Nuneaton MP to raise CCFC home next season in Parliament (14 Viewers)

[italiahorse]

I don't want any consortium in charge of CCFC that is in wasps back pocket.

It will be the consortiums money so that won't be the case.
Unless you think just working with Wasps is the same thing ?

 

---

[Otis]

It would be the end for me, no question. I believe that to remove our club outside the city was a travesty and through their incompetence for it to happen again would be a line I will not cross literally and emotionally.

Be the end for me too.

 

[chiefdave]

The Butts thing was a smokescreen, there was never any prospect of it happening.

The council haven’t had anything to block.

You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?

We know Fisher showed the FL round the Butts.

We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.

The fact that the council had to rapidly backpedal when it was leaked means nothing, SISU already have what they need to show the FL.

 

[chiefdave]

I'd imagine if Wasps are refusing a deal it will be to force regime change at CCFC. After all, any new owner could do a deal with Wasps in a matter of days if they are willing.

That worked really well the last time the owners of ACL tried it.

 

[Captain Dart]

You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?

We know Fisher showed the FL round the Butts.

We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.

The fact that the council had to rapidly backpedal when it was leaked means nothing, SISU already have what they need to show the FL.

All of which helps no one.

 

[Nick]

All of which helps no one.

It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.

 

[Captain Dart]

It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.

I'm glad you'll be happy when they move.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Hi Nick. There has been no change since what was published previously, in that we are hopeful of being able to bring fans positive news very soon. #PUSB

No change from CCFC, really disappointing and it just undoes all the good work that’s been going on recently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

I'm glad you'll be happy when they move.

Where have I said that? I guess you haven't got an actual reply to it then so you decided to make something up. Standard.

The ironic thing is, it wouldn't make a jot of difference to you if we did move and I am pointing out what gives them even more justification to move to give to the FL.

 

[Nick]

Hi Nick. There has been no change since what was published previously, in that we are hopeful of being able to bring fans positive news very soon. #PUSB

No change from CCFC, really disappointing and it just undoes all the good work that’s been going on recently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can't really say anything until it's done can they other than generic things like that. Especially not the person running the twitter.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

They can't really say anything until it's done can they other than generic things like that.

I think they can, why can’t the Club say;

“We met with Wasps, we’ve put forward terms on a new agreement which will benefit all parties and we await their response”

Or flip it..

“The Club is continuing dialogue with Wasps over an extension to the current deal to remain at the Ricoh, we hope to be able to agree new terms with Wasps for next season.”

By tweeting “we are hopeful of bringing news soon” just brushes the matter under the carpet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.

I agree SISU can argue they have tried, so long as EFL doesn't actually dig too deeply. But there are subsequent statements from Sharpe that CRFC wont deal with SISU and as they are in control of CCFC its hard to see that the SISU argument stands up to proper scrutiny. He also states that they are looking at lots of options and the whole thing would be controlled by CRFC. You would think various parties might have brought that to the EFL's attention.

You might also think that the SISU/CCFC record for getting anything done will count against them.

The mediation that has to take place in the next month or two might help the SISU case with EFL but its hard to see how it can force Wasps to do anything. I don't think their stance is really to force regime change it is more basic than that. It is to stop the court actions first and foremost. If those were finished they would do a long term deal with CCFC even if owned by SISU - cant see it being a deal that would be that favourable to CCFC whoever the owner is

Had a quick look to try find what Clews said, found references to "fishing exercise" but cant find a reference to the three year business plan. Do you have one CD? Last year Sharpe was saying now he has the head lease he would start putting a team together to deal with the planning design etc. The head lease was acquired in 2016 so we are halfway through any three year plan with very little achieved except planning for siting portacabins at Butts Park.

 

[skybluetony176]

It doesn't really put them in the same boat as CRFC.

It is a known fact the council tried to put a clause in for pro football at the Butts. That's what he was referring to wasn't it?

It’s also a known fact that the clause has never been applied so doesn’t exist. It’s also a known fact that JS has said not while SISU are involved and given that John Sharp is the first hurdle. So it’s complete bollocks to say that the council have blocked it. Who’s whipping what up exactly. If you’re that concerned about people whipping things up at least point that concern in the right direction.

 

[Nick]

I think they can, why can’t the Club say;

“We met with Wasps, we’ve put forward terms on a new agreement which will benefit all parties and we await their response”

Or flip it..

“The Club is continuing dialogue with Wasps over an extension to the current deal to remain at the Ricoh, we hope to be able to agree new terms with Wasps for next season.”

