Grendel
Well-Known Member
It can't be done - the league have given a 5 year window for sisu to operate in.
Seasons End (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
It can't be done - the league have given a 5 year window for sisu to operate in.
... but with regular review of progress made.
thaiskyblue
New Member
progress, my arse. plenty of propaganda and posturing.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What will they do if progress isn't satisfactory? Fines? Points deductions? Neither will bother SISU.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
we have a photo, what more do you want, its only been a year, give them a chance
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I think they could, but will not for fear of litigation.
It could as the league say they will measure progress regularly, but as I said above, they won't so, yes, they will will let it run to the full 5 years, no coming back from Northampton in that time unless SISU pull the plug or win massive damages to force a deal the council don't want to happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Didn't stop them refusing to consider bids for Portsmouth from anyone but the supporters.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Actually it will be very easy for them to make a case that they are marking progress. Forums, employing land consultants, buying land then applying slowly for planning permission. A case is easy to construct.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I don't think they had an embedded hedge fund with a lot to lose & I imagine the previous owner was broke & couldn’t sue like SISU will. So in short, a different situation.
If whatever stipulations the league gave them had been adhered too then sure, but while we are not party to specifics we know that they haven't. Of course they aren't going to do it though, so it's legalities are not really worth debating, nore do we have the full information to do so properly, if they had any balls there were much better and more reasonable ways and times to act.
Thanks, I thought that had happened and wanted to make note of it in my post but a quick google didn't turn it up and since I haven't followed the portsmouth situation closely I thought my recollection might have been bad. It certainly does seem then the football league could have solved all this for us while we were in admin and chose not too.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
completely agree. thats why they have done what they have done. Virtually no money spent so far but still able to make a case to the FL that they are well on the way to building a new football stadium in the coventry area.
More than enough to make do, until they see how the JR and subsequent appeals pan out
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Neither Chainrai nor Gaydamak were short of cash and the amounts involved were 10 figure sums. Sorry, to me it just looks like a lack of spine for a lower profile club.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
My favourite manager of all time Michael Appleton used to bitterly complain about how little the League were doing to help Portsmouth. Fond memories.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The chairman of the FL believes it is best to have private businesses running football clubs over fans groups
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Doesn't stack up with what happened and what he said at the time.
thats fine but if they did that with portsmorth they showed that they were able to have insisted that the club be sold to someone other than Otium, or at least to make sure Otium had a stadium in coventry to play at.
Astute
Well-Known Member
We all know everything that SISU have done recently was planned towards this JR. The game changer was when ACL made the 3 year deal to SISU through the FL. They even tried to make out at the time that an offer wasn't made. Then Fisher said that they wouldn't be after damages from CCC but would be looking at legal action against individuals if they were found to be at fault. I suspect that this was to try and make certain individuals scared to keep up with fighting against them and let them get what they want.
The FL seem to have believed them when they said that they were forced out of Coventry. But how can this be proved in court if they went for damages when it can be proved that more offers were made? At least one offer that was less than they are paying to be in Northampton. And saying that they don't trust CCC/ACL won't wash either. You can't claim damages for saying you don't trust someone.
I can't see SISU liquidating our club if they lose the JR. ATM they have invested 30m to 40m in our club. If they liquidate our club they will have lost 30m to 40m. They know if they lose the JR or get nothing for winning it that CCC will still do a deal with them. So they see it as a gamble worth taking.
They still seem to also be looking towards the future of our club. Bringing through more youth players. Not much wages to pay out. Selling players when good bids come in. If they take a cheap rental agreement and keep the outgoings down they will make money. This will add value to our club. And if they manage to get a promotion it is said to be worth 5m a season to them. So they might manage to have a half decent squad after promotion costing 5m a season and have an income of close to 10m. To me this would be the time they will look to sell.
The FL seem to have believed them when they said that they were forced out of Coventry. But how can this be proved in court if they went for damages when it can be proved that more offers were made? At least one offer that was less than they are paying to be in Northampton. And saying that they don't trust CCC/ACL won't wash either. You can't claim damages for saying you don't trust someone.
I can't see SISU liquidating our club if they lose the JR. ATM they have invested 30m to 40m in our club. If they liquidate our club they will have lost 30m to 40m. They know if they lose the JR or get nothing for winning it that CCC will still do a deal with them. So they see it as a gamble worth taking.
They still seem to also be looking towards the future of our club. Bringing through more youth players. Not much wages to pay out. Selling players when good bids come in. If they take a cheap rental agreement and keep the outgoings down they will make money. This will add value to our club. And if they manage to get a promotion it is said to be worth 5m a season to them. So they might manage to have a half decent squad after promotion costing 5m a season and have an income of close to 10m. To me this would be the time they will look to sell.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Mr Labovitch said either on CWR or at an SCG meeting that the outcome of the JR wouldn't affect the club. So if we are to believe him the club will not be liquidated if the JR goes against Sisu.
Last edited:
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
If this was correct and they explained it.
Instead of treating us like idiots with the new stadium ( that is not financially viable) rubbish
They may get less resistance
Astute
Well-Known Member
It won't affect our club. It is all about returns for their investors. And if for some unknown reason they end up with the Ricoh it wont affect our club either. Our club won't own it.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes they would get less resistance. But it would also let CCC and everyone else know what they are up to for sure. And I can't think of any logical reasons otherwise to have us in Northampton other than wanting the Ricoh on the cheap and hanging on to this hope. And not wanting to be seen as admitting defeat and bringing our club home before the JR is over.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I disagree Grendel, if said land consultants have been on board for nearly a year and we haven't found the land yet, it is obvious that they are sand bagging. The FL can look at other models such as Shrewsbury, Rotherham and Brentford to name a few to get some sort of timeline on these things. Each case will be different but one thing will be obvious with any ground that has been built, that is if the clubs are serious about building a ground, you will see how quickly they want to get things done so the thing can finally be built. How quickly they bought land, how quickly they had plans drawn up, how quickly they applied for planning, how quickly they engaged in local resident forums. These are all things that a club would do as soon as possible if they really wanted to build a stadium. All we have from Sisu in nearly a year is a picture that looks like a house on Toy Story and a fan forum to pick the seating colour scheme.
they have also said the JR is just a point of principle, I don't belive them on that either.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
SISU used the threat of legal action to get their own way with the League before and they can keep doing it in the future.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
That was with past things, surely as this ground move was on FL terms, how could Sisu threaten legal action over something they agreed to adhere to? Sisu cannot keep threatening legal action about past indiscretions because is that not like blackmail?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The £1m bond lodged with the League is withheld if the club doesn't return within the agreed timeframe. That's it. Loose change to a hedge fund who has spunked £45m on this venture.
Take back the Golden Share?
Yes, very easy on the surface, but they will probably be asked for details (where the devil lives).
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Unless that is explicitly stated in the agreement I don't see how they can do that.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I was thinking more in terms of loading the costs onto our club if they don't win.
As I understood it, they haven't actually had to pay the bond yet, but will only have to pay it if they renege on the agreement. And of course Labovitch will try and claim that the JR will have no bearing on the club's future. I doubt if there are many who believe that.
As people have stated the JR is primarily about 'State Funding', it is difficult to understand how it directly alters the fact that CCC/ACL are the rightful legal owners/leaseholders off the Ricoh Arena. SISU were never even part owners of the Arena and it is hard to see how they could ever have any claim over its future ownership.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with this if the club benefits. I just worry that it's not for the club's benefit and we end up with a weakened club and a weakened council and a weakened local charity, all for an enriched hedge fund. I don't have the faith in the legal system, especially when it comes to finance law, that you do mind.