here we go... (2 Viewers)

[Nick]

Er no.... When SISU do it, they are hiding the fact that they don't have the "things" that SISU say they have. When the council do it, they are hiding the things that SISU say they, CCC, apparently have. If you get what I mean.

Both being shady then

 

---

[martcov]

Both being shady then

What is good for then goose is good for the gander....;-)

 

[Vedere]

Worst logic I've seen on here in a long while. Say what?Really? You don't care what SISU do to get the ground? If they act like this when they have no toys, imagine how they will behave when they own some...and a pram!

Lets hope SISU have a decent case. Quite frankly I don't care what grounds or tactics SISU use to get a win in this if it means Wasps get sent packing and we get a shot at a similar deal.

Most sensible and articulate post on here in a good while.

One thing this action is unlikely to achieve is to force Wasps out.

This SISU action is a new one not actually linked to the original JR case that can only consider things/decisions that happened in January 2013. Decisions taken in October 2014 are entirely separate.

Yes SISU if successful could have remedies against the council but it is unlikely that it would gain the stadium for CCFC. ACL, now under Wasps control, could be required to repay the loan immediately. You might think that would cause a terminal problem but would it. Yorkshire Bank in the middle of recession, with an under performing stadium, and poor financials were willing to refinance ........ who is to say finance could not be arranged for a premiership, high profile club, that now owns a 250 year lease on the place and is well backed.... it might be more expensive in terms of interest but I really do not see any action SISU take as forcing Wasps away.

just as an aside the CCC loan originally was for 40 years to 2053 if the terms have changed to 20 years then that's an improvement. The original loan was 14.4m in January 2013 by October 2014 the debt was 13.4m after quarterly repayments you would expect it to come down over the best part of 2 years wouldn't you?

What it could do however is sour any relationship between the decision makers of the two clubs. You can say CCFC is separate from SISU all you like but the decision maker for both is still the one person. To say it wont affect CCFC is frankly disingenuous

This as usual is all about SISU trying to get a return on investment by any means they can. It is not for the benefit of CCFC but CCFC is a tool to achieve their aims.

As for CCC well looks like more time in court, something they would dearly love to avoid I would think. Some of the actions they have taken in this saga leave questions to answer and to some degree they reap what they sow

Totally exasperated by all this to be honest............. and it will switch more people off the club at a time when it needs everyone it can get.

When will all this legal crap end and we can have OUR club back

It simply is SISU clutching at straws!

 

[bigfatronssba]

However when SISU do it they are hiding things but when the council do it, it is just standard business isn't it? Both shady.

Poor comparison. CCC kept quiet because they were actually doing something. Sisu have kept quiet because their doing jack shit.

 

[Vedere]

Excellent bigfatron!

Maybe a better route would be to pursue Man City for how they have morphed into Sky Blues (in some media outlets) from the Citizens! Even if Man City had it first, or it's tenuous...who cares, why not have a bit more legal action!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How many people on here have actually been involved in a legal dispute or litigation? It is very, very adversarial, and leaves bad blood between all parties .

Now we have Wasps in town, and the opportunity to work with them - either in the medium term, or until Fisher's Unicorn Stadium is built. So, do the club's owners take this opportunity to build bridges for the good of the club? Nope. Yet more legal action. Every tranche of legal action so far has achieved nothing, except deliver us to the situation in which a rugby club from London now owns the Ricoh lease. There's not a lot left for the football club to work with, but SISU seem to be knifing holes in the life-vests at the moment....

 

[Nick]

Poor comparison. CCC kept quiet because they were actually doing something. Sisu have kept quiet because their doing jack shit.

Doing something dodgy??

 

[Nick]

How many people on here have actually been involved in a legal dispute or litigation? It is very, very adversarial, and leaves bad blood between all parties .

Now we have Wasps in town, and the opportunity to work with them - either in the medium term, or until Fisher's Unicorn Stadium is built. So, do the club's owners take this opportunity to build bridges for the good of the club? Nope. Yet more legal action. Every tranche of legal action so far has achieved nothing, except deliver us to the situation in which a rugby club from London now owns the Ricoh lease. There's not a lot left for the football club to work with, but SISU seem to be knifing holes in the life-vests at the moment....