By tweeting “we are hopeful of bringing news soon” just brushes the matter under the carpet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because the people running the Twitter can't really say much more when put on the spot.

I agree with the point though, there could least be an update in the programme notes directly from Boddy along those lines like he said a while ago when announcing the evening with events.

 

[hopesprings]

How can they force it though? They would open a massive can of worms, it won't happen.

Yes, it would be great if they had it so every team had to own a stadium and had to be fan owned, self-sufficient etc but how do they force it through now? How do they force a deal between stadium owners and tenants?

IF it does turn out Wasps are refusing to sign the deal that's been agreed, the FL won't really have much option than to allow a move. Otherwise what then stops other stadium owners from saying "actually, we want shit loads more because if you don't pay us then the FA will take the club off you".

This whole thing that the FA / FL are going to start taking clubs off owners is madness, yes if they are committing crimes, laundering money and doing illegal stuff they are likely to do it more but with teams like Leyton Orient where the guy chucks loads of money in and then turns off the money tap, they can't force him to hand the club over because he doesn't want to plough money in anymore.

I hear what you are saying and do agree with most of it. However this is not a new case nor is it something that the league have not, in their words been keeping an eye on. I cannot find the actual wording of what they said when they allowed the move to Northampton. But I am sure it was on the lines of "too late other than to let it go this time" but then they put stipulations in like a bond or some such and said they would want answers to "long term" and that was re-iterated when we came back to the Ricoh. Even as recently as last year they said they were monitoring and keeping close eye on it. They CAN withdraw the golden share they have said so many times about other circumstances. You are right ti would start a catalogue of other issues but maybe that is what is required . I would ate for us to get to June again and then the League forced to agree to a ground move because the "fixture list" had been issued !

 

[Nick]

It’s also a known fact that the clause has never been applied so doesn’t exist. It’s also a known fact that JS has said not while SISU are involved and given that John Sharp is the first hurdle. So it’s complete bollocks to say that the council have blocked it. Who’s whipping what up exactly. If you’re that concerned about people whipping things up at least point that concern in the right direction.

How many times do I have to point out when something is going to come out that usually means something bad / could be decieved as bad for Wasps. Ignore it all you want, but I have been proven right multiple times

I didn't say it had been applied, that's why I said the word "tried".

It seems both you and Dart are struggling to read today so just resort to making things up.

 

[italiahorse]

That worked really well the last time the owners of ACL tried it.

Initially yes.

 

[Nick]

I hear what you are saying and do agree with most of it. However this is not a new case nor is it something that the league have not, in their words been keeping an eye on. I cannot find the actual wording of what they said when they allowed the move to Northampton. But I am sure it was on the lines of "too late other than to let it go this time" but then they put stipulations in like a bond or some such and said they would want answers to "long term" and that was re-iterated when we came back to the Ricoh. Even as recently as last year they said they were monitoring and keeping close eye on it. They CAN withdraw the golden share they have said so many times about other circumstances. You are right ti would start a catalogue of other issues but maybe that is what is required . I would ate for us to get to June again and then the League forced to agree to a ground move because the "fixture list" had been issued !

Realistically what else can the FL do?

If Wasps don't agree to a deal for example, how can the FL then withdraw the golden share? On the other hand what if Wasps say "yeah you can stay, but we want 4 million a year because if you dont you lose the golden share" (not saying they will or have either, just examples of why the FL cant force a deal).

As I've said I'd love for it to be a rule that every stadium has to be owned by the club, but how do they enforce it with existing clubs? If they do enforce it, how do they force the owners to sell to the clubs or sell for a realistic amount and what if they don't?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

cant see it being a deal that would be that favourable to CCFC whoever the owner is

No. Which is why I hope that any future owner isn't welded to the idea of a long term lease at the Ricoh, just for political (both small and large p I guess) reasons.

 

[skybluetony176]

You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?

We know Fisher showed the FL round the Butts.

We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.

The fact that the council had to rapidly backpedal when it was leaked means nothing, SISU already have what they need to show the FL.

We’re all aware of what sisu have done. We’re also all aware of what CCC have done and the fact is unlike what you’ve claimed CCC haven’t blocked anything. They haven’t had to, Jon Sharp blocked a move while SISU are in charge so there isn’t even an opportunity to test the theory. That’s the point. When you try to portray it as anything else you’re either deliberately bullshitting or completely misinformed. You’re also better than that Dave.

 

[hopesprings]

Realistically what else can the FL do?

If Wasps don't agree to a deal for example, how can the FL then withdraw the golden share? On the other hand what if Wasps say "yeah you can stay, but we want 4 million a year because if you dont you lose the golden share" (not saying they will or have either, just examples of why the FL cant force a deal).

