Mediation/arbitration (16 Viewers)

covboy1987 · May 3, 2013

Geoffrey Robinson suggested Mediation/arbitration as the way forward many weeks ago whereby companies in dispute appoint a 3rd party that they are all happy with and the companies in dispute abide by the decision made as this type of complete breakdown between parties happens every week in the business world
Even it was only one factor of 'playing at the Ricoh' could be saved if all parties agreed on this principal to abide by the decision of the company appointed on how much rent is payable
The side that did not agree to signing up in the first place would surely be the guilty party in all of this as they would plainly be seen by all as the culprits to issues not being resolved

James Smith · May 3, 2013

covboy1987 said:
Geoffrey Robinson suggested Mediation/arbitration as the way forward many weeks ago whereby companies in dispute appoint a 3rd party that they are all happy with and the companies in dispute abide by the decision made as this type of complete breakdown between parties happens every week in the business world
Even it was only one factor of 'playing at the Ricoh' could be saved if all parties agreed on this principal to abide by the decision of the company appointed on how much rent is payable
The side that did not agree to signing up in the first place would surely be the guilty party in all of this as they would plainly be seen by all as the culprits to issues not being resolved

Didn't someone and it may have been Stuart Linnel on CWR ask Fisher (after he suggested the idea of mediation) if he would agree to be bound by the result of the process and he said no?

WFC · May 3, 2013

Wouldn't surprise me.

Mediation only works if both parties come to the table in good faith where they just can't agree on an issue without loads of other agenda and I'm not sure that is the case here.

The basic stance from SISU seems to be we will do what we want to do and get what we want to get. In negotiations so far there only seems to have been one party that has been willing to give much ground.

In such circumstances mediation/arbitration is extremely unlikely to work unfortunately.

Jack Griffin · May 3, 2013

Mediation wouldn't work, the parties tried to make a deal & failed. It would be a resumptuion of same with no guarantee of a resolution.

Arbritation is the only thing that could work, as both parties have to let an independant 3rd party make a decision based upon facts & agree to abide by that decision.

rupert_bear · May 3, 2013

Isn't that what a judge is for ?

sky blue zam · May 3, 2013

WFC said:
Wouldn't surprise me.

Mediation only works if both parties come to the table in good faith where they just can't agree on an issue without loads of other agenda and I'm not sure that is the case here.

The basic stance from SISU seems to be we will do what we want to do and get what we want to get. In negotiations so far there only seems to have been one party that has been willing to give much ground.

In such circumstances mediation/arbitration is extremely unlikely to work unfortunately.

have you heard anything your end about a ground share?

WFC · May 3, 2013

sky blue zam said:
have you heard anything your end about a ground share?

No, absolutely nothing. Whilst not impossible I suspect it is highly unlikely to be with us for a whole host of reasons. For a start you've been offered a rent of £400k at the Ricoh which is less than ours so I assume you'd want to pay even less which would be politically difficult when our club has only presently come out of major conflict with fans around ground ownership, rent and freedom of speech. They are now starting to get fans onside with a whole new philosophy and would risk all of this.

We also have a reputation of managing the finance of our club within all regs both legal and football regs and for doing business the right way and so probably would not want to get embroiled in the goings on down there.

There are a number of other reasons but if we did decide that the money was too good to refuse we would almost certainly keep all F&B revenue etc as part of the deal and rent would have to be paid up front.

All in all I suspect that other venues are much more likely at this moment in time unless something changes but if I hear anything I'll let you know.

wingy · May 3, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Isn't that what a judge is for ?

Pretty much but if we're talking of whats coming its only because its too late .We're way past Arbitration which was needed 4-5-6 months ago and would have been binding .

My question is why it ran for so long before ACL took action??

wingy · May 3, 2013

WFC said:
No, absolutely nothing. Whilst not impossible I suspect it is highly unlikely to be with us for a whole host of reasons. For a start you've been offered a rent of £400k at the Ricoh which is less than ours so I assume you'd want to pay even less which would be politically difficult when our club has only presently come out of major conflict with fans around ground ownership, rent and freedom of speech. They are now starting to get fans onside with a whole new philosophy and would risk all of this.

We also have a reputation of managing the finance of our club within all regs both legal and football regs and for doing business the right way and so probably would not want to get embroiled in the goings on down there.quote

No disrespect as you finished ahead of us and finished well ,but Commercially this Idea is Hairbrained from our Clubs point of View.We are Competitors and would Ceed advantage to you over both matches and then compound it by giving your club a financial advantage over our own ,who's ever heard such a thing ??

WFC · May 3, 2013

wingy said:
WFC said:

No, absolutely nothing. Whilst not impossible I suspect it is highly unlikely to be with us for a whole host of reasons. For a start you've been offered a rent of £400k at the Ricoh which is less than ours so I assume you'd want to pay even less which would be politically difficult when our club has only presently come out of major conflict with fans around ground ownership, rent and freedom of speech. They are now starting to get fans onside with a whole new philosophy and would risk all of this.

We also have a reputation of managing the finance of our club within all regs both legal and football regs and for doing business the right way and so probably would not want to get embroiled in the goings on down there.quote

No disrespect as you finished ahead of us and finished well ,but Commercially this Idea is Hairbrained from our Clubs point of View.We are Competitors and would Ceed advantage to you over both matches and then compound it by giving your club a financial advantage over our own ,who's ever heard such a thing ??

Click to expand...

I agree. Coventry City belongs in Coventry and should only make a temporarily move if there is no real choice. That's clearly not the case here given that you've been offered a vastly reduced rent to what you have been paying or not paying for the last year.

I understand all the arguments around club ownership and the different legal entities etc but given Holdings have been paying the bills up to now it's not really a case of can't pay for the Ricoh but won't pay. That's not an acceptable reason to move the club.

Given SISU's recent admission that they are trying to distress ACL in their court submission and the fact that the move would disadvantage the fans as a major stakeholder along with the above I believe the FL would be breaching their own regs and would become complicit in trying to distress ACL if they approved the move. Unfortunately that never stopped them before.

I will be writing to them to state this though and to tell them that it is not just Coventry fans that are keeping an eye on whether they really act for the good of the game and it's fans or become complicit in such financial shenanigans.

Might be worth you guys speaking to the FSF (Football Supporters Federation) for advice. They are a national organisation that fight for the rights of fans whilst working with the football authorities, government and police. I've dealt with them in the past and they can be a useful source of help, advice and information.

Nonleagueherewecome · May 3, 2013

We should try meditation instead.

georgehudson · May 4, 2013

it would appear that they are far too many duplicitous characters involved in all this,
greed, manipulation, farce, & megalomania abounds,
& the people who count are THE FANS / PLAYERS,
so many have their own private agenda,
exactly who will sleep soundly in their bed ?

Spencer · May 5, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Mediation wouldn't work, the parties tried to make a deal & failed. It would be a resumptuion of same with no guarantee of a resolution.

Arbritation is the only thing that could work, as both parties have to let an independant 3rd party make a decision based upon facts & agree to abide by that decision.[/o

I'm not sure i agree. Most mediators are dual qualified as arbitrators and their as a mediator is facilitate an agreement by showing each the weaknesses in their arguments and, therefore, closing the gap to a point where agreement can be reached.

I've been involved in a couple of mediations and both went the same way. The mediator pointed out the weaknesses, told each party where he thought a judge/arbitrator would find and that made the parties move from their previously entrenched positions.

Ashdown1 · May 5, 2013

I don't want mediation or arbitration, SISU put the club into administration having loaded something like a further £25 million worth of debt against it................I just want them out and gone !! If they stay in any form can't people see that this whole fiasco will repeat again and again, they must be bought out or the club will die !

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

A binding agreement on the ground, by an independent body unconnected with any party, would surely be of benefit to the club regardless of who was in charge?

lifelongcityfan · May 5, 2013

I agree with Ashdown. Now is the time to see off SISU. All the fans need to unite and boycott the home games if not played at the Ricoh. Otherwise it will be death by a thousand cuts. SISU are only after the Real Estate and using the club to leverage their aims.

Grendel · May 5, 2013

Ashdown1 said:
I don't want mediation or arbitration, SISU put the club into administration having loaded something like a further £25 million worth of debt against it................I just want them out and gone !! If they stay in any form can't people see that this whole fiasco will repeat again and again, they must be bought out or the club will die !

The council raised the order to put the club into administration. Sisu pre emptied it only to choose their preferred administrator.

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

lifelongcityfan said:
I agree with Ashdown. Now is the time to see off SISU. All the fans need to unite and boycott the home games if not played at the Ricoh. Otherwise it will be death by a thousand cuts. SISU are only after the Real Estate and using the club to leverage their aims.

The club needs a stadium agreement whether SISU are here or not. What's wrong with getting someone independent to thrash it out now?

Sick Boy · May 5, 2013

lifelongcityfan said:
SISU are only after the Real Estate and using the club to leverage their aims.

This would be the same for anyone putting money into the club.

honestken · May 5, 2013

why would we need this?

sisu agreed to the deal on the table regards rent only to walk away and pretend no meetings ever took place, just like last year when they agreed to buy the share in the stadium only to disappear in to the night and never return.

sisu are a bunch of lying parasites.

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

honestken said:
why would we need this?

sisu agreed to the deal on the table regards rent only to walk away and pretend no meetings ever took place, just like last year when they agreed to buy the share in the stadium only to disappear in to the night and never return.

sisu are a bunch of lying parasites.

At the moment it is one group's word against another's. An independent arbitrator drawing up an agreement would solve this.

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

I don't understand why some are so against something that might help the club stay in Coventry. Isn't that what we all want?

WFC · May 5, 2013

The other problem with this is time as the process can take time particularly when positions are so entrenched and given the need to have a ground confirmed quite quickly not only for the FL but also further in advance if you want to try and sell season tickets means you would probably have to at lease move for a short while.

