Is this whole thing a Haskell Mk2? (20 Viewers)

[Warwickhunt]

Solid point.

The issue is though Nick, what if this happens again to another club. If the EFL allow a move after DB has claimed they've explicitly denied that request, doesn't that set a precedent whilst similarly making them look completely ineffectual? Perhaps this is why they've never directly put a statement out regarding their refusal to allow us back into the EFL if we were to move outside the city. Unfortunately they can't do anything but realistically in hindsight there should be a by-law in place that states if an owner puts their club at risk of liquidation the EFL can intervene, as FFP/fit and proper owner test has realistically done little to halt poor ownership plighting football.

I think that's why CCFC over recent years has tried to subtly distance themselves from SISU, in an attempt to show external parties that they're not two of the same. But again surely that makes them vulnerable to legal action if CCFC were to fold? If CCC have worked with other parties, E.g. CRC to block CCFC's hunt for a new home, doesn't that put them at serious risk of being liable for damages against CCFC.

Exactly, in actual fact CCFC is simply another portfolio in a long line of SISU's portfolios. They don't care whether we live or die, they care about getting an ROI. I don't expect fans to understand the technicalities associated with this absolute shitstorm because they shouldn't have to. But they do need to wise up to the fact the club folding/staying in business can in reality work both ways for SISU from a financial and legal standpoint.

But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects

 

---

[chiefdave]

What could they possibly have planned? We're owned by Bond villains.

I didn't really follow past that point as I was just listening in on a conversation between lawyers and it started going over my head.

The general gist seemed to be that after they have thoroughly exhausted the judicial review process they can start a private case against whoever they choose and that would be less to do with the precise definition of what state aid is and more to do with the impact the actions of other parties had on their business. I think the idea was that it would be easier to 'prove' their case that way.

What claims they could make to do that legally I couldn't tell you but they all seemed to agree it was a possibility.

 

[Nick]

But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects

Exactly.

SISU will have it all lined up.

"We are trying to do things right, we are trying to be self sufficient and set an example but people are trying to block us"

 

[chiefdave]

But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects

That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.

IMO until football as a whole sorts itself out and all clubs are self sustaining there's little that can be done. That's what the FA and EFL should be pushing towards.

 

[Nick]

That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.

IMO until football as a whole sorts itself out and all clubs are self sustaining there's little that can be done. That's what the FA and EFL should be pushing towards.

Exactly, it's about a bigger picture to and the whole governance.

Same as the stadium issue, every club should be linked with the stadium and it should be impossible to separate them. There's no way it can be implemented now.

It comes back around to what do people want the EFL to do versus what can the EFL do?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I didn't really follow past that point as I was just listening in on a conversation between lawyers and it started going over my head.

The general gist seemed to be that after they have thoroughly exhausted the judicial review process they can start a private case against whoever they choose and that would be less to do with the precise definition of what state aid is and more to do with the impact the actions of other parties had on their business. I think the idea was that it would be easier to 'prove' their case that way.

What claims they could make to do that legally I couldn't tell you but they all seemed to agree it was a possibility.

That is the general sort of comment from people i have talked to also. It could get very messy and the actions less specific to one event. Things like reputational damage etc could be looked at.

In terms of the case if CCFC is liquidated there are a couple of points that may not help SISU's argument
- the lease ends, it isnt being cancelled, altered, new conditions etc, it comes to a natural end and its term completed. I do not think there is anything in law that makes it compulsory that a landlord should or has to offer a new lease or arrangement. Will make it harder to go after Wasps on that pointPerhaps why the focus of both parties but by Otium/CCFC in particular on what was said in 2014 about safeguarding the future of CCFC.
- I assume they would have to provide evidence that CCFC and its owners had a right to the stadium or the decisions made about the stadium. Thats not going to be easy they never owned it, broke one lease and the last lease simply ended naturally
- The EFL can point to the fact that Otium/CCFC are unable to fulfill a key rule or regulation (a home ground) so have no choice but to exclude CCFC from the competition
- Yes there is lots of information being accumulated that could be used, but against that plenty of court judgements that CCC (and others)have not done anything wrong compared to the regulations/laws etc
- Could be years of legal wrangling still to come and it seems to me the owners do not actually need CCFC around to proceed with it. So is the target a ransom payment settlement to go away?
- SISU are entitled to do what they choose regarding their investment or taking legal action, but from an accounting point of view it is going to be difficult to prove the losses are everyone elses fault when SISU are the custodians of CCFC and employ people to make the day to day decisions.

