Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
OSB58... Can you please confirm your post as Otium/CCFC being named as plaintiffs. Many thanks in advance.....
JR2 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Willo The Wisp
- Start date
Hurrah - that is all I asked!
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I'll say the same to you as I did to Nick. OSB58 made the statement not me........And to you. Use your fucking eyes and read you lazy c**t. You're getting as bad as Nick and Grenduffy.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He also said that sisu and CCFC were completely separate entities.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Hmmmmm. Strange how Otium/CCFC are named as plaintiffs eh!..... Strange when the shit hits the fan, all arms of the SISU umbrella come into play too!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If they are plaintiffs who is cited as the opposition?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
WTF has that got to do with it?... The argument was oldfiver not being able to read(Poor love) what OSB58 had written!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
ok it should be complainant not plaintiff
But
Who is behind the latest Ricoh Arena legal battle?
Coventry City Council has confirmed that the second judicial review is being brought by Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Limited (SBSL), Arvo Master Fund Limited and Otium Entertainment Group Limited
that would be Otium Entertainment Group that trades as CCFC wouldn't it...... or do we now think that CCFC is separate to Otium Entertainment Group :banghead:
But
Who is behind the latest Ricoh Arena legal battle?
Coventry City Council has confirmed that the second judicial review is being brought by Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Limited (SBSL), Arvo Master Fund Limited and Otium Entertainment Group Limited
that would be Otium Entertainment Group that trades as CCFC wouldn't it...... or do we now think that CCFC is separate to Otium Entertainment Group :banghead:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The subtle nuances of this debate has sailed over your head.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Thak You OSB58.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Surely that now means CCFC the trading name of OEG is part of the legal action against CCC and interested parties of ACL, Wasps & AEHC
chances of a new deal at the Ricoh anyone?
chances of a new deal at the Ricoh anyone?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
No and they don't care OSB. That's the problem. Couldn't give a toss about it. I'm certain they wouldn't of even looked at the 2018-19 season yet. Just fudge it when they get there
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
Zero. Fisher knows this. Things have just got worse, given our plight and current situation that is quite something.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Which I suppose was what Wasps said about legal noise stopping negotiations. Seems like talks went OK, but it could only happen if the JR was dropped.
So Cov Tel decide to amend their headline at 16.43 today hmmmmmm
So will Simon now amend his commentary as well
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Actually the information has been floating around on the web since February 2015 and I have been regularly making the point that Otium were named in the JR2 action since then. The information really isn't that hard to find just need to think who might refer to it.(AEHC website) Perhaps people, including the CT and some on here, should pay a bit more attention.:yawn:
edit : The above comment #225 has niggled at me. It is intended, I think, to imply some sort of collusion on my part with the CT. That is wholly incorrect, I have no, nor do I want any, contact with the CT. I have made clear where the information came from ( it is dated 2 years ago and freely available). Until yesterday I had not seen any of the court documents until released on here. However the documents released clearly show Otium as a joint complainant with ARVO and SBS&L. I assume that the Otium & SBS&L directors involved were fully aware of this and that there has been no challenge to the statement on the AEHC on their website in the last two years. Nor is it that yesterday was the first time I have raised the point of the Otium involvement in JR2 on this forum.
edit : The above comment #225 has niggled at me. It is intended, I think, to imply some sort of collusion on my part with the CT. That is wholly incorrect, I have no, nor do I want any, contact with the CT. I have made clear where the information came from ( it is dated 2 years ago and freely available). Until yesterday I had not seen any of the court documents until released on here. However the documents released clearly show Otium as a joint complainant with ARVO and SBS&L. I assume that the Otium & SBS&L directors involved were fully aware of this and that there has been no challenge to the statement on the AEHC on their website in the last two years. Nor is it that yesterday was the first time I have raised the point of the Otium involvement in JR2 on this forum.
Last edited:
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
If JR2 was to be won by OEG/SBS&L/ARVO I am assuming that there would be a compensation claim that would then have to be submitted and dealt with in the courts.
Can anyone speculate as to what level of compensation would be expected by the companies affected?
Can anyone speculate as to what level of compensation would be expected by the companies affected?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It is hard enough to speculate what valid points they could use to give them a chance of winning.
Bridport_SBA
Member
The eventual result of JR2 will make no difference to anyone on this forum. BUT the fact that they are going to pursue JR2 is really serious because it pretty much rules out any hope of a deal with Wasps about continuing at the Ricoh beyond the end of next season. It also demonstrates - but we know that already - that SISU (forget about the legal ownership structure, SISU and Joy are in charge here) have absolutely no interest in the well-being of the club or its fans. So, here's a controversial conclusion for you, we can buy season-tickets, not buy them, go to the games, stay away, blow whistles, invade the pitch, turn up in numbers for the semi- final, IT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. We are dealing with people whose stubbornness knows no bounds, who are used to dictating terms to others and who, psychologically, just don't have the skills or imagination to compromise with anyone (or admit that they are wrong). By continuing with JR2, they are just sticking to the only thing they know.