As I've said I'd love for it to be a rule that every stadium has to be owned by the club, but how do they enforce it with existing clubs?

Fair point well made ! :inpain:

 

[skybluetony176]

It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.

It only helps the FL justify it. They haven’t got the backbone to oppose SISU or the financial clout to risk a court case with them. SISU don’t need a case, the FL are running scared.

 

[italiahorse]

It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.

Seems you and CD are alone on this.

 

[Nick]

It only helps the FL justify it. They haven’t got the backbone to oppose SISU or the financial clout to risk a court case with them. SISU don’t need a case, the FL are running scared.

What realistically can the football league do?

 

[Nick]

Seems you and CD are alone on this.

It would be pretty naive to think it wasn't printed out straight away and sent to the FL to say "Look at this council" wouldn't it? Which is the point being made.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not really how it works though tony. If there were a block by CCC then it wouldn't be in the form of a formal statements - that might prejudice their legal position. There are other ways eg not supporting infra structure developments around the ground, getting other developments done that could hamper Butts Park, quiet back ground talks that put pressure on. CRFC & Sharpe need the support of CCC to get anything done - that's a lever CCC can use. I think it would be naiive to think they haven't used it

 

[skybluetony176]

How many times do I have to point out when something is going to come out that usually means something bad / could be decieved as bad for Wasps. Ignore it all you want, but I have been proven right multiple times

I didn't say it had been applied, that's why I said the word "tried".

It seems both you and Dart are struggling to read today so just resort to making things up.

I never said you did say it had been applied. Take a look in the mirror if you want to accuse people of struggling to read. CD said that CCC had blocked a move to BPA. They haven’t. They’ve never had the opportunity. You then jumped in rather than acknowledging CD had posted an inaccuracy started justifying his post as if correcting him with the facts is wrong. Then you start talking about people trying to whip things up. You’re doing a good job of assisting CD in that so again look in the mirror.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The EFL will not take the share away or force regime change

- it would set a precedent that would be very dangerous for the EFL & FA. Where do they then stop. It would be an action by the board against a member that effectively closes the club down
- taking the share away doesn't under the regulations mean it comes back to CCFC
- it would certainly bring multi million pound court cases and compensation claims that would go on for years
- SISU are awful owners but I think you would be hard pressed to find any illegality in their actions or ownership
- owners of football clubs are free to do what they like with their investment, taking a club down two divisions and losing its home and assets is sadly part of that freedom. So long as no law or EFL broken there is very little available as a remedy
- The EFL can not force Wasps to do a deal that is best for CCFC, if the SISU assessment is that the deal is detrimental to CCFC then the EFL has to support its member in finding alternatives
- quite deliberately many EFL rules are based on the discretion of the EFL board

There is a thought that the EFL ineptitude and lack of action is quite deliberate. If the CCFC problem is solved by bankruptcy or relegation it would suit them

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not really how it works though tony. If there were a block by CCC then it wouldn't be in the form of a formal statements - that might prejudice their legal position. There are other ways eg not supporting infra structure developments around the ground, getting other developments done that could hamper Butts Park, quiet back ground talks that put pressure on. CRFC & Sharpe need the support of CCC to get anything done - that's a lever CCC can use. I think it would be naiive to think they haven't used it

Quite.

Reading between the lines, you'd think CRFC would do a deal, as it gives them the financial bump they maybe need to get things over the line.

Reading between the lines, they recognise the hassle it'd bring them would mean it really wouldn't be worth their while to do anything with SISU. It's the same as when Wasps came in, they were hardly going to say it was a total disaster, as like it or not they need CCC.

Now, we can argue (again!) about the fact SISU never realised they need the support of the council and who's to blame but, well... we are where we are. Until and unless it becomes an issue, it seems pointless having this debate again and, well, first things first, it'd be useful to know if there's any potential for us all to *need* to have this chat again!

 

[Nick]

I never said you did say it had been applied. Take a look in the mirror if you want to accuse people of struggling to read. CD said that CCC had blocked a move to BPA. They haven’t. They’ve never had the opportunity. You then jumped in rather than acknowledging CD had posted an inaccuracy started justifying his post as if correcting him with the facts is wrong. Then you start talking about people trying to whip things up. You’re doing a good job of assisting CD in that so again look in the mirror.

This bit that he said?

Even if it comes to leaving the Ricoh again SISU have been given all the ammunition they need. They just go to the FL and say they tried to agree a deal to stay at the Ricoh but Wasps walked away, they looked in to moving to the Butts but the council tried to block it. Do you really see the FL challenging them, if they did it would be another court case.

