Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
Ok .... SISU (for all its faults) has suggested a moderator. Now, if ACL/Council refuse, who is the bad guy ?
Moderator (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Voice_of_Reason
- Start date
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Yes good point- hearts and minds battle? Trying to win popular opinion of those 'centre ground' sky blue fans who are not entrenched in one camp or the other.
For me though judging by TF's comments yesterday this has progressed almost beyond abitration- I was really concerned by his "language". I thought he was really unprofessional at times in the way he kept referring to ACL's financial status- almost as if he was goading them into a reaction. Very sad state of affairs.- these are supposed to be business leaders not children in the playground.
For me though judging by TF's comments yesterday this has progressed almost beyond abitration- I was really concerned by his "language". I thought he was really unprofessional at times in the way he kept referring to ACL's financial status- almost as if he was goading them into a reaction. Very sad state of affairs.- these are supposed to be business leaders not children in the playground.
JHarding1987
New Member
Spot on. All council & ACL have set out to do is fleece the club & line their fat greedy wallets. We need to organise a march through the City that has a destination of the Council offices. SISU were very naive and stupid to sign up or be involved in the agreement to this rent agreement. This extortionate rent is the reason why the club is where it is. Remember McGinnity saying attendance had to be 22,000 just to break even. Hope the mediators are brought in. I'm no pro SISU person, but plaintively obvious to me who is killing our club. Great win yesterday. PUSB.
coundonskyblue
New Member
Genuine question now then, what do you want the council to do?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Businessmen are children in the playground! Good ones just play hardball better than their adversaries!!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Arbitration is pointless because at the end of the day whatever is agreed can always be renaged on by either party !!!!
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
What is needed is a 2hour radio program with Tim Fisher and someone from ACL answering questions from the public together, no hiding or dodging, if both sides think they ae correct in what they are doing they should agree to an open debate.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The council will run a million miles from any mediation. They would never agree on the terms and areas of mediation for a start as the football club will certainly want the arrangement they have to be compared to other like for like arrangements.
2-3 months too late, when anyone with any sense was suggesting it (Myself)
Just a stalling tactic to try and get to seasons end without resolution of this Sisu engendered Farce.:jerkit:
speedie87
Well-Known Member
Let us have more income from the stadium (so we can spend more on player wages - lge 1 rules), but then charge more rent
Eg rather giving us no income and charging us £300k rent
Give us £200k income and charge us £500k rent. Net effect is acl get £300k
Desperados
New Member
Will it be a binding mediator where the outcome, whatever it may be, will legally need to be followed? SISU have already ignored a court judgement so what guarantees will they put in place to honour any outcome?I think this should have been asked for a year ago when both sides were more civil with each other and before all the shite in the press.
Crashed early last night after getting back so up with the larks .
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I think the counsel would be up for this but Sisu only want to work with confidentiality agreements. This is the secretive way Sisu work and this is why we never get the full facts. And then people like Grendel make to many assumptions without backed up facts !!!!
Waldorf
New Member
They've already offered the half of the catering profit that ACL currently get. That, along with other concessions, according to ACL, reduces the 400,000 rent to £150,000.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
The interesting thing here is that a mediator doesn't take sides. It looks for the best outcome for both parties.
So the question had to be asked why acl aka council doesn't want this?
Is it because they know CCFC will get a better deal than what they have laid on the table for us?
The is a reason they are saying no to a mediator.
So the question had to be asked why acl aka council doesn't want this?
Is it because they know CCFC will get a better deal than what they have laid on the table for us?
The is a reason they are saying no to a mediator.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
We need the car parking costs, and some income from stadium sponsorship.
Fisher was completely right when he said the only reason acl get income from catering, car parking and anything else related to a match day is because Coventry city fans turn up to watch football. Not attend a bloody wedding show or a car exhibition!
Fans don't turn up to support acl but the football club.
How about ACL say, SiSU let us release the minutes, if these minutes show that you have been telling the truth, that you can be trusted not to reneg on a deal we will agree to binding arbitration. If the minutes show you agreed on a deal and have now gone back on it, or you won't let us release the minutes then we won't. Make this request in the paper.
Then the fans might be able to make a fairer judgement about whats going on.
Then the fans might be able to make a fairer judgement about whats going on.
CCFC_GT
New Member
Yes arbitration can be reneged on by either party, but it does have a point as it gives an independent view on a fair settlement, and would be interesting to see.
CCFC_GT
New Member
I am sure that whichever party the arbitration decision favours will be quick to publish it
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
If i was the counsel and still wanted to keep fans onside i would agree to mediation and set the date to the beginning of May. This is still not going to stop the process of the money currently being claimed.
Sisu's tactics currently look to be costing the club more now because they will be paying debt in full !!!
Sisu's tactics currently look to be costing the club more now because they will be paying debt in full !!!
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
If you have ever watched Question Time or listened to a radio phone-in...you'd be as skeptical as me about that bringing about any sort of progress.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Imagine Nigel asking questions from the studio audience...
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Problem is they wont show anyone what they actually get for food revenues etc, if you cannot see the accounts how can you make a judgement.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
They really aren't interested in anyone else's judgement except their own & their paymasters. So that straight away show how complex this is from every angle. SISU probably have a slightly more straightforward process in that one person can ultimately say "Yes, let's go with that". Their position is probably looking toward future investment fitting with the new league rules. We need to get more income. ACL has a Council & a charity & at least one bank involved. Then the Council itself has a comittee based decision making process & that has to be ratified by teams of lawyers.
This alone says its very complex, very time consuming & for us...very frustrating!
Its been suggested in print many times as around £100k.,obviously this does'nt include the compass elelment ,if it is at that level it is insignificant and would 'nt affect greatly any funds for team building .To focus on income streams a s they are would suggest that they would like every stream the place generates to achieve the level required to make a difference ,this would obviously have to be purchased and of course holds value.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Actually the ACL chairman said they'd offered SISU access to them on Shane O'Conner's CWR program a few days ago. But I think if I heard it right they could only give them access to bills & receipts from the present onwards & nothing historical.
What PKH actually said in this playback from 2h40m in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0144cq2
PKH states that ACL wanted to release minutes, but were threatened with solicitors letters to prevent them being open.
He also says ACL "agreed to use open book accounting so money coming in & going out would be there for CCFC/SISU to see".
Last edited by a moderator:
I am sure that whichever party the arbitration decision favours will be quick to publish it
I mean the minutes of the recent meetings, ACL say they show that SISU agreed a deal and have gone back on it, they say that SISU have sent lawyers letters to prevent them releaseing these minutes. So if Sisu want arbitration they need to show that what ACL have recently said isn't true, because if they agreed a deal and have gone back on it why would acl agree to mediation?
So their responce to the request for mediation should have to publically say yes if they are allowed to release the minutes and that they show sisu are telling the truth.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Mediation, as used in law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes between two or more parties with concrete effects. Typically, a third party, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a variety of domains, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.
The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks. The process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. Participation is typically voluntary. The mediator acts as a neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process.
Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much depends on the mediator's skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs, certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, professional mediators committed to the discipline.
The benefits of mediation[1] include:
The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks. The process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. Participation is typically voluntary. The mediator acts as a neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process.
Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much depends on the mediator's skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs, certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, professional mediators committed to the discipline.
The benefits of mediation[1] include:
- Cost—While a mediator may charge a fee comparable to that of an attorney, the mediation process generally takes much less time than moving a case through standard legal channels. While a case in the hands of a lawyer or a court may take months or years to resolve, mediation usually achieves a resolution in a matter of hours. Taking less time means expending less money on hourly fees and costs.
- Confidentiality—While court hearings are public, mediation remains strictly confidential. No one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator(s) know what happened. Confidentiality in mediation has such importance that in most cases the legal system cannot force a mediator to testify in court as to the content or progress of mediation. Many mediators destroy their notes taken during a mediation once that mediation has finished. The only exceptions to such strict confidentiality usually involve child abuse or actual or threatened criminal acts.
- Control—Mediation increases the control the parties have over the resolution. In a court case, the parties obtain a resolution, but control resides with the judge or jury. Often, a judge or jury cannot legally provide solutions that emerge in mediation. Thus, mediation is more likely to produce a result that is mutually agreeable for the parties.
- Compliance—Because the result is attained by the parties working together and is mutually agreeable, compliance with the mediated agreement is usually high. This further reduces costs, because the parties do not have to employ an attorney to force compliance with the agreement. The mediated agreement is, however, fully enforceable in a court of law.
- Mutuality—Parties to a mediation are typically ready to work mutually toward a resolution. In most circumstances the mere fact that parties are willing to mediate means that they are ready to "move" their position. The parties thus are more amenable to understanding the other party's side and work on underlying issues to the dispute. This has the added benefit of often preserving the relationship the parties had before the dispute.
- Support—Mediators are trained in working with difficult situations. The mediator acts as a neutral facilitator and guides the parties through the process. The mediator helps the parties think "outside of the box" for possible solutions to the dispute, broadening the range of possible solutions.[2]
There are unreasonable and bias people on both sides of this debate, but since you are one of those people you should try to refrain from criticising. You are of course still a step up from the idiots who call them faggot (appologies for using this word) and wisher