Is this whole thing a Haskell Mk2? (3 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

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”.

Love how the EFL only bothers to apply its rules when it’s a chance to kick a club while it’s down. If they do that the sport is dead to me.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

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

Yes you and your ridiculous rumours, the rounds of your head I assume?

Who would buy the arena with the debt and interest obligations? How m

 

[skybluetony176]

What was the company Tim Fisher kept name dropping as who they would bring in to run the Ricoh if they got control of it?

 

[chiefdave]

What was the company Tim Fisher kept name dropping as who they would bring in to run the Ricoh if they got control of it?

AEG, they got as far as meeting with the council. Reckon by their track record they would probably have done a better job of running it than the council, Higgs or Wasps.
Stadiums | AEG Worldwide
Arenas | AEG Worldwide
Sports | AEG Worldwide
Touring | AEG Worldwide

 

[skybluetony176]

AEG, they got as far as meeting with the council. Reckon by their track record they would probably have done a better job of running it than the council, Higgs or Wasps.
Stadiums | AEG Worldwide
Arenas | AEG Worldwide
Sports | AEG Worldwide
Touring | AEG Worldwide

That’s the one. Ironically isn’t that the rumour? Wasps are basically looking to offload the day to day running of the Ricoh by franchising it out for a considerable amount of money (say the sort of money that could settle an outstanding bond) and AEG are in the frame? Amongst others.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

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.

Thing is the EFL can only do so much and then they’re interfering with business practices. Football clubs these days are primarily businesses. They can only really make rules that follow the laws of the country when buying other business.

If you start interfering in business practices in general, you’re going into murky waters. Something the EFL do not have the power, influence or capital to fight

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Thing is the EFL can only do so much and then they’re interfering with business practices. Football clubs these days are primarily businesses. They can only really make rules that follow the laws of the country when buying other business.

If you start interfering in business practices in general, you’re going into murky waters. Something the EFL do not have the power, influence or capital to fight

I suppose there's only so much they can do as there's an argument to be made that giving the F.A. / EFL too much power could potentially be restrictive in allowing clubs to succeed due to having too much of a say of who is and who isn't permitted to buy a football club but let's be realistic they can definitely do more than they're doing. It's hardly interfering in business practices by allowing individuals such as the Nottingham Forest owner to purchase a club whilst they're undergoing a trail for one of, if not the most serious football related charges.

Similarly, it's hardly too much to ask for further checks and balances to be put in place. For instance, further background checks of how owners have conducted their business dealings in the past should be implemented, and subsequently on the back of this, information acquired should be taken into account more when a prospective buyer looks to purchase a club. If I recall correctly the current Bolton chairman was disqualified from being a company director for a number of years because his firm went bust yet he was put in charge of a club who is at high risk of insolvency. This article sums up that point: Bolton’s ‘rogue chairman’ Ken Anderson puts EFL ownership rules under scrutiny

I understand your premise but I'm afraid it's far too black and white and no offence intended but it sums up why the EFL and the F.A. are both criticised for being ineffective. Plus, I don't understand what interfering in general business practices has to do with anything really as obviously the F.A. or the EFL wouldn't get involved in such matters, unless it puts a club into harms way. If an owners choices interferes with the physical existence of a football club then the EFL should be granted sufficient powers to stop this. So I say again, that's not interfering in general business practices, that's representing and acting in the interests of its 72 members and its fans. Which is actually one of their main USP's.

 

[Captain Dart]

That’s the one. Ironically isn’t that the rumour? Wasps are basically looking to offload the day to day running of the Ricoh by franchising it out for a considerable amount of money (say the sort of money that could settle an outstanding bond) and AEG are in the frame? Amongst others.

They had a similar contract with compass which was replaced with one run by an american facilities managenent company.
https://www-coventrytelegraph-net.c...ry-news/ricoh-arena-hospitality-deal-14807297

This is not making much sense as the replacement contract is long term.

 

[Captain Dart]

Thing is the EFL can only do so much and then they’re interfering with business practices. Football clubs these days are primarily businesses. They can only really make rules that follow the laws of the country when buying other business.

If you start interfering in business practices in general, you’re going into murky waters. Something the EFL do not have the power, influence or capital to fight

Special football rules get challenged by very rich owners. Unless the law is changed there is very little scope to resctict clubs.

 

[oldskyblue58]

That’s the one. Ironically isn’t that the rumour? Wasps are basically looking to offload the day to day running of the Ricoh by franchising it out for a considerable amount of money (say the sort of money that could settle an outstanding bond) and AEG are in the frame? Amongst others.

From my understanding they have worked with AEG for a number of years on various things

However why would they be looking to franchise the whole running of the stadium out to AEG having just signed a 20 year agreement with Delaware North to do exactly that?

 

[Nick]

I suppose there's only so much they can do as there's an argument to be made that giving the F.A. / EFL too much power could potentially be restrictive in allowing clubs to succeed due to having too much of a say of who is and who isn't permitted to buy a football club but let's be realistic they can definitely do more than they're doing. It's hardly interfering in business practices by allowing individuals such as the Nottingham Forest owner to purchase a club whilst they're undergoing a trail for one of, if not the most serious football related charges.

Similarly, it's hardly too much to ask for further checks and balances to be put in place. For instance, further background checks of how owners have conducted their business dealings in the past should be implemented, and subsequently on the back of this, information acquired should be taken into account more when a prospective buyer looks to purchase a club. If I recall correctly the current Bolton chairman was disqualified from being a company director for a number of years because his firm went bust yet he was put in charge of a club who is at high risk of insolvency. This article sums up that point: Bolton’s ‘rogue chairman’ Ken Anderson puts EFL ownership rules under scrutiny

I understand your premise but I'm afraid it's far too black and white and no offence intended but it sums up why the EFL and the F.A. are both criticised for being ineffective. Plus, I don't understand what interfering in general business practices has to do with anything really as obviously the F.A. or the EFL wouldn't get involved in such matters, unless it puts the club into harms way. If an owners choices interferes with the physical existence of a football club then the EFL should be granted sufficient powers to stop this. So I say again, that's not interfering in general business practices, that's representing and acting in the interests of one of its 72 members and its fans. Which is actually one of their main USP's.

The Forest owner or Bolton owner stuff isn't really related to our situation though. They would have far much ammo against SISU if they had been found guilty of anything criminal etc.

The EFL can't demand that legal action is dropped that they are legally entitled to carry out, the issue there is with the legal system that they can't say fuck off after the first attempt. Where would that end?

What would happen to the Oxford owner who has issues with the Stadium owner at the minute about renting there on a really crap deal for the club? By putting the club into harms way would that be him daring to stand up to the stadium owner which could put the stadium rent at risk or should he just have to agree to whatever the stadium owner wants to do which could then put the club at risk because it's a shit deal?

Surely the owners that are spending tens of millions each year that the club doesn't have are also putting it into harms way?

They can't step in when it's something that is opinion or not as straight forward, which is why it's mainly based on Facts like criminality etc.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

The Forest owner or Bolton owner stuff isn't really related to our situation though. They would have far much ammo against SISU if they had been found guilty of anything criminal etc.

The EFL can't demand that legal action is dropped that they are legally entitled to carry out, the issue there is with the legal system that they can't say fuck off after the first attempt. Where would that end?

What would happen to the Oxford owner who has issues with the Stadium owner at the minute about renting there on a really crap deal for the club? By putting the club into harms way would that be him daring to stand up to the stadium owner which could put the stadium rent at risk or should he just have to agree to whatever the stadium owner wants to do which could then put the club at risk because it's a shit deal?

Surely the owners that are spending tens of millions each year that the club doesn't have are also putting it into harms way?

They can't step in when it's something that is opinion or not as straight forward, which is why it's mainly based on Facts like criminality etc.

Like with the majority of policy and legislation bad things have to happen first before they're implemented. Obviously I'm not suggesting the EFL storm SISU's offices and demand that the legal action is dropped as SISU would just turn around and laugh, my point is more based on the fact that, now this has happened, surely further checks and balances should be implemented to make sure that it can't happen again. You can't make anything perfect but there clearly exists a huge flaw in their fit and proper model as unfit owners are still allowed free access into the market. If you read my post properly I'm not relating other owners to SISU, my point is that an influx of poor owners are still operating within football despite their so called 'fit and proper' owners test. This has failed so surely the EFL should be held accountable for this.

Not really because FFP and parachute payments largely cover those issues which have been shown to work. I think you're taking my point out of context there as it's not related to my argument at all...

 

[oldskyblue58]

I would think it would be very difficult for the EFL to prove CCFC has been run badly by the directors & owners of Otium. Was Seppala even required to take the fit and proper test? Being in dispute with various parties (all and sundry) and going to court is not proof of running the company/club badly.

SISU can point to the fact that the company now balances its cash flow, that SISU have provided working capital when needed, that losses before interest have decreased, that bills are paid on time, that the academy is thriving, that all regulations have so far been met, they are not extracting large amounts of funds, the interest charged isnt actually paid, players are paid and the team has improved its status/results etc ................. Not spending money the club/company has not got. Not really signs of a badly run club is it?. The fans might not like that but it is the basic cold facts

Where SISU are going to fall down unless something changes, is that to our knowledge there is no ground to play in next season. Then you have to ask will the EFL work for or against one of its own members? If they kick CCFC/Otium out then it sets a precedent that can be applied to other situations and other clubs. Not to mention the potential for being mired in legal challenges which cost even if successfully defended. The ripple effect could be huge

 

[Nick]

Like with the majority of policy and legislation bad things have to happen first before they're implemented. Obviously I'm not suggesting the EFL storm SISU's offices and demand that the legal action is dropped as SISU would just turn around and laugh, my point is more based on the fact that, now this has happened, surely further checks and balances should be implemented to make sure that it can't happen again. You can't make anything perfect but there clearly exists a huge flaw in their fit and proper model when unfit owners are still allowed free access into the market. If you read my post properly I'm not relating other owners to SISU, my point is that an influx of poor owners are still operating within football despite their so called 'fit and proper' owners test. This has failed so surely the EFL should be held accountable for this.

Not really because FFP and parachute payments largely cover those issues which have been shown to work. I think you're taking my point out of context there as it's not related to my argument at all...

The thing is though what checks can they do to see if legal action is going to happen in the future? They can't outright say that legal action is against the rules so it then comes down to being based on opinion. We know the legal action is pointless but is it then down to the EFL to decide which sorts of legal action is allowed and what isn't? You would then have third parties (councils, stadium owners, creditors) absolutely rinsing the club owners / clubs because they know they can get away with it.

I agree, if people are convicted criminals or have been struck off then they shouldn't be allowed. If it's mid trial it should wait until the outcome or allow it temporarily based on the outcome being Not Guilty for something. If found Guilty then it's revoked.

 

[Nick]

I would think it would be very difficult for the EFL to prove CCFC has been run badly by the directors & owners of Otium. Was Seppala even required to take the fit and proper test? Being in dispute with various parties (all and sundry) and going to court is not proof of running the company/club badly.

SISU can point to the fact that the company now balances its cash flow, that SISU have provided working capital when needed, that losses before interest have decreased, that bills are paid on time, that the academy is thriving, that all regulations have so far been met, they are not extracting large amounts of funds, the interest charged isnt actually paid, players are paid and the team has improved its status/results etc ................. Not spending money the club/company has not got is not a sign of poor management. Not really signs of a badly run club is it?. The fans might not like that but it is the basic cold facts

Where SISU are going to fall down unless something changes, is that to our knowledge there is no ground to play in next season. Then you have to ask will the EFL work for or against one of its members? If they kick CCFC/Otium out then it sets a precedent that can be applied to other situations and other clubs. Not to mention the potential for being mired in legal challenges which cost even if successfully defended

Exactly, it's not just about us but it's what it sets for other clubs going forward.

I can only see the EFL working with the club to accommodate a move if there is still no Ricoh deal. If they decide to throw the club out of the league then football in the future is probably going to get a lot messier then it is already once third parties are given so much more power over the clubs.

There are lots of people who shout at their owners simply for not throwing money in that the club doesn't generate. We have also seen people who have who then become bad owners.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

The thing is though what checks can they do to see if legal action is going to happen in the future? They can't outright say that legal action is against the rules so it then comes down to being based on opinion. We know the legal action is pointless but is it then down to the EFL to decide which sorts of legal action is allowed and what isn't? You would then have third parties (councils, stadium owners, creditors) absolutely rinsing the club owners / clubs because they know they can get away with it.

I agree, if people are convicted criminals or have been struck off then they shouldn't be allowed. If it's mid trial it should wait until the outcome or allow it temporarily based on the outcome being Not Guilty for something. If found Guilty then it's revoked.

Like I said they can't make the model perfect as like you more or less said, they don't have a crystal ball. Plus, pursuing legal action is basic human right as a British citizen so it would be something that is impossible to intervene in. Plus, the legal action route is fairly niche and if you look across the board it's only a very small percentage of clubs that have had this issue isn't it? So would it even be worth the EFL's time and limited budget to try to tackle this issue when as you said it's more or less a lost cause.

It's a complete idea i've pulled out of nothing and not based on anything whatsoever but what if there was a rule in place if an owner puts their club at risk of extinction then they automatically forfeit their right to the golden share. At least it would ensure owners tread more carefully in their day to day operations. If such a rule were in place SISU surely wouldn't have pulled half the tricks they have done over the past decade.

 

[Nick]

Like I said they can't make the model perfect as like you more or less said, they don't have a crystal ball. Plus, pursuing legal action is basic human right as a British citizen so it would be something that is impossible to intervene in. Plus, the legal action route is fairly niche and if you look across the board it's only a very small percentage of clubs that have had this issue isn't it? So would it even be worth the EFL's time and limited budget to try to tackle this issue when as you said it's more or less a lost cause.

It's a complete idea i've pulled out of nothing and not based on anything whatsoever but what if there was a rule in place if an owner puts their club at risk of extinction then they automatically forfeit their right to the golden share. At least it would ensure owners tread more carefully in their day to day operations. If such a rule were in place SISU surely wouldn't have pulled half the tricks they have done over the past decade.

Yes but again what defines a risk of extinction? Refusing to pay a stadium owner silly money the club can't afford could see them be forced to play outside a city (see Oxford). Throwing shit loads of money in the club doesn't have could be classed a risk of extinction if the gamble fails (see Leyton Orient).

I am not being specific about our situation but within football there are far too many third parties (agents, stadium owners, councils, authorities etc) who like it or not do have control over clubs at certain times with the power they hold.

So much of it is down to interpretation and opinion which makes it pretty much impossible to implement.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I would think it would be very difficult for the EFL to prove CCFC has been run badly by the directors & owners of Otium. Was Seppala even required to take the fit and proper test? Being in dispute with various parties (all and sundry) and going to court is not proof of running the company/club badly.

SISU can point to the fact that the company now balances its cash flow, that SISU have provided working capital when needed, that losses before interest have decreased, that bills are paid on time, that the academy is thriving, that all regulations have so far been met, they are not extracting large amounts of funds, the interest charged isnt actually paid, players are paid and the team has improved its status/results etc ................. Not spending money the club/company has not got. Not really signs of a badly run club is it?. The fans might not like that but it is the basic cold facts

Where SISU are going to fall down unless something changes, is that to our knowledge there is no ground to play in next season. Then you have to ask will the EFL work for or against one of its own members? If they kick CCFC/Otium out then it sets a precedent that can be applied to other situations and other clubs. Not to mention the potential for being mired in legal challenges which cost even if successfully defended. The ripple effect could be huge

Although I highly doubt they will work against one of it's own members, I wouldn't rule out them wanting to set an example. Both the EFL and the F.A. have received serious criticism on several aspects of football (especially from the viewpoint of continuing to allow unfit owners into the game) over the past 5-10 years and this could very well be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that consequences will ensue if their rules are broken. But again due to the legal ramifications that would almost certainly follow, I highly doubt they'd have the balls.

 

[Nick]

Although I highly doubt they will work against one of it's own members, I wouldn't rule out them wanting to set an example. Both the EFL and the F.A. have received serious criticism on several aspects of football (especially from the viewpoint of continuing to allow unfit owners into the game) over the past 5-10 years and this could very well be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that consequences will ensue if their rules are broken. But again due to the legal ramifications that would almost certainly follow, I highly doubt they'd have the balls.

I don't think it's that much of a perfect example to make if they refused to "help" and allow a move.

They could easily just target clubs like Bolton with much less hassle back at their way based on the whole issues with Forest Green, him and his son rinsing the club, his past convictions etc.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Although I highly doubt they will work against one of it's own members, I wouldn't rule out them wanting to set an example. Both the EFL and the F.A. have received serious criticism on several aspects of football (especially from the viewpoint of continuing to allow unfit owners into the game) over the past 5-10 years and this could very well be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that consequences will ensue if their rules are broken. But again due to the legal ramifications that would almost certainly follow, I highly doubt they'd have the balls.

Wouldn't be much of an example in terms of fit & proper persons or governance though. It would be simply enforcing a rule that says you have to have a home ground to play in.

But the concept of EFL working against one of its own members could have huge ramifications certainly

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I don't think it's that much of a perfect example to make if they refused to "help" and allow a move.

They could easily just target clubs like Bolton with much less hassle back at their way based on the whole issues with Forest Green, him and his son rinsing the club, his past convictions etc.

You've lost me. My point was that it could be a perfect way for the EFL to make an example of us by not helping us to move?

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Yes but again what defines a risk of extinction? Refusing to pay a stadium owner silly money the club can't afford could see them be forced to play outside a city (see Oxford). Throwing shit loads of money in the club doesn't have could be classed a risk of extinction if the gamble fails (see Leyton Orient).

I am not being specific about our situation but within football there are far too many third parties (agents, stadium owners, councils, authorities etc) who like it or not do have control over clubs at certain times with the power they hold.

So much of it is down to interpretation and opinion which makes it pretty much impossible to implement.

Well there's only really two avenues that usually cause extinction aren't there? Eviction and financial woe. The third party stadium issue has occurred multiple times over the past decade. E.g. Ricoh, Fratton Park, Oxford. Surely as this is a recurring issue then perhaps the F.A. / EFL should vet third parties? Leyton Orient is a poor example as Bechetti is yet another instance of an unfit owner passing the 'fit and proper' owners test. He has issues of unpaid debts with his previous company Agon Channel and was dramatically pumping money into this roughly around the same time as when he purchased Leyton Orient. Obviously owners usually have multiple businesses which isn't an issue but there surely should've been alarm bells when he was pumped far too much money into other activities when he clearly couldn't afford to.

The issue with what you're suggesting Nick is that owners don't often make a habit of pissing off third parties such as councils, local authorities etc.

 

[Nick]

You've lost me. My point was that it could be a perfect way for the EFL to make an example of us by not helping us to move?

An example for what though? That stadium owners can absolutely rinse football clubs because they know they have no other option.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Wouldn't be much of an example in terms of fit & proper persons or governance though. It would be simply enforcing a rule that says you have to have a home ground to play in.

But the concept of EFL working against one of its own members could have huge ramifications certainly

I think it depends how you look at it. Owners who consider themselves and their club untouchable might beg to differ. E.g. Any future SISU's.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

An example for what though? That stadium owners can absolutely rinse football clubs because they know they have no other option.

Wasps aren't rinsing us though? They've given us a fair deal. Surely it would set an example to any future SISU's that consider the EFL and the F.A. as a mere fly in the ointment. Again you're generalising by making out that all stadium owners rinse football clubs when that's actually not the case at all. The EFL know that there can be a deal made and I'm sure they know all their is to know about our plight. So as a result they'll understand full well this issue has been fuelled by SISU, no one else. The stadium owner has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

This discussion is fruitless though because I highly doubt they wouldn't work with us to help move anyway.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Wasps aren't rinsing us though? They've given us a fair deal. Surely it would set an example to any future SISU's that consider the EFL and the F.A. as a mere fly in the ointment. Again you're generalising by making out that all stadium owners rinse football clubs when that's actually not the case at all. The EFL know that there can be a deal made and I'm sure they know all their is to know about our plight. So as a result they'll understand full well this issue has been fuelled by SISU, no one else. The stadium owner has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

This discussion is fruitless though because I highly doubt they wouldn't work with us to help move anyway.

Who gets to define what a fair deal is though?

 

[Nick]

Wasps aren't rinsing us though? They've given us a fair deal. Surely it would be set an example to any future SISU's that consider the EFL and the F.A. as a mere fly in the ointment. Again you're generalising by making out that all stadium owners rinse football clubs when that's actually not the case at all. The EFL know that there can be a deal made and I'm sure they know all their is to know about our plight. So as a result they'll know full well this issue has been fuelled by SISU, no one else.

This discussion is fruitless though because I highly doubt they wouldn't work with us to help move anyway.

Which is why I am talking about it setting a precedence going forward so Stadium Owners could do what they wanted.

Wasps haven't given us any deal, there is talk of the Oxford Stadium Owner wanting to knock theirs down and build houses. There is nothing to stop somebody in that position from demanding whatever they wanted knowing the club had no choice but to agree.

Then it comes down to "fair deal". Is that down to the EFL to decide that something is fair for the football club and not the owner taking the piss? I'd guarantee more clubs would be rinsed by Stadium Owners if the Stadium Owner knew that the club wouldn't be able to do anything but pay whatever was demanded from them.

Do you really think the EFL will even think about saying "yeah you really should drop the legal action"? The situation there about "a deal can be made" involves effective blackmail into dropping legal action (as pointless as it may be) against the Council. I am pretty sure the EFL won't touch that one.

What happens if the Oxford ground owner says a "deal can be made" if the club do something he wants? Who then decides if what the stadium owner is asking for is fair or not?

It's not just about us, the EFL won't want any sort of fallback on them.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Who gets to define what a fair deal is though?

I think going from a £1.3M per annum to a reported 150K per annum constitutes a fair deal. Regardless of that though, surely how you'd measure it is by a comparison of rents across League One (who rent their grounds). That would probably give you a ball park figure of what's fair wouldn't it rather than an individual or a board dictating to you what is fair? Isn't the the whole reason why we left the Ricoh the first time round, because the powers at be realised what we were paying didn't constitute as fair as no other club in the Championship was paying anywhere near such an annual figure?

 

[Liquid Gold]

I think going from a £1.3M per annum to a reported 150K per annum constitutes a fair deal. Regardless of that though, surely how you'd measure it is by a comparison of rents across League One (who rent their grounds). That would probably give you a ball park figure of what's fair wouldn't it rather than an individual or a board dictating to you what is fair? Isn't the the whole reason why we left the Ricoh the first time round, because the powers at be realised what we were paying didn't constitute as fair as no other club in the Championship was paying anywhere near such an annual figure?

You've said what you think a fair deal is, not who would have the authority to constitute a fair deal. I agree in the general principal of what you're proposing but I think the practicalities are difficult. If it was said a fair rent is £150k-£300k everybody in their stadium would be paying the maximum and if the owner decided that actually they want £1m what can the club do?

All clubs that own stadiums should have that bond legally binding and and stadium move should come with a condition of ownership and some principal of moving towards stadium ownership for all clubs.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Which is why I am talking about it setting a precedence going forward so Stadium Owners could do what they wanted.

Wasps haven't given us any deal, there is talk of the Oxford Stadium Owner wanting to knock theirs down and build houses. There is nothing to stop somebody in that position from demanding whatever they wanted knowing the club had no choice but to agree.

Then it comes down to "fair deal". Is that down to the EFL to decide that something is fair for the football club and not the owner taking the piss? I'd guarantee more clubs would be rinsed by Stadium Owners if the Stadium Owner knew that the club wouldn't be able to do anything but pay whatever was demanded from them.

Do you really think the EFL will even think about saying "yeah you really should drop the legal action"? The situation there about "a deal can be made" involves effective blackmail into dropping legal action (as pointless as it may be) against the Council. I am pretty sure the EFL won't touch that one.

What happens if the Oxford ground owner says a "deal can be made" if the club do something he wants? Who then decides if what the stadium owner is asking for is fair or not?

It's not just about us, the EFL won't want any sort of fallback on them.

That could well be a possible outcome, I've not said otherwise. But just because you say it doesn't make it a 100% guarantee I'm afraid - as I reiterate, not every stadium owner is currently rinsing their tenants. Plus our case is extremely unique and is nothing to do with the refusal or the inability to pay rent so I don't understand why you're continuously referring to Oxford United when it has nothing to do with our specific case.

They have given us a deal we've been playing at the Ricoh for the past 3 years? Obviously I'm not suggesting they've put a deal on the table. Again you're not reading my post properly and jumping the gun. Something you're guilty of regularly Nick.

Again why are you jumping the gun? I've stated that the EFL won't touch SISU's legal action with a barge pole as legal ramifications that would almost certainly follow. That doesn't mean they're not in contact with the club does it for regular updates given that we're 8 home games from homelessness.

Why are you constantly banging on about Oxford United's stadium owner when i couldn't care less if he planned to build Disney land on top of it. I've also said third parties (including stadium owners) are a growing issue within football and a pose a potential threat to a clubs existence. The EFL need to do more to figure out how they are to tackle this issue of third party ownership as it does have the potential to grow into an increasing problem. How they would do that I don't know as thankfully that's not my job.

 

[Nick]

That could well be a possible outcome, I've not said otherwise. But just because you say it doesn't make it a 100% guarantee I'm afraid - as I reiterate, not every stadium owner is currently rinsing their tenants. Plus our case is extremely unique and is nothing to do with the refusal or the inability to pay rent so I don't understand why you're continuously referring to Oxford United when it has nothing to do with our specific case.

They have given us a deal we've been playing at the Ricoh for the past 3 years? Obviously I'm not suggesting they've put a deal on the table. Again you're not reading my post properly and jumping the gun. Something you're guilty of regularly Nick.

Again why are you jumping the gun? I've stated that the EFL won't touch SISU's legal action with a barge pole as legal ramifications that would almost certainly follow. That doesn't mean they're not in contact with the club does it for regular updates given that we're 8 home games from homelessness.

Why are you constantly banging on about Oxford United's stadium owner when i couldn't care less if he planned to build Disney land on top of it. I've also said third parties (including stadium owners) are a growing issue within football and a pose a potential threat to a clubs existence. The EFL need to do more to figure out how they are to tackle this issue of third party ownership as it does have the potential to grow into an increasing problem. How they would do that I don't know as thankfully that's not my job.

I didn't say every football ground owner, the same as every football club owner isn't a bad egg.

I am talking about Oxford because they are a club who have beef with the stadium owner also. Surely you can see that this is why I use them as an example? It's strange as you keep going on about Forest and Bolton.

I didn't say that every owner WOULD rinse, it's just it would give them more of an opportunity to knowing the EFL would be siding with them.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

You've said what you think a fair deal is, not who would have the authority to constitute a fair deal. I agree in the general principal of what you're proposing but I think the practicalities are difficult. If it was said a fair rent is £150k-£300k everybody in their stadium would be paying the maximum and if the owner decided that actually they want £1m what can the club do?

All clubs that own stadiums should have that bond legally binding and and stadium move should come with a condition of ownership and some principal of moving towards stadium ownership for all clubs.

Obviously the stadium owner alone has that authority but lets be realistic. Yes a stadium owner can dictate the terms and conditions of the rent and is well within their rights to quadruple the rental agreement upon its expiry if they so wished. But the Oxford United stadium owner is the exception not the rule. But that's not to say stadium owners couldn't pose further issues within football.

How does that help those who don't own their stadiums unless their respective owners find the capital to purchase said stadiums. Which is far easier said than done?

 

[Liquid Gold]

Obviously the stadium owner alone has that authority but lets be realistic. Yes a stadium owner can dictate the terms and conditions of the rent and is well within their rights to quadruple the rental agreement upon its expiry if they so wished. But the Oxford United stadium owner is the exception not the rule. But that's not to say stadium owners couldn't pose further issues within football.

How does that help those who don't own their stadiums unless their respective owners find the capital to purchase said stadiums. Which is far easier said than done?

But who are you proposing can set fair rent, how are they able to enforce it and what can they use to punish those that fall foul of it?

 

[wince]

If Salford carry on climbing the leagues , they will have to improve or move thier ground ,to play at the next level, They cannot sue the F .A if they refused them entry to the prem on the grounds that the stadium is not up to scratch. Like wise teams like Coventry can not sue the EFL if they have sold their ground and have no where to play , the wise and wherefores of why teams haven't got stadiums is not the EFL problem

 

[Magwitch]

Yes you and your ridiculous rumours, the rounds of your head I assume?

Who would buy the arena with the debt and interest obligations? How m

Wasps did