Shall I make the tried bold for you?

He is quite clearly looking at what SISU will be saying to the FL and their approach.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The EFL will not take the share away or force regime change

- it would set a precedent that would be very dangerous for the EFL & FA. Where do you then stop. It would be an action by the board against a member that effectively closes the club down
- taking the share away doesn't under the regulations mean it comes back to CCFC
- it would certainly bring multi million pound court cases and compensation claims that would go on for years
- SISU are awful owners but I think you would be hard pressed to find any illegality in their actions or ownership
- owners of football clubs are free to do what they like with their investment, taking a club down two divisions and losing its home and assets is sadly part of that freedom. So long as no law or EFL broken there is very little available as a remedy
- The EFL can not force Wasps to do a deal that is best for CCFC, if the SISU assessment is that the deal is detrimental to CCFC then the EFL has to support its member in finding alternatives
- quite deliberately many EFL rules are based on the discretion of the EFL board

There is a thought that the EFL ineptitude and lack of action is quite deliberate. If the CCFC problem is solved by bankruptcy or relegation it would suit them

Sorry for quoting again but again, entirely right.

It's not condoning SISU to put the other POV, not in the slightest. It's pointing out there *is* a narrative that can be bought if it's needed to be bought.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Seems you and CD are alone on this.

Seems not.

 

[chiefdave]

We’re all aware of what sisu have done. We’re also all aware of what CCC have done and the fact is unlike what you’ve claimed CCC haven’t blocked anything. They haven’t had to, Jon Sharp blocked a move while SISU are in charge so there isn’t even an opportunity to test the theory. That’s the point. When you try to portray it as anything else you’re either deliberately bullshitting or completely misinformed. You’re also better than that Dave.

Are you deliberately missing the point? It will be SISU talking to the FL not anyone else, from what perspective do you think they will present things? The simple fact is CCC have publically confirmed, via the CT, that they attempted to block a plan for CCFC to groundshare at the Butts. If anyone turns round to SISU and says it would never happen as Sharp wouldn't allow it then can again present confirmation from CCC, via the CT, that a groundshare with CCFC was in the CRFC business plan submitted to the council.

It's not a court of law where something has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. All they need is to persuade the FL they are leaving the city as they have no other option. The FL will be pre-disposed to agree with that as the alternative is kicking us out of the league. Therefore SISU can turn up with a couple of articles from the CT with quotes from CCC confirming the above and the FL will approve another 'temporary' move out of the city.

 

[chiefdave]

I agree SISU can argue they have tried, so long as EFL doesn't actually dig too deeply.

We all know from past experience the FL won't dig too deeply.

The CCC quotes are from the CT

A leaked email to the rugby club in January 2016, said the council wanted a new clause inserted which would specifically prevent “professional association football or training associated therewith” in exchange for making other changes to the sub-lease.

The Telegraph asked Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council, why they had tried to insert the clause at that time.

He said: “No, it doesn’t look good. But we were trying to flush out details. We wanted to bring the issue out.

“Media reports had circulated that there could be a potential ground share with Coventry City. But Mr Sharp had previously told us during meetings that this was out of the question.

“A few months later we received a three-year plan for Butts Park Arena that included a ground share with Coventry City.”

Council official says Butts Park football block was just a tactic

 

[Nick]

The EFL will not take the share away or force regime change

- it would set a precedent that would be very dangerous for the EFL & FA. Where do they then stop. It would be an action by the board against a member that effectively closes the club down
- taking the share away doesn't under the regulations mean it comes back to CCFC
- it would certainly bring multi million pound court cases and compensation claims that would go on for years
- SISU are awful owners but I think you would be hard pressed to find any illegality in their actions or ownership
- owners of football clubs are free to do what they like with their investment, taking a club down two divisions and losing its home and assets is sadly part of that freedom. So long as no law or EFL broken there is very little available as a remedy
- The EFL can not force Wasps to do a deal that is best for CCFC, if the SISU assessment is that the deal is detrimental to CCFC then the EFL has to support its member in finding alternatives
- quite deliberately many EFL rules are based on the discretion of the EFL board

There is a thought that the EFL ineptitude and lack of action is quite deliberate. If the CCFC problem is solved by bankruptcy or relegation it would suit them

That's the thing, it's all opinion isn't so there's no chance of the FL doing much unless it's criminal and proven.

SISU could go to the FL and said "look, we have cut all of the losses and the club is now breaking even and plugged the millions that were being lost every year" and then play it from a model football club point of view.