Latest Sky Blue Trust leter to Timmy (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

It's not obvious though is it?

It's interesting because of the emphasis on that in the letter.

A random article about plastic pitches also and some very strange behaviour from a telegraph journalist regarding it.

Then a letter mainly aimed at the bpa.

Somebody would be very naive to rule anything out based on a quote saying he won't deal with sisu.

He keeps quoting it though and he is very specific. He isn’t leaving any ambiguity and no wiggle room.
He could just say he has nothing to say on the matter.
He could have left it at I won’t deal with SISU. Leaving him the get out of dealing with CCFC and saying the two are different.
I just think the trust were covering all basis.

The pitch thing is a change that needed to happen for the BPA to stand any chance.
So the CET are bound to run it.
However there is nothing else with it.
Same stance from John Sharpe no negotiation suggestion from anyone else.

If SISU know they are about to drop the legal action and have given Sharpe the heads up that’s the only way I can see it happening.
Or Sharpe has negotiated with them and said come back to me when you are no longer at war (as it seems) with the council.

I think the trust are just hoping that if we leave the Ricoh somehow there is a viable option for the BPA.
If there isn’t and we have to leave the Ricoh there is only one other option.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

He keeps quoting it though and he is very specific. He isn’t leaving any ambiguity and no wiggle room.
He could just say he has nothing to say on the matter.
He could have left it at I won’t deal with SISU. Leaving him the get out of dealing with CCFC and saying the two are different.
I just think the trust were covering all basis.

The pitch thing is a change that needed to happen for the BPA to stand any chance.
So the CET are bound to run it.
However there is nothing else with it.
Same stance from John Sharpe no negotiation suggestion from anyone else.

If SISU know they are about to drop the legal action and have given Sharpe the heads up that’s the only way I can see it happening.
Or Sharpe has negotiated with them and said come back to me when you are no longer at war (as it seems) with the council.

I think the trust are just hoping that if we leave the Ricoh somehow there is a viable option for the BPA.
If there isn’t and we have to leave the Ricoh there is only one other option.

They should keep quiet until we’re facing the other option. That’ll work.

 

[Nick]

He keeps quoting it though and he is very specific. He isn’t leaving any ambiguity and no wiggle room.
He could just say he has nothing to say on the matter.
He could have left it at I won’t deal with SISU. Leaving him the get out of dealing with CCFC and saying the two are different.
I just think the trust were covering all basis.

The pitch thing is a change that needed to happen for the BPA to stand any chance.
So the CET are bound to run it.
However there is nothing else with it.
Same stance from John Sharpe no negotiation suggestion from anyone else.

If SISU know they are about to drop the legal action and have given Sharpe the heads up that’s the only way I can see it happening.
Or Sharpe has negotiated with them and said come back to me when you are no longer at war (as it seems) with the council.

I think the trust are just hoping that if we leave the Ricoh somehow there is a viable option for the BPA.
If there isn’t and we have to leave the Ricoh there is only one other option.

He keeps quoting what, that he won't work with SISU? Yes he is being very specific.

Yes, the telegraph ran it a good week after it was actually news and again some very, very strange behaviour regarding it.

There will be more ticking away in the background and more to it.

 

[dongonzalos]

He keeps quoting what, that he won't work with SISU? Yes he is being very specific.

Yes, the telegraph ran it a good week after it was actually news and again some very, very strange behaviour regarding it.

There will be more ticking away in the background and more to it.

He won’t deal with SISU and that Dealing with CCFC is dealing with SISU. He is very specific, when he doesn’t have to be.

He seems one of the very few people that are getting something out of this whole sad debarcle. With more and more Cov fans heading there on a Saturday afternoon.

 

[chiefdave]

Wasps - "However, as I hope you will understand, given the ongoing legal proceedings, it is not possible for us to comment either publicly or privately on the current position.We hope that this may change in the near future and that, at that point, it may be possible to establish greater clarity over the situation.”

This should be the biggest concern. There's nothing Boddy or for that matter Fisher can do to stop the legal action, we all know that is being driven by Joy and SISU. Are we back to Wasps refusing to talk? Surely not hard for them to just say another 2 years on the same terms.

 

[Nick]

He won’t deal with SISU and that Dealing with CCFC is dealing with SISU. He is very specific, when he doesn’t have to be.

Has the context of that quote come out yet? It seems to be copied and pasted into every article that SISU is CCFC yet I have had multiple emails from "SISU" promoting events for him at Cov Rugby since.

I'm not saying Sharpe, Fisher and Joy are just about to call the cranes and diggers in to start work , I am saying I think there will be more ticking away in the background with regards to BPA. Whether that means talks are going on at the Ricoh I don't know, but something is a bit strange about it.

 

[dongonzalos]

Has the context of that quote come out yet? It seems to be copied and pasted into every article that SISU is CCFC yet I have had multiple emails from "SISU" promoting events for him at Cov Rugby since.

I'm not saying Sharpe, Fisher and Joy are just about to call the cranes and diggers in to start work , I am saying I think there will be more ticking away in the background with regards to BPA. Whether that means talks are going on at the Ricoh I don't know, but something is a bit strange about it.

Well last time you said something was brewing. It turned out to be correct. So I will stop totally ruling it out and wait and see.
Not sure about the context of that statement. It does seem very clear though.
I would assume he is referring specifically to the ground share which is what he is asked about, when he says he won’t do business with SISU and that he says SISU and CCFC as the same in this context.
Which makes sense the Council were doing business of that nature with CCFC and ended up getting sued by SISU.
Now they are getting sued by the business that is CCFC. Under the instruction of SISU.
So unfortunately if you do business of that magnitude with CCFC. Inadvertently you expose your own business to the ultimate decisions of SISU.

 

[dongonzalos]

This should be the biggest concern. There's nothing Boddy or for that matter Fisher can do to stop the legal action, we all know that is being driven by Joy and SISU. Are we back to Wasps refusing to talk? Surely not hard for them to just say another 2 years on the same terms.

I would suggest Joy and Tim. Last time I spoke to him he was fully behind the legal action. Granted that was JR1

 

[rupert_bear]

BPA will not happen, I believe it is Ricoh or nothing I also think the EFL will want cast iron assurances for future years too.

 

[dongonzalos]

This should be the biggest concern. There's nothing Boddy or for that matter Fisher can do to stop the legal action, we all know that is being driven by Joy and SISU. Are we back to Wasps refusing to talk? Surely not hard for them to just say another 2 years on the same terms.

I must say if I were them I would be quite blunt.
I would be saying. It was nice having you here. However whilst you insist on trying to destroy our business. We won’t be renewing our business dealings with you at the end of this contract.
Please feel free to come back to us in the future if the circumstances have changed.
I can only assume there is a legal reason that they can’t be blunt to SISU regarding the legal action?

 

[Captain Dart]

BPA will not happen, I believe it is Ricoh or nothing I also think the EFL will want cast iron assurances for future years too.

I have no confidence in the EFL.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

I have no confidence in the EFL.

The EFL will say no at first and then when no other solution is put forward they will back down and allow SISU to do what they want again. As I've said previously the EFL isn't just Harvey & Lenagan. It's also Karl Oyston, Mehmet Dalman, Roland Duchâtelet, Ehab Allam and a few dozen others (including Tim). Can you honestly say they care where Coventry City play their home matches?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

The EFL will say no at first and then when no other solution is put forward they will back down and allow SISU to do what they want again. As I've said previously the EFL isn't just Harvey & Lenagan. It's also Karl Oyston, Mehmet Dalman, Roland Duchâtelet, Ehab Allam and a few dozen others (including Tim). Can you honestly say they care where Coventry City play their home matches?

I think they've already proved that they don't.

 

[Nick]

Can you honestly say they care where Coventry City play their home matches?

Neither do most of our fans it seems. There is a fair bit of irony in there that people gloat about how they don't bother any more, some push boycotts, some push doing away days only but would lose their shit if CCFC would be move and outrage at the EFL.

I think the EFL is in an even more awkward situation now than with Sixfields, like it or not. They can't force a deal at the Ricoh.

Ideally they would have strict rules on Golden Shares / Stadiums so they had to be in the same place and together, if it had been done from the start then maybe but there's no way to implement it retrospectively.

 

[chiefdave]

They can't force a deal at the Ricoh.

This will be key. Other parties have played in to SISU's hands here. Wasps have been in the CT saying they won't speak to the club about a new deal, CCC were seen trying to block any attempt by the club to move to the Butts. All SISU have to do is pass that to the EFL, which you can pretty much guarantee they already have done, and they can then claim they had no other option for whatever they decide to do.

 

[Nick]

This will be key. Other parties have played in to SISU's hands here. Wasps have been in the CT saying they won't speak to the club about a new deal, CCC were seen trying to block any attempt by the club to move to the Butts. All SISU have to do is pass that to the EFL, which you can pretty much guarantee they already have done, and they can then claim they had no other option for whatever they decide to do.

That's the thing, what do people actually think the EFL can do?

It's all well and good shouting with Charlton and Blackburn fans etc but in all seriousness, how can the EFL force Wasps to let us play at the Ricoh if they don't want to for example?

 

[skybluetony176]

Neither do most of our fans it seems. There is a fair bit of irony in there that people gloat about how they don't bother any more, some push boycotts, some push doing away days only but would lose their shit if CCFC would be move and outrage at the EFL.

I think the EFL is in an even more awkward situation now than with Sixfields, like it or not. They can't force a deal at the Ricoh.

Ideally they would have strict rules on Golden Shares / Stadiums so they had to be in the same place and together, if it had been done from the start then maybe but there's no way to implement it retrospectively.

WTF are you dribbling on about now? Why shouldn’t any fan of any club lose their shit if the EFL sanctions another move out of their city or town when it’s avoidable? What they do the rest of the time is irrelevant.

 

[Nick]

WTF are you dribbling on about now? Why shouldn’t any fan of any club lose their shit if the EFL sanctions another move out of their city or town when it’s avoidable? What they do the rest of the time is irrelevant.

It's less avoidable than Sixfields this time.

Little bit silly if people promote not going to home games, away days only and try to compete at "how bothered they aren't" games to then start moaning isn't it? Surely the best way to show the club has to remain is to get behind it in Coventry?

Same with the Butts, it is a huge, massive IF somehow there would be a 12k stadium put together there or something the FA will think "yeah their attendances have been 6 or 7k, should be OK" rather than "hold up, they were getting 15k" for a full time move there.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's less avoidable than Sixfields this time.

Little bit silly if people promote not going to home games, away days only and try to compete at "how bothered they aren't" games to then start moaning isn't it? Surely the best way to show the club has to remain is to get behind it in Coventry?

Same with the Butts, it is a huge, massive IF somehow there would be a 12k stadium put together there or something the FA will think "yeah their attendances have been 6 or 7k, should be OK" rather than "hold up, they were getting 15k" for a full time move there.

By the same token then if they do move the club unnecessarily again the best way to show the club will be to boycott. Good. I’m glad we agree on something.

 

[Nick]

By the same token then if they do move the club unnecessarily again the best way to show the club will be to boycott. Good. I’m glad we agree on something.

If they moved us to let's say Nuneaton, I'd say the best way to make a point would be to have 15k turn up every week.

Will have to wait and see.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Neither do most of our fans it seems. There is a fair bit of irony in there that people gloat about how they don't bother any more, some push boycotts, some push doing away days only but would lose their shit if CCFC would be move and outrage at the EFL.

I think the EFL is in an even more awkward situation now than with Sixfields, like it or not. They can't force a deal at the Ricoh.

Ideally they would have strict rules on Golden Shares / Stadiums so they had to be in the same place and together, if it had been done from the start then maybe but there's no way to implement it retrospectively.

They should be able to strip unfit owners of the Golden Share and force a sale. They threatened to not return it two days before the start of the Sixfields Season but backed down as they were facing a 23 team league at 48 hours notice.

 

[skybluetony176]

This will be key. Other parties have played in to SISU's hands here. Wasps have been in the CT saying they won't speak to the club about a new deal, CCC were seen trying to block any attempt by the club to move to the Butts. All SISU have to do is pass that to the EFL, which you can pretty much guarantee they already have done, and they can then claim they had no other option for whatever they decide to do.

It was reported back in May by the CT that Wasps are now willing to talk about an extension. I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to Nick but you aren’t the first poster to start claiming the opposite over the last couple of days.

 

[chiefdave]

By the same token then if they do move the club unnecessarily again the best way to show the club will be to boycott. Good. I’m glad we agree on something.

Sure everyone would agree on boycotting teams who have been moved from their traditional location

 

[Nick]

They should be able to strip unfit owners of the Golden Share and force a sale. They threatened to not return it two days before the start of the Sixfields Season but backed down as they were facing a 23 team league at 48 hours notice.

That's the thing though, unfit when the fans start to shout? What will "unfit" be judged on?

Were Leyton Orient fans going on about unfit owners when they were spending 5 figures a week on players like Darius Henderson or just when the money had run out?

I don't disagree with you there should be tighter measures on ground ownership, money etc but how can they suddenly say "no sorry, you have to sell up now". It would be a very dangerous step for them to start just demanding people sell up when the fans start to get pissed off.

On what grounds now could they demand Sisu sell and take the golden share now? The only thing really would be the stadium issue, but again they can't force Wasps to give us a deal can they so it will give SISU more leeway.

The other thing is selling price, SISU could well put it up for sale when they say but demand they want £100m for it and nobody buys it. Would the EFL then decide on how much it is sold for as well?

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Sure everyone would agree on boycotting teams who have been moved from their traditional location

Apart from CCC and most City fans. Or the trust. Still waiting for that trust statement that was against Wasps moving?

 

[skybluetony176]

If they moved us to let's say Nuneaton, I'd say the best way to make a point would be to have 15k turn up every week.

Will have to wait and see.

What point would we be making? Please move to Nuneaton on permanent basis?

 

[Nick]

What point would we be making? Please move to Nuneaton on permanent basis?

That we had thousands more fans wanting to go in than Nuneaton's ground could even think of facilitating.

 

[skybluetony176]

That we had thousands more fans than Nuneaton's ground could even think of facilitating.

So please build a bigger one in Nuneaton because it’s such a popular decision demand is outstripping availability. You haven’t thought this through have you?

 

[Nick]

So please build a bigger one in Nuneaton because it’s such a popular decision demand is outstripping availability. You haven’t thought this through have you?

It wasn't about the location, it was about that Coventry City were playing home games there and it couldn't cope with it. Same with the Butts if people think the 12-15k is too small.

The EFL will see 15k as plenty at the Butts if we get 7k at home.

If Fisher was to rock up to the EFL to justify the Butts it's a lot easier for him to try and do that while we get hardly anybody at home games to move to whatever size it is that week.

Point being, there's no point people acting as if they will be outraged if CCFC gets moved out of Coventry if they aren't that bothered when they are in Coventry.

 

[Chipfat]

The GS is key to the FL having any power within the game, now and in the future. If they let owners do whatever they please without any consequence regarding the GS owners will hold the FL to ransom. Owners claim to be victims, claim they have no other option while misdirecting all away from mismanagement. The FL will allow the misdirection and use it as an excuse to allow the pattern to carry on while stating "they have to do what right by the game for fixtures to be played".

Until the FL grow a pair, or place laws within ownership of the GS, this will happen up and down the country whenever owners come in without care of the city, its history or its fan base. These owners are all business and make decision without emotion towards the personal effect it has with those involved. We then don't understand it because we would not do the same, they can make decisions without stress, care or any emotion about what each fan hold's dear and passes down to family. Pride in a city's team counts for nothing in the eye of the owners throughout the game, we are not alone we are just the most heard about due to our size and decline.

 

[Nick]

That's the thing though, at what point can they say "right, we are having the golden share, you need to sell up?"

What happens if it is somebody who has genuinely come in and thrown millions at the club and they run out of money or something happens so they dont have the same money any more, so they can't sign the same players, they can't pay the same wages etc. Slowly but surely it starts to go downhill. (Im not on about us btw)

Should the EFL be able to force them to walk away because the fans are pissed off about a relegation?

What happens if for example Bournemouth get relegated and their owner decides he doesn't want to put any more money in so they gradually have to become self sufficient and fall down the leagues? Does that make him unfit and the golden share should be taken?

I can understand when laws are broken, things like if money is laundered, fraud and actual criminal activity they would have more power over stepping in but when it's not like that it's a much harder judgement and I could imagine they would need decent lawyers.

The only way again would be to force every club to be fan owned, but again that doesn't guarantee that shit can't happen.

If for example when SISU had come in and CCFC owned the stadium when they came in and then they extracted it / sold it off and for example knocked it down for housing. Of course the EFL could then stamp their feet a bit more, when it's somebody different then they can't start to force deals.

 

[skybluetony176]

It wasn't about the location, it was about that Coventry City were playing home games there and it couldn't cope with it. Same with the Butts if people think the 12-15k is too small.

The EFL will see 15k as plenty at the Butts if we get 7k at home.

If Fisher was to rock up to the EFL to justify the Butts it's a lot easier for him to try and do that while we get hardly anybody at home games to move to whatever size it is that week.

Point being, there's no point people acting as if they will be outraged if CCFC gets moved out of Coventry if they aren't that bothered when they are in Coventry.

When it comes to a stadium inside Coventry your point is correct. When it comes to a stadium outside of Coventry you couldn’t be more wrong.

 

[Chipfat]

That's the thing though, at what point can they say "right, we are having the golden share, you need to sell up?"

What happens if it is somebody who has genuinely come in and thrown millions at the club and they run out of money or something happens so they dont have the same money any more, so they can't sign the same players, they can't pay the same wages etc. Slowly but surely it starts to go downhill. (Im not on about us btw)

Should the EFL be able to force them to walk away because the fans are pissed off about a relegation?

What happens if for example Bournemouth get relegated and their owner decides he doesn't want to put any more money in so they gradually have to become self sufficient and fall down the leagues? Does that make him unfit and the golden share should be taken?

I can understand when laws are broken, things like if money is laundered, fraud and actual criminal activity they would have more power over stepping in but when it's not like that it's a much harder judgement and I could imagine they would need decent lawyers.

The only way again would be to force every club to be fan owned, but again that doesn't guarantee that shit can't happen.

I agree Nick, but think the FL should place laws and restrictions within the courts to hold owners accountable for mismanagement, I'm not a lawyer so not sure what they can be but if you have rules and regs that have to be adhered to on a yearly basis the threat of the GS should be used. If this was done then it forces owners to run the club correctly, for now and in the future, relegation is not or should never be a right for taking a GS away but mismanagement or missed deadlines with taxes, accounts and administration should be. Moving a GS within the same company owners should never happen once you are warned or found to have done this, they have to act with the GS being taken away.

 

[Nick]

I agree Nick, but think the FL should place laws and restrictions within the courts to hold owners accountable for mismanagement, I'm not a lawyer so not sure what they can be but if you have rules and regs that have to be adhered to on a yearly basis the threat of the GS should be used. If this was done then all that are owners have to run the club correctly for now and in the future, relegation is not or should never be a right for taking a GS away but mismanagement or missed deadlines with taxes, accounts and administration should be. Moving a GS within the same company owners should never happen once you are warned or found to have done this.

Agree about things like filing accounts on time etc, they are more things that are standard practise so can be enforced. Things like that would be easy, or if the accounts had to also be audited every year by an approved EFL auditor etc.

Say there was a 10 year deal signed tomorrow at the Ricoh, to the EFL we would just be a football club running as self sufficient like others, whether we were in a relegation fight in L2 every year for the next 10 years or not.

 

[oldskyblue58]

There is no law against mis-management of a business you own. If you get it wrong but acted within the law then there is little chance of successful action being taken against you. Its just business. The test is whether you acted negligently or fraudulently and I see no evidence of that in anything we know about the dealings of CCFC or its owners.

Were the EFL to withdraw the golden share (A) it sets a dangerous precedent to its members (who are effectively the ones making the share grab) and (B) will lead to years in court for the EFL opposite SISU unless they have hard evidence of fraud or negligence, which as I say is not evident so far and (C) if all clubs are not treated equally then that compounds the problems the EFL would have. It would be a long and expensive court case I am certain.

Yes the actions of Wasps etc does play in to the hands of the CCFC owners if the owners can make a case that they have been prevented or excluded from a deal to stay. Wasps, CCC, CRFC and others have to act in a manner that best suits their businesses and objectives, which might not be inclusive of CCFC. It would seem though the lips are saying CCFC is important to everyone the brains do not necessarily share the same view point.

I am going to be very surprised if the EFL take back the share. I doubt their backbone to do it and I am sure they realise the legal consequences that would follow. They may put pressure on to do a deal but they have little power to enforce a deal that could be onerous on one of their members. In fact they have a duty to act in their members best interests. After that, it firstly leaves us with BPA, again the EFL have little power to influence CCC or even CRFC and clearly that site has some big obstacles to overcome before being suitable for a city based EFL team. Which takes us to the final option a move "temporarily" outside of the City which will be dressed up as the choice between existence and extinction given the above the EFL almost has no option but to agree to it.

Don't forget none of what is going on is about what is best for the football team or its fans as far as the owners are concerned, never has been

The only thing keeping it going is the fact that no one wants to be seen to press the button it would seem ...........................................