D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Indeed.
The very act of agreeing to arbitration would be a signal that both 'sides' want this resolved.
That'd be a start.
Reasons not to push for an independent mediator and/or arbitrator (17 Viewers)
Indeed.
The very act of agreeing to arbitration would be a signal that both 'sides' want this resolved.
That'd be a start.
L
limoncello
Guest
You perhaps have this success fantasy where Otium/Sisu suddenly put up their hands and say 'it's a fair cop, you got us good and proper, we were evil incarnate and now we're going to do the right thing and hand over this wonderful property to someone who can do justice to it like Gary Hoffman.' It's not going to happen, brother.
I predict that the JR will be a forum for airing petty grievances. Whoever loses will appeal and if the appeal goes the wrong way they will appeal again. Lawyers will make shedloads and we'll still be on here bickering about who's got the moral rectitude. Fucking shambles. The club, meanwhile, will continue to be shit.
A lot of people have nailed their colours to the mast. They've decided that their 'team' (council or Sisu) is by far the greatest team etc. Meanwhile, our 'team' (the proper football playing team) will only suffer.
I say fuck the council. Fuck Otium. Fuck ACL. Binding arbitration by an independent body, agreed by all parties, really shouldn't be such a big problem.
Why the fuck not?
L
limoncello
Guest
Thanks for the Clarification !!!
As others have said, because CCC/ACL/AHT/whoever may not want to sell. AHT have already stated that they are happy to treat their investment as "charitable"; what would be the point of entering binding arbitration if they have already decided they don't want to sell for less than 6.5 million?
Arbitration is great when two parties want to do a deal but can't agree on the price, but it makes no sense when the seller doesn't especially want to sell. From a fan's perspective it sounds great, but unfortunately none of the parties with a say in this decision are fans.
Astute
Well-Known Member
A lot of people have realised that Joy wants what can't be given.
A lot of people have realised that Joy don't negotiate.
A lot of people have realised that SISU don't want what is best for our club or us.
A lot of people have noticed that SISU won't pay anywhere near it's value, and by law CCC can't let it go for less.
Would you like to explain this 'binding arbitration' thing that has been made up? So if the value of what they want was set at 60m, which it easily could be, SISU would have to pay even if they couldn't raise the cash? You need to remember what Joy wants. She even wants the surrounding land.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
That is not what I am saying at all, in my opinion a new stadium has a 20% chance of being built and that's being generous!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Joy believes that the Club should own, it's own stadium to me that doesn't unviable.
It seems Joy doesn't want to negotiate down to what Joy believes to of been injustice when ACL/CCC and PH4's party tried to purchase the Club in the Admin process, whether this is accurate or not time will tell.
Maybe that is the case, however the argument I would pose is that if Sisu's are intentions are to recoup there investment, why not purchase the Ricoh and it's revenues and fight through the leagues within five years of purchasing the Ricoh they could be in the Premier league.
To the value of? An example of this would be CCC saying that the Higgs Share of ACL is in fact worthless, yet the Charity deem it to be worth £6.5m, if there is price that CCC are willing to they should name it IMO, that way everyone knows what they want, if it's achievable for Sisu and whether it's market value.
Again do we know what Joy wants? I would suggest guessing what Joy wants is a big grey area. The question you should be asking Astute is what do Joy's investors desire? Are they happy purchasing the Ricoh for £60m or are they happy for Sisu to work it's way to potentially find a way to purchase the desired business of the Ricoh for much less?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
You know that Higgs tried to sell to SISU for 5.5m yet still say that Higgs value it as what they paid our club for it.
Yes nearly all of us want a fair price to be paid. That is what would bring this shambles to an end. If SISU were willing to pay a fair price it would have been done by now. And we wouldn't be playing in Northampton. But it is so easy to push the blame towards CCC and Higgs although the evidence so far shows the truth to be slightly different.
Yes nearly all of us want a fair price to be paid. That is what would bring this shambles to an end. If SISU were willing to pay a fair price it would have been done by now. And we wouldn't be playing in Northampton. But it is so easy to push the blame towards CCC and Higgs although the evidence so far shows the truth to be slightly different.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I am not pushing the blame anywhere Astute, I find it incomprehensible that this situation has not been sorted already for the good of the Club and the City's economy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
What is a fair price though? Say it is valued at nothing, what would a fair price be?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Depends on how it comes to be valued at nothing ie assets vs debts etc then how any deal to purchase it is structured.
I'm sure even if a deal was agreed between the two parties you would still find people arguing over whether it was over valued or under valued?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Why do you keep using the quote as if it is valued at nothing? If it was worth nothing why are SISU willing to do what they are to our club and lose millions for our club each year to get something without any value?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There are still none.
Nick
Administrator
What would you say it is worth? What would you say is fair?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Certainly more than valueless as you keep mentioning. And what do you want to know the value of? Leasehold, freehold, unencumbered freehold, surrounding land or even only the football ground section?
And would you say it is worth less than a smaller new build would cost 'in the Coventry area'?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Everybody is fucking insane.
Don't want independent valuations, arbritration or for the club to get back to Coventry at all from the looks of things.
Just what would be wrong with it? What are people so scared of?
Mentalists the lot of you.
Don't want independent valuations, arbritration or for the club to get back to Coventry at all from the looks of things.
Just what would be wrong with it? What are people so scared of?
Mentalists the lot of you.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I've no issue with binding arbitration, but I think there are a few things here to consider.
The first one is the scope - what are we talking about buying & selling here? ACL, the council's share in ACL, the Higgs share in ACL, the Ricoh freehold encumbered, Ricoh unencumbered, surrounding land etc? All of those things have issues.
Let's take the simplest one, selling ACL: As it stands, you can't sell the ACL shares without agreement from both sides, Higgs and CCC. Even if one side was willing to enter into binding arbitration, would the others? The Higgs may not be willing (or able) to enter into a deal for less than their current valuation. The Council may not legally be able to do that either. Binding arbitration with one party (SISU) obviously precludes the possiblity of selling on the open market, which might be a requirement to prove that the council are fulfilling their legal obligations to get the best possible return on their investments.
And if we are talking about selling to SISU, then what bit of SISU? Are we, for instance, going to allow a SISU company not directly involved with the club take ownership of some or all of the stuff above, and leave the club potentially still in a landlord/tenant relationship without direct access to revenue streams? Would that really be to the long-term benefit of the club? What guarantees would SISU be prepared to offer to protect the club's interests as opposed to their own, which may differ.
In the meantime, what happens with the JR. You can't really enter into arbitration whilst someone is taking you to court - it's either one or the other imho. Would SISU be willing to drop the court action?
I guess what I'm saying is that it's very easy to call for something like binding arbitration because 'we just want what's fair for everybody' sounds extremely reasonable. However, even a minor bit of analysis shows how difficult it is to establish the boundaries of what you are arbitrating on, and with whom. I'm not sure it's anywhere near as simple as it sounds, with all due respect NW.
I still think we are at a stalemate until the JR, and the fastest way to get everyone talking is to get the club back at the Ricoh and start negotiations from there. Until SISU do that I can't accept that what they are doing is in any way for the best of the club, and I'm not sure I'd trust them to negotiate on what's best for the club either. Just mho, as ever.
The first one is the scope - what are we talking about buying & selling here? ACL, the council's share in ACL, the Higgs share in ACL, the Ricoh freehold encumbered, Ricoh unencumbered, surrounding land etc? All of those things have issues.
Let's take the simplest one, selling ACL: As it stands, you can't sell the ACL shares without agreement from both sides, Higgs and CCC. Even if one side was willing to enter into binding arbitration, would the others? The Higgs may not be willing (or able) to enter into a deal for less than their current valuation. The Council may not legally be able to do that either. Binding arbitration with one party (SISU) obviously precludes the possiblity of selling on the open market, which might be a requirement to prove that the council are fulfilling their legal obligations to get the best possible return on their investments.
And if we are talking about selling to SISU, then what bit of SISU? Are we, for instance, going to allow a SISU company not directly involved with the club take ownership of some or all of the stuff above, and leave the club potentially still in a landlord/tenant relationship without direct access to revenue streams? Would that really be to the long-term benefit of the club? What guarantees would SISU be prepared to offer to protect the club's interests as opposed to their own, which may differ.
In the meantime, what happens with the JR. You can't really enter into arbitration whilst someone is taking you to court - it's either one or the other imho. Would SISU be willing to drop the court action?
I guess what I'm saying is that it's very easy to call for something like binding arbitration because 'we just want what's fair for everybody' sounds extremely reasonable. However, even a minor bit of analysis shows how difficult it is to establish the boundaries of what you are arbitrating on, and with whom. I'm not sure it's anywhere near as simple as it sounds, with all due respect NW.
I still think we are at a stalemate until the JR, and the fastest way to get everyone talking is to get the club back at the Ricoh and start negotiations from there. Until SISU do that I can't accept that what they are doing is in any way for the best of the club, and I'm not sure I'd trust them to negotiate on what's best for the club either. Just mho, as ever.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Or maybe more realistic than a few others and can see all the problems ahead.
And nobody has even mentioned whether it would be a legal proposition as council freeholds are supposed to be sold to the highest bidder. I suppose that we can always ignore the most important parts though.
L
limoncello
Guest
Yeah, no wonder northern Ireland and south Africa were never able to move on. Insurmountable.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
council lovers dont want the truth to come out it seems....
duffer
Well-Known Member
Not insurmountable, but not easy either.
And I don't think either Northern Ireland or South Africa were solved by binding arbitration either, were they? That was kind of a long drawn out process of negotiation with all sides showing good faith - you know without one side taking the other to court, or making threats, or completely abandoning the country etc. etc.
Of course if you just want a stick to beat one side with, you could pretend that it was dead straightforward I suppose. I'm not sure where that gets you though, other than you feeling better about your own personal viewpoint, or a handy bit of PR maybe. (Which wasn't NW's intention I'm sure, I should add).
Alternatively, you could just explain how easy it is to overcome all of these obstacles, though of course that would involve typing more than one sentence.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And still council haters refuse to actually state what this truth is.
I can't see anyone against it in this thread, just a few people stating some rather obvious issues.
As has been said over and over in this, you can't force one side to offer/accept an amount they don't agree with.
The Ricoh will always be worth more to CCC than it is to Sisu. That's just basic economics, the council have to consider wider impact. The idea that there is a "true value" of anything is illiterate nonsense.
We may not like it, but those are the facts. But as I said earlier, I'm all for a third party but wouldn't it just be another set of "facts" to contradict the others and how would we pick someone both sides are happy with?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
you have already made your mind up that you wont be happy with the valuation either way so whats the point?
ccfc will never own ricoh and have been forced away then.
and you seem happy about it.
ccfc will never own ricoh and have been forced away then.
and you seem happy about it.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That sentence makes no sense. But I guess you're saying we need to own our ground. Why? Other than "Joy wants it".
I she didn't want people to bid, she shouldn't have put the club into admin. Simples. Again, why should "Joys spit her dummy" be a valid reason?
If they had the ability to do that, why spend £50m getting is relegated. Sisu have shown they haven't the first clue of how to run a successful side. As Sisu themselves have stated, they project Championship at the absolute best in the next 5-7 years (see stadium meetings).
Astute
Well-Known Member
Fisher has got you hook, line and sinker. Our football club was never forced out even when not paying any rent. Or would you like to explain differently?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We will not actually know the full situation until the JR I suspect.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
because change is required long term.
sisu have been forced into this to bend council to their will, if it doesn't work they will have to build a new stadium
either way free rent at ricoh isnt enough for ccfc long term.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Many of us have said for ages that we need to wait for the JR to occur. But this is one thing that we can work out for ourselves. The only reason SISU have been able to give is a lack of trust. CCC would certainly agree there. Does anyone on here even trust SISU?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Do you honestly think that a bit of pie money will make up for lower attendances and build cost repayments?