1 Nil CCC

Coventry City Chat!
Can *Insert current manager here* keep us up?
Has *insert whatever shite midfielder we have here* made a forward pass?
Keep up to date with Covenders!


Previous topicNext topic

1 Nil CCC

Postby Realist » Wed May 28, 2014 7:25 am

I'm wondering what Supermac thinks of it all?
Image

Prediction League World Champion.
User avatar
Realist
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3024
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 am
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby billythefish » Thu May 29, 2014 11:57 am

Good to see Roverhum promoted the other day and interesting to see the chairmans name sung by the fans. The same chairman that moved the club from Rotherham to Sheffield as the club were being charged obscene amounts of money to play at the old ground, built a new ground in Rotherham and then the club flourished with two promotions in a few years.

Wonder how many fans will be singing SISU's names in five years time if we were to do similar and win the playoffs to get back into the Premiership!

8)
billythefish
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Normally on Sofa with keebab and lager.
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Thu May 29, 2014 6:57 pm

[:rofl:] [laugh]
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Sat May 31, 2014 10:28 pm

At it again....

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/c ... ub-7087138

Now even if you assume the 300k from MM/GR should be taken off the amount owed there is still an outstanding balance of £290k. At the very least that amount should be paid by midnight. If not they are in breach of the FL conditions and therefore should be hit with the sanctions they were warned with last year.

Also compare this to the possible overpayment of rates from last week. It's still unclear from a legal perspective whether any overpayment has arisen and is likley to be challenged in court. But did they keep the money until that legal challenge had been heard? No - they paid up first and will ask questions later. So given those actions paying the full amount to ensure no sanctions occur shouldn't have any fear, as it has been proved that ACL refund overpayments ASAP.

If it is found Otium should pay the full rate amount I confidently state they won't pay it back straight away until after they'd appealed.

Given the fact that they have also yet to acquire land, provide plans, propose any kind of planning application, or even been able to prove a meaningful discussion with anyone regarding something they've been saying they were going to build for the best part of 18 months, you'd think the FL would throw the book at them.

Which just goes to show the utter contempt this lot have for everybody. They think the FL will do absolutely fuck all and cave in like last time under pressure of legal action.

FL - it's time to grow some balls. Yes, my club may well suffer from it and I'd be gutted, but for the greater good start throwing your weight around and stop these charlatans getting away with murder.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby The Yid » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:36 am

It says in the article that the money is in the Escrow account. So have they paid? Who controls the Escrow account?
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
Image
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:34 pm

I have no idea who controls it - the obvious answer being the FL - but nothing is ever straight forward in this saga. Going by Labovitch's words it could well be Paul Appleton as he says the only person who can decide how much is due is the liquidator.

According to the articles they have received advice suggesting the MM/GR payment should be considered as a separate thing, and as loss of earnings rather than rent payment.

Which gives you one of two scenarios - either they haven't put enough money into the ESCROW to cover the payment (after all no specific amount was mentioned - it could be 50p for all anyone knows), or they are deliberately holding up proceedings with legal quandaries, which would fit in with all their other actions thus far.

Also, why has the company not been liquidated yet? According to the owners it had absolutely no assets, so how long does it take to share out nothing? Who has preferential rights etc doesn't matter if there is nothing to give people.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby The Yid » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:57 pm

In your opinion there are only two scenarios... In reality there could be several.

As for the guarantors.. If you have a guarantor on credit for you.. They are only responsible if you fail to pay. And if they do pay then your amount owed is reduced... The company don't get it as a bonus payment. Obviously we don't know the exact details - but it would make sense that the amount owed is less. That said you could well argue that MM/GR should in all honesty look to get that back from SISU.

As for the liquidation - no one appears to know. I thought I read elsewhere there had been a challenge, from another party, not sure what about though. Be helpful if Appleton came out and told us.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:06 pm

I agree that perhaps MM/GR should try to reclaim from SISU/Otium, because it appears to be a case of refusal to pay rather than inability, which is what guarantees are supposed to be for.

TBH it would probably be easier for Otium to pay the full £590k and thus make it ACL's problem and therefore them who would have the legal expenses. It's quite possible Otium end up spending more waiting and arguing in court than paying up, and even then they could end up owing the full amount as the advice they have been given is to consider the two unrelated.

I wonder how much all this legal wrangling is costing? I imagine the fees must be huge, and if you put it all together they could just have easily made a more substantial bid for the stadium and avoided all this nonsense.

As I said, ACL/CCC have shown to be prompt in paying back supposed overpayments, so really they haven't got a great deal to worry about even if it's decided they should pay less.

There are of course many different scenarios, but I was specifically looking at why no payment had been made at all. If there was money in the ESCROW account that can be assigned to ACL by the controlling third party, but it hasn't been. Which either suggests there isn't sufficient money in it to do so or the third party are being put off making the transaction by someone, and the only people it makes any sense to try and hold up the payment is Otium.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby The Englander » Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:16 pm

The Yid wrote:In your opinion there are only two scenarios... In reality there could be several.


:clap: :clap: :clap:
User avatar
The Englander
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:38 pm
Location: What's it to you fuck-face?
Highscores: 7
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby dog rout 21 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:31 pm

AD wrote:I agree that perhaps MM/GR should try to reclaim from SISU/Otium, because it appears to be a case of refusal to pay rather than inability, which is what guarantees are supposed to be for.


Surely that's not true? If I had a guarantor on my rent they'd be liable if I walked out before the break clause/end of contract, it wouldn't matter whether I had the cash or not. That's surely the entire purpose of a guarantor? If there's a non payment of the amounting owing the liability automatically switches to the guarantor regardless of reason?

