If no ground agreement (14 Viewers)

[Neutral Fan]

No, the FA will allow the club to again move temporarily and ground share. Failing that, the club will be expunged from the league. With wasps refusing to negotiate, the club are in a strong position. Thr FA and FL won't want to set a precedent.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

They set a precedent when they allowed Wimbledon FC to be franchised. Birmingham would be SISU's most likely destination for their club. Or West London? Wasps in reverse.

 

---

[dongonzalos]

One thing nobody seems to be accounting for is the likelihood of legal action by SISU against the FL if they kick us out. The FL will be desperate to avoid that so are likely to agree to pretty much anything.

The rules are there.

They have stuck to their guns in the past.

They demanded a million pound bond off SISU last time.

That was to move to Notthampton temporarily whilst we built our own stadium.
We then returned to the Ricoh temporarily, whilst we built our own stadium.
4 years later without a blade of grass bought, If we ask to go off on our travels again. I can't see the FL league asking for less in terms of assurance from the owners that we will return.

 

[Nick]

The rules are there.

They have stuck to their guns in the past.

They demanded a million pound bond off SISU last time.

That was to move to Notthampton temporarily whilst we built our own stadium.
We then returned to the Ricoh temporarily, whilst we built our own stadium.
4 years later without a blade of grass bought, If we ask to go off on our travels again. I can't see the FL league asking for less in terms of assurance from the owners that we will return.

The football league were involved with the butts and happy with it weren't they? Wether we think it was viable or not they were involved with that, and will have all the documents "blocking" it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I suspect SISU will continue with these legal appeals up to the point at which Wasps have to refinance the bond. I suspect that some kind of deal will be made at that time depending on Wasps' financial situation. My guess is that Wasps will be in a black hole by that time and SISU may be hanging around to try and pick up the pieces. In the meantime, we all suffer with cr@p football, the likelihood of moving out of Coventry, and no prospect of getting promoted. Tough times to be a City fan.

This is along the lines of my thoughts too. It's possible SISU could win *more* by hanging on, than by outbidding Wasps then.

The only precedents we have to look at really are US Sports, and stadium moves, franchise moves are a fraught business. Some stadia find their price cycling down and down through a succession of teams. That's not to say, of course, that Wasps will fail... far from it - it's entirely possible that they will succeed and the SISU play will fail dismally. It does however stagger me that so many people blithely accept Wasps will succeed in embedding when so much is up in the air at present.

 

[chiefdave]

The rules are there.

13 Registration of Ground

13.1 The dimension of the field of play for all League organised matches shall be as follows:
Maximum length 120yds (110 metres)
Minimum length 110yds (100 metres)
Maximum width 80yds (75 metres)
Minimum width 70yds (64 metres)

13.2 Clubs must register their pitch dimensions with The League prior to the start of each Season. It will be misconduct on the part of a Club to alter its pitch dimensions during a Season without the prior written consent of The League, which consent will only be given in exceptional circumstances. The League may at any time require a Club to submit a report from a qualified independent source certifying the pitch dimensions.

13.3 Each Club shall take all reasonable steps to maintain its pitch in good order. The League may require a Club to take such steps as it shall specify if not satisfied that an adequate standard of pitch is being maintained, including but not limited to The League commissioning an independent report on the state of the pitch by a Club, the cost of such independent report to be borne by the Club concerned.

13.4 Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the Board.

13.5 Except in cases where a Club seeks consent to enter into a ground-sharing agreement with another Club, it shall be a condition of any such consent that the ground-sharing agreement shall contain provision to ensure that:

13.5.1 the playing of any of the Club’s first team matches will always take precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement; and

13.5.2 the Club shall have the ability to postpone other activities scheduled to take place on the pitch in the immediately preceding 48 hour period where in the opinion of the Club, acting reasonably, there is a risk that such activity may result in the subsequent postponement or abandonment of a match to be played under the auspices of The League.

13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with The League and no Club shall remove to another ground (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld and the Board shall be entitled, if granting consent, to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances.

13.7 In considering whether to give any consent to a permanent relocation, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to the factors set out in this Regulation 13.7) and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:

13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;

13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;

13.7.3 would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;

13.7.4 would not have a material adverse effect on visiting Clubs;

13.7.5 would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and

13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.

13.8 The Club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.

13.9 Subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, a Club shall either own its ground or have a legally enforceable agreement with its ground's owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season.

13.10 Each Club shall, provide The League with full copies of such documentation as The League may reasonably require to demonstrate the Club's ability to play fixtures at its ground. By way of example, and without limitation, this may include copies of HM Land Registry entries, copy leases, any licence to occupy and any sub-leases or licence relating thereto. The League shall maintain a register of Clubs and the basis upon which that Club occupies its ground.

