Why Cheylesmore ward ?
Council Statement due today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Corrado
- Start date
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
You have to live in the ward to put yourself up for election as a ward counciller.
Question, if Pete should win then what.. does he intend to carry out his proper duties as a counciller?
Well I suppose he’s guaranteed atleast one vote then.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Make a change to the rest of them if he did.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Apparently Duggins has said at today's council meeting that agents acting for the football club have had meetings with the council, including one today, regarding sites for a new stadium.
He also said, once again, that the club should drop the legals as a pre-requisite for any talks regarding staying temporarily at the Ricoh.
So going off his own statements something, be it bluff or otherwise, is happening regarding a new stadium but he is happy to see the club move out of the city whilst waiting for a potential stadium build to be completed.
He also said, once again, that the club should drop the legals as a pre-requisite for any talks regarding staying temporarily at the Ricoh.
So going off his own statements something, be it bluff or otherwise, is happening regarding a new stadium but he is happy to see the club move out of the city whilst waiting for a potential stadium build to be completed.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Is Duggins now speaking on behalf of Wasps? I thought he had no say in whether or not the club could stay at the Ricoh?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
He also said the council couldn't do anything about a new site but has now confirmed they are talking to the club about that. Bloke seems pretty clueless. At least stick to one story.
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
Probably spun so many different stories he doesn't know which one the official line is anymore! He just sinks further into incompetency every time he opens his mouth!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Statement in council today
Pretty thorough and makes many fair points. No chance of us playing in Coventry next year
Lord Mayor I think everybody in this Chamber would agree with me that we want Coventry City Football Club to remain in Coventry and play at the Ricoh.
It is unthinkable that the football club will be playing outside of the City for the second time in 6 years. If that enormously unfortunate situation comes to pass then it will be the owners of the football club and they alone who will have created and delivered on that situation.
Last week Sisu Capital Ltd sent out an open letter. I am not going to deal with all of the aspects in that letter other than to say many of the issues have been tested in Court, dealt with by Council documentation, publications by including Simon Gilbert and recently David Johnson of The Jimmy Hill Way and numerous media articles.
The main proposal in the 13th March 2019 letter is that any agreement to drop the litigation on Sisu’s behalf would have to contain terms for a stadium development supported by the Council in Coventry with enabling development on reasonable terms and a medium term interim arrangement with Wasps on commercially acceptable terms to stay at the Ricoh until Coventry City Football Club stadium is complete.
Just a few things that I want to actually deal with:
First of all in the summary on page 1 Sisu maintain the Club has never been offered the true ability to buy a stake in ACL. That is simply not bourne out by events.
In 2012 they were in discussion with the Alan Higgs Trust and they simply failed to agree on how the shares in ACL would be transferred to Sisu.
They maintained in 2012 that Heads of Terms were agreed and signed with the Council. Again this is not correct, they were signed with the Alan Higgs Trust and they will know why they did not conclude that deal.
They maintain also that the Council reneged on a rescue package for ACL. Again that is simply not true and the issue around the purchase of the loan by the Council from Yorkshire Bank has long been dealt with by Judicial Review 1 when their argument was soundly dismissed by Mr Justice Hickinbottom. Of course Mr Justice Hickinbottom in his judgment also clarified the deliberate distressing by Sisu of ACL when he described their “rent strike” when they stopped paying rent entirely. He observed, “ There can be no sensible doubt that cranking up the commercial pressure on ACL was quite deliberate on SISU’s part, and was designed to put SISU into the optimal commercial position to broker a deal most advantageous to them.”
In 2013 Councillor Ann Lucas as Leader of the Council entered into discussions with Sisu to explore if they would be interested in acquiring part or all of ACL. Their response was they wanted the sale of the Arena on an unencumbered freehold basis – another opportunity missed.
Ann made it very clear that we were in a position where we would have to move on.
Finally in October 2014 they had the opportunity to buy into ACL. Their bid was slightly higher than the bid made by Wasps for the Alan Higgs Trust shares however the offer from Wasps was unconditional and the Liquidators offer was conditional.
Three opportunities lost. There are many other errors within the statement last week. One of which was that there was not any mention of the rent strike between March 2012 to March 2013. They outlined that ACL received over £850,000 in rental payments at that time. Whilst that is true, most of this was taken out of the Escrow account.
1
I now want to move on to the current situation.
I believe that the way forward is for the litigation to be dropped by the Football Club owners. I say that because I believe that this action poisons relationships between the Football Club and other organisations who want to work with the Football Club to ensure that it moves forward.
We are all delighted that the team is within reaching distance of the League 1 play-offs and this is a major achievement after last year’s promotion.
The litigation is a distraction that I believe the Club can do without, Wasps can do without, the City Council can do without and I have said previously I do not welcome the resources that we have had to put in to defending decisions that have been confirmed again and again by the Courts to be correct.
Importantly the decision to continue with the litigation causes major distress in particular to supporters who want to go and support their team in Coventry and there should be no threat to that.
The way of the past cannot be the way of the future. It is not viable, it is not normal and the people of Coventry desire an end to a seemingly endless litigation process which approaches its 7th year and if conflated with the rent strike, approaches its 8th year.
Over the last 5 years the Football Club I believe have had a licensing agreement that has been very favourable to them. During that time I don’t believe the fans clearly understand what the owners plans are - whether a new stadium is Plan A, whether a ground share with another Club is Plan A or whether staying at the Ricoh is Plan A because the owners of the Club simply do not communicate either with the local media or with the supporters.
I would remind colleagues that Nick Eastwood made it very clear in February last year that there would be no further deal whilst the litigation remained in place. He could not have been clearer and I guess there were those who hoped that he did not mean what he said. The reasoning for that further year deal was because of a desire on behalf of Wasps not to hurt Coventry City supporters and I think that that is worth reflecting on. Otherwise there would have been no deal for the 18/19 football season.
For the Chief Executive of Coventry City Football Club over the last few months to ask what has changed is rather like the Japanese Emperor asking what had changed on the 8th December 1941.
It would help all parties if Sisu and Coventry City Football Club were to present the Council with written plans on their new stadium and what they would be seeking in terms of planning and enablement of the development.
I have made it clear repeatedly that any pre-planning application and planning application including highways environmental assessments and neighbour considerations would be dealt with in the same way as any other applicant. For there to be any suggestion that any applicant would not be treated even handedly is totally and utterly erroneous.
Indeed Council officers have talked to Coventry City Football Club around issues that relate to a relocation from the Ricoh Arena in recent years, the details of which I will not go into today.
2
So colleagues let me say that this issue needs to be drawn to a close, we need to get to a position in which Coventry City do not move out of Coventry again. I cannot see an easy way of ensuring that does not happen other than the legals are traded off for a deal at the Ricoh.
Now I am sure that Sisu’s answer will be that they have every right to continue with the litigation and appear to be oblivious to the consequences. It is a question I have asked before and I ask again today how is that some of the country’s most senior Judges Hickinbottom, Tomlinson, Tracy, Floyd, Singh, Fleur, McCombe, Irvine and Levison can all be wrong?
It is my view that instead of the letter that Sisu sent last week they should have addressed one issue – what is their primary objective? Is it the continuation of litigation or is it Coventry City Football Club’s future?
If legal action is their primary objective then it is my view that it is time for them to divest themselves of Coventry City Football Club and allow the football club to have its future in this City playing at the Ricoh so that everyone can enjoy the progress of Mark Robbins’ impressive young team.
3
Pretty thorough and makes many fair points. No chance of us playing in Coventry next year
Lord Mayor I think everybody in this Chamber would agree with me that we want Coventry City Football Club to remain in Coventry and play at the Ricoh.
It is unthinkable that the football club will be playing outside of the City for the second time in 6 years. If that enormously unfortunate situation comes to pass then it will be the owners of the football club and they alone who will have created and delivered on that situation.
Last week Sisu Capital Ltd sent out an open letter. I am not going to deal with all of the aspects in that letter other than to say many of the issues have been tested in Court, dealt with by Council documentation, publications by including Simon Gilbert and recently David Johnson of The Jimmy Hill Way and numerous media articles.
The main proposal in the 13th March 2019 letter is that any agreement to drop the litigation on Sisu’s behalf would have to contain terms for a stadium development supported by the Council in Coventry with enabling development on reasonable terms and a medium term interim arrangement with Wasps on commercially acceptable terms to stay at the Ricoh until Coventry City Football Club stadium is complete.
Just a few things that I want to actually deal with:
First of all in the summary on page 1 Sisu maintain the Club has never been offered the true ability to buy a stake in ACL. That is simply not bourne out by events.
In 2012 they were in discussion with the Alan Higgs Trust and they simply failed to agree on how the shares in ACL would be transferred to Sisu.
They maintained in 2012 that Heads of Terms were agreed and signed with the Council. Again this is not correct, they were signed with the Alan Higgs Trust and they will know why they did not conclude that deal.
They maintain also that the Council reneged on a rescue package for ACL. Again that is simply not true and the issue around the purchase of the loan by the Council from Yorkshire Bank has long been dealt with by Judicial Review 1 when their argument was soundly dismissed by Mr Justice Hickinbottom. Of course Mr Justice Hickinbottom in his judgment also clarified the deliberate distressing by Sisu of ACL when he described their “rent strike” when they stopped paying rent entirely. He observed, “ There can be no sensible doubt that cranking up the commercial pressure on ACL was quite deliberate on SISU’s part, and was designed to put SISU into the optimal commercial position to broker a deal most advantageous to them.”
In 2013 Councillor Ann Lucas as Leader of the Council entered into discussions with Sisu to explore if they would be interested in acquiring part or all of ACL. Their response was they wanted the sale of the Arena on an unencumbered freehold basis – another opportunity missed.
Ann made it very clear that we were in a position where we would have to move on.
Finally in October 2014 they had the opportunity to buy into ACL. Their bid was slightly higher than the bid made by Wasps for the Alan Higgs Trust shares however the offer from Wasps was unconditional and the Liquidators offer was conditional.
Three opportunities lost. There are many other errors within the statement last week. One of which was that there was not any mention of the rent strike between March 2012 to March 2013. They outlined that ACL received over £850,000 in rental payments at that time. Whilst that is true, most of this was taken out of the Escrow account.
1
I now want to move on to the current situation.
I believe that the way forward is for the litigation to be dropped by the Football Club owners. I say that because I believe that this action poisons relationships between the Football Club and other organisations who want to work with the Football Club to ensure that it moves forward.
We are all delighted that the team is within reaching distance of the League 1 play-offs and this is a major achievement after last year’s promotion.
The litigation is a distraction that I believe the Club can do without, Wasps can do without, the City Council can do without and I have said previously I do not welcome the resources that we have had to put in to defending decisions that have been confirmed again and again by the Courts to be correct.
Importantly the decision to continue with the litigation causes major distress in particular to supporters who want to go and support their team in Coventry and there should be no threat to that.
The way of the past cannot be the way of the future. It is not viable, it is not normal and the people of Coventry desire an end to a seemingly endless litigation process which approaches its 7th year and if conflated with the rent strike, approaches its 8th year.
Over the last 5 years the Football Club I believe have had a licensing agreement that has been very favourable to them. During that time I don’t believe the fans clearly understand what the owners plans are - whether a new stadium is Plan A, whether a ground share with another Club is Plan A or whether staying at the Ricoh is Plan A because the owners of the Club simply do not communicate either with the local media or with the supporters.
I would remind colleagues that Nick Eastwood made it very clear in February last year that there would be no further deal whilst the litigation remained in place. He could not have been clearer and I guess there were those who hoped that he did not mean what he said. The reasoning for that further year deal was because of a desire on behalf of Wasps not to hurt Coventry City supporters and I think that that is worth reflecting on. Otherwise there would have been no deal for the 18/19 football season.
For the Chief Executive of Coventry City Football Club over the last few months to ask what has changed is rather like the Japanese Emperor asking what had changed on the 8th December 1941.
It would help all parties if Sisu and Coventry City Football Club were to present the Council with written plans on their new stadium and what they would be seeking in terms of planning and enablement of the development.
I have made it clear repeatedly that any pre-planning application and planning application including highways environmental assessments and neighbour considerations would be dealt with in the same way as any other applicant. For there to be any suggestion that any applicant would not be treated even handedly is totally and utterly erroneous.
Indeed Council officers have talked to Coventry City Football Club around issues that relate to a relocation from the Ricoh Arena in recent years, the details of which I will not go into today.
2
So colleagues let me say that this issue needs to be drawn to a close, we need to get to a position in which Coventry City do not move out of Coventry again. I cannot see an easy way of ensuring that does not happen other than the legals are traded off for a deal at the Ricoh.
Now I am sure that Sisu’s answer will be that they have every right to continue with the litigation and appear to be oblivious to the consequences. It is a question I have asked before and I ask again today how is that some of the country’s most senior Judges Hickinbottom, Tomlinson, Tracy, Floyd, Singh, Fleur, McCombe, Irvine and Levison can all be wrong?
It is my view that instead of the letter that Sisu sent last week they should have addressed one issue – what is their primary objective? Is it the continuation of litigation or is it Coventry City Football Club’s future?
If legal action is their primary objective then it is my view that it is time for them to divest themselves of Coventry City Football Club and allow the football club to have its future in this City playing at the Ricoh so that everyone can enjoy the progress of Mark Robbins’ impressive young team.
3
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Covers all the bases.
Looks like SISU are prepared to take the club out of the City.
Will anyone blink first, I don't think so.
Looks like SISU are prepared to take the club out of the City.
Will anyone blink first, I don't think so.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
shocked or mainly disappointed it has come to this again ?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Cross I think covers mine. When do they accept they have no case nick?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Assuming CCC/Wasps keep their resolve, are you personally happy at SISUs tactics?
JulianDarbyFTW
Well-Known Member
I'm putting my tin hat on before I make this point.
SISU were, and perhaps still will be, legally allowed to challenge the sale of the Ricoh. Forget the 'big, bad SISU' narrative for a moment; to make dropping litigation a prerequisite of a new deal is tantamount to blackmail. It may not be illegal (although why it isn't is beyond me) but it is at the very least immoral. Before anyone argues that SISU's actions were immoral, that is not the point - if a government body supports a private company in fighting against another party's legal right to litigation, then it is wrong. Because what if the next time it happens is for a cause or company that you do support?
SISU were, and perhaps still will be, legally allowed to challenge the sale of the Ricoh. Forget the 'big, bad SISU' narrative for a moment; to make dropping litigation a prerequisite of a new deal is tantamount to blackmail. It may not be illegal (although why it isn't is beyond me) but it is at the very least immoral. Before anyone argues that SISU's actions were immoral, that is not the point - if a government body supports a private company in fighting against another party's legal right to litigation, then it is wrong. Because what if the next time it happens is for a cause or company that you do support?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Like what?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
For a start the third opportunity to buy into ACL. Was never gonna happen.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
I'm not happy at any of their tactics. They are all c*nts.
People like you with no interest in ccfc are up there with them.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
No, I agree on the one level.
It's all wrong from all angles and all perspectives, let's face it!
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Painful to read. Really hope we make the play offs to embarrass all concerned.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Is this supposed to be a serious statement? We'll ignore everything SISU said in their piece as the most one sided person you'll ever hear on the subject says they're wrong.
Clearly not Duggins own words and something that's been prepared for him. Why the refusal to address the specific points raised by SISU? The piece SISU put out, no matter what you think of it, detailed specific dated emails, meetings etc which Duggins has just swiped away with a vague, 'but SISU' as usual. Give us some proper answers.
And sorry but it is completely misleading to say you want the club to stay in Coventry while refusing to speak to them and not turning up to vital meetings. Again he just turns round and says 'SISU' hoping people will fall for it again but unfortunately for him people are waking up to that tactic.
Angry doesn't begin to describe it reading this. Clearer than ever the council will not do a thing to try and ensure the club stays in Coventry. Let's face it they couldn't care less if the club ceased to exist.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
And of course as has been said many times before if they are so confident of victory why the desperation to get legal action dropped.
Nick
Administrator
Would have thought that was obvious with the telegraph recycling ground share stuff to get people worked up as well.
It has certainly shown David Johnson for what he is as well, they obviously haven't seen people's thoughts on his credibility.
They have no interest in keeping the club here, they think they will just say sisu and nobody will have an issue with them. Then they roll out people like Johnson, dart, fisherbaiter and a couple of others to mislead as well.
Would be interesting to know how realistic the sites being discussed are.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Lol, conspiracy Nick is convinced of his unsubstantiated version of reality.
Nick
Administrator
So you keep saying, you aren't doing much disproving yet though. Funnily enough people can see straight through your little circle on social media and what they try to do
Your conspiracy stuff looks to be the new version of "sisu apologists" which now doesn't work that you have all been shown up.
Its desperate.
westterrace
Member
Council webcast here go to 1hr 50 mins
Council - Tue, 19th Mar 2019 - 2:00 pm - Coventry City Council Webcasting
Council - Tue, 19th Mar 2019 - 2:00 pm - Coventry City Council Webcasting
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Lol, following someone on twitter says nothing.So you keep saying, you aren't doing much disproving yet though. Funnily enough people can see straight through your little circle on social media and what they try to do
Your conspiracy stuff looks to be the new version of "sisu apologists" which now doesn't work that you have all been shown up.
I doubt you will ever argue using logic, it is all suspicion and unproved or unprovable claims that you understand what is going on between Council/Wasps/CET.
Tell you what, why don't you explain what the owners of the club are doing, because I am at a loss to understand their plan.
Nick
Administrator
Who says anything about following somebody?
Its that unproved I can't see how obvious people like you are. Funnily enough more and more are seeing straight through as well.
Its ok, you can keep going on about conspiracy like your mates did about sisu apologists. Like I said, you have all strangely been shown up for that when you actually do start apologising for certain sides.
I am using logic, it was logic when I pointed out what people fisherbaiter were up to months ago.... It was logic when I realised it was strange somebody with no interest in ccfc needed two accounts to back themselves to.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Like I say, pure supposition. You dodge the important issue to have a go at me as usual with people who have no real argument.
Nick
Administrator
What is supposition exactly?
Ricketts
Well-Known Member
No you don't. Did you read it on theinternet?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It is misleading, e.g. the rebuttal to the assertion that SISU were never given the opportunity to own the stadium is that they could buy the Higgs share.
The guy is a crank, anybody referencing the Nicky Eastwood Way as a reliable source must be.
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
So, basically it boils down to their stance being, as it has always been, it's all SISU's fault, missed chances blah blah blah, and we're going to deflect any blame whatsoever. They've no intention of helping us.
Is it because they are costing wasps and the council dead money , costs are set not what is incurred