Careful, you will have people correcting you on them being from london

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Doing something dodgy??

Nick, have you any evidence whatsoever that the council have done anything 'dodgy'; or are you just throwing mud and hoping that - after repetition - it begins to stick?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Careful, you will have people correcting you on them being from london

They are. Via Wycombe, but from London. Until they dropped the 'London' bit from their name; they were called London Wasps - that's the biggest clue. I'll debate that with anyone

 

[Nick]

Nick, have you any evidence whatsoever that the council have done anything 'dodgy'; or are you just throwing mud and hoping that - after repetition - it begins to stick?

No, I'm not throwing mud I'm just wondering why is ok for one side to hide behind commercial confidentiality and not the other.

I should have put something in brackets really.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No, I'm not throwing mud I'm just wondering why is ok for one side to hide behind commercial confidentiality and not the other.

I should have put something in brackets really.

Its fine for both sides to hide behind it. However when it becomes apparent that one side is doing nothing behind it, then it is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 

[wingy]

“This step has been taken as a precautionary measure to safeguard Coventry City FC’s position in relation to the outstanding legal appeal.
“We believe that some of the decisions the council has made were not taken in the best interests of Coventry taxpayers and had a seriously damaging effect on the club.
“Commercially, it is the right thing to do and is necessary to protect the club’s position as a tenant in Coventry.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

No, I'm not throwing mud I'm just wondering why is ok for one side to hide behind commercial confidentiality and not the other.

I should have put something in brackets really.

Honestly; I must sign six NDA's a week, and many contracts with commercial confidentiality - including JLR, who I'm sure Grendy will happily inform you aren't 'dodgy'. The reliability of their cars might be, but their contracts not

 

[skybluetony176]

No, I'm not throwing mud I'm just wondering why is ok for one side to hide behind commercial confidentiality and not the other.

I should have put something in brackets really.

Ones using commercial confidentiality over something they've done ones just using it to mug people of that they have done something.

Having slept on it I recon SISU cant stand not knowing whats behind the CC agreement between CCC and W's and thats what the new court case is about.

 

[Nick]

Honestly; I must sign six NDA's a week, and many contracts with commercial confidentiality - including JLR, who I'm sure Grendy will happily inform you aren't 'dodgy'. The reliability of their cars might be, but their contracts not

No I know that it's common as muck in business, it's just how when one party goes on about nda etc its just business but the other it's because they are hiding things.

After working in the compound at gaydon as a youth I wouldn't be surprised that some break down

 

[SkyblueBazza]

“This step has been taken as a precautionary measure to safeguard Coventry City FC’s position in relation to the outstanding legal appeal.
“We believe that some of the decisions the council has made were not taken in the best interests of Coventry taxpayers and had a seriously damaging effect on the club.
“Commercially, it is the right thing to do and is necessary to protect the club’s position as a tenant in Coventry.

What is it with SISU?
Why are they so concerned about Coventry taxpayers instead of the decisions they have made that have been bad for the things they own & those that have emotional investment in them?

 

[wingy]

What is it with SISU?
Why are they so concerned about Coventry taxpayers instead of the decisions they have made that have been bad for the things they own & those that have emotional investment in them?

I fail to see how any of It has legs .

Commercially It's patently obvious that a Sale to Wasps was far more secure than CCFC in our unfortunate current guise .

Finally the baffling bit " Protecting the Clubs position as a tenant In Coventry" ,were moving and building a new ground .

Unless we're not of Course and It's a tactic( poor one IMO) to negotiate a long term deal with add ons .

 

[dongonzalos]

No I know that it's common as muck in business, it's just how when one party goes on about nda etc its just business but the other it's because they are hiding things.

After working in the compound at gaydon as a youth I wouldn't be surprised that some break down

Do you mean that people think it is 'hiding' over not saying where the land is. As oppose to revealing the specifics of a deal itself.

I think that's what people have an issue about I don't think they fully understand how revealing where the land is that you are trying to buy needs to be covered by an agreement. I think they get that the commerciality within the agreement itself probably does need covering.