The Butts - CRFC Confirms it is willing to join mediation talks (3 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

I've read it mate, though funnily enough it hadn't been released when this discussion started. Are you sure you have read it though, you know properly that is, without moving your lips and dribbling. I find the key is to proper comprehension is grasping the context - I'd hate for you to look daft by quoting something that you haven't really understood. That paragraph starts with this phrase:

"the plan is to develop improved match day and training facilities – for the use of Coventry Rugby and the greater community"

And goes on to add:

"The most important and early step would be to lay down a new, artificial pitch"

Then it says the stuff about the Council being supportive. You'll note there's no mention of Coventry City in that paragraph, and a fully artificial pitch would preclude us playing on this anyway under FL rules. Elsewhere in the statement there's also this unambiguous line from Jon Sharp "we will not deal with SISU". So, joining the dots slowly, what do you honestly think CCC are 'supporting' here?

And then wow, look, here's another article.... BREAKING: Coventry council NOT taking part in MPs’ mediation talks to resolve Coventry City dispute

Is there anything in that article that suggests that Coventry CIty Council is any way supportive of the club moving to the Butts or anywhere else? I'll answer it for you if you like, because I can see you're struggling with this one - what the council are basically saying here is that they'll comply with their statutory responsibilities and nothing more. Beyond that, not interested in mediation, not interested in doing anything to help the club stay in the city (except as tenants as Wasps perhaps).

I get that for you, that's good enough and all of your dancing around on here is really an attempt to justify that point of view. For me though, it isn't.

No the council have been quite clear on their stance all the way along.
They will not stand in the way of anything. They will do the job they have to do.
If SISU want them to do above and beyond their legal requirements and actively push the boat out and help SISU. Then SISU need to stop suing them.
Actually doesn't sound that unreasonable when you read it.

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

not interested in mediation

This is what bothers me.

Strip away the rest, and it's safe to say we can all agree that the relationship between club and council has broken down. I think we can all agree that, for whatever reasons, it would be good if the relationship between club and council could improve.

I'd rather people spoke than took the drastic routes. Sure, it might not lead to anything... but it might. When the ACL dispute started to bubble up, it wasn't the club/SISU who rejected mediation then, either. And we know how that turned out...

So why on earth can't they just talk? You never know, one of the results of that chat might find legal action being dropped. It might end up with solutions everybody is happy with, that gains something for all parties.

We'll never know if they won't even try.

 

[Grendel]

No the council have been quite clear on their stance all the way along.
They will not stand in the way of anything. They will do the job they have to do.
If SISU want them to do above and beyond their legal requirements and actively push the boat out and help SISU. Then SISU need to stop suing them.
Actually doesn't sound that unreasonable when you read it.

Sounds like blackmail to me

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've read it mate, though funnily enough it hadn't been released when this discussion started. Are you sure you have read it though, you know properly that is, without moving your lips and dribbling. I find the key is to proper comprehension is grasping the context - I'd hate for you to look daft by quoting something that you haven't really understood. That paragraph starts with this phrase:

"the plan is to develop improved match day and training facilities – for the use of Coventry Rugby and the greater community"

And goes on to add:

"The most important and early step would be to lay down a new, artificial pitch"

Then it says the stuff about the Council being supportive. You'll note there's no mention of Coventry City in that paragraph, and a fully artificial pitch would preclude us playing on this anyway under FL rules. Elsewhere in the statement there's also this unambiguous line from Jon Sharp "we will not deal with SISU". So, joining the dots slowly, what do you honestly think CCC are 'supporting' here?

And then wow, look, here's another article.... BREAKING: Coventry council NOT taking part in MPs’ mediation talks to resolve Coventry City dispute

Is there anything in that article that suggests that Coventry CIty Council is any way supportive of the club moving to the Butts or anywhere else? I'll answer it for you if you like, because I can see you're struggling with this one - what the council are basically saying here is that they'll comply with their statutory responsibilities and nothing more. Beyond that, not interested in mediation, not interested in doing anything to help the club stay in the city (except as tenants as Wasps perhaps).

I get that for you, that's good enough and all of your dancing around on here is really an attempt to justify that point of view. For me though, it isn't.

