But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspectsSolid point.
The issue is though Nick, what if this happens again to another club. If the EFL allow a move after DB has claimed they've explicitly denied that request, doesn't that set a precedent whilst similarly making them look completely ineffectual? Perhaps this is why they've never directly put a statement out regarding their refusal to allow us back into the EFL if we were to move outside the city. Unfortunately they can't do anything but realistically in hindsight there should be a by-law in place that states if an owner puts their club at risk of liquidation the EFL can intervene, as FFP/fit and proper owner test has realistically done little to halt poor ownership plighting football.
I think that's why CCFC over recent years has tried to subtly distance themselves from SISU, in an attempt to show external parties that they're not two of the same. But again surely that makes them vulnerable to legal action if CCFC were to fold? If CCC have worked with other parties, E.g. CRC to block CCFC's hunt for a new home, doesn't that put them at serious risk of being liable for damages against CCFC.
Exactly, in actual fact CCFC is simply another portfolio in a long line of SISU's portfolios. They don't care whether we live or die, they care about getting an ROI. I don't expect fans to understand the technicalities associated with this absolute shitstorm because they shouldn't have to. But they do need to wise up to the fact the club folding/staying in business can in reality work both ways for SISU from a financial and legal standpoint.
I didn't really follow past that point as I was just listening in on a conversation between lawyers and it started going over my head.What could they possibly have planned? We're owned by Bond villains.
But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects
That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects
That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.
IMO until football as a whole sorts itself out and all clubs are self sustaining there's little that can be done. That's what the FA and EFL should be pushing towards.
I didn't really follow past that point as I was just listening in on a conversation between lawyers and it started going over my head.
The general gist seemed to be that after they have thoroughly exhausted the judicial review process they can start a private case against whoever they choose and that would be less to do with the precise definition of what state aid is and more to do with the impact the actions of other parties had on their business. I think the idea was that it would be easier to 'prove' their case that way.
What claims they could make to do that legally I couldn't tell you but they all seemed to agree it was a possibility.
That is the general sort of comment from people i have talked to also. It could get very messy and the actions less specific to one event. Things like reputational damage etc could be looked at.
In terms of the case if CCFC is liquidated there are a couple of points that may not help SISU's argument
- the lease ends, it isnt being cancelled, altered, new conditions etc, it comes to a natural end and its term completed. I do not think there is anything in law that makes it compulsory that a landlord should or has to offer a new lease or arrangement. Will make it harder to go after Wasps on that pointPerhaps why the focus of both parties but by Otium/CCFC in particular on what was said in 2014 about safeguarding the future of CCFC.
- I assume they would have to provide evidence that CCFC and its owners had a right to the stadium or the decisions made about the stadium. Thats not going to be easy they never owned it, broke one lease and the last lease simply ended naturally
- The EFL can point to the fact that Otium/CCFC are unable to fulfill a key rule or regulation (a home ground) so have no choice but to exclude CCFC from the competition
- Yes there is lots of information being accumulated that could be used, but against that plenty of court judgements that CCC (and others)have not done anything wrong compared to the regulations/laws etc
- Could be years of legal wrangling still to come and it seems to me the owners do not actually need CCFC around to proceed with it. So is the target a ransom payment settlement to go away?
- SISU are entitled to do what they choose regarding their investment or taking legal action, but from an accounting point of view it is going to be difficult to prove the losses are everyone elses fault when SISU are the custodians of CCFC and employ people to make the day to day decisions.
Guess we shall see what will be .............
But it stands to reason that EFL will look at CCFC current finances and day to day operations and see that they are running quite well and within their means which i would say better than most clubs in the division an if the EFL went down that route then their would be a shitstorm lining up for the EFL + SISU litigations coming out of there aspects
If that was to happen and Arvo took over that way would they be seen as new owners and therefore have to pass the FAs “fit and proper” test ?[/QUOTE]Or are we saying that sisu are doing the same trick again.... because that's deeply worrying. Put otium in to administration now and arvo as the biggest creditor control the process ... ie sisu do. But why pay out for an administrator ? They are costly, sisu are in control of ccfc already so to what purpose ?
I think it would need to be bought in gradually. Any new stadium under club ownership, no stadiums ever separated from the club etc.This is the thing about the stadium ownership tied in with clubs.
How can the EFL 100% say it has to be in a particular city and that's final if there's only one stadium and the football club don't own it? Not just us, for example if the bloke who owns the Oxford Stadium decides he wants to be a dick he could choose to whack the rent up or just not have them there knowing full well they have to do what he says else they won't exist any more.
It would give stadium owners way too much power.
I think it would need to be bought in gradually. Any new stadium under club ownership, no stadiums ever separated from the club etc.
At least it would stop clubs mortgaging or losing their stadium like us.That's where it gets messy.
It would only be for new stadiums or ones that are already linked with the club. It would be impossible to then force it to be applied to everybody until they needed a new stadium which could be decades if not centuries.
At least it would stop clubs mortgaging or losing their stadium like us.
No doubt it would be tricky with loads of obstacles and things to iron out but with football in such a mess something as basic as club and stadium never being separated should be supported.The only thing with that is if it would be tricky to raise finance to be able to build it. There would be ways round it though for new ones I guess.
No doubt it would be tricky with loads of obstacles and things to iron out but with football in such a mess something as basic as club and stadium never being separated should be supported.
Which is a good a reason as any to conclude they are unsuitable owners.But they do need to wise up to the fact the club folding/staying in business can in reality work both ways for SISU from a financial and legal standpoint.
Which is a good a reason as any to conclude they are unsuitable owners.
Exactly but the issue is, is that something that can be explicitly proven?
Could be years of legal wrangling still to come and it seems to me the owners do not actually need CCFC around to proceed with it. So is the target a ransom payment settlement to go away?
Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?This is the part I don’t get. If they don’t need CCFC around why do they need CCFC at all? As I understand it law will deal with the exact set of circumstances at the time SISU owned CCFC when SISU felt they were a victim or treated unfairly in some way not what’s happened since. If that’s the case what’s to stop them selling CCFC now and continuing with the legal action? There seems to be another reason to continue holding onto the club as far as I can see and that’s the part I can’t work out. Why?
Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss?
Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?
Maybe the longer their around the bigger the loss/claim?
Possible. The other possibility is that if they sell the club it will diminish their claim that they’ve been damaged. Which seems a big gamble as the only thing litigation has proven so far is that lawyers earn shit loads from futile legal action. An offer of hard cash for the club is at least a guarantee. It just seems illogical but then we have to remember who we’re talking about.
The thing is they haven't really been tested with an offer for hard cash. They probably do have a figure they would accept to disappear.
That's the problem. Same as if you made a rule saying clubs can't get involved in legal action. How would that work in practice?The EFL cannot deem them unfit, because they’re following their legal rights to whatever justice they feel they’re owed.
The only thing with that is if it would be tricky to raise finance to be able to build it. There would be ways round it though for new ones I guess.
The problem people have is that they look at “fit and proper” as a moral/ethical thing.
The fact is you only fail it if you have broken the law. SISU from a football fans point of view are a nightmare - we all want them to chuck millions in without adding to the debt, but reality is they’re not going to. That isn’t unfit - that’s prudent.
With the stadium issue, all they have to argue is, is that the lease was unsustainable .they couldn’t afford it - again that’s not wrong.
The EFL cannot deem them unfit, because they’re following their legal rights to whatever justice they feel they’re owed.
The thing is they haven't really been tested with an offer for hard cash. They probably do have a figure they would accept to disappear.
That's the big problem. SISU haven't broken any laws. Not sure you can fail someone's fit and proper test on the basis they won't chuck millions in that the club doesn't have to try and get promoted. You'd need to put specific rules in place around ownership and have the golden share return to the league if they are broken. Of course that then raises the question what happens if the golden share in a club goes back to the league and no new owner steps forward.
IMO until football as a whole sorts itself out and all clubs are self sustaining there's little that can be done. That's what the FA and EFL should be pushing towards.
Probably, but that figure would almost certainly be an amount no remotely sane person would even consider paying.
What if Wasps sold the Ricoh to an unconnected third party, there is a rumour doing the rounds.
This is the thing about the stadium ownership tied in with clubs.
How can the EFL 100% say it has to be in a particular city and that's final if there's only one stadium and the football club don't own it? Not just us, for example if the bloke who owns the Oxford Stadium decides he wants to be a dick he could choose to whack the rent up or just not have them there knowing full well they have to do what he says else they won't exist any more.
It would give stadium owners way too much power.
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?