Appeal Dismissed (1 Viewer)

Apols if this is in another thread - just popped up on my poota
Coventry City Football Club has learned of the decision of the club owners SISU to appeal the latest court judgement and continue court proceedings against Wasps and Coventry City Council.

For the avoidance of doubt, the shareholder drives the legal process and instructs legal counsel. The Club does not make any decision on the court proceedings nor does it pay any legal costs.

We reiterate the Club’s desire and need to agree a new deal to continue to play matches at the Ricoh Arena.

We want this deal to happen, as we believe supporters and the wider community do too, and everyone at Coventry City Football Club will work tirelessly in our attempts to make this happen. Without this, our place in the EFL and the Club’s future is in jeopardy.

I think if it is pushed hard enough that the club are pushing the legal stuff then it would become more widely accepted if Wasps were to give them a "kickin". It's been that way since day 1 that if people try to cloud it as much as they can then people won't mind the club being damaged.

The more it goes on, the more you can see how they don't have any control over it.

Nick said:

When they came here it was spun as them goodies and us baddies. Our own fans group joined in.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that because SISU were the only 'baddies' in the equation then? Like I said the press will publish the story that will best sell at the time. The Owner/stadium dispute perhaps was the hot topic at the time, especially as we had recently moved out of the Ricoh to Northampton due to the rent dispute with ACL so SISU were obviously the bad guys. But now Wasps have been brought in the situation I physically can't see how they are going to escape blame if they refuse to extend the deal. Unfortunately with the press the truth can often be slightly distorted and despite whatever comments that may/may not come out of the Wasps camp, the fact a Football Club and Rugby Club cannot co-exist is the real story at hand. Like I said SISU are the real issue in this scenario as most throughout Coventry and Warwick know full well but Wasps delivering the final blow will be the headline.

Wasps playing hard ball (understandably) but apparently do need us there.

The saga continues.

jordan210 said:

Click to expand...

same old lines ..... i know it is hard for them to say otherwise ........ but no one really thinks the argument stands up to scrutiny

Can someone list the reasons why CCFC and Otium are not the same thing other than trading name being different?

If the Telegraph had any backbone its front page tomorrow would read

Sisu: Stop the legals and sell the club
Wasps: Don't destroy our football club

oldskyblue58 said:

same old lines ..... i know it is hard for them to say otherwise ........ but no one really thinks the argument stands up to scrutiny

Can someone list the reasons why CCFC and Otium are not the same thing other than trading name being different?

Click to expand...

For the avoidance of doubt, the shareholder drives the legal process and instructs legal counsel. The Club does not make any decision on the court proceedings nor does it pay any legal costs.

Click to expand...

Isn't that true though?

I guess if people make out it's the club actually pushing it, it isn't so bad when it gets a pasting. No different to when people say that the club is SISU so they don't feel as bad.

NorthernWisdom said:

Always been the case though, hasn't it. The problem is it's never been black and white anyway (nothing ever is, tbf).

Anyway, sonme scattered thoughts at the end of a lunch hour.

FWIW I don't believe that:

• A deal won't be agreed and, if not;
• The club won't be allowed by the league to go elsewhere, at least temporarily, if the alternative is closure.

As another aside, I wouldn't close the door completely on the Butts deal being revived at some stage, even if just as a temporary ground akin to Brighton's Withdean. Reading between the lines, it was political pressure from CCC which closed that off but, if the alternative is the club closes, I'd expect there to be *some* kind of relenting. The major concern that stops that being an option is that, for better or worse (we've done the deal to death, so let's focus on the consequences), by selling the Ricoh to Wasps, CCC *have* to buy into them succeeding. Forget SISU for a moment (yeah yeah, I know) and that potentially hampers alternative arrangements under a new, nicer, more temperate owner.

Nonetheless, an extreme event can focus minds if need be!

The only caveat I have to this is that who, really, thought it'd get as far as us actually playing at Northampton? Until we ran out for the first game, surely all of us thought in soome way, shape or form, an eleventh hour deal would have been made?

Click to expand...

If all of this ends up with us in a nice little 20k seater at the Butts then happy days. If only...

ccfchoi87 said:

If all of this ends up with us in a nice little 20k seater at the Butts then happy days. If only...

Click to expand...

I'd think the more likely scenario would be a couple of temporary stands for a couple of years, and then the Rugby club could carry on with its own business once this all settles, with (hopefully!) a bit of extra cash it wasn't anticipating.

Not exactly ideal, but better than the worst case!

Nick said:

That's like me hoping for news about this week's cricket test match.

Click to expand...

England won yesterday mate to complete a 3-0 series whitewash.

You're welcome.

oldskyblue58 said:

according to CWR the council have spent £619K on JR 1 and £324K on JR 2 so far

Add to that Wasps have spent £500k so far

always knew i should have been a lawyer not an accountant !

Click to expand...

I'm amazed at the Wasps figures, they're not even a respondent to the claim as such are they?

oldskyblue58 said:

playing devils advocate for a minute...............

We get to March and the legals are on going possibly for no other reason than lack of court time. SISU confirm they will not withdraw the court action by SBS&L, ARVO & Otium. The CCFC/Otium cannot give the required notice of home ground for 2019/20 season to the EFL. There are no other options in the region acceptable to EFL and the fans of CCFC are unlikely to travel in sufficient numbers to make out of Coventry viable. CCFC teetering on the brink of extinction. Wasps at last moment offer a day rent on a game by game basis that equates to £1m per annum with no F&B access but undisclosed as to the amount due NDA. Without funds from the owners CCFC can not really afford it, players would have to be sold making the playing squad weaker and survival in the division unlikely, finances are squeezed. EFL are happy for one season at least and favour the deal. Wasps by making the offer gain positive not negative PR. Legal action continues.It can all be spun as SISU's fault. CCFC crashes and burns, crowds down, poor results, no money

Click to expand...

Well when you put it like that OSB...what a time to be a Sky Blue?!

I thought after the last appeal was dismissed, it was done so on the basis that there is no further right to appeal?

That being the case, are they now trying to appeal the decision of their last appeal being dismissed, which stressed they weren't allowed to appeal?

oldskyblue58 said:

maybe but............ So just to illustrate ...

once it is done and couple months it wont register. Just to be clear they wont be kicking CCFC out, the agreement simply ends which gives Wasps some PR of their own to play with and can emphasise the SISU role. There will be a lot of other football clubs who will simply say good riddance

Sponsors in the rugby world or the events world will still sponsor because they know the outrage will die down and many are already locked in. In fact some might be sympathetic and like the strong approach taken.

There are plenty of football teams with precarious finances and losses that attract players, it wont affect a players decision, players tend to be quite mercenary

I doubt the backer will withdraw from Wasps because CCFC go bust

Locally so far opinion is split. It might heal if CCFC go bust but Wasps etc will still be trading CCFC wont and can influence PR etc

Whatever happens it will be a mess, both teams will be hit, but Wasps will still be around, CCFC likely not

Click to expand...

We're trying to negotiate a deal and Wasps have refused. You make out like the press will publish that we left on our own volition when obviously that's not the case. Obviously SISU were the cause as we understand it but can you guarantee that being published as a headline? Exactly, Wasps will need to spend a serious amount of PR to get that message across, that kind of message doesn't just come from the odd comment or press release being sent to a journalist. Will they view that as a necessary cost? I'm sorry I can't agree with that, that's utter bollocks. What club would wish liquidation on another?!

In what world? Businesses sponsor sports clubs on a commercial level to boost their profile within the community and beyond. Many sponsors will obviously be local and considering Wasps had a helping hand in causing CCFC to fold, what would be the advantage of local business sponsoring a club that's locally hated when it could cause a backlash to their own business. Even national companies such as JLR may question whether their association with Wasps would be commercially beneficial. If a business local or national aren't getting back a decent ROI from sponsoring Wasps then they're not going to continue their association with them - as what commitment do they have to Wasps? If they feel there is no benefit in sponsoring the club they won't simply 'wait for it blow over'. Sponsorships usually run from season to season so if by the summer CCFC are put out of business, the national press will have an entire summer to discuss the drama and antics - a key time for a Rugby Club to broker sponsorship and commercial deals. I don't get your meaning of sponsors in the rugby world? Wasps will have a variety of club partners just as we do. Baffling how you don't think that would have an adverse effect.

If they're financially struggling due to their current financial plight coupled with a potential commercial drop then how are they going to bring in the right players though? Any club can attract players but Wasps need to compete with the likes of Exeter and Saracens if they're going to attract a half-decent fan base. If they continue losing money as they currently are, it's been publicly stated that they won't be able to afford to remain at the Ricoh let alone affording top draw players. Plus to increase their financial problem, if CCFC do go bust will it have an effect on their fanbase?

I just don't understand your argument as it seems to be based on the fact that because Wasps can generate PR and CCFC can't then they'll escape scot free from any form of media negativity.

Yes the share holder instructs legal counsel and drives the legal case which includes doing it on behalf of Otium Entertainment Group. It is just playing with words. There are only three legal entities taking the legal action ARVO, SBS&L and Otium. Otium is an active trading company not a shell.

The reason it is worded like that is to try to create a separation between a trading name (CCFC) and a legal entity (Otium). It is not aimed at convincing Wasps but at convincing the fans because it might put fans pressure on Wasps.

Just confirms that the shareholder is acting as a person of significant control and that the company is used to following that persons instructions in all company matters.

oldskyblue58 said:

Yes the share holder instructs legal counsel and drives the legal case which includes doing it on behalf of Otium Entertainment Group. It is just playing with words. There are only three legal entities taking the legal action ARVO, SBS&L and Otium. Otium is an active trading company not a shell.

The reason it is worded like that is to try to create a separation between a trading name (CCFC) and a legal entity (Otium). It is not aimed at convincing Wasps but at convincing the fans because it might put fans pressure on Wasps.

Just confirms that the shareholder is acting as a person of significant control and that the company is used to following that persons instructions in all company matters.

Click to expand...

It's not, it is worded like that to show that the people actually running the football club have no say over it. Pretty sure you know this though? It's effectively people like Boddy saying they are just as helpless as we are in it all.

So when people start saying the football club deserve to be kicked out or people rock up to games going apeshit and running on the pitch it is more justified.

It's exactly the reason why people have tried to push that SISU is CCFC also. So then people go apeshit and protest thinking they are sticking it to SISU.

It's not much different to me going and beating the shit out of Harry Redknapps dog because I don't like tax dodging rather than being annoyed at Harry himself.

The grammar on facebook would make itsabuzzard explode.

Fact is

SBS&L as per companies house



Otium Entertainment as per companies house.



That makes it a bit difficult to separate them legally.

skybluetony176 said:

Fact is

SBS&L as per companies house

View attachment 11033

Otium Entertainment as per companies house.

View attachment 11034

That makes it a bit difficult to separate them legally.

Click to expand...

If they weren't separate there wouldn't be a need for significant control statements would there?

oldskyblue58 said:

Yes the share holder instructs legal counsel and drives the legal case which includes doing it on behalf of Otium Entertainment Group. It is just playing with words. There are only three legal entities taking the legal action ARVO, SBS&L and Otium. Otium is an active trading company not a shell.

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly the point they are making. It is Sepalla and SISU that are making these decisions. Those actively running the football club have no say.

That's what makes it such a nonsense for Wasps to tell Boddy to drop the legals, he simply can't.

chiefdave said:

Isn't that exactly the point they are making. It is Sepalla and SISU that are making these decisions. Those actively running the football club have no say.

That's what makes it such a nonsense for Wasps to tell Boddy to drop the legals, he simply can't.

Click to expand...

Yes but when they pin it on people like Boddy it is then better for PR. They know full well he has no say in it.

I doubt anybody would really give 2 tosses if Wasps somehow engineered to wipe out SISU if it didn't involve killing CCFC, in fact even I'd applaud them.

It will be such a dramatic day when Wasps finally go under and CCFC get offered the Ricoh and Ann Lucas peels off her face to reveal she's really Joy, who then peels off her face to reveal she's also Tim Fisher, who then peels off his face to reveal he's Geoffrey Robinson who then peels off his face to reveal he's a Prototype Series 1000 Terminator who then slices the head off the Jimmy Hill statue with a laser eye and blows up the Ricoh before blasting off into space in a ship with Andy Thorn lying onboard being fed pies by David Bell on a leash, while dressed in a Princes Leia style bikini and clutching a 4 year contract in his other hand.

Nick said:

If they weren't separate there wouldn't be a need for significant control statements would there?

Click to expand...

Missing the point. Legally the statement on companies house connects them, therefore legally it’s hard to say that they’re separate. That’s before you even go into who’s names actually appear on the court papers. It’s not SISU yet the club issues a statement saying that it’s not the club (that does appear on the court papers) it’s the owners (who don’t appear on the court papers but are listed on companies house as being the entity with significant control). Legally it’s the club and Arvo who is taking out the legal action.

When we go bust, is it worth buying what’s left of Otium and suing SISU for gross mismanagement? Then using the proceeds to run Wasps out of town?

skybluetony176 said:

Missing the point. Legally the statement on companies house connects them, therefore legally it’s hard to say that they’re separate. That’s before you even go into who’s names actually appear on the court papers. It’s not SISU yet the club issues a statement saying that it’s not the club (that does appear on the statement) it’s the owners (who don’t appear on the statement but are listed on companies house as being the entity with significant control). Legally it’s the club and Arvo who is taking out the legal action.

Click to expand...

If they were the same thing there wouldn't need to be a connection.

The club are saying this is being forced by the shareholders (SISU) who like you say have significant control.

It's like you forcing one of your kids to go and do something and then letting your kid take a beating for it. It doesn't mean you are your child, it means you would be a bellend.

Nick said:

If they were the same thing there wouldn't need to be a connection.

The club are saying this is being forced by the shareholders (SISU) who like you say have significant control.

Click to expand...

I never said that they were the same thing. I said legally they are connected. The paper trail confirms that. The clubs statement is trying to separate them but legally that isn’t possible.

skybluetony176 said:

I never said that they were the same thing. I said legally they are connected. The paper trail confirms that. The clubs statement is trying to separate them but legally that isn’t possible.

Click to expand...

Of course they are "connected". They always have been?

Nick said:

Of course they are "connected". They always have been?

Click to expand...

So you’re disagreeing with me by agreeing with me then. Ok

Talking of the wider media, BBC have spun it as SISU v Wasps and us as the victims - maybe the media backlash will hit wasps

skybluetony176 said:

So you’re disagreeing with me by agreeing with me then. Ok

Click to expand...

If you are saying that it's SISU forcing it and not the club, I am agreeing

Nick said:

It doesn't really make much sense short term. Especially not for £30 million.

Click to expand...

I meant short term for Wasps

Protests should be directed at Wasps as they are the weakest link and bad publicity would effect them more than SISU who don't appear to worry about adverse publicity. Should Wasps agree to negotiate a new deal, they would appear to be the good guys (shudder at the thought ) and would benefit from favourable publicity and present them with an excellent PR opportunity. Whatever we, as supporters do in protest against SISU will not bother them in the slightest. They have already proved they don't give a f**k.

Liquid Gold said:

I'll save a fortune in petrol money if we go pop, every cloud and all.

Click to expand...

You should be out with your high viz vest on protesting.

Voice_of_Reason said:

Protests should be directed at Wasps as they are the weakest link and bad publicity would effect them more than SISU who don't appear to worry about adverse publicity. Should Wasps agree to negotiate a new deal, they would appear to be the good guys (shudder at the thought ) and would benefit from favourable publicity and present them with an excellent PR opportunity. Whatever we, as supporters do in protest against SISU will not bother them in the slightest. They have already proved they don't give a f**k.

Click to expand...

No issue with protesting at SISU either, not sure it would be as effective but no reason just Wasps.

Just shouldn't confuse running on the pitch throwing a smoke bomb as protesting at SISU either, people are angry that the football club might die. No point giving it a helping hand is there?

Ashdown said:

You should be out with your high viz vest on protesting.

Click to expand...

I don't have a high viz, no spare bedsheet either. Any suggestions?