Coventry City Football Club Statement - The club are aware SISU have served legal pap (1 Viewer)

[martcov]

We can only hope!

Ignore the football team ( and of course the rugby team ) what has this Council done to benefit the City in its tenure?

Well, at least it hasn't moved the city to Northampton for a year.....

 

---

[dadgad]

Ignore the football team ( and of course the rugby team ) what has this Council done to benefit the City in its tenure?

A. (Old Fiver) This Council has done fuck all.
B. It's emptied the bins
A. Apart from emptying the bins what the fuck has the Council done for Cov?
C. Gritted the roads?
B. Cut the grass in Memorial Park?
A. Ok, granted its cut the grass, gritted the roads and emptied the bins but....
D. Kept our helf services running...
E .....and our skules
A. Yeah, Yeah, but what have they really done for us, the cityzens of Cov, eh? (and so on, ad nauseum....

 

[dongonzalos]

Crikey, I am still trying to get my head around this one.

In Normative Ethics we have something called Utilitarianism. Going to use the most basic form here but Utility basically states;

"..that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes Utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives."

To have a football and rugby club playing in one stadium instead of just one football club fits this criteria, that it is the proper course of action to be taken, because it is maximising the enjoyment of people living in the local society.

However, from my understanding of the Telegragh article it says, "...had a seriously damaging effect on the club."


To give you good people a working anology of the problem of Utilitarianism, imagine a society of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Utility states that it would be okay for the wolves in the society to eat the sheep because there are more wolves in the society then sheep. This is obviously okay for the wolves but could lead to a problem for the sheep.

So we have some safeguards in society that are built in to protect rights and these are with the European Court of Human Rights which protects the individual rights against the state and stops Utility from undermining the well being of a society. A well known case for this was Marper and the DNA Database where Utility went crazy under the last Labour Government.

From what I am reading here, and of course I could be wrong, but are SISU asking for the same Human Rights that protects the Individual from society to now protect Business's as well.

I do not understand the argument from SISU here. The council (however useless they are) have followed the rules of Utility. There are no protections for business's like there are for the individual.

The argument is a non-starter.

You are swimming in the wrong pool my friend.
Your point is completely correct however you have forgotten a swimming pool has a sky blue tint to it.
This means normal rules do not apply

 

[Philosoraptor]

You are swimming in the wrong pool my friend.
Your point is completely correct however you have forgotten a swimming pool has a sky blue tint to it.
This means normal rules do not apply

I can't see a way around this argument though. It's how I believe a court would see this.

Because Utility is part of consequentalism then we do have a way to at least measure the Utility of the stadium, and this would be bums on seats.

If the rugby club has far less average attendence than CCFC then a case could be made that the council has not worked in the best interests of society. It's an unknown figure at the moment.

It really doesn't help, our present position and the related average attendance in the league.

 

[ecky]

If Sisu had spent as much time devotion and money at the team as they have in court we would be in the premiership....?

Same old same old Sisu...

 

[skybluetony176]

If Sisu had spent as much time devotion and money at the team as they have in court we would be in the premiership....?

Same old same old Sisu...

Or.

If they'd put the time, devotion and money into the W's method to aquire the Ricoh as they have into their own fruitless method of distress and litigation we'd probably own the Ricoh by now. Well SISU would.

 

[duffer]

Crikey, I am still trying to get my head around this one.

In Normative Ethics we have something called Utilitarianism. Going to use the most basic form here but Utility basically states;

"..that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes Utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives."

To have a football and rugby club playing in one stadium instead of just one football club fits this criteria, that it is the proper course of action to be taken, because it is maximising the enjoyment of people living in the local society.

However, from my understanding of the Telegragh article it says, "...had a seriously damaging effect on the club."


To give you good people a working anology of the problem of Utilitarianism, imagine a society of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Utility states that it would be okay for the wolves in the society to eat the sheep because there are more wolves in the society then sheep. This is obviously okay for the wolves but could lead to a problem for the sheep.

So we have some safeguards in society that are built in to protect rights and these are with the European Court of Human Rights which protects the individual rights against the state and stops Utility from undermining the well being of a society. A well known case for this was Marper and the DNA Database where Utility went crazy under the last Labour Government.

From what I am reading here, and of course I could be wrong, but are SISU asking for the same Human Rights that protects the Individual from society to now protect Business's as well.

I do not understand the argument from SISU here. The council (however useless they are) have followed the rules of Utility. There are no protections for business's like there are for the individual.

The argument is a non-starter.

I think you could reframe the utility argument a number of different ways here to come up with the opposite conclusion. Consider the utility of the disenfranchised Wasps fans, the utility of franchising in general, the fact that if CCFC fold or leave it will be measurably worse for the city,

Regardless of all that though, court cases aren't decided on philosophical arguments, they are decided on points of law. I've not read the basis for this specific case yet, but if it relates to maximising return for a public asset then I could see how there might be a case to answer. The club were clearly kept out of the matter, in effect the council didn't open a bidding process but sold secretly to a buyer of their choosing. I don't much care for that, but whether it is legal or not is a different matter.

 

[italiahorse]

I think you could reframe the utility argument a number of different ways here to come up with the opposite conclusion. Consider the utility of the disenfranchised Wasps fans, the utility of franchising in general, the fact that if CCFC fold or leave it will be measurably worse for the city,

Regardless of all that though, court cases aren't decided on philosophical arguments, they are decided on points of law. I've not read the basis for this specific case yet, but if it relates to maximising return for a public asset then I could see how there might be a case to answer. The club were clearly kept out of the matter, in effect the council didn't open a bidding process but sold secretly to a buyer of their choosing. I don't much care for that, but whether it is legal or not is a different matter.

It's just a business decision.
There were 2 potential buyers.
One that wanted it for nothing the other made an offer.
Why go to court ? It's futile.

 

[Chez78]

It's all just standard business practice, I for one am more concerned with the negative effect this could have on our brand new all singing all dancing stadium. Surely with all these court costs we'll have to loose at least 500 seats to cover the costs.

 

[martcov]

I think you could reframe the utility argument a number of different ways here to come up with the opposite conclusion. Consider the utility of the disenfranchised Wasps fans, the utility of franchising in general, the fact that if CCFC fold or leave it will be measurably worse for the city,

Regardless of all that though, court cases aren't decided on philosophical arguments, they are decided on points of law. I've not read the basis for this specific case yet, but if it relates to maximising return for a public asset then I could see how there might be a case to answer. The club were clearly kept out of the matter, in effect the council didn't open a bidding process but sold secretly to a buyer of their choosing. I don't much care for that, but whether it is legal or not is a different matter.

I deal with a tourist board and they are supposed to obtain 3 quotes for jobs. However, I don't see how CCC could do that with a stadium complex - it's not as if there was a queue of potential buyers and SISU and CCC were long out of negotiations. It was well known that CCFC were building their own bowl for some time, but still - as far as we know - there were no other options than Wasps.

 

[wingy]

Or.

If they'd put the time, devotion and money into the W's method to aquire the Ricoh as they have into their own fruitless method of distress and litigation we'd probably own the Ricoh by now. Well SISU would.

But I thought they did put a huge amount of Effort In .

The setting up of Otium ,shifting of assets from LTD ( liquidation still incomplete) and a Huge gamble that was way too Risky IMO and now we are here .

 

[duffer]

It's just a business decision.
There were 2 potential buyers.
One that wanted it for nothing the other made an offer.
Why go to court ? It's futile.

I don't think either of us are best placed to decide on the legal merits of this case. You're welcome to your opinion, but if there is wrongdoing to be exposed I'd rather know about it personally.

As to there being two potential buyers, the council clearly went out of their way to make sure there was only one potential buyer at the point they sold to Wasps. They told the other potential buyer, SISU, that time was needed to rebuild trust whilst selling secretly to the other party. The legal case is one thing, but let's not allow opinions to get in the way of the facts here, even if some find them inconvenient.

 

[italiahorse]

I don't think either of us are best placed to decide on the legal merits of this case. You're welcome to your opinion, but if there is wrongdoing to be exposed I'd rather know about it personally.

As to there being two potential buyers, the council clearly went out of their way to make sure there was only one potential buyer at the point they sold to Wasps. They told the other potential buyer, SISU, that time was needed to rebuild trust whilst selling secretly to the other party. The legal case is one thing, but let's not allow opinions to get in the way of the facts here, even if some find them inconvenient.

You may like to sit back and wait until all the legals are over but people are leaving in droves.
IMHO Sisu are trying to expand their portfolio and CCFC are bankrolling it.
I hazard a guess nothing will come of it other than Wasps running down the CCFC lease now.