Seems like there's a lot of huff and puff about statements made by councillors etc about safeguards for the club(s), but quotes like that from individuals are not enforceable just as when MP's say daft shit it can't be taken as being the policy of their party. Otherwise CCFC could sue Tim Fisher because we've not got a new stadium built yet. They're intentions, not obligations.
There are a few things that could potentially be used, like the council minutes, but again if you read those there is no part of which which sets in stone that they HAVE to let CCFC play at the Ricoh or even ensure they don't go out of businesses. For example:
2.5.11 The City Council remains committed to try to ensure that CCFC is able to continue to play its home matches at the Ricoh Arena. It will include a requirement in agreements underpinning the sale that this option must exist for CCFC subject to it reaching a commercial agreement with ACL. The terms of this transaction do not impact in any way on the terms of the August 2014 licence agreement with CCFC which will be fully honoured.
All of this states intentions, caveats regarding commercial agreements and the 2014 licence agreement has been honoured. There's nothing in there that can legally said to have been reneged on.
The four year time limit thing is clearly bollocks, and from a legal perspective totally unnecessary. Why on earth it was said is stupid.
The other thing I will point out is this:
“The commitment that any deal relating to the Ricoh Arena would not be approved unless the following three tests were satisfied:
(1) A good deal for the City
(2) The security and future of Coventry City Football Club
(3) The security and future of Coventry Rugby Club
This has to be taken from AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN AND THE DEAL DONE, not retrospectively now with hindsight. Given that at the time Tim Fisher, the chairman and director of CCFC, was stating the club would be building a new stadium for the club so it could access all revenues. He said land was weeks from being acquired, architects had been employed and he showed off a few stadium renders for good measure. Given that, the sale could be safely made at that time without fear of impact to CCFC as they would have a stadium to play in, greater access to revenues from it as well as the capital asset itself and Wasps would not be a direct competitor to CCFC.
Iif anything point 3 would be far more pertinent because Wasps would be a direct competitor to CRFC and potentially affect their security and future.
Now, I thought this stadium was bullshit, most people on here would have thought it was bullshit and I daresay the councillors and even TF himself thought it was bullshit. But it was a statement made by a director and chairman of the football club through official as well as unofficial channels so has to be taken seriously. Ironically, if Fisher hadn't come out with all this new stadium stuff the club would be in a much stronger position to argue this point on the future and security because there would have been much greater uncertainty at the time of the sale to Wasps.
For clarity I will once again say that the sale to Wasps was short-sighted, naive and an act of desperation by the council to wash their hands of this pain in the arse stadium issue, and their conduct and favouritism towards Wasps since the sale is terrible. I am looking at this from a legally enforceable standpoint, and quite frankly I don't see there being one (which is a shame as I really want that four year argument to be torn to bits by legal representation)