Feature on central news tonight (3 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Added bonus they are sky blue

are they fcuked too?

 

---

[DaleM]

are they fcuked too?

Big time

 

[skybluetony176]

Rob, you seem well connected in sisu circles. Can you find out under what terms will CCFC's tenancy agreement will be with sisu should they gain control of the ricoh or indeed build imagination land. It would be a lot easier to get on board with sisu's plans if we knew exactly what this means for the club. They seem reluctant to make this clear yet assuming the tenancy agreement is going to be something that all fans have been dreaming of (which is what they seem to be trying to sell us) it would be the easiest cheapest bit of PR they could do, yet nothing.

It seems to me that your campaign looses a lot of clout without this knowledge.

Hi Rob

Were you able to get any answers on this? I want to get on board with your campaign but I need to know ultimately what sisu owning the ricoh means for the club. We have an idea about what ACL owning the ricoh means for the club from the rent offer made through the FL (although this too needs confirmation that the offer is still on the table) but we have zero idea from the sisu perspective. For all we know the ACL offer may be the best offer the club ever recieves from any of the parties wanting control of the ricoh.

 

[Rob S]

Morning all. Just to let you know I'm just putting together a reply that should clear up any confusion etc. regarding things then I'll finish off combing through 3 (or is it 4?) threads that I'm trying to keep tabs on to come back with some answers on things that have been raised.

I've cleared my morning to try and do this so please bear with me. It is like trying to have a conversation with 30 people over 4 days

 

[shmmeee]

Morning all. Just to let you know I'm just putting together a reply that should clear up any confusion etc. regarding things then I'll finish off combing through 3 (or is it 4?) threads that I'm trying to keep tabs on to come back with some answers on things that have been raised.

I've cleared my morning to try and do this so please bear with me. It is like trying to have a conversation with 30 people over 4 days

Could you make sure you are clear about your links with Les Reid and Sisu in this reply? Also, what your actual solution would be if you were by some miracle voted into a majority.

 

[Rob S]

Just to lay all this point out from the start as there's quite a few interesting twists, turns and spins that have taken place.

This all originated here:

So you've been talking to SISU have you. Otherwise how would you know what their reaction would be.

From my PoV this sounded slightly accusatory. Nothing offensive or rude but my implication (could be wrong) would be that Jack Griffin might see something off in us talking to Sisu so I responded with

We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too. Bit like a 50p piece

So I just pointed out that we've spoken to – and I purposely used the term 'spoken to' rather than 'met with', 'had meetings with' – to many sides in this saga. I also purposely lumped Council/Higgs/ACL together which was noted by some

He did say the Council/Higgs/ACL side, so both can be correct.

For me, "spoken to" can cover everything from official meetings with the council (e.g. a Cabinet Member (Policy and Leadership) meeting we had with Ann Lucas, John Blundell, various council legal people inc. Christine Ford and with the press in attendance) to off-the-record third party information passed on from people directly connected to a particular party AKA, in journalistic parlance, a source. In between there are email conversations, phone conversations, catch-up-in-a-corridor conversations, can-I-have-a-quick-word conversations, casual pub / caff meetings and so on. And that's how it was meant.

However Peter says

Rob S said in post 80

"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too."

Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.

Peter is correct is saying that no request for a meeting has been received yet. He is incorrect in saying that nobody has spoken to Higgs as I point out:

I've had conversations with both Paul Harris & Peter and when I spoke to Paul I said I would get in touch to see if we could arrange a meeting although I haven't had a chance to follow up on that yet.

Peter: I was sitting behind you in court and we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation and later on when you spoke, very passionately, about the work and aims of the charity aside from this saga.

Peter responds:

I had no idea that was you. Indeed I saw you sitting with Les Reid for the first two days in Court and passed the time of day with you. I saw you outside the Court in the Lock, Stock and Barrel and compared with you the ales on offer with our local East Sussex ale from Harveys of Lewes and asked if that was what you drank at home in Brighton. I did indeed talk about the work of the Charity. If this is classed as "talking with all sides" I would hope everyone would be polite and behave properly. To suggest that any of it was meaningful discussion about the sale and purchase of the Higgs Charity shares is fanciful. Paul didn't mention it, but why ask him to arrange a meeting when you could have asked either the Chair of the Charity or me, the Clerk.

An interesting reply. No mention of my other questioning

…we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation…

which is something I also asked Paul Harris, and something that, especially in the context of the court case, is very relevant.

For the record, the impression I have got from all sides is that nobody can see a way of moving forward with the Ricoh until after the JR but...

In our both conversations Peter covered the fact that that the club were moving on with a new stadium and the Ricoh arena needed to focus on the fact that it had been built to help regenerate that area of Coventry so it must get on with that.

In conversations I've had with the Sisu side of things (and in this case, as we have to be sure about meanings, this includes anything from sit-down meetings to a chat outside the courtroom) they don't see that a deal can be done with the Council.

I understand that different parts of the Arena come under different areas & parties of negotiation but it is the Council that would have vetoed a deal for Higgs shares, it is the Council that control half of ACL and it's mortgage, and it is the Council that own the freehold so in terms of getting things done, they – and I mean no disrespect to Peter or AEHC here – are at the top of that particular food chain.

And the conversations we've had (this is based on third-parties, intermediaries and general gathering of evidence from many, many other sources) about how the various councillors feel..? Well some want to do a deal, others are on the fence, others think that we should see what the JR (and the fallout that may follow) brings and others would stay as we are. However, both party leaders have pulled everyone to the 'can't prejudice the JR' legal line.

So this is where we see a weak link in the chain. Some councillors appear to want to do something about the situation. Hence our campaign to either run candidates or endorse ones who want to move things forward.

So anyway, back to Peter's reply. He didn't mention

…we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation…

but rather gave emphasis to a conversation we had later, which gets reduced by one poster to being all that we spoke of

Also I have to agree with PWKH it did sound like you have had meaningful chats with the charity (ACL) about the situation as oppose to the best beer on tap.

Another interesting point is when Peter says

Indeed I saw you sitting with Les Reid for the first two days in Court…

Why pick Les out in particular? I spent the second half of day 1 & all of day 2 in court and was "sitting with" Simon Gilbert, Les & Christine Ford and a couple of other fans at various points. There were only two rows of seats at the back of the court with the AEHC / Sisu people on the front row and the rest of us jammed in on the back. We were all sitting with each other

So, to make absolutely clear (i.e. start up another round of 'But Did You Really Mean Something Else???)…

Hopefully this explains something that has blown up from what was a very minor turn of phrase. Nothing underhand, dodgy or nefarious.

One of the pains of online conversation is that it can be too disjointed compared to the real thing so things get misinterpreted and a lot of the time, based on your particular point of view.

I fully understand that there will be people here who would want to look on what I say in a less favourable light based on the fact that they will put me in a Sisu-stoodge box or at least on a pro-Sisu side of the debate. I represent a group that wants the Council to be held to account along with everyone else in this dispute and in some people's eyes, they are untouchable or it is impossible to see this as part of a wider set of fans' campaigns aimed at all sides. I can live with that.

I also understand that people want to make sure that everything is on the level and hopefully (if you've got this far!) this does that.

I'll stand by the fact that I've reported honestly from the court case and that there are enough people here who will vouch for me as a decent enough human being rather than a bullshitter. That there are those that don't agree with the stance I'm taking but with still stick up for me as a person is particularly gratifying and I know I can say exactly the same about them.

Ultimately, we are all Cov fans who just want to get back to watching our team in Cov and arguing about who should be playing at left back.

(BTW, If I don't magically appear in thread when required, you can DM me. )

 

[sky blue john]

Fair play Rob S for coming back to explain.
I may not fully share your views but welcome back.

 

[Rob S]

Could you make sure you are clear about your links with Les Reid and Sisu in this reply? Also, what your actual solution would be if you were by some miracle voted into a majority.

I've known Les for 20+ years. We met at college. As far as our campaign is concerned, he gave a bit of advice about media contact when we were first launching – with the OK from his editor – and that is it. I saw him last at the high court case and, before you ask, the only thing I know about him and what is going on at CT is that "I can't talk about it" and when pressed he will expand that to "Look, I really can't talk about it so please don't ask me again."

Links to Sisu?

Only that we've had meetings with Tim Fisher & Steve Waggott; Tim Fisher & Mark Labovich; Mark Labovich and a couple of other fans in London; & Joy Seppala. Also spoken on the phone a number of times to TF & ML plus a few chats with TF at court.

The JS one was agreed to be off the record, apart from the fact we'd had it, although nothing earth-shattering to report. However, we did keep it fairly quiet because it happened on the day of the Arsenal game and we didn't want anything to get in the way of the Why/When? protests in terms of media reporting/online stuff. We are planning to meet with her again if possible with a more on-the-record approach. Shock news: She's a nice person.

One thing I will say is that, based on input from people along the way and also some of the requests here, we're happy to take any questions raised by fans back to the appropriate person where possible.

A bit on how I personally got to this point:

I had been quite stridently anti-Sisu for quite a long time. I was a CCFC shareholder and refused to give up my share when they came along as I did not trust what Ray Ranson said he was trying to do. I was right!

I was NOPM before the campaign even launched (refused to go to the Ricoh for the last 2 seasons there although I relented for the JPT Northern Final – meh) and it got to the point with the administration where would have quite happily seen the back of Sisu and Coventry City for good.

However, after going to a couple of KCIC demos in London I got pulled back into the fold and started looking more deeply into the whole situation and that's where I started coming up with a lot more questions and not liking some of the answers that were coming out. The ten-point deduction was a major factor (totally vindictive and unnecessary) and some of the stuff that Les Reid was writing in the CT raised some serious issues that didn't seem to be going along with the prevalent Sisu-out mantra.

It also did look like the owners were trying to make up for the mess of the Onye/Ranson Duleiu years by bringing in Steve Waggott and flushing out the 'dream team' directors.

There were conversations going on here, GMK & offline about doing something to include the Council/ACL in the protests but Michael had said that he didn't have the time to get involved with that. Then Stuart Cosgrove got in touch with me to ask if I help out with the online / media stuff if an idea for a campaign he wanted to launch came off. (At first I assumed Michael Orton had put us in touch as I'd given him a bit of advice on the same thing for KCIC.)

Anyhow, after a lot of phone calls and worrying about the shitstorm that would be unleashed on anyone who went against the received wisdom of the day (Sept 2013) we put together the idea of the Council petition and hand-in protest as a small starting step and off we went.

To say that I was surprised at how quickly things took off is an understatement. I ended up doing a lot of radio & press interviews and, because I'd spent so much time piecing together a couple of press releases & talking to people on the phone about everything, a lot of the talking points stuck in my head and I did a decent job of putting us out there in media land. (I've worked in various parts of the media & related stuff over the years so have a few friends who can sub-edit, give PR advice & so forth which helps as does my teaching work.)

We ended up doing a lot of work with meeting people after the initial protest and we sat back to see how the return to negotiations would pan out. Which ended up being a big fat nothing, apart from a very strange worming of the rental deal details into the public domain.

Then, with the announcement of the Higgs v Sisu action, we realised and found out that things might be taking an interesting turn so we held back on doing anything until after the case which brings us to about now.

A few other points...

We've seen how people from the Trust & KCIC have had to:

• deal with multi-faceted campaigns
• deal with a lot of grief from people online and in the media and
• work with limited resources (money/people etc.)

and we realised that we'd have to

• keep to a single point,
• fit in to the space left in fan campaigning rather than duplicate anything
• support other groups where we could
• work with limited resources
• step back from the melee when appropriate (i.e. don't need to have a say at every twist & turn)

Did I miss anything..? Is anyone still reading..?!

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Rob, what are the chances of CCFC playing at the Ricoh next season?

 

[skybluetony176]

Hi Rob

Thank you for clearing up some of the points.

the only one i'm interested is the point i'm raising about the tenancy agreement that will be in place between sisu and the club. the whole PWHK said this, you said that is of no concern to me and niether is your frienship with Les Reid as at the end of the day they dont effect our club.