Guess we shall see what will be .............

 

[Nick]

That is the general sort of comment from people i have talked to also. It could get very messy and the actions less specific to one event. Things like reputational damage etc could be looked at.

In terms of the case if CCFC is liquidated there are a couple of points that may not help SISU's argument
- the lease ends, it isnt being cancelled, altered, new conditions etc, it comes to a natural end and its term completed. I do not think there is anything in law that makes it compulsory that a landlord should or has to offer a new lease or arrangement. Will make it harder to go after Wasps on that pointPerhaps why the focus of both parties but by Otium/CCFC in particular on what was said in 2014 about safeguarding the future of CCFC.
- I assume they would have to provide evidence that CCFC and its owners had a right to the stadium or the decisions made about the stadium. Thats not going to be easy they never owned it, broke one lease and the last lease simply ended naturally
- The EFL can point to the fact that Otium/CCFC are unable to fulfill a key rule or regulation (a home ground) so have no choice but to exclude CCFC from the competition
- Yes there is lots of information being accumulated that could be used, but against that plenty of court judgements that CCC (and others)have not done anything wrong compared to the regulations/laws etc
- Could be years of legal wrangling still to come and it seems to me the owners do not actually need CCFC around to proceed with it. So is the target a ransom payment settlement to go away?
- SISU are entitled to do what they choose regarding their investment or taking legal action, but from an accounting point of view it is going to be difficult to prove the losses are everyone elses fault when SISU are the custodians of CCFC and employ people to make the day to day decisions.

Guess we shall see what will be .............

This is the thing about the stadium ownership tied in with clubs.

How can the EFL 100% say it has to be in a particular city and that's final if there's only one stadium and the football club don't own it? Not just us, for example if the bloke who owns the Oxford Stadium decides he wants to be a dick he could choose to whack the rent up or just not have them there knowing full well they have to do what he says else they won't exist any more.

It would give stadium owners way too much power.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects

I understand that. But if the EFL consider simply observing the accounts of a club as sufficient monitoring then surely that in itself proves they're ineffectual? Why would there be a shitstorm if it was written in stone in their by-laws that if an owner were to put a club in danger of liquidation / were taking the club out of its city then the EFL could intervene in some form or another. If the EFL instigated such by-laws then SISU would have broken a contractual obligation that is associated with owning a club. They could appeal all they liked but there'd be no basis for litigation. Owning a football club should be a privilege and should bear significant responsibility. It shouldn't be handed to any charlatan that thinks it'd be a get rich quick scheme.

Admittedly I do understand it's easier said than done but I think we can all agree that at the minute the EFL aren't doing enough to ensure owners are fit and proper. Look at Bolton's owner as a case in point. Or Nottingham Forest's who took over whilst under investigation for match fixing. I understand your point but this is the whole issue surrounding simply observing accounts alone as they are. They neglect to reveal the bigger picture.

 

[Rodders1]

Or are we saying that sisu are doing the same trick again.... because that's deeply worrying. Put otium in to administration now and arvo as the biggest creditor control the process ... ie sisu do. But why pay out for an administrator ? They are costly, sisu are in control of ccfc already so to what purpose ?

If that was to happen and Arvo took over that way would they be seen as new owners and therefore have to pass the FAs “fit and proper” test ?[/QUOTE]
I thought that the EFL said that all creditor balances needed to be turned into equity after the last administration- I admit I haven’t looked at the accounts , but that would stop a club going into administration then being bought back by effectively the same owner?

 

[Liquid Gold]

This is the thing about the stadium ownership tied in with clubs.

How can the EFL 100% say it has to be in a particular city and that's final if there's only one stadium and the football club don't own it? Not just us, for example if the bloke who owns the Oxford Stadium decides he wants to be a dick he could choose to whack the rent up or just not have them there knowing full well they have to do what he says else they won't exist any more.

It would give stadium owners way too much power.

I think it would need to be bought in gradually. Any new stadium under club ownership, no stadiums ever separated from the club etc.

 

[Nick]

I think it would need to be bought in gradually. Any new stadium under club ownership, no stadiums ever separated from the club etc.

That's where it gets messy.

It would only be for new stadiums or ones that are already linked with the club. It would be impossible to then force it to be applied to everybody until they needed a new stadium which could be decades if not centuries.

 

[Liquid Gold]

That's where it gets messy.

It would only be for new stadiums or ones that are already linked with the club. It would be impossible to then force it to be applied to everybody until they needed a new stadium which could be decades if not centuries.

At least it would stop clubs mortgaging or losing their stadium like us.

 

[Nick]

At least it would stop clubs mortgaging or losing their stadium like us.

The only thing with that is if it would be tricky to raise finance to be able to build it. There would be ways round it though for new ones I guess.

 

[Liquid Gold]

The only thing with that is if it would be tricky to raise finance to be able to build it. There would be ways round it though for new ones I guess.

No doubt it would be tricky with loads of obstacles and things to iron out but with football in such a mess something as basic as club and stadium never being separated should be supported.

 

[Nick]

No doubt it would be tricky with loads of obstacles and things to iron out but with football in such a mess something as basic as club and stadium never being separated should be supported.

I wish it was, it's just the logistics to bring something like that afterwards

 

[Captain Dart]

But they do need to wise up to the fact the club folding/staying in business can in reality work both ways for SISU from a financial and legal standpoint.

Which is a good a reason as any to conclude they are unsuitable owners.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Which is a good a reason as any to conclude they are unsuitable owners.

Exactly but the issue is, is that something that can be explicitly proven?

 

[Nick]

Exactly but the issue is, is that something that can be explicitly proven?

It's not something the EFL can start handing clubs over to other people about.

 

[skybluetony176]

Could be years of legal wrangling still to come and it seems to me the owners do not actually need CCFC around to proceed with it. So is the target a ransom payment settlement to go away?

This is the part I don’t get. If they don’t need CCFC around why do they need CCFC at all? As I understand it law will deal with the exact set of circumstances at the time SISU owned CCFC when SISU felt they were a victim or treated unfairly in some way not what’s happened since. If that’s the case what’s to stop them selling CCFC now and continuing with the legal action? There seems to be another reason to continue holding onto the club as far as I can see and that’s the part I can’t work out. Why?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

This is the part I don’t get. If they don’t need CCFC around why do they need CCFC at all? As I understand it law will deal with the exact set of circumstances at the time SISU owned CCFC when SISU felt they were a victim or treated unfairly in some way not what’s happened since. If that’s the case what’s to stop them selling CCFC now and continuing with the legal action? There seems to be another reason to continue holding onto the club as far as I can see and that’s the part I can’t work out. Why?

Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?

 

[Nick]

Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss?

As well as the more things they can put in a folder to say "these other people did this to CCFC so we lost our money".

People have said from the start, SISU would probably prefer people to be "kicking" CCFC to try and get at them as it builds their case a victims.

They would probably shit themselves the moment people starting being nice to bluff them as it goes against the victim thing.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?

Plus they're probably just building a bigger case file against those they believe have 'wronged' them.

 

[skybluetony176]

Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?

Possible. The other possibility is that if they sell the club it will diminish their claim that they’ve been damaged. Which seems a big gamble as the only thing litigation has proven so far is that lawyers earn shit loads from futile legal action. An offer of hard cash for the club is at least a guarantee. It just seems illogical but then we have to remember who we’re talking about.

 

[Nick]

Possible. The other possibility is that if they sell the club it will diminish their claim that they’ve been damaged. Which seems a big gamble as the only thing litigation has proven so far is that lawyers earn shit loads from futile legal action. An offer of hard cash for the club is at least a guarantee. It just seems illogical but then we have to remember who we’re talking about.

The thing is they haven't really been tested with an offer for hard cash. They probably do have a figure they would accept to disappear.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

The thing is they haven't really been tested with an offer for hard cash. They probably do have a figure they would accept to disappear.

The figure they have in mind is probably why they haven't ever been tested.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

The problem people have is that they look at “fit and proper” as a moral/ethical thing.

The fact is you only fail it if you have broken the law. SISU from a football fans point of view are a nightmare - we all want them to chuck millions in without adding to the debt, but reality is they’re not going to. That isn’t unfit - that’s prudent.

With the stadium issue, all they have to argue is, is that the lease was unsustainable .they couldn’t afford it - again that’s not wrong.

The EFL cannot deem them unfit, because they’re following their legal rights to whatever justice they feel they’re owed.

 

[chiefdave]

The EFL cannot deem them unfit, because they’re following their legal rights to whatever justice they feel they’re owed.

That's the problem. Same as if you made a rule saying clubs can't get involved in legal action. How would that work in practice?

We might not agree with it but SISU have the right legally to pursue action. And who decides what action is OK or would all legal action be ruled out? If we sold a play to a team overseas and they refused to pay an installment of the transfer fee would we just have to swallow it because legal action is allowed.

These things sound great but are incredibly difficult to implement. Even if you could come up with something all the clubs agree with and implement it there's no guarantee it would hold up legally if challenged.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The only thing with that is if it would be tricky to raise finance to be able to build it. There would be ways round it though for new ones I guess.

I think there could be a rule that a clubs owners can't split ownership of a stadium and the club itself, so they can't sell the stadium to pay off debts. If a club can't pay its debts over time it has to be put up for sale INCLUDING the stadium, and the prospective owners HAS to take it on with the stadium.

Maybe there could be a rule on not being allowed to sell it to a third party, but you can remortgage it? This allows you to generate cash for improvements or a new stadium, and on completion you are then allowed to sell the old stadium/land and use the money to pay off the mortgage.

There may be a shortfall but you could mortgage the new stadium to keep on top of the payments and then club income over time will pay that off? I'm assuming people building their own house from scratch can get a mortgage/loan before any building work to help as long as they have means to pay it, or the land is used as collateral?

It does seem odd that the league can have stipulations on what facilities stadia must or must not have, but nowhere does a club have to own its stadium and thus have a guaranteed place to play.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

The problem people have is that they look at “fit and proper” as a moral/ethical thing.

The fact is you only fail it if you have broken the law. SISU from a football fans point of view are a nightmare - we all want them to chuck millions in without adding to the debt, but reality is they’re not going to. That isn’t unfit - that’s prudent.

With the stadium issue, all they have to argue is, is that the lease was unsustainable .they couldn’t afford it - again that’s not wrong.

The EFL cannot deem them unfit, because they’re following their legal rights to whatever justice they feel they’re owed.

I think the majority understand what constitutes a fit and proper owners test. The issue is, that it doesn't work. Stricter rules need to be put in place as even since it's formation in 2004 it's still allowed unfit owners to run football clubs. For instance, you say you fail it if you've broken the law. The Nottingham Forest owner was under trial for match fixing and has recently been accused of drug trafficking. Fine he wasn't found guilty of the former but what if he was? So I think the problem people have is that they think it's fool proof when in reality it's done nothing to stop bad owners from running football clubs. It's only saving grace is that it's stopped charlatans like Dale Evans fraudulently claiming they have millions and bringing clubs to their knees because of it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The thing is they haven't really been tested with an offer for hard cash. They probably do have a figure they would accept to disappear.

Probably, but that figure would almost certainly be an amount no remotely sane person would even consider paying.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.

IMO until football as a whole sorts itself out and all clubs are self sustaining there's little that can be done. That's what the FA and EFL should be pushing towards.

As long as Man City are around that’s never going to happen. Or Wolves being allowed to spend £16m on Neves in the Championship

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Probably, but that figure would almost certainly be an amount no remotely sane person would even consider paying.

Grendel’s got a few quid

 

[Magwitch]

What if Wasps sold the Ricoh to an unconnected third party, there is a rumour doing the rounds.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What if Wasps sold the Ricoh to an unconnected third party, there is a rumour doing the rounds.

As owners they can do what they want with it, just like anybody else, and our owners did with Highfield Rd. Don't think its right they were ever given a chance to own it, but our owners were given many years and multiple chances to do so before the atmosphere turned so sour no-one was going to do business.

If they did sell it third party it would make an interesting thing though. Would Wasps them also be a tenant paying rent? Would they just leave altogether. Would any new owner be willing to sell it to SISU, or at least make a rent deal with them? Would SISU just add them into the litigation mix and use it as yet another opportunity to keep the court case rumbling on?

 

[shmmeee]

This is the thing about the stadium ownership tied in with clubs.

How can the EFL 100% say it has to be in a particular city and that's final if there's only one stadium and the football club don't own it? Not just us, for example if the bloke who owns the Oxford Stadium decides he wants to be a dick he could choose to whack the rent up or just not have them there knowing full well they have to do what he says else they won't exist any more.

It would give stadium owners way too much power.

Except it doesn’t, because clubs are free to buy some land and build a stadium and while they do that they’re allowed to ground share.

Sisu would have to prove that there is nowhere they can build within an area allowed by the EFL. They’re had years and not so much as put a bid in as far as we can tell. The first question any judge would ask is “what did you do to secure an alternative location?” and “I poked around a field in Finham 4 years ago” isn’t going to cut it.

I know I keep repeating this but, in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of most of the public, the people responsible for the well-being of CCFC are CCFCs owners.

Correctly or not, we are not different to any other business. And no business has a right to do business at the expense of others. You fuck up relations with a supplier, you find a new one. You don’t sue them for “denying you business”.