Labovitch - no more spin. (4 Viewers)

[AFCCOVENTRY]

KEY PLAYERS in the bitter Ricoh Arena row have been invited along to an open fan's forum later this month to speak openly and honestly about the on-going dispute.

A three-day judicial review hearing into whether the council unlawfully used taxpayers money to take on a £14.4million loan from stadium owners Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) took place at Birmingham's High Court this week.

It saw the likes of Sisu boss Joy Seppala, Sky Blues chief executive Tim Fisher, ACL director Paul Harris and council director Chris West in a room for the first time since talks between the club and ACL collapsed in early 2013.

And Sky Blues non-executive director, Mark Labovitch, has once again invited all sides, including the likes of Gary Hoffman and Joe Elliot, to attend the forum which is set to take place at the Parish Centre of Christ the King in Coundon on June 27 (7pm).

Labovitch told the Observer, “I hope we can have a full and frank exchange between all of us, without any spin doctors present. We want everyone involved to have a proper conversation with fans.”

Club owners Sisu and the council are both awaiting the verdict of the judicial review which is expected to be made in the week commencing June 30.

At this point it is not understood what impact the outcome will have on the future of the Sky Blues and their chances of returning to the Ricoh.

But Labovitch once again stressed the need for the League One club to gain access to matchday revenue. “No club can ever be financially viable in the long term without an ownership interest in its stadium and access to all the revenues generated by the matches it puts on. If the club was back at the Ricoh as a tenant without access to these revenues, it would go bust again, like it did under its previous owners. The 2003 experiment of separating a club from stadium revenues simply didn’t work.

Those fans who have met Joy have heard first-hand how committed she is to the club’s future. She is determined to make it a success under its outstanding manager, but we can't do that without the long-term financial security of our own stadium. As we’re not allowed any form of ownership of the existing one, we’ll have to build a new one”

And he also hinted that the relationship between the club and the council needs to improve for the good of the city. “Over the past 15 years, the council leadership seems to have had a poor relationship with the club’s owners – past and present. I think that needs to change. Councils in other cities – whether it’s Swansea or Doncaster – know that a successful football club is a huge asset to the local economy.”



Read more: Sky Blues director wants open talks over Ricoh Arena row | Coventry Observer

 

---

[Samo]

It's the week before the verdict, they know very fucking well that the council won't talk about it! Utter bollocks!

 

[lordsummerisle]

Labovitch told the Observer, “I hope we can have a full and frank exchange between all of us, without any spin doctors present. We want everyone involved to have a proper conversation with fans.”

He not going then?

 

[Astute]

A meeting without spin doctors? So nobody from SISU will be there then.

He mentions that our club couldn't survive without the extra revenues if back as a tenant. Then he says that if they can't get some sort of ownership they will build another one.

 

[ecky]

Labo king of spin, why waste all that money on a JR when your going to build your own new shiny stadium?

 

[Sub]

Sky Blues director wants open talks over Ricoh Arena row

 

[Spionkop]

The council have had a very poor relationship with the football club? That's a good one. The same council who partly funded the building of the new ground and bailed the football club out at the same time? Does he mean that poor relationship?

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Are sisu desperate to chat with the council? Hmmm....

 

[Kingokings204]

The council have had a very poor relationship with the football club? That's a good one. The same council who partly funded the building of the new ground and bailed the football club out at the same time? Does he mean that poor relationship?

More spin.

 

[Limey]

I don't trust ANY of the parties involved. I would certainly agree about match day revenues. Low rent and 100% match day revenues would suit everyone. Surely that can be agreed????!

 

[Danceswithhorses]

He not going then?

LOL...he's trying to spin that he doesn't spin

 

[lordsummerisle]

LOL...he's trying to spin that he doesn't spin

I kind of thought that was his job to be honest.

Not exactly sure what else he's there for if not that?

He may be called back to help Tony Blair out from his madness soon, though can see why he probably thinks that dealing with sisu and the whole clusterfuck that the club and everything around it would seem like a holiday to him after dealing with that murderous madmen.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The council have had a very poor relationship with the football club? That's a good one. The same council who partly funded the building of the new ground and bailed the football club out at the same time? Does he mean that poor relationship?

That was 10 years ago. The council didn't bail the club out. It part funded the building of a stadium it now owns.

 

[Grendel]

That was 10 years ago. The council didn't bail the club out. It part funded the building of a stadium it now owns.

And made the club pay the entire mortgage without any thought or regard for the club whatsoever.

To be honest I'm concluding Kop is a WUM that statement is classic trolling. Hilarious that we can't "talk about the past" unless we go back a decade and go dewy eyed about a council that ultimately has not helped at all.

 

[Chipfat]

The CCC and Higgs trust agreed to fund the remaining cost to finish the build of the stadium, Highfield Rd had already been sold and the club were paying rent to Taylor Wimpey to play there. The club asked for help and both parties agreed to fund, bail out, helped or support the club, any of them words can be used at that time.. I think 34 million was a figure put in altogether so although i don't agree with councils being involved in football this time they had to do something or the fans would accused them of letting the club die..

Its very easy for this to be CCC v Sisu but in all parties honesty wish now they never got involved or connected to the club in the 1st place..All have tried to help for differing reasons and all have failed to create a successful platform for the club to grow and be a viable self sustaining club which was the ultimate dream of what the ricoh could provide..

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Bloody hell, and that nonsense comes from one with more spin than a Hotpoint.

 

[Astute]

And made the club pay the entire mortgage without any thought or regard for the club whatsoever.

To be honest I'm concluding Kop is a WUM that statement is classic trolling. Hilarious that we can't "talk about the past" unless we go back a decade and go dewy eyed about a council that ultimately has not helped at all.

Pay the entire mortgage? Don't you mean pay rent that was equal approx to the mortgage payments?

So you are saying that the taxpayer should have supported our football club then. Why should the taxpayer support our football club?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think all agree that they need the revenues that they generate but this will cost some money labo.

I wish brittania would let me stop my mortgage so I can spend more on my family.

I wish the sky was blue ever day!

Of course the club needs revenues but you can't just demand them and expect people to wonder where to sign

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

KEY PLAYERS in the bitter Ricoh Arena row have been invited along to an open fan's forum later this month to speak openly and honestly about the on-going dispute.

A three-day judicial review hearing into whether the council unlawfully used taxpayers money to take on a £14.4million loan from stadium owners Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) took place at Birmingham's High Court this week.

It saw the likes of Sisu boss Joy Seppala, Sky Blues chief executive Tim Fisher, ACL director Paul Harris and council director Chris West in a room for the first time since talks between the club and ACL collapsed in early 2013.

And Sky Blues non-executive director, Mark Labovitch, has once again invited all sides, including the likes of Gary Hoffman and Joe Elliot, to attend the forum which is set to take place at the Parish Centre of Christ the King in Coundon on June 27 (7pm).

Labovitch told the Observer, “I hope we can have a full and frank exchange between all of us, without any spin doctors present. We want everyone involved to have a proper conversation with fans.”

Club owners Sisu and the council are both awaiting the verdict of the judicial review which is expected to be made in the week commencing June 30.

At this point it is not understood what impact the outcome will have on the future of the Sky Blues and their chances of returning to the Ricoh.

But Labovitch once again stressed the need for the League One club to gain access to matchday revenue. “No club can ever be financially viable in the long term without an ownership interest in its stadium and access to all the revenues generated by the matches it puts on. If the club was back at the Ricoh as a tenant without access to these revenues, it would go bust again, like it did under its previous owners. The 2003 experiment of separating a club from stadium revenues simply didn’t work.

Those fans who have met Joy have heard first-hand how committed she is to the club’s future. She is determined to make it a success under its outstanding manager, but we can't do that without the long-term financial security of our own stadium. As we’re not allowed any form of ownership of the existing one, we’ll have to build a new one”

And he also hinted that the relationship between the club and the council needs to improve for the good of the city. “Over the past 15 years, the council leadership seems to have had a poor relationship with the club’s owners – past and present. I think that needs to change. Councils in other cities – whether it’s Swansea or Doncaster – know that a successful football club is a huge asset to the local economy.”


I do not think that there is anyone who would disagree that the point about the clubs ownership of part or all of the RICOH and full access to revenue streams generated is the only viable solution. What Mr Labovitch seems to continually and conveniently avoid to state is that this was within SISU's gift to achieve. The problem I and many have is the manner they went about in accomplishing it. That is the thing that has got so many people against them. If they had 50% of the wisdom they have in aggression this situation would not have arisen. I was a SISU supporter at one point, even when they started to mess up the club by selling our best players I felt that there had to be a good reason for their actions. Today after 5 years of a simple war of attrition against the Fans and the City I regret the day they ever came on to the scene.
If Mr Labovitch had any wisdom or decency he would back away and stop this 'Spin'. Silence in this case would be golden.

 

[oldskyblue58]

"The 2003 experiment of separating a club from stadium revenues simply didn’t work."

it wasn't an experiment though was it ............ it was a fire fighting exercise to stop the club going bust. The club ended up with no income rights because it sold them for apparently much more than they were worth if recent valuation details are to be believed.

Just do not see anyone from the various other parties turning up especially less than a week before the JR judgement. Surely the legal eagles will all be advising against attendance especially with the size of damages threatened in the JR papers. So can we expect the "we are disappointed none of them had the courage to face the fans " come 28th June?

How does the claim for damages encourage anyone to sit round the table and negotiate as ML seems to think could happen? Or is it sit round the table and listen to the terms of your surrender that he has in mind?

 

[Spionkop]

Terms of surrender. OSB. That's what it might amount to. Very true.
I'm all for seeing the club get a fair deal. But it does seem that Sisu want pretty well everything for nothing.
They don't seem to abide by the decent conventions of negotiation.
I want my football club to get a decent deal, but not at any cost.
Simply handing the Ricoh over to Sisu isn't on. Never will be.
Having to wait til June 30 is frustrating for us fans. Once that's done we might see some movement.
As it is, the club is heading for disaster.
How many full price season tickets? 84 was it?

 

[Spionkop]

And still no sign of this fabled new stadium.

 

[Sub]

Deal to be done ?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Pay the entire mortgage? Don't you mean pay rent that was equal approx to the mortgage payments?

So you are saying that the taxpayer should have supported our football club then. Why should the taxpayer support our football club?

Why should the tax payer fund any private enterprise you mean?

 

[fernandopartridge]

"The 2003 experiment of separating a club from stadium revenues simply didn’t work."

it wasn't an experiment though was it ............ it was a fire fighting exercise to stop the club going bust. The club ended up with no income rights because it sold them for apparently much more than they were worth if recent valuation details are to be believed.

Just do not see anyone from the various other parties turning up especially less than a week before the JR judgement. Surely the legal eagles will all be advising against attendance especially with the size of damages threatened in the JR papers. So can we expect the "we are disappointed none of them had the courage to face the fans " come 28th June?

How does the claim for damages encourage anyone to sit round the table and negotiate as ML seems to think could happen? Or is it sit round the table and listen to the terms of your surrender that he has in mind?

I've asked this question before, but, how was £6m for 50% of ACL arrived at?

Hypothetically, If the club had paid £6m for their share and then were offered less than that for the share at a later date, would that be unreasonable? Should the club expect the whole £6m regardless?

 

[lordsummerisle]

How does the claim for damages encourage anyone to sit round the table and negotiate as ML seems to think could happen? Or is it sit round the table and listen to the terms of your surrender that he has in mind?

The repay by ACL if CCC lose the case with interest is not a request/demand by SISU it is included in the European state aid regulations if state is found to be illegal.

 

[Astute]

I've asked this question before, but, how was £6m for 50% of ACL arrived at?

Hypothetically, If the club had paid £6m for their share and then were offered less than that for the share at a later date, would that be unreasonable? Should the club expect the whole £6m regardless?

Our club SOLD it for 6.5m to Higgs and SISU agreed to pay 5.5m to buy it back.....then went back on their word as usual.

 

[Astute]

Why should the tax payer fund any private enterprise you mean?

Are you calling our football club a private enterprise?

I know what you are aiming at. You are going to say that ACL is a private enterprise if anyone says yes. At times some of you on here call it a private enterprise but complain about taxpayers money being used to prop it up. But then also say that taxpayers money should be used so SISU get what they want but word it differently.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Our club SOLD it for 6.5m to Higgs and SISU agreed to pay 5.5m to buy it back.....then went back on their word as usual.

And in answer to the question...... Why was it sold for £6.5m?

 

[Astute]

And Lord are you saying that they are after damages because they have to go for them? Just like they had to go for what Higgs were after when they thought they had a legally binding contract but SISU went for x10 because they had to?

 

[Astute]

And in answer to the question...... Why was it sold for £6.5m?

Are you pretending that you don't know the answer to this after going over it countless times?

Is this your way of making a comment because there is nothing that can be said to stick up for SISU?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I am sure there was some detailed calculations of value done fp but bottom line is that there were debts coming up for payment and the £6m cleared those. No reason why the value of investments cant go up and down but at the end of the day if the owner has a figure in mind but doesn't need to sell then valuations are less meaningful. It becomes an exercise in finding a figure the owner is happy with which isn't necessarily market value - it could be higher or lower.

The loan repayment plus interest under state aid rules is not part of the damages claim LS. Two separate things. Somehow don't see SISU being in a mood to compromise if they win the JR suspect the reverse is equally true. Not sure that's a great basis to negotiations. Which I think means this misery is set to continue for sometime yet.

 

[lordsummerisle]

And Lord are you saying that they are after damages because they have to go for them? Just like they had to go for what Higgs were after when they thought they had a legally binding contract but SISU went for x10 because they had to?

I'm not saying anything, both OSB quotes.

THE CT article doesn't say what they are claiming for either, just speculatting what they could claim.

All irrelevant anyway if they don't win the JR.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I'd had a (very) small spark of hope that once the JR was out of the way, the two sides might just have got around a table and started to negotiate seriously and sensibly.

Not looking too promising........

 

[fernandopartridge]

I am sure there was some detailed calculations of value done fp but bottom line is that there were debts coming up for payment and the £6m cleared those. No reason why the value of investments cant go up and down but at the end of the day if the owner has a figure in mind but doesn't need to sell then valuations are less meaningful. It becomes an exercise in finding a figure the owner is happy with which isn't necessarily market value - it could be higher or lower.

The loan repayment plus interest under state aid rules is not part of the damages claim LS. Two separate things. Somehow don't see SISU being in a mood to compromise if they win the JR suspect the reverse is equally true. Not sure that's a great basis to negotiations. Which I think means this misery is set to continue for sometime yet.

I don't share your optimism about the valuations especially considering the short sightedness of the City board at the time.

I am sure there was some detailed calculations of value done fp but bottom line is that there were debts coming up for payment and the £6m cleared those. No reason why the value of investments cant go up and down but at the end of the day if the owner has a figure in mind but doesn't need to sell then valuations are less meaningful. It becomes an exercise in finding a figure the owner is happy with which isn't necessarily market value - it could be higher or lower.

The loan repayment plus interest under state aid rules is not part of the damages claim LS. Two separate things. Somehow don't see SISU being in a mood to compromise if they win the JR suspect the reverse is equally true. Not sure that's a great basis to negotiations. Which I think means this misery is set to continue for sometime yet.