13.11 Without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation 13.6, a Club shall forthwith notify The League of any proposed change in its circumstances relating to the occupation of its ground. By way of example, and without limitation, a proposed change may include a sale of any freehold interest (with or without subsequent leaseback) or any surrender or variation of a lease or licence.

Which part of the rules would be a problem?

 

[dongonzalos]

Which part of the rules would be a problem?

The local area one.
They have blocked in the past because a club couldn't give concrete enough assurance.
What was the point of the million pound bond last time.
If this time they will just say of course off you go.
Also how do they safeguard against franchising if they just let people go without such assurances?

Non of this really answers the main question why would SUSU move unless it is somewhere local

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

Could you guarantee they won't?

Yes, you have my guarantee that they will charge us more for rent than the current rate.

Bookmark my response for future reference.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Yes, you have my guarantee that they will charge us more for rent than the current rate.

Bookmark my response for future reference.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Now let me get this right... The only way you could guarantee anything is if you already were privvy to the Wasps inside information... Are you?

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

Now let me get this right... The only way you could guarantee anything is if you already were privvy to the Wasps inside information... Are you?

Let me take a leaf out of your book and answer a question with a question:

Can you guarantee to me that Wasps will offer a rental deal that equals the current rental deal as of today?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Let me take a leaf out of your book and answer a question with a question:

Can you guarantee to me that Wasps will offer a rental deal that equals the current rental deal as of today?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Sorry mate wrong poster for that, you need to reply to Nick
Oh and BTW, where have I said I would guarantee anything? I simply replied to your post(Which about 7-8 of you have done to my post whilst talking to someone else) when you asked someone if they would guarantee a price. My reply was to say to you "Could you guarantee the opposite, nothing more

 

[Captain Dart]

100k rent is dirt cheap and it won't stay at that. We can all agree 100k is too cheap and if I was wasps I would charge more. Say around 300-400k. Why wouldn't I? Wasps don't care for ccfc as we all know.

Well if the rent goes up then so the CCFC cut of parking & F&B needs to increase to compensate and provide enhanced income potential.
Then it is more important for CCFC to drive up crowds, which in my opinion wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Frankley]

The Football League stressed Albion would not be allowed to share a stadium outside Brighton and Hove unless the owners produced "concrete evidence" of the club's future return to the area. Archer and Stanley could not.

Chartwell threw Albion a lifeline by offering to lease back the Goldstone for an extra season at a rent of £480,000 but the company rejected the club's counter-offer of £200,000 and set Albion a deadline of noon on April 30.

With no agreement, Albion faced homelessness and possible extinction going into the match against York on April 27, 1996. Fans invaded the pitch and pulled down both sets of goalposts, forcing the match to be abandoned after 16 minutes.

Less than an hour before Chartwell's deadline, Albion agreed to lease back the Goldstone for a season. Bellotti refused to reveal the rent but it was reported to be £480,000, the initial asking price, suggesting the club could have prevented the abandonment.

Your history of the Brighton and Hove Albion ground saga misses the point that the club was ultimately moved to Gillingham for the 1997-8 and 1998-99 seasons and that this move was allowed despite the fact there was no 'concrete evidence' of a plan to return the club to the Brighton and Hove area (they hadn't even identified a site for a ground to be built).

When the Seagulls did return to Brighton and Hove for the 1999-2000 season it was to the Withdean Stadium (capacity c.9000). Brighton and Hove Albion played at the adapted athletics site until 2011 and didn't move to Falmer until 2011, a full 14 seasons after they left the Goldstone.

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

Sorry mate wrong poster for that, you need to reply to Nick
Oh and BTW, where have I said I would guarantee anything? I simply replied to your post(Which about 7-8 of you have done to my post whilst talking to someone else) when you asked someone if they would guarantee a price. My reply was to say to you "Could you guarantee the opposite, nothing more

I never said you can guarantee anything, I am simply asking you a question.

Yet again avoiding what has been asked

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I never said you can guarantee anything, I am simply asking you a question.

Yet again avoiding what has been asked

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Isn't that what I said too? I didn't avoid any question mate... Just for you Ahemmmm, I couldn't guarantee anything.... Not too fast for you is it?

 

[dongonzalos]

Your history of the Brighton and Hove Albion ground saga misses the point that the club was ultimately moved to Gillingham for the 1997-8 and 1998-99 seasons and that this move was allowed despite the fact there was no 'concrete evidence' of a plan to return the club to the Brighton and Hove area (they hadn't even identified a site for a ground to be built).

When the Seagulls did return to Brighton and Hove for the 1999-2000 season it was to the Withdean Stadium (capacity c.9000). Brighton and Hove Albion played at the adapted athletics site until 2011 and didn't move to Falmer until 2011, a full 14 seasons after they left the Goldstone.

Why didn't they move the first season and why did they end up paying £480k a year rent instead of £200k a year that they wanted to?
Because the FL said they couldn't move because they could give the FL enough assurances about their plan to return
So their choice was to go under it get ripped off by the property company.
The FL were prepared for them to go under.
If they were not Brighton would not have paid over double what they wanted to in rent.

 

[dongonzalos]

The football league were involved with the butts and happy with it weren't they? Wether we think it was viable or not they were involved with that, and will have all the documents "blocking" it.

I am saying that's not relevant.
What guarantees can we provide that we will return to the 'Coventry area in an acceptable time frame'
Last time we staked a million pound on it.
I wonder if that million was potentially at risk if Wasps came in and said you are not welcome back here.
Remember we put a million down as we were going to build our own new stadium.
Why wouldn't the FL ask for a million again?

 

[skybluetony176]

I am saying that's not relevant.
What guarantees can we provide that we will return to the 'Coventry area in an acceptable time frame'
Last time we staked a million pound on it.
I wonder if that million was potentially at risk if Wasps came in and said you are not welcome back here.
Remember we put a million down as we were going to build our own new stadium.
Why wouldn't the FL ask for a million again?

I think you're making a valid point that many are missing. The door was always open at the Ricoh before Wasps owned it so the £1M wasn't a gamble, it was safe. If we leave of our own accord again there's zero guarantee that any door will be left open at the Ricoh, there is no guarantee of that default position to safeguard the £1M. SISU won't risk it again without a concrete plan B and it's clear there isn't one. They've thrown some shit to see if any of it sticks and it don't. It's the Ricoh or nothing and I doubt that they're fooling anyone on that.

 

[chiefdave]

I think you're making a valid point that many are missing. The door was always open at the Ricoh before Wasps owned it so the £1M wasn't a gamble, it was safe. If we leave of our own accord again there's zero guarantee that any door will be left open at the Ricoh, there is no guarantee of that default position to safeguard the £1M. SISU won't risk it again without a concrete plan B and it's clear there isn't one. They've thrown some shit to see if any of it sticks and it don't. It's the Ricoh or nothing and I doubt that they're fooling anyone on that.

Would they gamble the £1m against potential compensation in the legal action? Is there anyway they could use having to forfeit a bond to strengthen their legal position?

 

[rupert_bear]

Another thing to take into consideration that seems to be missed, there are rules and there are other members in the FL who can complain if rules are not adhered to, there will be two current members getting relegated out of the football league into the conference. If I was chairman of one of those two I would be making a lot of noise to stay in the league. I hope I'm wrong but the more I look into it the more we seem to be behind the black ball unless this litigation is stopped.

 

[skybluetony176]

Would they gamble the £1m against potential compensation in the legal action? Is there anyway they could use having to forfeit a bond to strengthen their legal position?

They'd be better of gambling on a double promotion than any legal case that might never even reach court I would think. Given their track record on winning court case's. Mind you their track record on winning promotion is no better. Probably best that they just don't gamble.

 

[Grendel]

They'd be better of gambling on a double promotion then any legal case that might never even reach court I would think. Given their track record on winning court case's. Mind you their track record on winning promotion is no better. Probably best that they just don't gamble.

There is little chance the FL would close the club if this deal expires at the ground without renewal.

Sisu and their litigation history will at least prevent that.

 

[skybluetony176]

There is little chance the FL would close the club if this deal expires at the ground without renewal.

Sisu and their litigation history will at least prevent that.

All hail SISU and their litigation history.

The only history we've witnessed personally is failure. Are you sure that the FL would be concerned? Especially given the large number of false dawns that they've fed the FL (and us) over the last few years? I think SISU would have a hard time convincing a judge that the FL won't work with them given how much they have gone out of their way to bend the rules and make allowances for CCFC and it's owners thus far.

 

[chiefdave]

Are you sure that the FL would be concerned?

Look at the FL accounts. They don't have millions in reserves that they can use to fund a court case even if they know they will win. They've openly stated in the past thats why the fit and proper persons test isn't stricter, they couldn't afford it if anyone challenged it in court.

 

[Grendel]

All hail SISU and their litigation history.

The only history we've witnessed personally is failure. Are you sure that the FL would be concerned? Especially given the large number of false dawns that they've fed the FL (and us) over the last few years? I think SISU would have a hard time convincing a judge that the FL won't work with them given how much they have gone out of their way to bend the rules and make allowances for CCFC and it's owners thus far.

I think the FL would be supportive of the owners as they see them as members.

 

[skybluetony176]

Look at the FL accounts. They don't have millions in reserves that they can use to fund a court case even if they know they will win. They've openly stated in the past thats why the fit and proper persons test isn't stricter, they couldn't afford it if anyone challenged it in court.

So on what basis could SISU take them to court then?

 

[skybluetony176]

I think the FL would be supportive of the owners as they see them as members.

If that's the case perhaps you can stop telling people that SISU aren't the club and what SISU do doesn't effect the club. You clearly don't believe it.

 

[rupert_bear]

Would they gamble the £1m against potential compensation in the legal action? Is there anyway they could use having to forfeit a bond to strengthen their legal position?

It may be considerably more than a million as dongonzalos said the circumstances have changed the Ricoh had a different owner

There is little chance the FL would close the club if this deal expires at the ground without renewal.

Sisu and their litigation history will at least prevent that.

The FL will not close the club, but could refuse its membership into it's competition. Which means us playing in the conference, if there's places.

 

[Grendel]

So on what basis could SISU take them to court then?

Er...for closing the club down when there was no suitable options as the club were refused permission to look at an alternate ground in the city and the current ground refuses to talk to them.

Oh and they didn't close one club down that since thrived and prospered.

 

[stupot07]

I think you're making a valid point that many are missing. The door was always open at the Ricoh before Wasps owned it so the £1M wasn't a gamble, it was safe. If we leave of our own accord again there's zero guarantee that any door will be left open at the Ricoh, there is no guarantee of that default position to safeguard the £1M. SISU won't risk it again without a concrete plan B and it's clear there isn't one. They've thrown some shit to see if any of it sticks and it don't. It's the Ricoh or nothing and I doubt that they're fooling anyone on that.

If wasps refuse to negotiate, then the club wouldn't be leaving of their own accord.

Tbh I find all this "the FL will kick us out the league, we're going to be liquidated, etc etc " just pure scaremongering.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Frankley]

Why didn't they move the first season and why did they end up paying £480k a year rent instead of £200k a year that they wanted to?
Because the FL said they couldn't move because they could give the FL enough assurances about their plan to return
So their choice was to go under it get ripped off by the property company.
The FL were prepared for them to go under.
If they were not Brighton would not have paid over double what they wanted to in rent.

Well, there's more to this story than you suggest and the example of Brighton isn't directly comparable with the Sky Blues.

One of the key things was what the owners of Brighton did and the reaction this prompted from the FA. The constitution of the club was altered by the key shareholders to allow individuals to benefit from the sale of the Goldstone Ground and the winding up of the club (I seem to remember that the previous terms had allowed for any excess monies to by distributed between various sporting clubs in the area). The FA intervened to block this change.

The owners said they planned to build a stadium at a site on the South Downs (Waterhall) and they wanted to groundshare at Portsmouth in the meanwhile. In fact, planning permission had already refused for a stadium at this site a couple of weeks before the owners publicly announced their plans to build there.

It was against this backdrop of the above two events that the Football League said they wouldn't sanction the ground-share unless they received guarantees that the club will be building a new stadium in Brighton or Hove.

The above explains why the club paid to lease back the Goldstone Ground and the circumstances clearly aren't really directly comparable with those of the Sky Blues.

 

[skybluetony176]

Er...for closing the club down when there was no suitable options as the club were refused permission to look at an alternate ground in the city and the current ground refuses to talk to them.

Oh and they didn't close one club down that since thrived and prospered.

How would the FL close the club?

 

[chiefdave]

So on what basis could SISU take them to court then?

SISU, or Otium I guess as they are the owners, could take the FL to court if the FL expel us from the league. They would no doubt claim that there was no viable option for them to remain in the city and that the FL's actions have cost them a huge amount of money.

 

[skybluetony176]

If wasps refuse to negotiate, then the club wouldn't be leaving of their own accord.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

That's why I said if we leave on our own accord. I was deliberately making the distinction.

 

[stupot07]

That's why I said if we leave on our own accord. I was deliberately making the distinction.

Fair enough, but don is including the wasps refusing to negotiate in his scenario.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

SISU, or Otium I guess as they are the owners, could take the FL to court if the FL expel us from the league. They would no doubt claim that there was no viable option for them to remain in the city and that the FL's actions have cost them a huge amount of money.

Surely SISU would have to prove that there's no viable option acceptable to the FL, flying in the face of what they've been telling/selling the FL for 3+ years. The boy that cried wolf once again spring's to mind. I suspect they've claimed to much on the record already to be taken serious enough for it to be considered. Would it even get to court?