The word dispute keeps being used or the phrase multi party dispute. Of the parties involved who is actually in dispute. Lets break it down a little.
Are Otium (CCFC) in dispute with Wasps/ACL? In terms paying for pitch repairs or additional stewards probably. In terms of staying at the Ricoh or shares of income no not really. It is a negotiation that has stalled. Is the 2014 contract being honoured on both sides, well it would seem to be. There is no dispute that Wasps own the right to occupy the stadium and with it the rights to income. CCFC have only their rights in the 2014 short term rent agreement which ends naturally in around 18 months. The situation is obscured by SISU joining Wasps in to the JR, which allows Wasps to say no more negotiations. But in my eyes it is not a dispute. Can mediation force or impose a solution giving more income to CCFC (and by definition less to Wasps) no. Any income share gained would surely come at a cost wouldnt it ? and therein lies a problem immediately i feel. Other than it looking the right thing to do then do Wasps need to join in mediation? To what end?
Are CCFC in dispute with CCC. Well it looks like it because Otium which to all intents and purposes is CCFC, is a claimant to the JR2 from what I understand. But the JR process is not about settling a dispute it is a review of process applied to government & local government to check that the processes and thinking behind decisions comply properly with the law at the time of the decision. The remedies for the JR do not usually benefit the claimants directly. What is currently in dispute that directly involves CCFC & CCC? The right to be at the Ricoh. Well no longer CCC's concern the stadium is not operated by them directly or indirectly. CCFC have a contract that they agreed to that terminates summer 2018. CCFC have, including in the mediation article by Reid, repeatedly said they do not want to be there. Where is the dispute in terms of being at the Ricoh between CCFC & CCC? No dispute then how will mediation help?
What about at the BPA are CCFC & CCC in dispute? If you believe the press statements all sorts of skulduggery is going on and CCFC right to be there is blocked or disputed. But what has been blocked? Could CCFC move there this summer for instance - no because it doesn't meet EFL standards. Have plans been submitted to the planning office - not that we know of so how can they be disputed or blocked?
CCC wont speak to CCFC or is it Fisher and SISU they wont speak to. Probably not in dispute that they wont speak to TF & SISU but have CCFC/CRFC tested that blockage in respect of BPA.
Are CCC blocking community projects or not actively involved in working with CCFC in a community sense. Well that's SBITC isn't it and a look at the last accounts of SBITC shows funding of one sort or another of nearly £40k from CCC
What is to mediate? A vague community support demand? not really, its up to the privately owned club first and foremost to promote its community endeavours, CCC seem up for that with SBITC, You become centre of the community by proving self worth not by someone doing it for you.
A demand to play at BPA? Well test it, put the plans out in public, make the case, back it up, I agree with CD the council should say "come on then lets see the plans in detail and how it will be funded"
A demand for an Academy site, CCC cant choose it for them but again it boils down to show us the plan, the commitment, the funding. But what at this stage is being disputed in those 3 demands made? in which case the purpose of mediation is?
SISU as we know seem at odds with most parties. They via ARVO, SBS&L & Otium have brought the actions for the JR's against CCC. The relationship is toxic. The JR's are a review of procedure. Not up to CCC, Wasps, ACL to run the SISU investment or sign blank cheques for CCFC but they might if convinced on a number of issues like commitment & funding from the Club/owners. Is this still a dispute about the Ricoh stadium or is it about failed investment, poor management and blame. What is it SISU are prepared to compromise to make mediation work. They have made clear what they expect but what are they bringing to the table that is new, or can offer progress. A mediator will look for common ground and compromise by all sides.
CCFC lost the right to be at the Ricoh when they broke the lease and moved out. CCFC came back on a short term day rent, because they apparently had other plans. CCFC lost/sold/gave away the rights to income not once but twice now they and others say not having the income simply isn't fair. Hardly a compelling argument and how does mediation change that? What will be the remit of the mediator?
Given CCFC do not actually want to be there what is the point of mediation addressing income streams at the Ricoh. Surely it must concentrate on the new grounds and new training sites and the commitment or otherwise to fund and see it through. Anything at the Ricoh is very short term isn't it?
What is the purpose of this mediation then ? Is it simply an exercise to say to others well we tried but no one would help? If so to what end? If not done in good faith, with a will to try make it work by all the parties what is the point?
But the parties must talk, we need to bring this crappy saga to an end one way or another
Finally, mediation is not binding nor obligatory on any party, I worry this will become window dressing for other purposes
