fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Any idea who bought the bonds. At 2k a piece min it would take 17500 Wasps fans. What sort of people or organisations have money to invest in bonds I wonder....
Sisu make official complaint over Coventry councillors' conduct (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfc92
- Start date
Any idea who bought the bonds. At 2k a piece min it would take 17500 Wasps fans. What sort of people or organisations have money to invest in bonds I wonder....
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Hmmm...its definitely a politician's comment. I'm more likely to think it implies that discussion has taken place...but nothing formal.
PUSB
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But I see these Sisu actions as detrimental to our future.
We (they) have no real means of financing a new stadium and as such our future relies on the Ricoh.
We need to start working with Wasps management for mutual benefits to both clubs.
This will not happen whilst Sisu play the JR/Stadium game.
At some point, like CCC, Wasps will get pissed off with the threats and do something that is not necessarily in their interests but has that 'okay get on with it' feeling of satisfaction.
In time Wasps will slowly make decisions on stadium changes that they feel does not need to take CCFC into consideration.
I hope I'm wrong but at some point Sisu will say that we have no choice but to move to Northampton again.
I just wish they would either start to think of the football club or just put us on the market to the highest bidder and see what happens.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I think their case for compensation would be to suggest that without the loan - ACL would've been happy to accept any offer from the only noted interested party at that time. Namely themselves I. E at a knockdown price which would be an instant valuable asset allowing the club all revenues. And gaining in value as it was at a low point for property. So on today's levels...it would amount to many millions.
PUSB
the majority of over 30's have money in bonds i would think
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes, regulated bonds of the sort offered by banks. Not retail bonds which are risky.
duffer
Well-Known Member
You're still confusing remedy with claim. The point of the JR is to show that the council granted illegal state aid - whether the loan is repaid or not isn't relevant.
I've not come across a commercial organisation making a complaint to an LGO before, I always thought it was a procedure for members of the public. But why would it bother you? Would you prefer that this wasn't looked into - does it suits you or someone you know perhaps? If everything was above board here then the council and the councillors have nothing to fear.
There's been enough here to suggest that the investigation is merited to me - what are you doing here other than stamping your foot?
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Italia you started well but then you got on your son box with a lot of conjecture. Why on earth would wasp not want or need CCFC at the Ricoh?
Look we all must realise that if TM signs and he gets one of the biggest budgets in league one, which is not saying a lot and we remain contracted a to the Ricoh then what's the problem with the parent company having a go at the clowns at the council? If SISU win it all and get something overturned or some compo what's all the fuss?
Look we all must realise that if TM signs and he gets one of the biggest budgets in league one, which is not saying a lot and we remain contracted a to the Ricoh then what's the problem with the parent company having a go at the clowns at the council? If SISU win it all and get something overturned or some compo what's all the fuss?
Last edited:
TasmanSeaSkyBlue
Member
When the Councillors win the Court matter, SiSu pays the legal fees & damages of by giving season tickets and/or permission to sit on the bench.
most people will own shares too which are riskier than corporate bonds, alot of pensions funds will have corporate bonds too as by owning shares, corporate bonds, government bonds and maybe a little cash you reduce the volatility.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Joy Seppalla? Perhaps she thought it was a cracking investment.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Seriously?
I would think many of the people I have met through work who live in deprived households and struggle to feed themselves and cloth themselves would not really have the income to invest in bonds.
Not everyone lives with the income to be able to invest.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
No mention of what is being complained about in the article. It could be something frivolous all the way up to why they were served ginger nuts instead of digestives with their coffee's.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Very few would invest in Bonds of this nature.
Astute
Well-Known Member
You are allowed a view. But your view is not getting the point. I have not seen anyone say they are unhappy for the questions to be asked. What is being said is what good can it do. And the JR is supposed to be from a moment in time. On the last one the judge made a scathing attack on SISU. And whatever happens in any JR do you think that any time can be called by SISU where when looking at that moment in time and earlier SISU had acted how they should have?
I wouldn't like to call the result from any action as we don't know most of the facts. So that also means not calling anyone guilty unless we already know the facts. But from the last JR I don't have much hope on SISU getting very far. Any further action would mean the last JR result being taken into consideration as the complaint will be similar in fact. It seems to me to be a way of bringing in new evidence.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Surely as CCFC fans we should want this looking into? Lucas has basically admitted to bending the truth in public and these needs looking at.
What happens if this goes in sisu's favour? Id wager that those who berate sisu not accepting decisions will claim that it is wrong.
If the council have done everything above board then they and their fans have nothing to worry about.
yes seriously I think the majority (as in a percentage over 50) of people over 30 have a works pension (especially as its now becoming compulsory to offer one) and nearly all of these pensions will have the money in a mix of mostly shares and bonds. Just because people don't realise they are investing in the stock market doesn't mean they aren't.
Unless you are struggling to feed yourself and heat your home everyone in a works pension should make sure they are contributing the maximum amount that their employeer will match or you are throwing money away, this is even more important for someone earning over 40k, if you are paying higher tax and your employeer is matching your contribution for each 60p you lose off your take home pay you can have £2+ go into your pension and that money will hopefully grow at say 6% a year for a couple of decades or more. If it's 35 years to you retire you might find that 60p you didn't take home is nearly £5 by retirement.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Less than 40% contribute to an occupational pension scheme
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
If sisu do have a case and did win whatever legals they have entered then this won't benefit ccfc will it? That's my issue
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I wonder if this was supposed to come out at the same time as TM's appointment and the timing went wrong? or was it leaked to the CT by CCC?
Perfectly within their rights to make a complaint if they feel they need to, I do not have a problem with that. A complaint doesn't mean they have a proven case. Personally I am just sick and tired of these antics which ever side it is. The action makes it very personal of course. Whilst I accept that public officials are held to a higher standard the phrase pot calling kettle black comes to mind. These comments in light of the recent general election almost seem tame and there are of course in my opinion comments that came from their side that could also have damaged reputations and businesses.
Again we see when it suits a "separation" between SISU and CCFC. It is when it suits because at other times SISU and CCFC are promoted as inextricably linked which of course they are. Without CCFC would there be this complaint or the JR's?
The complaint will need to have been specific for it to be considered and therefore focussed on the actions of Lucas and Mutton. That is not the same as investigating the process by which the loan and sale decisions were arrived at. SISU may of course be trying to prove that the actions by the two councillors were sufficient to influence the decisions and therefore the bases of the JR judges decisions were wrong - that would seem to ignore the democratic process.
Can they proceed with the JR. Yes I would think so on the basis that they are challenging the decision at the time not the subsequent events. The main remedy has been removed with loans repaid. There are other remedies but they are things like rerunning the decision process - some what pointless. I doubt that Wasps could have raised the money prior to moving in, I think they needed the figures and PR of what has gone on to promote it and make the bond issue a success. They also needed the asset to secure it on. However if SISU were to be successful in the LGO complaint and then the JR's I would think they would try to take it to a civil case for compensation and that's the importance of continuing (well one importance at least)
There of course is a problem with the civil case. They will need to quantify losses and to prove a contractual relationship has been broken. I would think that they will argue a hostile takeover attempt following a reluctance to negotiate by ACL/CCC/AEHC was a trigger to the actions in breaking the lease by moving to Sixfields. History keeps being rewritten but I am not sure the evidence is of that being the actual starting point. I can think of others that could equally be pointed to, like the ARVO charge separating the assets of CCFC from its liabilities (including the lease) or the confusion as to where assets sat. Depends where you want to start really. How you prove contractual liability when CCFC no longer had the right to be at the Ricoh at the time of the loan or sale I am not sure. (being a short term licence for a day rental doesn't prove such a right)
What this does do is
- makes it roll on and on
- means Lucas & Mutton can not talk about it, but SISU etc can
- deflates the fans who are heartily fed up of all the off field shenanigans
- ties up resources of CCC and to a lesser extent AEHC & Wasps if the JR cases continue
a couple of thoughts
- lawyers will tell you there is a basis in law even if it is remote
- is this the start of a number of similar actions against the parties involved?
- Is this being continued in an effort to seek payment to go away?
- If the "fantasy stadium" is on the borders of CCC then it hardly engenders partnership which will be necessary for infrastructure
Perfectly within their rights to make a complaint if they feel they need to, I do not have a problem with that. A complaint doesn't mean they have a proven case. Personally I am just sick and tired of these antics which ever side it is. The action makes it very personal of course. Whilst I accept that public officials are held to a higher standard the phrase pot calling kettle black comes to mind. These comments in light of the recent general election almost seem tame and there are of course in my opinion comments that came from their side that could also have damaged reputations and businesses.
Again we see when it suits a "separation" between SISU and CCFC. It is when it suits because at other times SISU and CCFC are promoted as inextricably linked which of course they are. Without CCFC would there be this complaint or the JR's?
The complaint will need to have been specific for it to be considered and therefore focussed on the actions of Lucas and Mutton. That is not the same as investigating the process by which the loan and sale decisions were arrived at. SISU may of course be trying to prove that the actions by the two councillors were sufficient to influence the decisions and therefore the bases of the JR judges decisions were wrong - that would seem to ignore the democratic process.
Can they proceed with the JR. Yes I would think so on the basis that they are challenging the decision at the time not the subsequent events. The main remedy has been removed with loans repaid. There are other remedies but they are things like rerunning the decision process - some what pointless. I doubt that Wasps could have raised the money prior to moving in, I think they needed the figures and PR of what has gone on to promote it and make the bond issue a success. They also needed the asset to secure it on. However if SISU were to be successful in the LGO complaint and then the JR's I would think they would try to take it to a civil case for compensation and that's the importance of continuing (well one importance at least)
There of course is a problem with the civil case. They will need to quantify losses and to prove a contractual relationship has been broken. I would think that they will argue a hostile takeover attempt following a reluctance to negotiate by ACL/CCC/AEHC was a trigger to the actions in breaking the lease by moving to Sixfields. History keeps being rewritten but I am not sure the evidence is of that being the actual starting point. I can think of others that could equally be pointed to, like the ARVO charge separating the assets of CCFC from its liabilities (including the lease) or the confusion as to where assets sat. Depends where you want to start really. How you prove contractual liability when CCFC no longer had the right to be at the Ricoh at the time of the loan or sale I am not sure. (being a short term licence for a day rental doesn't prove such a right)
What this does do is
- makes it roll on and on
- means Lucas & Mutton can not talk about it, but SISU etc can
- deflates the fans who are heartily fed up of all the off field shenanigans
- ties up resources of CCC and to a lesser extent AEHC & Wasps if the JR cases continue
a couple of thoughts
- lawyers will tell you there is a basis in law even if it is remote
- is this the start of a number of similar actions against the parties involved?
- Is this being continued in an effort to seek payment to go away?
- If the "fantasy stadium" is on the borders of CCC then it hardly engenders partnership which will be necessary for infrastructure
Last edited:
Alot of pension plans will have say 10% in a corporate bond fund which will contain many different companies bonds to spread the risk.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
So you don't think those elected by the people should be held up to scrutiny when required? You don't care if this wouldn't be of benefit to you personally? Fair play if that's the case but I think it a little strange.
I'd say that stat suggests I'm right not wrong. if 40% of people are contributing to a work scheme currently then it's extremely likely that well over 50% of over 30's have a work or private pension.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
From the LGO website http://www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint/
How we deal with your complaint
First look at your complaint
We will first acknowledge we have received your complaint. If we need any further information at this stage we will contact you.
If you’ve already complained to the organisation involved, our Assessment Team will decide if we can investigate your complaint. We will write to you to explain the outcome.
For more information about how we decide if we can investigate, see our Assessment Code. You do not need to read this to make a complaint.
Investigating your complaint
If we decide to investigate we will pass your complaint to our Investigation Team and tell you who will deal with your complaint.
We may then ask you and the organisation you’re complaining about for more information. We will keep you updated on the progress of the investigation.
We will usually send you copies of the information the organisation gives us, but sometimes they will provide sensitive information that we cannot pass on to you.
When we think we have enough information to make a fair decision, we will share a draft decision with you. We will give you a chance to comment or give us any further information you want us to consider before we make a final decision.
When we make a final decision we write to you and explain the reasons. We will send a copy of the decision to the organisation you complained about.
How long does it take?
We aim to:
acknowledge receipt of your complaint in five working days
tell you if we will investigate your complaint within 20 working days
In most investigations we come to a final decision within three months. However some complicated cases can take much longer for us to gather enough information to make a fair decision.
Publishing our decisions
We publish our decisions three months after the date of the decision. See Possible outcomes for more information.
How we deal with your complaint
First look at your complaint
We will first acknowledge we have received your complaint. If we need any further information at this stage we will contact you.
If you’ve already complained to the organisation involved, our Assessment Team will decide if we can investigate your complaint. We will write to you to explain the outcome.
For more information about how we decide if we can investigate, see our Assessment Code. You do not need to read this to make a complaint.
Investigating your complaint
If we decide to investigate we will pass your complaint to our Investigation Team and tell you who will deal with your complaint.
We may then ask you and the organisation you’re complaining about for more information. We will keep you updated on the progress of the investigation.
We will usually send you copies of the information the organisation gives us, but sometimes they will provide sensitive information that we cannot pass on to you.
When we think we have enough information to make a fair decision, we will share a draft decision with you. We will give you a chance to comment or give us any further information you want us to consider before we make a final decision.
When we make a final decision we write to you and explain the reasons. We will send a copy of the decision to the organisation you complained about.
How long does it take?
We aim to:
acknowledge receipt of your complaint in five working days
tell you if we will investigate your complaint within 20 working days
In most investigations we come to a final decision within three months. However some complicated cases can take much longer for us to gather enough information to make a fair decision.
Publishing our decisions
We publish our decisions three months after the date of the decision. See Possible outcomes for more information.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it over subscribed and they had to close it early? Wouldn't that indicate that more wanted to invest than they anticipated?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What, more individual members of the public over 30?
Why would that suggest that?
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
If Lucas and Mutton have done something wrong then they should be punished, but I think if they lose Lucas will retire and that will be the end of it.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I am like the vast majority and don't give a shite about CCC. What I want is CCFC run properly by SISU.
What gets me is that some seem to be pinning all their hopes on CCC being found guilty of something bad enough so it has to pay enough money that would cover a ground to be built. We all know there is hardly any chance of this happening. But lets say it does happen. SISU get awarded 30m. Where do you think this money would go? Get the straight jacket out if you think they would build us a stadium with it. They would have most of the money back that they wasted on our club. It would be a get out of jail card for Joy. At least it would vastly improve the chance of them leaving our club alone. Sell to the highest bidder/to whoever will take on the most debt owed to them. They could then make a profit on the time they have devastated our club. But they have already stopped putting money into our club.
So whatever happens I don't see any benefit for CCFC. Just more drawn out litigation which puts worries to the future of our club. It puts more ill feelings between Wasps and us. And whatever you think of the situation we are now at the mercy of Wasps on getting another deal to stay at the Ricoh. How much shite will they take before they decide that the small amount that they receive from us for playing there is worth the trouble?
So yes I want to find out the truth. But knowing what SISU are like also a bit worried about where it will lead us. And all for no benefit to CCFC as well
Moff
Well-Known Member
Quantified like that, then yes I see your point, and totally agree.
I still think it is suprising, and worrying the amount of people who have the means to plan for retirement but dont.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
its clear council did a lot of things wrong and i hope these 2 individuals get punished for that.
as long as it dont effect ccfc transfer budget then im all for it.
even if you hate sisu you must understand that council did alot of stuff wrong, and justice must be done!
as long as it dont effect ccfc transfer budget then im all for it.
even if you hate sisu you must understand that council did alot of stuff wrong, and justice must be done!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting it does. Why are you suggesting it wouldn't?
Astute
Well-Known Member
You say it as a fact that they have done something illegal as justice must be done. So what do you say that they have done that is illegal?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't disagree with that. I just want to know how we get justice for all the stuff that has been done wrong by the clubs owners? Or are they allowed to get of the hook?