The only thing that has a HOPE of working is to switch our focus to the EFL. They are the people that would have to approve any move to another ground and they have strict rules about what they can and can't approve. SISU are reckless as to their relationship with Wasps, because they think, if push comes to shove, they will just play somewhere else again. The EFL need to let them know that it's not going to be that simple, and we need to put the EFL on notice that they will be expected to resist this SISU complacency and, if necessary, refuse to approve another ground move.
The way SISU are carrying on is an affront to every Cov fan but it should also be an affront to everyone football fan and to the EFL. That's where we should be focussing our efforts now.
The only thing that has a HOPE of working is to switch our focus to the EFL. They are the people that would have to approve any move to another ground and they have strict rules about what they can and can't approve. SISU are reckless as to their relationship with Wasps, because they think, if push comes to shove, they will just play somewhere else again. The EFL need to let them know that it's not going to be that simple, and we need to put the EFL on notice that they will be expected to resist this SISU complacency and, if necessary, refuse to approve another ground move.
The way SISU are carrying on is an affront to every Cov fan but it should also be an affront to everyone football fan and to the EFL. That's where we should be focussing our efforts now.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
They have zero chance of winning the case
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep I completely agree
Astute
Well-Known Member
They would approve another move. Their main aim is to complete fixtures. They also wouldn't want to be seen as being blamed for our club folding. And they certainly wouldn't want to be involved in JR3.
And I think most of us would accept a ground move if we were left with no choice. It wouldn't be like when we were taken to Northampton just to devalue the arena.
And I think most of us would accept a ground move if we were left with no choice. It wouldn't be like when we were taken to Northampton just to devalue the arena.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Seems to me that they have to argue against a lot of the points they were claiming in JR1.
Bridport_SBA
Member
Well that's my point, they have the power not to approve a move and I don't think they should approve one. At the very least they should be letting SISU know that they might not. If we leave the Ricoh again, that's got to be game over.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If we're not allowed to say that CCFC and SISU are the same are we allowed to say that CCFC and ARVO are the same? I mean what with holding hands in court together and the charges that ARVO have on the club it's a fair conclusion. Or should that be collusion?
Bridport_SBA
Member
Here are the EFL ground move rules (with my emphasis):
13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with The League and no Club shall remove to another ground (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld and the Board shall be entitled, if granting consent, to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances.
13.7 In considering whether to give any consent to a permanent relocation, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to the factors set out in this Regulation 13.7) and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:
13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;
13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
13.7.3 would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
13.7.4 would not have a material adverse effect on visiting Clubs;
13.7.5 would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.
13.8 The Club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.
13.9 Subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, a Club shall either own its ground or have a legally enforceable agreement with its ground's owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global
13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with The League and no Club shall remove to another ground (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld and the Board shall be entitled, if granting consent, to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances.
13.7 In considering whether to give any consent to a permanent relocation, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to the factors set out in this Regulation 13.7) and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:
13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;
13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
13.7.3 would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
13.7.4 would not have a material adverse effect on visiting Clubs;
13.7.5 would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and
13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.
13.8 The Club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.
13.9 Subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, a Club shall either own its ground or have a legally enforceable agreement with its ground's owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season.
Read more at http://www.efl.com/global
Otis
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure they are that high to be honest.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The trouble with the football league rules is that they are regulations subject to discretion ........ and we all know where relying on those regulations has got us in the past
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I know its ace hypocrisy.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Game over for our club? None of us should want that.
They can bend and change the rules whenever they want. Just like they did last time.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
As I understand it JR1 was to see if the loan was lawful, and JR2 is about why a deal wasn't offered to CCFC on the same terms or CCFC not having a chance to offer more, thus getting a better return for the tax payers. If that is the case , while the council are duty bound to get the best deal for the tax payer , Both them and the charity had to agree who they were going to sell to, if Higgs no , then there is no case QUESTION is that too simplistic and if so why
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Am going to be interested to see how fisher spins it that Ccfc are not taking legal action against CCC and others
Especially when otium bought all the assets, brand, intellectual property rights to any claims that was Ccfc and says it trades as Ccfc
Plus the league share is recorded in the name of otium entertainment group at companies house.
Still at least I got the claimants absolutely right when others insisted otherwise........ which is actually no comfort at all
Especially when otium bought all the assets, brand, intellectual property rights to any claims that was Ccfc and says it trades as Ccfc
Plus the league share is recorded in the name of otium entertainment group at companies house.
Still at least I got the claimants absolutely right when others insisted otherwise........ which is actually no comfort at all
Last edited: