.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

What I despair of is how people who share your view entirely on SISU, cannot also be critical of ACL where they feel it is warranted, without being accused of being 'willfully blind', an 'apologist' or sometimes just a twat.

theferret,
you know exactly what I mean methinks and are causing mischief because it suits you to do so. For example, where almost everyone would agree that Tim Fisher has, shall we say, been quite economical with the truth, can you point out one lie or half-truth that has come from ACL?

 

[Paxman II]

Skyblueswiss I think you did misunderstand my points made.

However I think you have formed an opinion that takes a view that ACL can't possible be at fault?
Let me make it clear that I don't condone any actions by either side in all this, merely wish to show the inaccuracies that people are discussing here when taking 'sides'.

As far as a 'distant' point of view goes then I don't see that having any relevance? It's all about the facts. Nothing more. I'm not emotionally connected to the football club. It's these emotions that many posters tend to have that clouds their viewpoints at times.

In fairness to you I suggest you read very carefully the Trust statement issued in another thread without bias in your mind and then decide if ACL are not culpable in any respect to the current conditions we see ourselves in?

It's not a matter of sides and the wish (as I do) that this SISU lot be gone.

 

[Jack Griffin]

It takes 2 sides to make an agreement, there is no one in this story that is whiter than white, but I have an opinion about the relative shades of grey I percieve & there is a marked difference.

Is that OK for you ferret

 

[Paxman II]

Again why are the FL taking so long to come to a conclusion on something they have already supposedly said to ACL lawyers that the shares are in CCFC Ltd?

Whilst SISU maintain that is not the case?

Makes me believe there is plenty of ambiguity about this and no certainty.

 

[WillieStanley]

Again why are the FL taking so long to come to a conclusion on something they have already supposedly said to ACL lawyers that the shares are in CCFC Ltd?

Whilst SISU maintain that is not the case?

Makes me believe there is plenty of ambiguity about this and no certainty.

I actually doubt as to whether the FL have confirmed anything to ACL. Had they done so it would surely mean a conclusion had been reached, which quite clearly is not the case.

This is all such a bad dream!!

 

[oldskyblue58]

I would guess the FL is having to deal with the legal stuff from CCFC for starters..... they are going to make sure they are on solid ground legally before they say anything

 

[theferret]

theferret,
you know exactly what I mean methinks and are causing mischief because it suits you to do so. For example, where almost everyone would agree that Tim Fisher has, shall we say, been quite economical with the truth, can you point out one lie or half-truth that has come from ACL?

Not causing mischief, but you keep churning out insults using words like 'blind' and 'blinkered' because you come from a position that is so entrenched that you steadfastly refuse to accept ANY criticism of ACL. My world just isn't as black and white as that.

To answer your questions, no I can't. But I never said they had lied, but I have criticised them where I feel it is warranted (as I stated in my post), on matters such as their negotiating position, their (in my opinion) inability to understand that they would benefit far more from helping the club back to the top than they do by charging unreasonable rents in division 3, and also their decision to escalate matters by going to the courts rather than going down the route of arbitration. I am also critical of their running of certain parts of the Arena complex (some things they have got right, in other areas they have failed). On most issues surrounding the dispute however, I think they are in the right.

You may disagree, but surely it is not beyond you to debate these issues in a civil manner? Your earlier attack on Paxman was pretty outrageous if you ask me.

 

[@richh87]

All I know is SISU have not exactly been transparent owners, and have treated the fans of this club very disrespectfully.

The best way (in my opinion) for this club to have a chance to compete at the top end of the Championship again, is for admin and new owners who have the income streams from the Ricoh as a whole (ie they need to own the ground).

This will NOT happen under SISU, and frankly, just surviving in League 1 for all eternity is not acceptable to me.

The only people we owe money to (bar the rent) is SISU, who took a gamble and lost through their own mis-management.

I want them out so that my club can have hope again. I want the Football League to announce admin and an immediate 10 point deduction, and then I want the SISU appointed Administrator to act in the football club, and not SISU's, best interests.

I want them to all do this quickly please.

 

[The CableGuy]

The longer this takes, the more points I fear we will lose.

 

[withers]

ACL haven't covered themselves in glory on this either but at least with them it's an issue of competence (or lack of) rather than the morality of their motives - SISU may turn out to be more competent (this is their game we are playing) but are driven by greed at all costs. That's how this should be framed - not "well everyone's been a bit crap so we'll sit on the fence while our club is liquidated"

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

Not causing mischief, but you keep churning out insults using words like 'blind' and 'blinkered' because you come from a position that is so entrenched that you steadfastly refuse to accept ANY criticism of ACL. My world just isn't as black and white as that.

To answer your questions, no I can't. But I never said they had lied, but I have criticised them where I feel it is warranted (as I stated in my post), on matters such as their negotiating position, their (in my opinion) inability to understand that they would benefit far more from helping the club back to the top than they do by charging unreasonable rents in division 3, and also their decision to escalate matters by going to the courts rather than going down the route of arbitration. I am also critical of their running of certain parts of the Arena complex (some things they have got right, in other areas they have failed). On most issues surrounding the dispute however, I think they are in the right.

You may disagree, but surely it is not beyond you to debate these issues in a civil manner? Your earlier attack on Paxman was pretty outrageous if you ask me.

theferret,
I apologised to Pax if I had misunderstood what he said, and if you have understood that I am trying say you are not entitled to your opinion, then I have to apologise to you and tell you that most certainly is not the case - I would never try and take such a basic right from anyone.
I did say at the bottom of my post to Pax "sorry for the rant". I (perhaps naturally) believe I am seeing things clearly, and it is difficult for me to accept opposing positions that to my mind seem quite clearly to be incorrect.

Let me give you an example if I may:
There are a vast number of internet Ponzi, MLM, pyramid etc. scams out there. I do my bit to try and fight them by seeking information and posting it on websites that fight scams.
My brother recently called me and told me about this "fantastic" online marketing company called Banners Brokers and wanted me to also invest. Ater listenning for just five minutes, I was seriously of the opinion that this was a scam. I told my brother I would call him up after investigating it a bit, even though I was already of the opinion that the impossible returns and unbusinesslike terms and conditions were classic scam territory. It took me just a few minutes online (and ignoring the fake "is BB a scam -no it's not" plants all over you tube and the web) confirmed that it was a scam. I called my brother back and advised him that, as I had thought, this was a ponzi scam, and surely as a businessman himself he must see that any scheme guaranteeing to double your money every 4 weeks cna only be a scam. My brother hung up on me, invested, dragged a few of the family into it, and must by now realise that he has lost his and the other's money to a scam. It was so crystal clear to anyone not being greedy and just standing back and looking at this scheme without being biased in any way that it was an impossible business model and had to be a Ponzi.
If you go online and make the effort to find out about Banners Brokers, you will hopefully very shortly reach the same conclusion that through its various incarnations over two years it is a ponzi scheme that has defauded millions out of the most vulnerable people.
And yet there are people out there today who are still joinin this scam in its dying stages and no matter what is said they refuse to see reality.
I have digressed, but the ponzi scam is analogous to what I percieve has been going on with our football club. I see some people falling for the SISU line and I just sit here in amazement and think "how can they not see it?" and it upsets me.
Perhaps I then respond in an inappropriate manner, which is why you will see that I do not post for weeks at a time - I know myself and I know I sometimes go too far.
If I have gone too far again, then perhaps I need to stop posting again for a time, especially when we are all so worried and emotionable about what is being done to our club.

 

[Grendel]

Again, I would not do business with someone with your imoral/amoral attitude. You actually seem to think that it is OK for SISU to manipulate and cheat and lie because "that is business".
That is disgusting and is indicative of so much that is wrong in the business world today, and your passive (or is it active?) acceptance of such behaviour shows just how corupt morals have generally become today.

And no, a deal must NOT be done with people that "manipulte" and "cheat and lie". You are as bad as Grendel who seems to genuinely believe that anything is acceptable as long as it saves the football club.
Disgusting!

Oh get off you moral high horse. If I could gaurentee continued football at the Ricoh and the pay was ACL went bust would I care? No.

If ACL found someone to pay the rent would they care if they were good owners of the football club? No.

 

[Paxman II]

I think skyblueswiss you are attempting to equate a Ponzi scam to a hedge fund well represented by a lot on investors who have been satisfied with their investments? It's a bit reaching to try and explain where you are coming from.
As for a Ponzi scheme well there will always be gullible ones all too easily fooled. Seeing through them is easy for most of the population so I perhaps pity your brother. You can't compare what the majority of people realise is a scam with what you see going on with SISU. The analogy is ridiculous. You are trying to suggest what you see is surely correct?
What you fail to see are just facts as they are and that is surely correct until the full truth is known.

 

[Spencer]

All I know is SISU have not exactly been transparent owners, and have treated the fans of this club very disrespectfully.

The best way (in my opinion) for this club to have a chance to compete at the top end of the Championship again, is for admin and new owners who have the income streams from the Ricoh as a whole (ie they need to own the ground).

This will NOT happen under SISU, and frankly, just surviving in League 1 for all eternity is not acceptable to me.

The only people we owe money to (bar the rent) is SISU, who took a gamble and lost through their own mis-management.

I want them out so that my club can have hope again. I want the Football League to announce admin and an immediate 10 point deduction, and then I want the SISU appointed Administrator to act in the football club, and not SISU's, best interests.

I want them to all do this quickly please.

Just out of interest, and this is a serious question, how would you vet any new owners to ensure that they meet the high standards that it is deemed are required to run this football club?

 

[Spencer]

Not causing mischief, but you keep churning out insults using words like 'blind' and 'blinkered' because you come from a position that is so entrenched that you steadfastly refuse to accept ANY criticism of ACL. My world just isn't as black and white as that.

To answer your questions, no I can't. But I never said they had lied, but I have criticised them where I feel it is warranted (as I stated in my post), on matters such as their negotiating position, their (in my opinion) inability to understand that they would benefit far more from helping the club back to the top than they do by charging unreasonable rents in division 3, and also their decision to escalate matters by going to the courts rather than going down the route of arbitration. I am also critical of their running of certain parts of the Arena complex (some things they have got right, in other areas they have failed). On most issues surrounding the dispute however, I think they are in the right.

You may disagree, but surely it is not beyond you to debate these issues in a civil manner? Your earlier attack on Paxman was pretty outrageous if you ask me.

Whilst I tend to agree with everything you state here I have to say, in fairness to ACL, arbitration is far more expensive than litigation (as you have to pay for the venue and the arbitrator) and, perhaps, that is why ACL favoured litigation?

Obviously, the major advantage of arbitration is the fact the dispute would remain in private.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Whilst I tend to agree with everything you state here I have to say, in fairness to ACL, arbitration is far more expensive than litigation (as you have to pay for the venue and the arbitrator) and, perhaps, that is why ACL favoured litigation?

Obviously, the major advantage of arbitration is the fact the dispute would remain in private.

Have you seen the costs involved in even straightforward quick-fix litigation? The costs involved in Court so far already probably outweigh the value of our entire squad!

 

[rob9872]

Whatever happened to michael mcindoe's ponzi scheme problem. Not heard since first surfaced - probably bumped off.