Council meeting for Mark and I (19 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Pete]

Afternoons on BBC CWR - 18/08/2020: Trish Adudu - BBC Sounds

Trish has all the music you love, news, and Make A Difference updates.

www.bbc.co.uk

3:40 for Pete

Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol

 

---

[mark82]

Liquidate! as you say we are the company stuck between a rock and a hardplace, I should think Joy is looking forward to getting a shot at a £100 million game at the end of the season (me being an optomist LOL)

That'd be nice.

 

[shmmeee]

Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol

She had just said you deserve a Nobel Prize so understandable

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?

 

[shmmeee]

Would be good for any meeting with Wasps to go into depth on what risks they see from letting CCFC play on a short term deal or is it purely leverage?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I can't see what's in it for CCFC/Sisu to change approach. From Wasps perspective it's a little more cloudy for me. Sisu will pursue the legal action either way, CCFC not being there doesn't change that. They're trying to leverage discussions to mitigate future risk. It's a decision they're taking that they'd rather leverage that in the future at the expense of now. There's no real benefit to Wasps of CCFC not playing at the Ricoh.

See I would say there always has been. Ultimately, we're competitors for floating fans, fairweather flag wavers, people who want a day out. The only way it is of benefit to Wasps is if any deal is to their benefit, then, to mitigate that, and therefore be of lower value to the club, as they don't do as well as they maybe should do out of such a deal.

It's (although maybe not as stark) the same issue ACL v CCFC had - for both entities to profit is very, very hard. On a purely commercial basis, one will probably lose out.

Throw a court case or seven into the mix as well...

 

[shmmeee]

If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?

It’s literally the only lever they have to pull to get Sisu to stop. Trick is convincing them the lever isn’t connected to anything I guess.

 

[mark82]

Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol

A beautiful conversation?

 

[chiefdave]

I think I've missed something in the rush of posts on this thread today. Can someone explain how nobody is lying as I can't see how all statements can be true.

CCFC said in their statement "the same issues that prevented a deal last season have again prevented a deal for the upcoming season." and "Last year the critical issue was Wasps’ insistence of indemnity clauses into the license agreement, with this indemnity for themselves and for a third-party." Simon Gilbert conformed that indemnity was the issue "Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.".

Wasps said they didn't request indemnity "We did not require the football club or its owners to sign any indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena." and "Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false."

And now the council say they have not requested, nor do they require, indemnity.

How can all of those statements be true?

 

[Nick]

It appears there is!

What else is there?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

What else is there?

Appeal and potentially a further stage in Europe. Even the ccc legal brain wasn’t certain but thought the possibility was there

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think I've missed something in the rush of posts on this thread today. Can someone explain how nobody is lying as I can't see how all statements can be true.

CCFC said in their statement "the same issues that prevented a deal last season have again prevented a deal for the upcoming season." and "Last year the critical issue was Wasps’ insistence of indemnity clauses into the license agreement, with this indemnity for themselves and for a third-party." Simon Gilbert conformed that indemnity was the issue "Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.".

Wasps said they didn't request indemnity "We did not require the football club or its owners to sign any indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena." and "Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false."

And now the council say they have not requested, nor do they require, indemnity.

How can all of those statements be true?

Sorry to answer with a question but what do you think the indemnity / clause is and do you think each of the parties mean the same thing when they use the same term?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Would be good for any meeting with Wasps to go into depth on what risks they see from letting CCFC play on a short term deal or is it purely leverage?

I agree thank you

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?

Shmmee made this point and he’s right we should be able to ask our owners to stop but as it seems unlikely Derek Richardson holds all the cards. Will he? Let’s ask

 

[Nick]

Appeal and potentially a further stage in Europe. Even the ccc legal brain wasn’t certain but thought the possibility was there

So she didn't really know but told you there was

 

[mark82]

So she didn't really know but told you there was

No, essentially she wasn't sure because of the impacts/uncertainty of Brexit.

 

[mark82]

Standard route from here would be appeal to ECJ if initial complaint fails.

 

[shmmeee]

Standard route from here would be appeal to ECJ if initial complaint fails.

Did you ask if they’ve had any communication at all since the complaint was raised?

 

[mark82]

Did you ask if they’ve had any communication at all since the complaint was raised?

From the EU? Didn't ask directly but it was fairly clear they had as they were expecting an update September/October time.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So she didn't really know but told you there was

No it was a bit of clarity from her really. Wasps had said it to me too. Nothing from Ccfc or Sisu and I’m not an expert but shmmee and northern wisdom and Others on here have said something similar

 

[mark82]

Should also add that we asked when they were notified of the complaint. They insist they didn't know anything before May last year.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

From the EU? Didn't ask directly but it was fairly clear they had as they were expecting an update September/October time.

It was offered wasn’t it mark. They knew of our meeting and so asked what was happening which I thought was useful

 

[shmmeee]

No it was a bit of clarity from her really. Wasps had said it to me too. Nothing from Ccfc or Sisu and I’m not an expert but shmmee and northern wisdom and Others on here have said something similar

Certainly on my part it’s a guess laced with pessimism. The law in an ass and there’s always something sort of thing rather than a definite understanding of what it might be.

That said, if there wasn’t anything else Sisu would be pretty stupid not to agree a deal of no more legal action.

 

[Orca]

We need something to change and no agreement isn’t a solution

What about agreeing both have the right to appeal and the right to pursue damages?

I need a solution help me

Here's an idea. Likely pie in the sky, so feel free to shoot as many holes in it as you like.

Let's say SISU win the EU judgement and Wasps are told they have to stump up the difference. Could SISU not agree to pay this difference, in return for the equivalent percentage ownership of ACL?

Benefits. Stops Wasps putting their potential losses in the way of a CCFC return. Gets SISU a stake in ACL. Increases the profitability of ACL. Gets us home.

Disadvantages. Wasps feel they've paid market value for ACL, and wouldn't want to give any of it up without a fight. They'd also likely require the right to appeal if CCC did provide state aid. SISU are unlikely to want to pay market value, so will likely want a greater percentage than the amount would suggest pro-rata. Probably loads more

 

[Nick]

Here's an idea. Likely pie in the sky, so feel free to shoot as many holes in it as you like.

Let's say SISU win the EU judgement and Wasps are told they have to stump up the difference. Could SISU not agree to pay this difference, in return for the equivalent percentage ownership of ACL?

Benefits. Stops Wasps putting their potential losses in the way of a CCFC return. Gets SISU a stake in ACL. Increases the profitability of ACL. Gets us home.

Disadvantages. Wasps feel they've paid market value for ACL, and wouldn't want to give any of it up without a fight. They'd also likely require the right to appeal if CCC did provide state aid. SISU are unlikely to want to pay market value, so will likely want a greater percentage than the amount would suggest pro-rata. Probably loads more

What happens if the difference is way more than 50%?

Wasps only potential losses are if there's wrongdoing with the deal, surely?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

See I would say there always has been. Ultimately, we're competitors for floating fans, fairweather flag wavers, people who want a day out. The only way it is of benefit to Wasps is if any deal is to their benefit, then, to mitigate that, and therefore be of lower value to the club, as they don't do as well as they maybe should do out of such a deal.

It's (although maybe not as stark) the same issue ACL v CCFC had - for both entities to profit is very, very hard. On a purely commercial basis, one will probably lose out.

Throw a court case or seven into the mix as well...

Absolutely fair comment

 

[usskyblue]

What did you wear?

Bold print polo, full home kit with trainers ?

 

[oldskyblue58]

If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?

The trouble is every legal action so far has been jointly brought by ccfc in the guise of ccfc h or otium. It would be safe i think to assume that the complaint has jointly been brought by ccfc. Sisu haven't actually taken any of the actions in legal terms ..... never been named as complainant etc. So when it gets to doing the legals of any agreement it is going throw up the connection

Sisu need to include ccfc for any legals or potential damage claim as the wronged party. Wasps want an end to all legals from any sisu connected entity so that includes ccfc/otium. In legal terms I don't think you can separate the owners from the club so whilst the idea is good the legal practice won't work

Wasps currently calculate the harm repeated legal actions cause is in value more than the benefit of 5 or 6 years of ccfc tenancy ( assuming new stadium a reality)

 

[mark82]

What did you wear?

Bold print polo, full home kit with trainers ?

Was on MS Teams, so T-Shirt and underwear. Maybe not the underwear.

 

[mark82]

 

[Nick]

So to sum the meeting up.

"Nothing to do with us, we think SISU can take more legals if they wanted, we want CCFC here?"

It's got a couple of people's interest perked up judging by the thread.

 

[Orca]

What happens if the difference is way more than 50%?

Wasps only potential losses are if there's wrongdoing with the deal, surely?

1. Don't know
2. Yes

 

[oldskyblue58]

Also now complicated by the fact that we'd have to compensate BCFC if we moved back now, which is not an insignificant sum.

So given that compensation the question is why when no crowds are likely to be allowed that would make a significant difference to finances would sisu bring the club back any time in the 20/21 season. Conclusion has to be that sisu have no intention of bringing the club back before August 2021 surely ? It would cost the club extra money that sisu or player sales would have to find

As Pete says Boddy seemed to imply that's it negotiations finished.

No reason why wasps would compensate ccfc for breaking the bcfc arrangement

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As Pete says Boddy seemed to imply that's it negotiations finished.

tbf they've all said that at various times in this, since 2013.

 

[Frostie]

It's fairly clear that Wasps simply don't want to do a deal, ignore all their nonsense & hyperbole about being "shocked" etc.

The question is why?
They are the only party realistically who can change this.

SISU cannot withdraw the EU complaint even if they wanted to & of course are free to take whatever legal recourse they choose.

That scenario is the same regardless if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews, UoW or the dark side of the moon.

By refusing to agree a rent deal Wasps are knowingly & deliberately turning down the financial benefits of having the football club at the Ricoh & causing significant harm to the football club, the local community & local businesses etc as well as their own, already precarious finances.

It all comes back to the point, if they're all so sure of their position regarding the purchase of the Ricoh, why not just let it run its course &, in the meantime agree a mutually beneficial deal?