The biggest problem though is given SISU's history of breaking legally binding contracts ACL would probably have little faith in the process being honoured and SISU simply won't agree to anyone else telling them what to do.

lifelongcityfan · May 5, 2013

shy would SISU honour any agreement made in arbriatrion, they would just use it as an excuse to delay and not pay....death by a thousand cuts as longas they are hear. We have already lost thousands of fans who will not come back until they are gone. no arbritration, just get rid of them. The club will be dead if SISU is in charge

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

The point of arbitration is to bring people together in binding agreement where trust has broken down.

Trust has broken down.

The only reason anybody would not want a neutral objective third party involved is if they felt they might lose out, surely?

Sure, there'd be a cost but got to be better than hundreds of court cases and the club leaving the city hasn't it?

Unless there was a political game afoot where people other than SISU want the club to leave the City, for their own purposes. Do people hate SISU that much they'd cut off their nose to spite their face and actually want the club to leave the city, so they could sit around and be outraged? Who would be at fault if an attempt to find a resolution is rejected? The people wanting to find a resolution, or those who reject the opportunity?

If SISU weren't going to be held to binding arbitration they'd be breaking the law so call their bluff. At the moment it's just one group's word against another's. If the group that claim SISU have reneged on agreements are telling the truth they'd be delighted for a neutral third party to also demonstrate this, surely? It'd give more evidence that this was indeed the case and not spin in an attempt to do exactly what SISU are claiming they're trying, namely put their preferred owners in control through nefarious practices.

lifelongcityfan · May 5, 2013

sisu are not hear to run the club. they will not honour any arbitrated agreemen- they have already shown their colours over the last few years.
I state again, the club is dying as long as they are in charge..just my opinion

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

Who says they won't? Have they had a chance not to?

lifelongcityfan · May 5, 2013

hedge funds exist to squeeze assets from companies in danger...why would they give ACL any money ( whether by arbitration or normal contracts) . Take a step back and see the bigger picture. This is not about the rent at all.
btw I am not against arbitration, just do not believe sisu want to do any deal at all, and will use every excuse /spin going

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

lifelongcityfan said:
hedge funds exist to squeeze assets from companies in danger...why would they give ACL any money ( whether by arbitration or normal contracts) . Take a step back and see the bigger picture. This is not about the rent at all.

So why were they allowed to take over at all if this is a universal truth?

Nonleagueherewecome · May 5, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
So why were they allowed to take over at all if this is a universal truth?

Because we were desperate and vulnerable. Just like now, really.

Deleted member 5849 · May 5, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
Because we were desperate and vulnerable. Just like now, really.

So we should welcome them the same as we welcomed them then.

James Smith · May 5, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The point of arbitration is to bring people together in binding agreement where trust has broken down.

Trust has broken down.

The only reason anybody would not want a neutral objective third party involved is if they felt they might lose out, surely?

Sure, there'd be a cost but got to be better than hundreds of court cases and the club leaving the city hasn't it?

Unless there was a political game afoot where people other than SISU want the club to leave the City, for their own purposes. Do people hate SISU that much they'd cut off their nose to spite their face and actually want the club to leave the city, so they could sit around and be outraged? Who would be at fault if an attempt to find a resolution is rejected? The people wanting to find a resolution, or those who reject the opportunity?

If SISU weren't going to be held to binding arbitration they'd be breaking the law so call their bluff. At the moment it's just one group's word against another's. If the group that claim SISU have reneged on agreements are telling the truth they'd be delighted for a neutral third party to also demonstrate this, surely? It'd give more evidence that this was indeed the case and not spin in an attempt to do exactly what SISU are claiming they're trying, namely put their preferred owners in control through nefarious practices.

Yeah but when Tim Fisher was asked by Stuart Linnell whether they would agree to be bound by the result of mediation which Tim had originally suggested as a solution, he said no. Now I know that it isn't the same as arbitration but people here don't think mediation will work, and if he won`t agree to be bound by the results any third party decides on what hope is there?

When he started telling "inaccuracies" I lost any shred of hope TF could negotiate.

Nonleagueherewecome · May 5, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
So we should welcome them the same as we welcomed them then.

Depends whether you welcomed them in the first place!

lifelongcityfan · May 5, 2013

SISU's original plan was to get to the Premiership; they bottled that and lost a lot of money in the process. What we are seeing now ( and for the last 2 years) is in my opinion plan B- which is to get as much money back as posible and not sink any more in.

Jack Griffin · May 5, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
So why were they allowed to take over at all if this is a universal truth?

My opinion is that they made some offer to GR where they'd pay back some of the debt he wrote off if they got into premiership, told Ransom they'd back him till they got there & told council they would buy 1/2 share arena.. and who knows what else they promised.

If they did these things they ever made good on any deals they made, so why would you trust them anymore.. I wouldn't.

Mediation/arbitration (16 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency