GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee
Well-Known Member
Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.
Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.Us playing in brum for longer than this season would have worse consequences
Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.
If SISU leave the potential EC investigation doesn’t disappear so what makes you think Wasps will no longer require indemnification?We'd obviously be back at the ricoh if we had new owners.... we all know the beef is between wasps and sisu with both unwilling to back down
Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes
Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes
If SISU leave the potential EC investigation doesn’t disappear so what makes you think Wasps will no longer require indemnification?
If we indemnify costs, and the EC decides that the council acted improperly in their conduct of underselling the stadium to wasps, the club would no longer exist. That isn't a risk any Coventry City fan should be willing to take.So being at the ricoh is cheaper in regards to rent, we'll have bigger crowds as lots of fans will come back..... how will that lead to us not existing
Why would a new owner mean we ceased to exist?Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.
We'd obviously be back at the ricoh if we had new owners.... we all know the beef is between wasps and sisu with both unwilling to back down
Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes
A new owner wouldn't. But a move back to the Ricoh under Wasps current terms could.Why would a new owner mean we ceased to exist?
Hoffman Fawaz and Sisu, we only attract the best
I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?A new owner wouldn't. But a move back to the Ricoh under Wasps current terms could.
But wasps wanted the club to indemnify them against losses as well as sisu. If they still insisted on that then either we don't go back or we go back under circumstances that could severely damage if not kill the club as pointed out by Garymabbuttsleftknee above.
Obviously we don't know if that would be the case but there is plenty to be concerned about.
The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.They might want it but they’d lose their leverage to get it TBF.
Yes, like the golden share belongs to the EFL not ccfcIt’d cost us ten points, but couldn’t we just take the terms, then if it happens go bust, not pay, and sell the golden share?
There’s probably a flaw in that plan somewhere.
Yes huge flaw... if wasps then being major creditor don’t agree to administration terms we could go bustIt’d cost us ten points, but couldn’t we just take the terms, then if it happens go bust, not pay, and sell the golden share?
There’s probably a flaw in that plan somewhere.
I stand to be corrected but I am fairly certain Wasps were holding both the club and SISU accountable in their terms. So they are already insisting on this regardless of SISU.I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?
At the moment they have no indemnification in place. They aren’t going to get it from Sisu, even less likely from a new owner.
The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.
this is why I’ve been saying for ages - we need to pressure them and cause them problems.
If SISU walk away from the club they also don’t have to agree to indemnification.
Yes huge flaw... if wasps then being major creditor don’t agree to administration terms we could go bust
terrible plan
The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.
this is why I’ve been saying for ages - we need to pressure them and cause them problems.
If SISU walk away from the club they also don’t have to agree to indemnification.
I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?
At the moment they have no indemnification in place. They aren’t going to get it from Sisu, even less likely from a new owner.
The investigation and potential loss for Wasps flowing from it is CCFC owner agnostic.
We know that. But they’re insisting on the club being on the hook.It’s Sisu that the beef is with though. They’d have no reason to ask for indemnity from any new owner (not that they should anyway, it’s a ridiculous request).
So frustrating to have everything hanging off a drawn out EU process.
2 Massive issues-Right as of now, I suspect we are one of the better run clubs in the bottom two tiers. It has taken them a long time to work out how to run a medium sized football club without going broke but they have done it - finally. Crucially they have ring fenced the club from the bigger dispute as far as possible (not totally). I would rather we were run by a sugar daddy with shit loads of cash, but in the absence of that, SISU in their current frame of mind is better than some medium sized business owner or wannabe who fancies themselves as a Roman Abramaovitch.
Football clubs are businesses, with a market, costs, wages and tax return. They are not in some alternate universe where such things don't matter. Unless there is a Sugar Daddy, the issues will be identical and the outcome little, different to what pertains now.
The top issue now, bar none, is the inability to score goals. SISU and the rest comes after that.
And made us homeless in the process(again).Right as of now, I suspect we are one of the better run clubs in the bottom two tiers. It has taken them a long time to work out how to run a medium sized football club without going broke but they have done it - finally. Crucially they have ring fenced the club from the bigger dispute as far as possible (not totally). I would rather we were run by a sugar daddy with shit loads of cash, but in the absence of that, SISU in their current frame of mind is better than some medium sized business owner or wannabe who fancies themselves as a Roman Abramaovitch.
Football clubs are businesses, with a market, costs, wages and tax return. They are not in some alternate universe where such things don't matter. Unless there is a Sugar Daddy, the issues will be identical and the outcome little, different to what pertains now.
The top issue now, bar none, is the inability to score goals. SISU and the rest comes after that.
To me, it's the negotiating in bad faith argument. You make a commitment, sign documents to the order of that commitment, and don't mention the fact you've tried to set something off in Europe. When this comes to light I find... interesting, and I'm not beyond a conspiracy theory that the timing was SISU's doing, in order to push Wasps to the decision they made as, much like Northampton, SISU actually wanted to push towards that position.Question is how much of Wasps position is about personalities I guess. They must know no one would agree to it. It’s always seems like an emotional reaction rather than a thought out strategy to me.
But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s futureAnd made us homeless in the process(again).
Us playing in brum for longer than this season would have worse consequences
And made us homeless in the process(again).
But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s future
But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s future
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?