Sky Blues
Active Member
Oh, the minutes on the Trust website are longer. It continues:
We asked whether, in doing that, the Board would look at business plan proposals in the light of the recent accounts of the Club in the period leading-up to Administration, emphasising that no such accounts have been filed by the Club for the last two financial years. We said that the trading record of the Club, albeit under (theoretically) different owners, is relevant as most of the staff will be the same and the customer base is the same. We urged the FL to look very carefully at projected income figures in any plans submitted, especially if the plan involves playing “home” games away from Coventry.
PH said that these processes have to be conducted by the FL in private because of their financial sensitivity. He could not say how long they may take but he acknowledged our comment about how frustrating this can be for supporters. In the League’s view these are incredibly serious matters because the whole future of one of its member clubs is at stake, it therefore cannot be rushed. Once agreed the plan is then carefully monitored by the FL to ensure that the club is sticking to its plan and if not then the FL will work with the club to try and make it work.
The ultimate deadline for it to be completed would be the start of the 2014/15 season, as no Club can start two successive seasons in Administration. As that deadline approaches the Administrator would have to seek to move the process on as loss of the ability to pass the FL share to a purchaser after the start of the 2014/15 season would significantly reduce the value of the assets being sold.
We asked whether the FL would take account of the recently reported proposal to transfer Club employees’ contracts to Otium, which has been confirmed in writing to employees by Mr Fisher. PH said the FL could not comment on such issues for legal reasons.
If it is agreed that the FL share can be registered in the names of the new owner this will be subject to an ongoing monitoring process, through which the Board will monitor the club's performance against the proposals in the business plan.
We then moved on to discuss the position regarding the proposed ground share. A Club may only move to another ground with the approval of the FL under their regulations. An application to share a ground with another Club “will only be approved at the discretion of the Board. The Board will not generally approve any ground-sharing arrangement where the club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.” There are no other words in the regulations about the FL’s approach to ground sharing requests - no set distance within which shared grounds must be located or other criteria.
The League will treat any application to ground share on a private and confidential basis and is therefore unable to confirm whether an application had been received or not.
The FL would not allow a Club to move out of its locality temporarily whilst a new stadium is built, unless there was in place a strong “moving back” guarantee and several other conditions, although there was no set criteria list. He cited the example of Rotherham who had a high level of local authority support, fans support, a good sound financial plan, land, planning permission, only moved a short distance to Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield, club had to put up a £750k bond and the FL worked closely with all parties to ensure it worked.
PH stressed that the FL Board would have to consider any ground sharing request fully and properly on its individual facts as each case was different. Therefore, he could not speculate on what proposals might or might not be approved.
We took time to emphasise to PH the strength of feeling amongst Trust members to the proposed ground share, and Coventry fans in general through the various petitions and polls. PH stated that the FL is very aware of the strong feeling amongst Coventry fans.
We briefly discussed the “financial fair play” rules as they affect League 1 Clubs. The Salary Cost Management Protocol broadly limits spending on total player wages to a 60% proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to the FL at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.
Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, the FL will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold. For League 1 clubs the threshold will be 60% in 2013/14. In Leagues 1 and 2 equity injections of funding by owners can be included in the turnover.
We concluded by noting that there is much still to be decided. PH said that any relevant information provided by supporters generally and the Trust will be taken into account but stressed in matters of planning etc they could only take into account facts that could be backed by supporting documentation and not just rumour and conjecture.
He confirmed that FL representatives will be happy to meet the Trust again as the process continues and that we should keep in contact through agreed channels.
We thanked Peter for his time in traveling to meet us and for his openness.
28 June 2013
We asked whether, in doing that, the Board would look at business plan proposals in the light of the recent accounts of the Club in the period leading-up to Administration, emphasising that no such accounts have been filed by the Club for the last two financial years. We said that the trading record of the Club, albeit under (theoretically) different owners, is relevant as most of the staff will be the same and the customer base is the same. We urged the FL to look very carefully at projected income figures in any plans submitted, especially if the plan involves playing “home” games away from Coventry.
PH said that these processes have to be conducted by the FL in private because of their financial sensitivity. He could not say how long they may take but he acknowledged our comment about how frustrating this can be for supporters. In the League’s view these are incredibly serious matters because the whole future of one of its member clubs is at stake, it therefore cannot be rushed. Once agreed the plan is then carefully monitored by the FL to ensure that the club is sticking to its plan and if not then the FL will work with the club to try and make it work.
The ultimate deadline for it to be completed would be the start of the 2014/15 season, as no Club can start two successive seasons in Administration. As that deadline approaches the Administrator would have to seek to move the process on as loss of the ability to pass the FL share to a purchaser after the start of the 2014/15 season would significantly reduce the value of the assets being sold.
We asked whether the FL would take account of the recently reported proposal to transfer Club employees’ contracts to Otium, which has been confirmed in writing to employees by Mr Fisher. PH said the FL could not comment on such issues for legal reasons.
If it is agreed that the FL share can be registered in the names of the new owner this will be subject to an ongoing monitoring process, through which the Board will monitor the club's performance against the proposals in the business plan.
We then moved on to discuss the position regarding the proposed ground share. A Club may only move to another ground with the approval of the FL under their regulations. An application to share a ground with another Club “will only be approved at the discretion of the Board. The Board will not generally approve any ground-sharing arrangement where the club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.” There are no other words in the regulations about the FL’s approach to ground sharing requests - no set distance within which shared grounds must be located or other criteria.
The League will treat any application to ground share on a private and confidential basis and is therefore unable to confirm whether an application had been received or not.
The FL would not allow a Club to move out of its locality temporarily whilst a new stadium is built, unless there was in place a strong “moving back” guarantee and several other conditions, although there was no set criteria list. He cited the example of Rotherham who had a high level of local authority support, fans support, a good sound financial plan, land, planning permission, only moved a short distance to Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield, club had to put up a £750k bond and the FL worked closely with all parties to ensure it worked.
PH stressed that the FL Board would have to consider any ground sharing request fully and properly on its individual facts as each case was different. Therefore, he could not speculate on what proposals might or might not be approved.
We took time to emphasise to PH the strength of feeling amongst Trust members to the proposed ground share, and Coventry fans in general through the various petitions and polls. PH stated that the FL is very aware of the strong feeling amongst Coventry fans.
We briefly discussed the “financial fair play” rules as they affect League 1 Clubs. The Salary Cost Management Protocol broadly limits spending on total player wages to a 60% proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to the FL at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.
Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, the FL will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold. For League 1 clubs the threshold will be 60% in 2013/14. In Leagues 1 and 2 equity injections of funding by owners can be included in the turnover.
We concluded by noting that there is much still to be decided. PH said that any relevant information provided by supporters generally and the Trust will be taken into account but stressed in matters of planning etc they could only take into account facts that could be backed by supporting documentation and not just rumour and conjecture.
He confirmed that FL representatives will be happy to meet the Trust again as the process continues and that we should keep in contact through agreed channels.
We thanked Peter for his time in traveling to meet us and for his openness.
28 June 2013