Anyway, I couldn't give a fuck, MM/GR are partly responsible for the whole mess we're in, they can go bankrupt for all I care. Maybe the question should be why they remained guarantors in the first place? I be surprised if it was all nasty SISUs fault.
ISUZU OUT!
#bringcovbacktonorthampton
User avatar
dog rout 21
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6909
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:54 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:37 am

The Englander wrote:
The Yid wrote:In your opinion there are only two scenarios... In reality there could be several.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


Read the last paragraph of the post above yours.....
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:09 am

dog rout 21 wrote:
AD wrote:I agree that perhaps MM/GR should try to reclaim from SISU/Otium, because it appears to be a case of refusal to pay rather than inability, which is what guarantees are supposed to be for.


Surely that's not true? If I had a guarantor on my rent they'd be liable if I walked out before the break clause/end of contract, it wouldn't matter whether I had the cash or not. That's surely the entire purpose of a guarantor? If there's a non payment of the amounting owing the liability automatically switches to the guarantor regardless of reason?

Anyway, I couldn't give a fuck, MM/GR are partly responsible for the whole mess we're in, they can go bankrupt for all I care. Maybe the question should be why they remained guarantors in the first place? I be surprised if it was all nasty SISUs fault.


Of course the guarantor would be liable regardless of reason, but it was designed to be used as a last resort because the borrower literally couldn't pay and the lender had a means of insurance, thus reducing the risk and allowing a lower interest rate. It's implied that the borrower will meet their contractual financial obligations and not unduly burden their guarantor unless they literally can't afford to pay.

If that borrower then refuses to pay when they can afford to, the guarantor could try to make the borrower pay up under that implied term, and there is undoubtedly some legal area where they can claim economic loss due to the actions of others, or even stuff like personal injury under emotional distress probably if its an individual rather than a company.

In this case, where the amount paid is apparently due to loss of earnings rather than a specific contractual obligation, it is very unclear whether a claim by MM/GR would be successful, but I think it's worth them trying. Like I say I think Otium actions could end up being more costly overall than them just paying the 590k.

Maybe the rules need changing that guarantors become liable only after the original borrower declares themselves bamkrupt/insolvent to stop unscrupulous types doing such underhand things? I'm sure such specific things could be included in a contract anyway, although obviously the interest rate would increase due to the higher risk.

But such a move could work against SISU/Otium anyway, as It's like bad sportsmanship. Technically not against the rules but it gets you a very bad reputation and people are very unwilling to lend or invest money with you because of your actions. This is twice now they've refused to pay not because they can't afford to, just they don't want to.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby the boss » Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:36 am

the sooner SISU fuck off the better. Blame whoever you want but it was them who walked into the deal with eyes wide shut, decided they never liked the deal and then proceeded to rip the soul out of the club. Most business if they saw they had a bad deal would try and find a way out but they would not proceed to destroy the whole business just to save face.

Blame the council as much as you want but they are not responsible for the running of A PRIVATE FOOTBALL CLUB, or helping a rich company get richer, they are only responsible for the tax payers monies.


New ground :lol: :lol: :lol: Fucking hell, even I could not make that one up 8)
2014 will be our year !!
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby The Yid » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:03 am

ACL are a private company Boss.. So if the council are only responsible for the tax payers why did they give £14m of their money to bail out a private company?
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby the boss » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:17 am

The Yid wrote:ACL are a private company Boss.. So if the council are only responsible for the tax payers why did they give £14m of their money to bail out a private company?



as far as I can understand it was to protect their investment in the stadium which due to the club withholding the rent was in danger.

As for 'giving', I'm not sure they gave it to them as I thought it was a loan?? Nothing wrong with loaning money and if there is I'm sure someone will throw the book at them.

Allowing the club to continue playing at the ground for nothing funded by the tax payer would have been insane and would possibly be illegal.

Anyway, not to worry the new ground is going up as I type :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Muppets 8)
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby the boss » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:42 pm

Realist wrote:I'm wondering what Supermac thinks of it all?



remind us, who was Supermac :lol:
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



1 Nil CCC

Postby Realist » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:56 pm

the boss wrote:
Realist wrote:I'm wondering what Supermac thinks of it all?



remind us, who was Supermac :lol:


:lol: :lol:
User avatar
Realist
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3024
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 am
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:26 pm

The Yid wrote:It says in the article that the money is in the Escrow account. So have they paid? Who controls the Escrow account?


http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/foot ... 28973.aspx

Funny. I thought that money was in an escrow account, which by definition has to be controlled by a third party?
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby The Yid » Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:38 pm

AD wrote:
The Yid wrote:It says in the article that the money is in the Escrow account. So have they paid? Who controls the Escrow account?


http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/foot ... 28973.aspx

Funny. I thought that money was in an escrow account, which by definition has to be controlled by a third party?


So did I... Thought that was the whole point of an Escrow account. Turns out they had to release it. ACL have got their money now or will they look for someone else to rip off?
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: 1 Nil CCC

Postby AD » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:24 pm

Rumours of London Wasps buying major share in Ricoh, which I certainly did not see coming. Numerous scenarios are now running through my head, mainly:

1. The interest is genuine and Wasps do want to move.

However, being so far from their traditional base of London it would essentially be a rugby version of MK Dons and a massive kick in the teeth given all the 'taking teams away from their home' rhetoric. Plus there is the effect this would have on Coventry RFC, and again a kick in the teeth for local supporters who the council have always said should be the first consideration.

2. It's a tactic being employed by the council/ACL to push things along and make SISU have to put up or shut up over a new stadium.

3. It's a tactic by SISU using a third party to obtain the Ricoh. Get Wasps to buy the stadium, then they quickly sell it on to SISU/Otium at a slightly higher price. Think us buying Robert Jarni for Real Madrid
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



PreviousNext

Return to CCFC Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], dotbot, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests