Council meeting for Mark and I (16 Viewers)

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

I think they signed last year to say they wouldn't take action against Wasps with regards the sale of the Ricoh. What Wasps now seem to be asking is for them not to take action against CCC as this would impact them financially should anyone rule against CCC.

I think some of the impacting CCFCs future could be around writing in clauses that would essentially break the lease and kick CCFC out at the drop of a hat if they did something Wasps didn't like.

Ah, ok. So SISU are saying that ‘if’ we committed to a 10 year deal (for example) Wasps would have the option of booting us out instantly if they decided we’d done something that broke the clauses wasps want inserted? Like you say, I guess we’ll never know the detail.

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

It does look increasingly that way. Either to stop action against CCC (because of the implications of that to Wasps) or perhaps drop *any* pursuit of action over the Ricoh?

Which means SISU were telling the truth about signing up to not pursuing any further legal action against Wasps
CCC were telling the truth that they did not request any clause in the Wasps-CCFC Ricoh rent negotiations.

Which boils the topic down to:

1) is it reasonable for Wasps to restrict a company's legal rights as part of a commercial contract?
2) How does that 'threaten the existence of CCFC'* which was part of SISU's justification for walking away from the negotiations.

* please correct my wording on that, couldn't quickly find the exact quote from the time

And the prize goes to!!!!!

Completely agree

So here you go my friend / s

The answer to 1 is of course deals often have this kind of thing in them so If it can be agreed then let’s talk

The answer to 2 is - Is it reasonable for wasps to do a deal that includes a qualification that Sisu / ccfc take no further action against the sale to acl after the Eu commission gives their decision and it goes against Sisu? I don’t know the answer to that. I know that I want to get two people on a call and ask them these questions

It’s not the be all and end all of course and it would take weeks to talk and agree but why not

There are nuances around that. If it goes against wasps will they agree not to appeal for instance

I really do think talking is the answer and now we know everyone wants ccfc in coventry what’s stopping them other than hatred, past injustice, no time, lack of resource, compensation at Birmingham, trust?

 

[Nick]

I think, basically, there's nothing contractual with Wasps to that end.

Exactly, so it was a lie that it was a condition of the sale that it wouldn't harm CCFC or Cov Rugby.

 

[Nick]

But when the Council agreed to sell we had returned to the Ricoh if memory serves me right?

Yep, we played at the Ricoh when it was sold so that's bullshit too.

 

[shmmeee]

It does look increasingly that way. Either to stop action against CCC (because of the implications of that to Wasps) or perhaps drop *any* pursuit of action over the Ricoh?

Which means SISU were telling the truth about signing up to not pursuing any further legal action against Wasps
CCC were telling the truth that they did not request any clause in the Wasps-CCFC Ricoh rent negotiations.

Which boils the topic down to:

1) is it reasonable for Wasps to restrict a company's legal rights as part of a commercial contract?
2) How does that 'threaten the existence of CCFC'* which was part of SISU's justification for walking away from the negotiations.

* please correct my wording on that, couldn't quickly find the exact quote from the time

Awaits the howls of council plant. (This is literally what I’ve been saying on here for months)

 

[oldskyblue58]

With regards the "indemnity" my reading of it is that Wasps may be asking CCFC not to pursue the EU complaint any further if it's not successful. The CCC legal representative confirmed there are 2 further routes of appeal that can be taken if the case is unsuccessful, 1 is an appeal to the European Court of Justice and then something else (which I can't remember at the moment). Those would impact Wasps in a similar way to the EU complaint in that they'd have to pay back the difference. This is just my reading of what the indemnity could be. I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

That would be my understanding too mark

Ccc don't need to be involved for wasps to require an indemnity for all action against ccc and the ricoh sale/lease to stop. As long as there are options to take further legal action or process the threat hangs over wasps which makes future financing fir wasps harder and more expensive. Basically unless all action against whichever party stops the wasps business is at risk ...... in which case wasps directors have to take action or require action to protect their business.

The one question that puzzles me is how the ccfc business is placed at risk of non existence or even just risk by legal action being stopped in respect of the ricoh sale and lease. We were told ccfc had no liability in the legal actions or processes

 

[shmmeee]

That would be my understanding too mark

Ccc don't need to be involved for wasps to require an indemnity for all action against ccc and the ricoh sale/lease to stop. As long as there are options to take further legal action or process the threat hangs over wasps which makes future financing fir wasps harder and more expensive. Basically unless all action against whichever party stops the wasps business is at risk ...... in which case wasps directors have to take action or require action to protect their business.

The one question that puzzles me is how the ccfc business is placed at risk of non existence or even just risk by legal action being stopped in respect of the ricoh sale and lease. We were told ccfc had no liability in the legal actions or processes

If you’ll allow me some snark:

Because if Joy can’t use it as a vehicle to get the Ricoh she’ll liquidate it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

well done Pete and Mark

Your efforts are much appreciated

 

[oldskyblue58]

If you’ll allow me some snark:

Because if Joy can’t use it as a vehicle to get the Ricoh she’ll liquidate it?

Well if you believe the public utterances then that is a reasonable conclusion

Except that she would get more for her investors by simply selling the club of course

 

[shmmeee]

Well if you believe the public utterances then that is a reasonable conclusion

Except that she would get more for her investors by simply selling the club of course

Im half joking. I think it’s just emotive language designed to do exactly what it did which is get people up in arms and create a lot of heat and no light.

Look at how this place reacted, believing that Wasps were asking Sisu to pay the costs of the state aid case, which was clearly never true but exactly what Sisu wanted us to believe so we’d spend a year ranting about “the indemnity” and not asking why we as CCFC fans should care about her legal efforts.

 

[oldskyblue58]

as to the "guarantees " given by Council on the sale I have always believed that to be nothing more than political speak dressing things with a positive spin because the deal was happening anyway

I cannot see how such an open ended clause to guarantee ccfc always having an option at the ricoh for ever more could be workable let alone accepted by wasps. The potential for legal cases would be huge and why would wasps accept such a restriction on their business? I seriously doubt there are any such words in any formal agreement with ccc and wasps

 

[oldskyblue58]

Im half joking. I think it’s just emotive language designed to do exactly what it did which is get people up in arms and create a lot of heat and no light.

Look at how this place reacted, believing that Wasps were asking Sisu to pay the costs of the state aid case, which was clearly never true but exactly what Sisu wanted us to believe so we’d spend a year ranting about “the indemnity” and not asking why we as CCFC fans should care about her legal efforts.

Yep, have always said don't just take at face value and look behind to see if things make sense. The sisu statements painted a particular picture it was never intended to be the full bare truth

 

[mark82]

But when the Council agreed to sell we had returned to the Ricoh if memory serves me right?

We returned just before it was announced I think. Would think the price was set before then.

As I say, I'm not sure I agree with them but that is their rationale.

 

[shmmeee]

We returned just before it was announced I think. Would think the price was set before then.

As I say, I'm not sure I agree with them but that is their rationale.

Also we returned on a short term deal and explicitly said we won’t be staying so the impact on the valuation would’ve likely been negligible.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Im half joking. I think it’s just emotive language designed to do exactly what it did which is get people up in arms and create a lot of heat and no light.

Look at how this place reacted, believing that Wasps were asking Sisu to pay the costs of the state aid case, which was clearly never true but exactly what Sisu wanted us to believe so we’d spend a year ranting about “the indemnity” and not asking why we as CCFC fans should care about her legal efforts.

So where it was council plant for me and I wouldn’t ever use that term as I respect you and value your often counter opinions. It’s the looking at the past which feeds the victims and those that don’t want to have to face the reality in each of the parties that unless people move from hate and intransigent positions then nothing will change.

My opinion

Sisu are not selling up
Wasps are not going out of business
Martin Reeves is not retiring soon
Labour aren’t going to lose the council in May
Eu don’t give a monkeys about sorting the case out any time soon

Do we just argue and talk with each party and nod happily cos they say what we want or attempt to find solutions that are possible for people to follow

I do hope each party recognises that in our haphazard way mark and I are trustworthy, decent and have been clear we want what’s best for Ccfc supporters and that means we have some influence all be it tiny to push the solutions that bring us closer to a return to coventry long term and if that includes a new stadium then let’s get on and do it with support from all

 

[mark82]

Exactly, so it was a lie that it was a condition of the sale that it wouldn't harm CCFC or Cov Rugby.

I think the official line is something along the lines on it being dependent on them agreeing commercial terms, and for whatever reason they can't. They could only really mandate them not kicking CCFC off the deal they currently had, anything future is obviously open to negotiations on commercial terms. I guess, in a way, Ann Lucas was right when she said it was only for the course of the existing deal. In fairness, other than not selling the stadium to a London rugby club, a follow up commercial deal is out of their hands.

 

[mark82]

Also we returned on a short term deal and explicitly said we won’t be staying so the impact on the valuation would’ve likely been negligible.

Yep, also true.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Labour aren’t going to lose the council in May

Even if they did, the Conservatives have stood with Labour on this issue, anyway.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think the official line is something along the lines on it being dependent on them agreeing commercial terms, and for whatever reason they can't. They could only really mandate them not kicking CCFC off the deal they currently had, anything future is obviously open to negotiations on commercial terms. I guess, in a way, Ann Lucas was right when she said it was only for the course of the existing deal. In fairness, other than not selling the stadium to a London rugby club, a follow up commercial deal is out of their hands.

Yeah, the counter-argument is we presented it as deliberately agreeing a short term deal to return, as we were set on building our own stadium.

If we chose to do that, there's not much people can do when said deal runs out.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Even if they did, the Conservatives have stood with Labour on this issue, anyway.

I think they want to entertain a different path and Duggins said that in a way we thought was very transparent yesterday and were clear that every decision till now was unanimous

 

[Nick]

I think the official line is something along the lines on it being dependent on them agreeing commercial terms, and for whatever reason they can't. They could only really mandate them not kicking CCFC off the deal they currently had, anything future is obviously open to negotiations on commercial terms. I guess, in a way, Ann Lucas was right when she said it was only for the course of the existing deal. In fairness, other than not selling the stadium to a London rugby club, a follow up commercial deal is out of their hands.

The official line from where though? Where did Ann Lucas say it was only for the course of the existing deal?

So how does that impact the "guarantee" they made to not harm Cov Rugby who don't need a lease from ACL?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[tisza]

We returned just before it was announced I think. Would think the price was set before then.

As I say, I'm not sure I agree with them but that is their rationale.

checking back looks like we'd been back a month before it went to the council vote. we'd returned with a 2 year deal and an option for another 2 years agreed nearly 2 months before council vote.
Obviously Reeves has a value in mind as to what value CCFC brings to the Ricoh hence the difference between selling price and higher valuation. Wasps also had a "CCFC value" in mind as it was part of their bond prospectus and justification for the valuation of the business being what it was.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think they want to entertain a different path and Duggins said that in a way we thought was very transparent yesterday and were clear that every decision till now was unanimous

Any indication of what he thought that different path was?

Oh, btw, I agree with you about new ground, backing and supporting. I just hope that SISU aren't expecting financial support from the local authorities, only political. The latter is (maybe!) achievable, the former somewhat less so.

 

[Mild-Mannered Janitor]

well done guys, getting in front of all these 3 parties and aiming to hold them to account and find answers for us all is something the press should have been doing for years

 

[shmmeee]

So where it was council plant for me and I wouldn’t ever use that term as I respect you and value your often counter opinions. It’s the looking at the past which feeds the victims and those that don’t want to have to face the reality in each of the parties that unless people move from hate and intransigent positions then nothing will change.

My opinion

Sisu are not selling up
Wasps are not going out of business
Martin Reeves is not retiring soon
Labour aren’t going to lose the council in May
Eu don’t give a monkeys about sorting the case out any time soon

Do we just argue and talk with each party and nod happily cos they say what we want or attempt to find solutions that are possible for people to follow

I do hope each party recognises that in our haphazard way mark and I are trustworthy, decent and have been clear we want what’s best for Ccfc supporters and that means we have some influence all be it tiny to push the solutions that bring us closer to a return to coventry long term and if that includes a new stadium then let’s get on and do it with support from all

Mate, you know my thoughts on this. They’re unchanged for years: there’s nothing we can do while Sisu think there’s a chance of a legal action working and Wasps think there’s a chance of stopping them.

Best case is Wasps be the bigger person and let us play there while Sisu are trying to reverse the Ricoh sale. But there’s no real reason for them to do that unless Richardson finds himself watching us on Sky one evening and falls in love with the club.

Honestly think our best hope is a new ground and that’s a very thin straw to grasp when Sisu have a record of not following through and have never done development work before.

We are in Birmingham for five years at least and I have heard nothing that suggests otherwise I’m afraid. Just hope the club is in a decent state once all this is over but biggest fear is we go back to 2014 after the EU reject their complaint and Joy actually carries through her threat to liquidate the club.

 

[mark82]

The official line from where though? Where did Ann Lucas say it was only for the course of the existing deal?

So how does that impact the "guarantee" they made to not harm Cov Rugby who don't need a lease from ACL?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

As someone else said, I think it was only ever really political noise.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The official line from where though? Where did Ann Lucas say it was only for the course of the existing deal?

So how does that impact the "guarantee" they made to not harm Cov Rugby who don't need a lease from ACL?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

I think it is nonsense isn’t it. Unless it’s in black and white and legally enforceable it means nothing and should be called out as such. But recognising it only helps us if we look forward.

It’s my contention that wasps need to do one of two things and they’re currently doing a third

1 - can’t deal with them move on
2 - can’t deal with them because but Ccfc and their supporters deserve our empathy so we will do ....

Currently it feels like we want ccfc there but because of this and that we can talk but won’t deal but we still feel really bad about it. Well fundamentally I don’t want empathy I want some action. You don’t have to wasps but it would be great if you would

Ccfc are on the up, Sisu are going nowhere who is going to be the man here!! Anyone ??????

Come on do it

 

[Skyblueweeman]

They very much stand by their decision to sell ACL to Wasps. Also said the valuation was fair on the basis that the asset was devalued by the football club not being there. To me, the decision to move to Northampton played right into their hands with wanting to bring Wasps in (again, my opinion as they'd never admit something like that). They do believe they maximised the valuation, and say that the courts agree too. I disagree personally but I don't get much of a say.

Yep, don't disagree with anything you've said there. My point still stands though which I know you were't arguing against ;-)

 

[Deleted member 5849]

1 - can’t deal with them move on
2 - can’t deal with them because but Ccfc and their supporters deserve our empathy so we will do ....

I'd suggest what they're trying to do is indeed 2. Very possibly the reason talks would re-start at all?

 

[oldskyblue58]

a 2+2 year deal really would not carry much value. Essentially you are valuing the worth of two years and an even smaller uplift for the option of an even smaller amount. Annual rental 100k and only 50% of that "relates " to ccc

Isnt the eu case essentially about the value of the 250 year lease being under valued? Even if you call the ccfc deal 4 years then it forms little of the total

 

[Grendel]

Mate, you know my thoughts on this. They’re unchanged for years: there’s nothing we can do while Sisu think there’s a chance of a legal action working and Wasps think there’s a chance of stopping them.

Best case is Wasps be the bigger person and let us play there while Sisu are trying to reverse the Ricoh sale. But there’s no real reason for them to do that unless Richardson finds himself watching us on Sky one evening and falls in love with the club.

Honestly think our best hope is a new ground and that’s a very thin straw to grasp when Sisu have a record of not following through and have never done development work before.

We are in Birmingham for five years at least and I have heard nothing that suggests otherwise I’m afraid. Just hope the club is in a decent state once all this is over but biggest fear is we go back to 2014 after the EU reject their complaint and Joy actually carries through her threat to liquidate the club.

We are only signed to Birmingham for 2 more years. I doubt we will get an extension beyond that.

I don’t see how the club can sustain a 5 year absence anyway and that’s assuming a ground is built and in time on current projections - both unlikely

Liquidation I don’t see as it’s losing all funds tied up in the master funds - at some point if the case fails she’s going to have to admit defeat

 

[shmmeee]

I think it is nonsense isn’t it. Unless it’s in black and white and legally enforceable it means nothing and should be called out as such. But recognising it only helps us if we look forward.

It’s my contention that wasps need to do one of two things and they’re currently doing a third

1 - can’t deal with them move on
2 - can’t deal with them because but Ccfc and their supporters deserve our empathy so we will do ....

Currently it feels like we want ccfc there but because of this and that we can talk but won’t deal but we still feel really bad about it. Well fundamentally I don’t want empathy I want some action. You don’t have to wasps but it would be great if you would

Ccfc are on the up, Sisu are going nowhere who is going to be the man here!! Anyone ??????

Come on do it

And we’re back at square one. Sisu don’t have to go anywhere, just give up the wild goose chase. Wasps have to ignore the wild goose chase and accept the costs of defending it will happen anyway.

Either would remove the logjam. Only one side is responsible for CCFC over Wasps though and in theory only one side has to listen to us.

But we aren’t allowed to ask the owners of the club to do what’s best for the club apparently that’s the job of everyone else

(Not aimed at you, just general frustration)

 

[mark82]

We are in Birmingham for five years at least and I have heard nothing that suggests otherwise I’m afraid. Just hope the club is in a decent state once all this is over but biggest fear is we go back to 2014 after the EU reject their complaint and Joy actually carries through her threat to liquidate the club.

I tend to agree with this. Or at least until any chance of legal challenges has subsided. It might be that any future deal (or lack thereof) with the EU puts the kibosh on any future appeals within the EU legal system.

 

[shmmeee]

We are only signed to Birmingham for 2 more years. I doubt we will get an extension beyond that.

I don’t see how the club can sustain a 5 year absence anyway and that’s assuming a ground is built and in time on current projections - both unlikely

Liquidation I don’t see as it’s losing all funds tied up in the master funds - at some point if the case fails she’s going to have to admit defeat

Agree with all of that.

I don’t think she’ll liquidate as you say, but it is my biggest fear. More likely we fail to compete and find ourselves back in L1 and maybe she sells up? As NW says though, what value “looking tough” I don’t know.

I can’t see us realistically being at Brum for five (six by then actually) years either.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

We are only signed to Birmingham for 2 more years. I doubt we will get an extension beyond that.

I don’t see how the club can sustain a 5 year absence anyway and that’s assuming a ground is built and in time on current projections - both unlikely

Liquidation I don’t see as it’s losing all funds tied up in the master funds - at some point if the case fails she’s going to have to admit defeat

Unlikely for a ground (esp in five years) I agree, but do think the club could survive if a ground was a realistic prospect. If a ground was realistic, and happening, does the Butts (and buying Cov Utd out of their deal?) come back into play as our Withdean? Is there some mileage to be had with the Alexander Stadium refurbishment? Either with it being our Don Valley, or allowing Birmingham to move there? At some stage, there could even be movement on the Ricoh if legal action really is exhausted... although I expect hell to freeze over first.

We're 'blessed' to be in an area with plenty of grounds, so we'll always find a home. What level that home can sustain us at is another question entirely, however.

(Liquidation gets them Ryton as a get-out. It gets them something back. I know we've had this argument many times before but then, which discussion haven't we... but I'd suggest the benefit in context to her business as a whole needs her to play hardball, even at a small immediate cost)