If SISU take controll of any stadium what is the tenancy agreement going to be for our club? until we know that, its impossible to know whether we should be getting on board with sisu either gaining control of the ricoh or building another stadium where the club will be tenants. The long term sustainability of my club is the only thing concerns me, whoever the land lord might be.

sorry Rob

just to add if you dont know thats fine, as far as i'm aware no representative from sisu/ccfc have ever given any details on this. but if you could just clarify this point one way or another that would be grand.

cheers

 

[Godiva]

Hi Rob

Thank you for clearing up some of the points.

the only one i'm interested is the point i'm raising about the tenancy agreement that will be in place between sisu and the club. the whole PWHK said this, you said that is of no concern to me and niether is your frienship with Les Reid as at the end of the day they dont effect our club.

If SISU take controll of any stadium what is the tenancy agreement going to be for our club? until we know that, its impossible to know whether we should be getting on board with sisu either gaining control of the ricoh or building another stadium where the club will be tenants. The long term sustainability of my club is the only thing concerns me, whoever the land lord might be.

Actually I want to back that question.
It's been discussed over and over here and if someone could get a straight answer from sisu/TF/Labovich that would be vey helpful.
What construction are they aiming for? Will there be a new prop-co sitting under Otium or SBS&L?

 

[Houchens Head]

Rob: I have just TWO questions...........
1. What the f*** does Joy Sepalla actually look like?
2. Can you take a picture of her and put it on these forums?
Just so we all know who we're actually bowing down to, like......

 

[skybluetony176]

Actually I want to back that question.
It's been discussed over and over here and if someone could get a straight answer from sisu/TF/Labovich that would be vey helpful.
What construction are they aiming for? Will there be a new prop-co sitting under Otium or SBS&L?

Exactly, what use is the profit from the pie and carparking money if sisu then charge the club £2M a year in rent not including match day cost, we would have been better off under the original rent deal with ACL. I'm not saying that will be the deal under sisu stadium ownership but equally i dont think anyone can tell me it isn't. Except TF, ML & JS and they seem to be tight lipped on the subject.

if i'm going to support get cov back to the ricoh i need to know what the end game is.

 

[Grendel]

Exactly, what use is the profit from the pie and carparking money if sisu then charge the club £2M a year in rent not including match day cost, we would have been better off under the original rent deal with ACL. I'm not saying that will be the deal under sisu stadium ownership but equally i dont think anyone can tell me it isn't. Except TF, ML & JS and they seem to be tight lipped on the subject.

if i'm going to support get cov back to the ricoh i need to know what the end game is.

Profit is irrelevant - revenue is king.

 

[skybluetony176]

Profit is irrelevant - revenue is king.

So if your company is turning over £2M a year after year but it your making zero profit thats sustainable is it?

 

[Grendel]

So if your company is turning over £2M a year after year but it your making zero profit thats sustainable is it?

In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?

Odd also you now think sisu should make money. Thought you hated management charges?

 

[chiefdave]

In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?

So you think Man City and Chelsea and well run sustainable businesses not reliant on someone pumping in millions every year?

 

[skybluetony176]

In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?

Odd also you now think sisu should make money. Thought you hated management charges?

Are either of those clubs owned by a faceless hedge funds? Are either of those clubs playing home games 35miles from where they should be to crowds of less than 2000?Are either of those club's languishing in the third division? Are both them clubs playing in the premiership and champions league year after year and enjoying the financial returns that come with it?

If you want to compare apples do it with apples.

 

[bigfatronssba]

In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?

Odd also you now think sisu should make money. Thought you hated management charges?

So would you be happy for acl to cross invoice all revenue to the club to boost the club's income?

 

[Grendel]

So would you be happy for acl to cross invoice all revenue to the club to boost the club's income?

No I support the football club. Who do you support?

 

[ccfcway]

Profit is irrelevant - revenue is king.

in which case, why dont SISU just sponsor the CCFC shirts for £10 million a year and then have management charges of similar at the end of the season to get it back ?

No profits but increased revenue ?

 

[Grendel]

Are either of those clubs owned by a faceless hedge funds? Are either of those clubs playing home games 35miles from where they should be to crowds of less than 2000?Are either of those club's languishing in the third division? Are both them clubs playing in the premiership and champions league year after year and enjoying the financial returns that come with it?

If you want to compare apples do it with apples.

It's you that wants sisu to make a profit tony - you said it.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No I support the football club. Who do you support?

Ok so revenue isn't king then?

Can you make up your mind please?

 

[blend]

I would say speaking to all sides would actually mean explaining who you are representing at the very least, otherwise they would be correct in not remembering meeting with you as an organisation wouldn't they Also a fifty pence has more than 2 sides, if you were explaining something with 2 sides it wouldn't be a fifty pence piece I doubt.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's you that wants sisu to make a profit tony - you said it.

I want the club to make a profit so it's sustainable. If sisu, acl or the whoever makes a profit in tandem with this why would I have a problem with it. I don't expect sisu to not make a profit, I understand that they're a business. I just don't want them running the club into the ground to do it.

So if I'm going to support Rob S and get cov back to the ricoh I have to understand what sisu owning the ricoh will mean for the club. After all that's what's important, isn't it.

 

[Grendel]

Ok so revenue isn't king then?

Can you make up your mind please?

I want all the revenue and profit for the football club. I want ACL to go bankrupt. Clear enough?

 

[lamtara2006]

Rob S: Without quoting the whole of post #288, you say in regard to Joy Seppala: "Shock news: She's a nice person."

She may in fact be a charming person - I don't know as I have not met her - and clearly Les Reid and yourself seem to have fallen under her spell. But forgive me for believing that actions speak louder than words. I don't detect anything that is at all 'nice' about Ms Seppala given the way she has behaved towards the supporters of Coventry City. This woman is quoted as only caring about her investors and she and her henchmen - Fisher & Labovitch - have shown a total disregard for the vast majority of us.

Very nice - NOT!

 

[Nick]

To be fair, if people stood outside my office calling me names I'd probably not like some of them. Plus I would probably throw bottles of piss out of the window onto them

 

[shmmeee]

To be fair, if people stood outside my office calling me names I'd probably not like some of them. Plus I would probably throw bottles of piss out of the window onto them

I'd hope at some point, maybe in quiet alone time, you'd question why so many people want to call you names.

If she's so damn nice let's wheel her out. You can even do it at an organised, vetted forum, release pre-checked pictures and copy, whatever. But to make no move at all, and to continue to treat the fans the way the club have in the past 12 months, is inexcusable IMO.

 

[Nick]

Hasn't she been meeting fans?

Not sticking up for her, but if I read about people online wanting to go to my daughters school to picket or bringing family into it. I either wouldnt want people to know who I was, or hunting them down

 

[bigfatronssba]

I want all the revenue and profit for the football club. I want ACL to go bankrupt. Clear enough?

Not really no.

You say you want all revenue to go to the club, what I am asking (putting profit margins aside) is how is that anymore beneficial to the club than ACL just cross invoicing income over?

Also, apart from spite, why do you want ACL to go bankrupt?

 

[stupot07]

Not really no.

You say you want all revenue to go to the club, what I am asking (putting profit margins aside) is how is that anymore beneficial to the club than ACL just cross invoicing income over?

How can you put profit margins aside? That's the whole point, controlling your own suppliers to get the best profit margin possible (not c10% currently) and reinvesting that money into the team/covering losses

 

[bigfatronssba]

How can you put profit margins aside? That's the whole point, controlling your own suppliers to get the best profit margin possible (not c10% currently) and reinvesting that money into the team/covering losses

So revenue isn't king then?

Either revenue or profit is king. It cant be both.

 

[stupot07]

So revenue isn't king then?

Either revenue or profit is king. It cant be both.

Of course they can, more revenue leads to more profit, 10% of £2m is more than 10% of £1m

 

[Grendel]

So revenue isn't king then?

Either revenue or profit is king. It cant be both.

So if the club owned all the f and b revenues it can't have both? Why? I'm confused.