He'll say 'strategic business plans' to you if you're not careful

 

[oldskyblue58]

This just gets more comical by the day.

The Observer is now demanding to know if the SB Trust are going to join the mediation talks. Why would they to settle this commercial wrangling, what could they add to a solution that is essentially about land & buildings, indeed would the involvement stop frank commercial exchanges?.

Where is my invite or everyone elses, I have an interest in this !!! :facepalm:. Mediation should be targeted at the real decision makers, not an invite to every tom dick & harry - that just muddies the waters. Makes the process meaningless

It is not about what happened five years ago either, it is about now and the future

I agree SISU & CCC as the main decision makers need to talk, to stop the nonsense. Mediation of a multi party dispute rolls off the tongue nicely but what is the dispute they have to settle?

The club has put in its criteria/demands, the council have made clear what has to happen, what will the decision makers on both sides compromise on though very little I would think. If you accept that the driver for SISU is the potential legal payout then how can SISU offer dropping the legal case?

Surely all CCC will have to do is say it is willing to look at any viable proposal put forward, that as Mr Sharp has said they are already talking and supporting the BPA idea, what can you offer us in return, where is your plan. Don't need an MP sitting there to do that.

Mediation beginning to seem like window dressing and of little substance and therefore posturing

 

[chiefdave]

Don't see what's wrong with requesting the Trust support calls for mediation.

 

[Captain Dart]

This is what bothers me.

Strip away the rest, and it's safe to say we can all agree that the relationship between club and council has broken down. I think we can all agree that, for whatever reasons, it would be good if the relationship between club and council could improve.

I'd rather people spoke than took the drastic routes. Sure, it might not lead to anything... but it might. When the ACL dispute started to bubble up, it wasn't the club/SISU who rejected mediation then, either. And we know how that turned out...

So why on earth can't they just talk? You never know, one of the results of that chat might find legal action being dropped. It might end up with solutions everybody is happy with, that gains something for all parties.

We'll never know if they won't even try.

So why on earth can't they just talk? Simple Joy Seppala.

 

[Captain Dart]

Don't see what's wrong with requesting the Trust support calls for mediation.

I do, they should have nothing to do with this dispute. Its a problem for the owners of CCFC to resolve.
They would be mad to get involved, they'll only get Les Reid saying they sabotaged talks or some such nonsense.

 

[dongonzalos]

This just gets more comical by the day.

The Observer is now demanding to know if the SB Trust are going to join the mediation talks. Why would they to settle this commercial wrangling, what could they add to a solution that is essentially about land & buildings, indeed would the involvement stop frank commercial exchanges?.

Where is my invite or everyone elses, I have an interest in this !!! :facepalm:. Mediation should be targeted at the real decision makers, not an invite to every tom dick & harry - that just muddies the waters. Makes the process meaningless

It is not about what happened five years ago either, it is about now and the future

I agree SISU & CCC as the main decision makers need to talk, to stop the nonsense. Mediation of a multi party dispute rolls off the tongue nicely but what is the dispute they have to settle?

The club has put in its criteria/demands, the council have made clear what has to happen, what will the decision makers on both sides compromise on though very little I would think. If you accept that the driver for SISU is the potential legal payout then how can SISU offer dropping the legal case?

Surely all CCC will have to do is say it is willing to look at any viable proposal put forward, that as Mr Sharp has said they are already talking and supporting the BPA idea, what can you offer us in return, where is your plan. Don't need an MP sitting there to do that.

Mediation beginning to seem like window dressing and of little substance and therefore posturing

Surely the observer should be asking the CET along as well. SISU have fallen out with them as well.
There are some people at work who fall out with people and mediation is required. In the end they usually move to another department. Then all of a sudden a load more people who have never had any issues at work find themselves also embroiled in mediation.
Then the same person moves to another department. Guess what issues arise and mediation is required again.
It amazes me when the person who keeps causing all these problems, never stops and thinks actually could it be me that is the problem?

 

[duffer]

So like I said then. Nothing to get on board with.

No, you're struggling with your reading again. There's a mediation in progress that the council could get on board with. They're not.

I don't mind that you've got a different opinion on what the council should do, that's fine - but the pretence that there isn't something that they could do is ridiculous.

 

[italiahorse]

No, you're struggling with your reading again. There's a mediation in progress that the council could get on board with. They're not.

I don't mind that you've got a different opinion on what the council should do, that's fine - but the pretence that there isn't something that they could do is ridiculous.

If the council are in a legal dispute with Sisu how on earth can they talk in parallel about this?
All parties appear to say they will talk when the legalities have finished. On my count that's CCC, Wasps and now CRFC.
I'll leave you to guess what's holding this up.

 

[Nick]

Surely mediation means the legal dispute could be discussed also?

 

[skybluetony176]

I think we should sack that Daventry MP off, replace him with Jeremy Kyle, Trisha or someone of that caliber and throw some DNA and lie detector tests into the mix.

 

[dongonzalos]

So if my understanding correct.

The observer said mediation has already started. Their explanation of this is that CCFC have participated in this mediation process by making these three requirements.

• “Putting Coventry City front and centre-stage in the community.”
• A future stadium solution for the football club, with the club’s preferred option remaining a return to an inner-city home at an expanded Butts Park Arena, groundsharing with Coventry rugby club in a stadium of potentially 15,000 to 25,000 capacity.
• A future home for the club’s ‘lifeblood’ youth academy, with one potential aim of relocating it next to a new training facility.

The council have made one requirement.....

• Drop the legal action.

So despite the council saying they are not taken part. They actually have anyway.

 

[olderskyblue]

Don't see what's wrong with requesting the Trust support calls for mediation.

They have supported mediation

 

[chiefdave]

If the council are in a legal dispute with Sisu how on earth can they talk in parallel about this?

The same way other businesses do. If every business refused to speak with any other business involved in legal action against them everything would grind to a halt.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Strange how people are falling over themselves for this not to happen. Surely everyone wants point 1 and 3. Even if 2 is open for debate.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Lets break it down then in to essential elements that CCFC needs addressing

Home Ground. CCFC & Fisher have maintained for some time that they do not see the clubs future at the Ricoh. It is in statements made by Fisher, it is in the published accounts. The preferred option, other options having fallen through, is BPA. The BPA development is a CRFC project that if successful could take CCFC as a tenant, not an owner a tenant. Coventry City FC will not own the stadium. That we are told will bring extra income streams to CCFC. We are told by the CRFC chairman that the response to the proposal from CCC is "most supportive". Once the stadium has been rebuilt CCFC being there will be a matter primarily for CRFC & CCFC to agree a tenancy agreement. Yes it will need certain approvals probably from CCC but at the moment CCC are supportive and aware that CCFC might end up there. So essentially its about land & buildings and it is difficult to see what the dispute is because no detailed plans have been put forward as far as we know so there has been no rejections and therefore seemingly no dispute. In any case it would logically seem that any dispute about the build would between CCC & CRFC not CCFC

Ricoh Arena. CCFC have made clear that they don't want to be there. Fisher has made the assumption publically that they will be able to stay there on a rolling contract until BPA rebuilt by CRFC. Wasps are playing hard ball and wont talk about a new deal, but then the old one doesn't end until August 2018 or there abouts. It is a day renting agreement and it is hard to see anything different going forward if agreed because of the refusal of CCFC to commit to the Ricoh. That means no greater access to income, well not unless the right to it is purchased. There is a contract in place, it has a set finish date with set terms, Wasps as owners are entitled to choose a solution that best suits them, that doesn't have to include CCFC. So essentially it is about a new right to occupy land & buildings for 26 or so days per year on a short term basis. Wasps have said they want CCFC to stay. So what is disputed requiring mediation?

Academy & 1st Team training ground No one is disputing the importance of the Academy to the CCFC financial model to date, whether Cat 2 remains is as yet unclear. The Academy is coming to the end of its contract which was for a specific period with appropriate terms agreed by both sides. Nothing is going to change the fact that Wasps are taking over on that site come July. It is possible and agreed by various parties to have access to indoor facilities and to run the Academy from multi sites. CCFC are in discussion with at least one school to move there but also in discussion to use the indoor facilities at the Higgs Centre. It needs a permanent base, the club want that to be alongside the first team training ground. Has such a suitable ground been identified by the club? If it has did it get blocked in any way by CCC? No evidence on either to say it has. Are there plans put forward to CCC by CCFC?. Have those plans been blocked? Again no evidence of that. It is not up to the local authority to do all the leg work on this for the club, it would be hard for them to do that not knowing what the club has in mind or the budget. It is however up to the CCC to be supportive of one of our major sporting teams and to look favourably where possible on any proposals. But again it comes back to an issue of land & buildings. The actual dispute about Academy & 1st Team training ground is what exactly?

On most of the issues above then it would seem to me that it is up to the directors of CCFC to come up with workable proposals and a plan to achieve them. Yes CCC needs to be supportive most definitely, but as it stands supportive of what? There are no CCFC plans or proposals (BPA is a CRFC project)

Now all the above could lead to disputes but at the moment there is nothing substantive put forward to challenge. For both sides the leverage is the plan isn't it?

The only dispute it seems to me is the JR2 between CCC & SISU.

Mediation is about dispute resolution, it is not about investigating what went on 1 year, 5 years or 10 years ago. To be successful it must be entered in to with a will to compromise on both sides, the authority to decide and the ability/will, in the end, to stick to it. It has to include the parties that matter and be focussed on the issues in dispute. Make it too wide ranging and it will fail. It is not about kiss and make up, it will all be ok,...... it is about finding a path forward that works and will be stuck to by the parties. Nor is it about making everyone happy it is more about acceptance. It is not about making demands and then stomping off blaming everyone else because you didn't get what you wanted. It is also not obligatory or binding.

This is all about land & property essentially - will mediation resolve that need? Is everyone needed at such talks no but CCFC, SISU & CCC are. The purpose/objective of this mediation campaign is?

 

[SkyBlueZack]

If the CCC have followed process and done nothing wrong then let SISU embarrass themselves in court. Meanwhile CCC should be focused on keeping CCFC in Coventry, seeing how upset they were last time. Or maybe there opinion on moving teams has changed?

 

[chiefdave]

It amazes me how many people are suddenly of the opinion the relationship between the football club and Wasps, CCC etc is so healthy that there is no need to involve an independent third party to get things moving forward.

Obviously we're much better sitting here doing nothing, complaining about SISU, with everyone refusing to talk. That will certainly help move things forward.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

The only people refusing to talk are Wasps and CCC. For the purpose of holding the club to ransom. Which seems to be fine with most as it's one in the eye of SISU. But is it? Are SISU being held to ransom over their London offices or is it the club being held to ransom to play in the City they have for more than 100 years?

Also people frown upon using the BPA as leverage for a better deal. Why would you not want your club, our club not to have the best possible deal? Why would you want the the club forced to pay over the odds? The money will come out the budget which means less for players. You can't want a better team and bigger budget, then be unhappy the club is trying to get a better deal. Even if their attempts are poor.

 

[Brylowes]

Don't see what's wrong with requesting the Trust support calls for mediation.

Surely supporting talks is different to participating in them.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They have supported mediation

Excellent stuff.

 

[chiefdave]

Surely supporting talks is different to participating in them.

Statement on their website now says they support calls for CCC and Wasps to join talks and that they have already been involved in talks with the mediator.

 

[skybluetony176]

Don't see what's wrong with requesting the Trust support calls for mediation.

Sky Blue Trust - Home

 

[shmmeee]

It amazes me how many people are suddenly of the opinion the relationship between the football club and Wasps, CCC etc is so healthy that there is no need to involve an independent third party to get things moving forward.

Obviously we're much better sitting here doing nothing, complaining about SISU, with everyone refusing to talk. That will certainly help move things forward.

For there to be a "forward" you have to have a destination.

What's the dispute that requires resolution? There are no plans that require anyone else's OK as of yet just plans for a plan, there's a private dispute between two commercial entities. I'm confused as to what exactly needs mediating. Do the club want CCC to find them a ground? A training centre? To pay for it? Where do they come into it?

Just seems like throwing the right words in to get a few mouths frothing, but I don't get what they are actually asking for.

 

[hutch1972]

The only people refusing to talk are Wasps and CCC. For the purpose of holding the club to ransom. Which seems to be fine with most as it's one in the eye of SISU. But is it? Are SISU being held to ransom over their London offices or is it the club being held to ransom to play in the City they have for more than 100 years?

Also people frown upon using the BPA as leverage for a better deal. Why would you not want your club, our club not to have the best possible deal? Why would you want the the club forced to pay over the odds? The money will come out the budget which means less for players. You can't want a better team and bigger budget, then be unhappy the club is trying to get a better deal. Even if their attempts are poor.

CCC have been shafting this club since well before sisu and well before any court cases were ever mentioned.
It is well documented that this club made many attempts to discuss the issues regarding rent etc, but it fell on deaf ears then and will continue to do so.
We all wish the owners gone but ccc will use them as an excuse for as long as they can.
Had they been more accommodating 12 years ago we would not be here now.

 

[duffer]

Lets break it down then in to essential elements that CCFC needs addressing

Home Ground. CCFC & Fisher have maintained for some time that they do not see the clubs future at the Ricoh. It is in statements made by Fisher, it is in the published accounts. The preferred option, other options having fallen through, is BPA. The BPA development is a CRFC project that if successful could take CCFC as a tenant, not an owner a tenant. Coventry City FC will not own the stadium. That we are told will bring extra income streams to CCFC. We are told by the CRFC chairman that the response to the proposal from CCC is "most supportive". Once the stadium has been rebuilt CCFC being there will be a matter primarily for CRFC & CCFC to agree a tenancy agreement. Yes it will need certain approvals probably from CCC but at the moment CCC are supportive and aware that CCFC might end up there. So essentially its about land & buildings and it is difficult to see what the dispute is because no detailed plans have been put forward as far as we know so there has been no rejections and therefore seemingly no dispute. In any case it would logically seem that any dispute about the build would between CCC & CRFC not CCFC

Ricoh Arena. CCFC have made clear that they don't want to be there. Fisher has made the assumption publically that they will be able to stay there on a rolling contract until BPA rebuilt by CRFC. Wasps are playing hard ball and wont talk about a new deal, but then the old one doesn't end until August 2018 or there abouts. It is a day renting agreement and it is hard to see anything different going forward if agreed because of the refusal of CCFC to commit to the Ricoh. That means no greater access to income, well not unless the right to it is purchased. There is a contract in place, it has a set finish date with set terms, Wasps as owners are entitled to choose a solution that best suits them, that doesn't have to include CCFC. So essentially it is about a new right to occupy land & buildings for 26 or so days per year on a short term basis. Wasps have said they want CCFC to stay. So what is disputed requiring mediation?

Academy & 1st Team training ground No one is disputing the importance of the Academy to the CCFC financial model to date, whether Cat 2 remains is as yet unclear. The Academy is coming to the end of its contract which was for a specific period with appropriate terms agreed by both sides. Nothing is going to change the fact that Wasps are taking over on that site come July. It is possible and agreed by various parties to have access to indoor facilities and to run the Academy from multi sites. CCFC are in discussion with at least one school to move there but also in discussion to use the indoor facilities at the Higgs Centre. It needs a permanent base, the club want that to be alongside the first team training ground. Has such a suitable ground been identified by the club? If it has did it get blocked in any way by CCC? No evidence on either to say it has. Are there plans put forward to CCC by CCFC?. Have those plans been blocked? Again no evidence of that. It is not up to the local authority to do all the leg work on this for the club, it would be hard for them to do that not knowing what the club has in mind or the budget. It is however up to the CCC to be supportive of one of our major sporting teams and to look favourably where possible on any proposals. But again it comes back to an issue of land & buildings. The actual dispute about Academy & 1st Team training ground is what exactly?

On most of the issues above then it would seem to me that it is up to the directors of CCFC to come up with workable proposals and a plan to achieve them. Yes CCC needs to be supportive most definitely, but as it stands supportive of what? There are no CCFC plans or proposals (BPA is a CRFC project)

Now all the above could lead to disputes but at the moment there is nothing substantive put forward to challenge. For both sides the leverage is the plan isn't it?

The only dispute it seems to me is the JR2 between CCC & SISU.

Mediation is about dispute resolution, it is not about investigating what went on 1 year, 5 years or 10 years ago. To be successful it must be entered in to with a will to compromise on both sides, the authority to decide and the ability/will, in the end, to stick to it. It has to include the parties that matter and be focussed on the issues in dispute. Make it too wide ranging and it will fail. It is not about kiss and make up, it will all be ok,...... it is about finding a path forward that works and will be stuck to by the parties. Nor is it about making everyone happy it is more about acceptance. It is not about making demands and then stomping off blaming everyone else because you didn't get what you wanted. It is also not obligatory or binding.

This is all about land & property essentially - will mediation resolve that need? Is everyone needed at such talks no but CCFC, SISU & CCC are. The purpose/objective of this mediation campaign is?

A well constructed posting as ever OSB, but I think there are a couple of things I'd pick up on.

There's no indication of CCC being supportive of CCFC moving into the Butts. Far from it in fact. Sharp's statement clearly says that CRFC won't deal with SISU, and I think we're all agreed that SISU own CCFC. What CCC appear to have said is that they support the redevelopment of the Butts for general community use in the clear knowledge that as things stand that can't possibly be for CCFC's benefit. It certainly helps CRFC and probably Coventry United FC, but it's hard to see how that 'supports' CCFC unless it's intended as a dog-whistle to potential new owners. We know how it went the last time the Council played that game.

I also don't think mediation is about JR2, it's about whether the council are willing to support the club in finding another location for the ground and the academy. For me this probably means things like actively helping to identify potential sites and moving away from statements like "we won't talk until the legals are dropped", "we won't talk without £325k", and the flagrantly blantant attempt to shut down the groundshare option at the Butts via a legal covenant.

When you look at the council saying and doing those kinds, then surely you'd acknowledge that if you were running the club your chances of staying in Coventry other than at the Ricoh appear to be slim-to-none. So while the attitude might be understandable, the truth is that it plays directly into SISU's hands.

I think our interpretations of mediation are slightly different here. You're thinking along specific lines with mediation as a narrow dispute resolution, and I'm thinking along much more general ones with mediation being a general discussion around an area of contention in the hope of some kind of breakthrough.

I'd agree that the only parties needed are CCC, SISU/CCFC, and possibly CRFC if the Butts really is in play. The question I'd start with is, "What are the Council going to do to help CCFC stay in Coventry?". If the answer is, as it now appears to be, "Nothing beyond what we are obliged to do as a statutory authority", then it's going to be a short meeting! For the sake of the club and the city, I'd like to see a little more...

 

[oldskyblue58]

A well constructed posting as ever OSB, but I think there are a couple of things I'd pick up on.

There's no indication of CCC being supportive of CCFC moving into the Butts. Far from it in fact. Sharp's statement clearly says that CRFC won't deal with SISU, and I think we're all agreed that SISU own CCFC. What CCC appear to have said is that they support the redevelopment of the Butts for general community use in the clear knowledge that as things stand that can't possibly be for CCFC's benefit. It certainly helps CRFC and probably Coventry United FC, but it's hard to see how that 'supports' CCFC unless it's intended as a dog-whistle to potential new owners. We know how it went the last time the Council played that game.

I also don't think mediation is about JR2, it's about whether the council are willing to support the club in finding another location for the ground and the academy. For me this probably means things like actively helping to identify potential sites and moving away from statements like "we won't talk until the legals are dropped", "we won't talk without £325k", and the flagrantly blantant attempt to shut down the groundshare option at the Butts via a legal covenant.

When you look at the council saying and doing those kinds, then surely you'd acknowledge that if you were running the club your chances of staying in Coventry other than at the Ricoh appear to be slim-to-none. So while the attitude might be understandable, the truth is that it plays directly into SISU's hands.

I think our interpretations of mediation are slightly different here. You're thinking along specific lines with mediation as a narrow dispute resolution, and I'm thinking along much more general ones with mediation being a general discussion around an area of contention in the hope of some kind of breakthrough.

I'd agree that the only parties needed are CCC, SISU/CCFC, and possibly CRFC if the Butts really is in play. The question I'd start with is, "What are the Council going to do to help CCFC stay in Coventry?". If the answer is, as it now appears to be, "Nothing beyond what we are obliged to do as a statutory authority", then it's going to be a short meeting! For the sake of the club and the city, I'd like to see a little more...

You see this is why I enjoy our exchanges duffer. Your replies are clear and well thought out.
Even if we don't see things the same way

Honestly, I do not expect mediation to work there will possibly be some talking but I doubt it will change much other than to allow finger pointing at the end of it.

I think I would start with a dual question in pretty much along the same lines as you. "What are you all prepared to do to keep Ccfc in Coventry" one side can't solve this

 

[duffer]

If the council are in a legal dispute with Sisu how on earth can they talk in parallel about this?
All parties appear to say they will talk when the legalities have finished. On my count that's CCC, Wasps and now CRFC.
I'll leave you to guess what's holding this up.

The legal dispute is a Judicial Review on a single, specific issue. There's no breach of contract, SISU as far as we know do not owe the council any legal debt. There's nothing stopping CCC talking about anything else they want to, or more specifically joining in with any mediation that occurs. You may not want them to, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

Wasps cannot be impacted by JR2 in any way, but it obviously helps the council if they can add to the pressure on SISU/CCFC and that may well suit Wasps. They could discuss a contract right now, if they wanted to.

CRFC have now said categorically and unconditionally that they will not deal with SISU. Again, they are not in any way impacted by JR2 but either they don't trust SISU (understandably) or again it may suit them to stay on the council's good side. There's nothing actually stopping them talking with CCFC though.

You may not want JR2, the council may not want JR2, but SISU feel there may be a case to answer and they are entitled to pursue it. In and of itself it does not stop anyone from talking to anyone else. If no one tries something though, then it looks a lot to me like the club folds or leaves town again. I can't really understand why anyone who supports the club wouldn't support anything that might avoid that happening.

 

[italiahorse]

The only viable mediation is

The legal dispute is a Judicial Review on a single, specific issue. There's no breach of contract, SISU as far as we know do not owe the council any legal debt. There's nothing stopping CCC talking about anything else they want to, or more specifically joining in with any mediation that occurs. You may not want them to, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

Wasps cannot be impacted by JR2 in any way, but it obviously helps the council if they can add to the pressure on SISU/CCFC and that may well suit Wasps. They could discuss a contract right now, if they wanted to.

CRFC have now said categorically and unconditionally that they will not deal with SISU. Again, they are not in any way impacted by JR2 but either they don't trust SISU (understandably) or again it may suit them to stay on the council's good side. There's nothing actually stopping them talking with CCFC though.

You may not want JR2, the council may not want JR2, but SISU feel there may be a case to answer and they are entitled to pursue it. In and of itself it does not stop anyone from talking to anyone else. If no one tries something though, then it looks a lot to me like the club folds or leaves town again. I can't really understand why anyone who supports the club wouldn't support anything that might avoid that happening.

It's not me saying they won't talk while the legals are going on.
Each party seems to have a reason not to talk to Sisu.
I guess we will have to wait then.

 

[1940oldfive]

The football club. And that's been the case since long before SISU arrived.

so who helped get the stadium completed?

 

[duffer]

You see this is why I enjoy our exchanges differ. Your replies are clear and well thought out.
Even if we don't see things the same way

Honestly, I do not expect mediation to work there will possibly be some talking but I doubt it will change much other than to allow finger pointing at the end of it.

I think I would start with a dual question in pretty much along the same lines as you. "What are you all prepared to do to keep Ccfc in Coventry" one side can't solve this

Ditto OSB, I know that you come at this fairly and if we differ it's in the right spirit. Your question is better than mine, indisputably.

I think that there's every possibility that the mediation is just another SISU smokescreen. I absolutely accept that, I guess what I want is for the other parties to highlight it by joining in rather than giving them more excuses. If there's a one-in-a-million chance that it isn't complete rubbish though, then who knows where it might get us. I live in hope OSB, though apparently it's the hope that kills us!

 

[1940oldfive]

I think we should sack that Daventry MP off, replace him with Jeremy Kyle, Trisha or someone of that caliber and throw some DNA and lie detector tests into the mix.

Lie detector? tiny tim only has to move his lips.

 

[hutch1972]

ccc decide on the strategy for ccfc.