Mediation talks underway (36 Viewers)

Captain Dart said:

Tim said the price of the old Ryton factory site per acre was too expensive (think he quoted £0.5M/acre).
I guess he wants some council land gifted to the club.
Unfortunately the timing is all wrong, any land within the city boundary is wanted for housing.

Click to expand...

Two issues here.
Do you believe we would build a stadium even if we are gifted land.
Is someone we are suing going to gift us land.
Unfortunately the only way that would happen is if we approached the council with plans and proof of funding and promise to ditch the legal action on approval.
Can't see any of that happening.

Who has said anything at all about land being "gifted" as in free?

fernandopartridge said:

The club leaving the Arena would not show the council in a good light, as regardless of whether it really is for the best or not, it will essentially be the club leaving due to Wasps' arrival.

Click to expand...

You are right. Do you think that will bother the Council?

The word dispute keeps being used or the phrase multi party dispute. Of the parties involved who is actually in dispute. Lets break it down a little.

Are Otium (CCFC) in dispute with Wasps/ACL? In terms paying for pitch repairs or additional stewards probably. In terms of staying at the Ricoh or shares of income no not really. It is a negotiation that has stalled. Is the 2014 contract being honoured on both sides, well it would seem to be. There is no dispute that Wasps own the right to occupy the stadium and with it the rights to income. CCFC have only their rights in the 2014 short term rent agreement which ends naturally in around 18 months. The situation is obscured by SISU joining Wasps in to the JR, which allows Wasps to say no more negotiations. But in my eyes it is not a dispute. Can mediation force or impose a solution giving more income to CCFC (and by definition less to Wasps) no. Any income share gained would surely come at a cost wouldnt it ? and therein lies a problem immediately i feel. Other than it looking the right thing to do then do Wasps need to join in mediation? To what end?

Are CCFC in dispute with CCC. Well it looks like it because Otium which to all intents and purposes is CCFC, is a claimant to the JR2 from what I understand. But the JR process is not about settling a dispute it is a review of process applied to government & local government to check that the processes and thinking behind decisions comply properly with the law at the time of the decision. The remedies for the JR do not usually benefit the claimants directly. What is currently in dispute that directly involves CCFC & CCC? The right to be at the Ricoh. Well no longer CCC's concern the stadium is not operated by them directly or indirectly. CCFC have a contract that they agreed to that terminates summer 2018. CCFC have, including in the mediation article by Reid, repeatedly said they do not want to be there. Where is the dispute in terms of being at the Ricoh between CCFC & CCC? No dispute then how will mediation help?
What about at the BPA are CCFC & CCC in dispute? If you believe the press statements all sorts of skulduggery is going on and CCFC right to be there is blocked or disputed. But what has been blocked? Could CCFC move there this summer for instance - no because it doesn't meet EFL standards. Have plans been submitted to the planning office - not that we know of so how can they be disputed or blocked?
CCC wont speak to CCFC or is it Fisher and SISU they wont speak to. Probably not in dispute that they wont speak to TF & SISU but have CCFC/CRFC tested that blockage in respect of BPA.
Are CCC blocking community projects or not actively involved in working with CCFC in a community sense. Well that's SBITC isn't it and a look at the last accounts of SBITC shows funding of one sort or another of nearly £40k from CCC
What is to mediate? A vague community support demand? not really, its up to the privately owned club first and foremost to promote its community endeavours, CCC seem up for that with SBITC, You become centre of the community by proving self worth not by someone doing it for you.
A demand to play at BPA? Well test it, put the plans out in public, make the case, back it up, I agree with CD the council should say "come on then lets see the plans in detail and how it will be funded"
A demand for an Academy site, CCC cant choose it for them but again it boils down to show us the plan, the commitment, the funding. But what at this stage is being disputed in those 3 demands made? in which case the purpose of mediation is?

SISU as we know seem at odds with most parties. They via ARVO, SBS&L & Otium have brought the actions for the JR's against CCC. The relationship is toxic. The JR's are a review of procedure. Not up to CCC, Wasps, ACL to run the SISU investment or sign blank cheques for CCFC but they might if convinced on a number of issues like commitment & funding from the Club/owners. Is this still a dispute about the Ricoh stadium or is it about failed investment, poor management and blame. What is it SISU are prepared to compromise to make mediation work. They have made clear what they expect but what are they bringing to the table that is new, or can offer progress. A mediator will look for common ground and compromise by all sides.

CCFC lost the right to be at the Ricoh when they broke the lease and moved out. CCFC came back on a short term day rent, because they apparently had other plans. CCFC lost/sold/gave away the rights to income not once but twice now they and others say not having the income simply isn't fair. Hardly a compelling argument and how does mediation change that? What will be the remit of the mediator?

Given CCFC do not actually want to be there what is the point of mediation addressing income streams at the Ricoh. Surely it must concentrate on the new grounds and new training sites and the commitment or otherwise to fund and see it through. Anything at the Ricoh is very short term isn't it?

What is the purpose of this mediation then ? Is it simply an exercise to say to others well we tried but no one would help? If so to what end? If not done in good faith, with a will to try make it work by all the parties what is the point?

But the parties must talk, we need to bring this crappy saga to an end one way or another

Finally, mediation is not binding nor obligatory on any party, I worry this will become window dressing for other purposes

Nick said:

Who has said anything at all about land being "gifted" as in free?

Click to expand...

Captain Dart did, just now

dongonzalos said:

Captain Dart did, just now

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

dongonzalos said:

You are right. Do you think that will bother the Council?

Click to expand...

Nope, because many people do their PR for them. Many are on the "side" on CCC and Wasps already and that won't change. As for CCFC? Who cares?

dongonzalos said:

Unfortunately the Council and Wasps for that matter don't have to.
Only a tiny proportion of people support the legal action so they are not going to get a sway of public pressure.
The football club are looking to Wasps and the Council for something.
Wasps and the Council want the legal action stopped.
I can't see the Council or Wasps changing their stance.
Unfortunately the legal action is more important to SISU so I can't see SISU changing their stance either.
Just like JR1 I see it as pointless action that just hurts the football by antagonising the partners we need to work with. With salt rubbed into the wounds that just like JR1 it won't even bloody succeed.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence at all that wasps what the action stopped - it's pretty obvious what they want and it's something we can't afford.

duffer said:

I don't recall the council ever offering or suggesting an alternative site to the Ricoh either SBT, so politely, I think you're mistaken.

I can't see any issue with drawing all of the sides together to talk - that has to be a step forward. If it's SISU bullshit, and it may well be, then the sooner we find out the better. If it isn't, then maybe something might actually come of it.

The one thing that's clear to me is that the council has to step away from seeing CCFC at the Ricoh as the only option. At the moment there's a reasonable case based on the funds avaialble from the arena deal and Wasps refusal to negotiate, to suggest that the Ricoh isn't going to be the way forward. So if everyone really wants CCFC to stay in Coventry then it's time for CCC to deal with that reality and start thinking seriously about whether there are alternatives.

At the moment everything that has come out of the Council towards the club has been negative and seemingly predicated on forcing CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. That's not exactly surprising given JR2 but it gets us nowhere. JR2 is going to happen whether we or they like it or not - SISU have got a legal right to take it forward, and they're going to.

The council, who clearly believe they're going to win anyway should compartmentalise it, look at where they want the club to be in the future, and start looking at the options because at the moment I don't think it's likely to be in Coventry. This isn't about SISU winning, or the Council winning, it's about the City winning. The millions that Wasps are claimed to be bringing into the city would be dwarfed by even a moderately successful football club. I can't see any upside to avoiding discussions, but I can see a lot of potential downsides if we keep heading in the direction we are...

Click to expand...

I agree, what's to be lost by talking?

If only the Ricoh dispute had gone to mediation before Northampton, eh...

dongonzalos said:

Two issues here.
Do you believe we would build a stadium even if we are gifted land.
Is someone we are suing going to gift us land.
Unfortunately the only way that would happen is if we approached the council with plans and proof of funding and promise to ditch the legal action on approval.
Can't see any of that happening.

Click to expand...

Maybe we could approach them with a couple of rugby world cup tickets for Japan?

Your defence of the council is naive. If the council thought they could play the hero, or rub shoulders with the elite, boost their own personal ego, they would give anyone land. Being sued or not?

torchomatic said:

Nope, because many people do their PR for them. Many are on the "side" on CCC and Wasps already and that won't change. As for CCFC? Who cares?

Click to expand...

I think we care. I used to despair at the owners for distressing a charity, moving us Northampton etc.....and it made me really question my passion for the club but all I care about now is the survival of the club.
It was the Sky Blues I fell in love with and I want them to survive even if these horrible bastards stay. Remember what the man said last week "should we be grateful to them?" I really can't compute that thought.

torchomatic said:

Nope, because many people do their PR for them. Many are on the "side" on CCC and Wasps already and that won't change. As for CCFC? Who cares?

Click to expand...

It's unfortunate CCFC get lumped in with SISU. Like now where you have the chairman telling you it's not CCFC taking the council to court when it is the company who own CCFC doing it.
I think the Council worked SISU out a few years ago and they willno longer compromise on anything.
Unfortunately all compromising will have to come from SISU, ARVO, Otium, CCFC (basically Joy and Tim)

SkyBlueZack said:

Maybe we could approach them with a couple of rugby world cup tickets for Japan?

Your defence of the council is naive. If the council thought they could play the hero, or rub shoulders with the elite, boost their own personal ego, they would give anyone land. Being sued or not?

Click to expand...

just saying it as I see it and how I see it is going to pan out.
Like I did with the rent strikes, negotiations, moving out to Northampton,deadlines by the council to SISU to put in their best bid before the council turn elsewhere.
JR1
Long term rent agreements.
The academy
Now JR2.

I felt the club should have agreed a long term sliding rental deal.
I got told we shouldn't agree anything and keep striking till ACL go out of business.

I felt we were shooting ourselves in the foot moving to Northampton.
I was told we should stay there until ACL fold.

I thought the council would find an alternative use for the Ricoh. I was laughed at and told there is no other use it will become a white elephant.

I said SISU better put their best bid in quick. A bit like now I was told it should be down to the council to come to SISU and make SISU an offer to buy ACL.

I felt JR1 should be up offered up on the table with either a bid for the Ricoh or a long term rental.
I was told SISU's legal right's were more important than us getting a deal.

I never believed a newstadium would be built

I am now again saying SISU should offer up ditching JR2 as an olive branch with their own long term rental deal suggestion
Or price of funding and planning proposal for the Butts or a new stadium.

Again I am getting told it should be the council doing the running instead.
It feels like Groundhog Day. It's going to pan out one way.
CCFC renting in a poxy stadium outside of the Coventry area the academy downgraded and JR2 going through appeal after appeal with each judge advising SISU to ditch it.

It's not about the Council "doing the running", it's about calling SISUs bluff or bizarrely trying to help the local incumbent football club.

The legal action is not more important than a deal but yes they have every right to follow legal action if they deem necessary. Same as me and you should have.

Always makes me laugh when people talk about CCFC/SISU paying for it. Hadn't we done that by paying an over inflated rent? Hadn't we done that by attracting Ricoh as the sponsor? Hadn't we done that by being the reason Olympic and international football were played there? Or were we to pay an over inflated asking price too?

It is naive to think if SISU bid it would have been dealt with by the council. Quite clear they didn't want SISU or CCFC owning the Ricoh. Demonstrated by the lies upon our return about building bridges when they had agreed a deal with a London rugby club for 250 years at a value SISU had offered to the Higgs for their share as a charitable donation. SISU had devalued the Ricoh before Wasps bought it, yes. Problem was, it already was devalued, it was worth nothing without us. We kept it going.

Neither the council nor Wasps should dictate to who can/cannot take legal action. If the legal action was a problem, why did negotiations start? if they were a problem, why was the statement from Wasps not we have agreed a deal but would like the legal action to be dropped to complete? The statement was negotiations cannot continue whilst legal action is ongoing. There was a problem with negotiations, clearly the rent and access to revenue. Wasps didn't want to admit that though, as it may be deemed negative. They say legal action/SISU and you swallow it. As I said, naive.

You know what I personally hate more than SISU? That people won't look at other parties because of their hate for SISU. They have all caused this mess, let's ask them all questions. Why are the Trust, CET, observer, talksport and any others that seem to seek the limelight (not the trust that bit) asking all parties questions?
Can't that journalist who done the BBC FIFA scandal program be brought in?

I hate all involved in this mess but I must say , if someone feels that strongly they have been shafted they should have the right to pursue it.
If certain groups go for the "drop the court case " scenario then we possibly drop into blackmail territory.

hutch1972 said:

I hate all involved in this mess but I must say , if someone feels that strongly they have been shafted they should have the right to pursue it.
If certain groups go for the "drop the court case " scenario then we possibly drop into blackmail territory.

Click to expand...

Its a dangerous road to go down. While we may all feel SISU are wasting everyone's time who gets to decide who is and isn't allowed to use due legal process to examine the actions of public bodies?

It indeed may end up a waste of time and money , but if even one person is found to have been guilty of any misdemeanours then it will have been worth it.
I imagine that one or two may have some sleepless nights ahead.
Sisu are already guilty of being a slimy bunch of cunits who have no clue about running a football club , thing is though that's not illegal. What some of the others got up to may well have been. We shall have to wait and see.

SkyBlueZack said:

The legal action is not more important than a deal but yes they have every right to follow legal action if they deem necessary. Same as me and you should have.

Always makes me laugh when people talk about CCFC/SISU paying for it. Hadn't we done that by paying an over inflated rent? Hadn't we done that by attracting Ricoh as the sponsor? Hadn't we done that by being the reason Olympic and international football were played there? Or were we to pay an over inflated asking price too?

It is naive to think if SISU bid it would have been dealt with by the council. Quite clear they didn't want SISU or CCFC owning the Ricoh. Demonstrated by the lies upon our return about building bridges when they had agreed a deal with a London rugby club for 250 years at a value SISU had offered to the Higgs for their share as a charitable donation. SISU had devalued the Ricoh before Wasps bought it, yes. Problem was, it already was devalued, it was worth nothing without us. We kept it going.

Neither the council nor Wasps should dictate to who can/cannot take legal action. If the legal action was a problem, why did negotiations start? if they were a problem, why was the statement from Wasps not we have agreed a deal but would like the legal action to be dropped to complete? The statement was negotiations cannot continue whilst legal action is ongoing. There was a problem with negotiations, clearly the rent and access to revenue. Wasps didn't want to admit that though, as it may be deemed negative. They say legal action/SISU and you swallow it. As I said, naive.

You know what I personally hate more than SISU? That people won't look at other parties because of their hate for SISU. They have all caused this mess, let's ask them all questions. Why are the Trust, CET, observer, talksport and any others that seem to seek the limelight (not the trust that bit) asking all parties questions?
Can't that journalist who done the BBC FIFA scandal program be brought in?

Click to expand...

Then you would hate me. Sisu is the cancer that brought this on themselves. Build relationships, not seek to destroy them and we would not be in this position nor would Wasps own our ground.
If this is a cake then by all means cut it up to serve your argument but don't forget to save the biggest portion for own owners.
Yes you are correct they have the right to take legal action but you seem to think that the other parties don't have the right to say fuck you! And you call others naive?

The ricoh dispute was in part caused by councils mismanagement, 50 year lease etc. Previous board members agreeing an unsustainable rent deal. Sisu for not addressing costs including the rent far sooner. This has not been entirely of sisus making. It is naive and narrow minded to think that. Regarding the fuck you, if all parties had genuinely tried to help and done all they could then yeah they would have every right to say fuck off. Thing is they haven't. The council have deflected their ineptitude and incompetence regarding the ricoh onto sisus ineptitude and incompetence at running a football club. Said it before, Ainsworth admitted the council had failed with the ricoh. That they were out of their depth. They are not brought to task. They just say sisu. Everyone looks away. Sorry state of affairs.

SkyBlueZack said:

The ricoh dispute was in part caused by councils mismanagement, 50 year lease etc. Previous board members agreeing an unsustainable rent deal. Sisu for not addressing costs including the rent far sooner. This has not been entirely of sisus making. It is naive and narrow minded to think that. Regarding the fuck you, if all parties had genuinely tried to help and done all they could then yeah they would have every right to say fuck off. Thing is they haven't. The council have deflected their ineptitude and incompetence regarding the ricoh onto sisus ineptitude and incompetence at running a football club. Said it before, Ainsworth admitted the council had failed with the ricoh. That they were out of their depth. They are not brought to task. They just say sisu. Everyone looks away. Sorry state of affairs.

Click to expand...

Seldom do I feel like joining in a discussion with blinkered fools but I will make an exception on this occasion.
I really don't give a damn who said what and who you think is to blame for our situation but let me clarify something you may have missed.
We started as equal business partners with the council. We had no money so ended up as junior partners, then tenants, then we moved out, told the landlord to do one. Took the club to Northampton, said we would go our own way. The landlord got themselves as business partner who a) didn't tell them to keep their stadium as we are building our own
b) didnt do their best to distress a charity to get their own way
c) paid them for their asset
d) sued them at every opportunity
If none of that sounds familiar then let me tell you that's a very sorry state of affairs.
You state the council has not been brought to task, let me remind you the people of Coventry vote every year for the local council so if the council was guilty, then democracy would prevail.
The owners run our club with impunity, our fans are rudderless, we hold up a why? piece of paper, throw a few pigs on the pitch, create a few divots on the pitch and call for them to fuck off. That sounds like a school playground to me.
Hutch72 says if someone is found guilty of a misdemeanor then it will have been worth it!
Get a grip guys FFS. You are saying that 2 relegations, nearly ten year of shit, Sixfields, losing our stadium, much of our support and be in danger of extinction would have been worth it????
You couldn't make it up......

riyadhskyblue said:

You state the council has not been brought to task, let me remind you the people of Coventry vote every year for the local council so if the council was guilty, then democracy would prevail.
.

Click to expand...

Most Coventrians either don't know or care about the whys and wherefores of the CCFC saga. The city folk aren't supportive of their football club so why should they vote this shower out? If they do it certainly won't be anything to do with CCFC. Bin collections is more likely.

torchomatic said:

Most Coventrians either don't know or care about the whys and wherefores of the CCFC saga. The city folk aren't supportive of their football club so why should they vote this shower out? If they do it certainly won't be anything to do with CCFC. Bin collections is more likely.

Click to expand...

45,000 at Wembley says their is lingering regard for the institution that is CCFC if not the owners.

riyadhskyblue said:

45,000 at Wembley says their is lingering regard for the institution that is CCFC if not the owners.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, a day out at Wembley will stir them up, but after the final whistle? And I'm talking about the people of Coventry, not the football fan or the casual football fan, but the other 300K.

riyadhskyblue said:

Seldom do I feel like joining in a discussion with blinkered fools but I will make an exception on this occasion.
I really don't give a damn who said what and who you think is to blame for our situation but let me clarify something you may have missed.
We started as equal business partners with the council. We had no money so ended up as junior partners, then tenants, then we moved out, told the landlord to do one. Took the club to Northampton, said we would go our own way. The landlord got themselves as business partner who a) didn't tell them to keep their stadium as we are building our own
b) didnt do their best to distress a charity to get their own way
c) paid them for their asset
d) sued them at every opportunity
If none of that sounds familiar then let me tell you that's a very sorry state of affairs.
You state the council has not been brought to task, let me remind you the people of Coventry vote every year for the local council so if the council was guilty, then democracy would prevail.
The owners run our club with impunity, our fans are rudderless, we hold up a why? piece of paper, throw a few pigs on the pitch, create a few divots on the pitch and call for them to fuck off. That sounds like a school playground to me.
Hutch72 says if someone is found guilty of a misdemeanor then it will have been worth it!
Get a grip guys FFS. You are saying that 2 relegations, nearly ten year of shit, Sixfields, losing our stadium, much of our support and be in danger of extinction would have been worth it????
You couldn't make it up......

Click to expand...

You could put a chimpanzee up for election in this city and as long as it flys a red flag it would be voted in.
I agree with some points of yours , but to say the taxpayers had any say is totally incorrect.
The council have been held up as the saints in all of this but we all know that AL would not have been open to nothing regarding ccfc. Does hell and freezing over ring any bells, does the statement about starting again after we returned from Sixfields ring any bells.
How could we have started again when they had already struck a deal with the cockney nomads ?
Look , sisu are total fuck ups but I suggest that the council were in no position to sling mud. They themselves are guilty of total ineptitude regarding , not only the Ricoh but our entire city.

hutch1972 said:

You could put a chimpanzee up for election in this city and as long as it flys a red flag it would be voted in.
I agree with some points of yours , but to say the taxpayers had any say is totally incorrect.
The council have been held up as the saints in all of this but we all know that AL would not have been open to nothing regarding ccfc. Does hell and freezing over ring any bells, does the statement about starting again after we returned from Sixfields ring any bells.
How could we have started again when they had already struck a deal with the cockney nomads ?
Look , sisu are total fuck ups but I suggest that the council were in no position to sling mud. They themselves are guilty of total ineptitude regarding , not only the Ricoh but our entire city.

Click to expand...

I used to have the misfortune to sit behind that slob Mutton. He shouted at one game that "THEY aren't getting their hands on MY stadium" I think he thought he was being clever. He never say there again.

I've had some insight on the Lucas mindset as well. It's similar.

The council are a disgrace. I am convinced we'd never have been in this mess if we'd not had these tossers in charge.

riyadhskyblue said:

45,000 at Wembley says their is lingering regard for the institution that is CCFC if not the owners.

Click to expand...

You call others blinkered fools and then state that. Oh the irony!

Of that 45000, some are man united fans and Liverpool fans who don't give a shit about the club. Just like the council don't. They just want a day out.

I don't think anyone is saying years of mismanagement is worth it. What they are saying is the council are as incompetent as sisu. As ccfc, not sisu had paid an extortionate rent, propped the ricoh up and helped the small progress it made. The club not sisu deserve something for that. Is it really hard to comprehend? If I put sisu out will it be easier for you?

SkyBlueZack said:

You call others blinkered fools and then state that. Oh the irony!

Of that 45000, some are man united fans and Liverpool fans who don't give a shit about the club. Just like the council don't. They just want a day out.

I don't think anyone is saying years of mismanagement is worth it. What they are saying is the council are as incompetent as sisu. As ccfc, not sisu had paid an extortionate rent, propped the ricoh up and helped the small progress it made. The club not sisu deserve something for that. Is it really hard to comprehend? If I put sisu out will it be easier for you?

Click to expand...

Ive given 4 of my tickets to a family who've never watched the team. They've gone for a weekend away and are just including the game as part of a tourist attraction. The other two went to a villa fan and his wife who fancied a day out.

Grendel said:

Ive given 4 of my tickets to a family who've never watched the team. They've gone for a weekend away and are just including the game as part of a tourist attraction. The other two went to a villa fan and his wife who fancied a day out.

Click to expand...

Grendel said:

I used to have the misfortune to sit behind that slob Mutton. He shouted at one game that "THEY aren't getting their hands on MY stadium" I think he thought he was being clever. He never say there again.

I've had some insight on the Lucas mindset as well. It's similar.

The council are a disgrace. I am convinced we'd never have been in this mess if we'd not had these tossers in charge.

Click to expand...

How would it have been different?

Utterly mismanaged the club for 8 years and brought the institution to its knees

SkyBlueZack said:

You call others blinkered fools and then state that. Oh the irony!

Of that 45000, some are man united fans and Liverpool fans who don't give a shit about the club. Just like the council don't. They just want a day out.

I don't think anyone is saying years of mismanagement is worth it. What they are saying is the council are as incompetent as sisu. As ccfc, not sisu had paid an extortionate rent, propped the ricoh up and helped the small progress it made. The club not sisu deserve something for that. Is it really hard to comprehend? If I put sisu out will it be easier for you?

Click to expand...

The club as you put it agreed to a rent figure in leui of having put very little in to the build of the stadium but here I am sounding like a Simon Gilbert chapter.
Blame, slice, sisu, biggest, cake....rearrange as you see fit.

Is something looks like a lie, smells like a lie, sounds like a lie it's probably a lie. Especially as whenever fisher has given any assurances they've been worthless

Why didn't the council who were against football teams moving approach the trust regarding selling the ricoh? Would that not have ensured sisu didn't get their hands on the asset? Secured the club in the city? Secured a semblance of a future? Would it not have given the trust more say in the club? Are we to believe the trust can takeover the club but couldn't have found a way to takeover the ricoh? Wasps didn't have to come here. There were other ways. That is of course if the council were genuine in their statements regarding teams moving from their community......

Don't know what that has to do with trusting the hedge fund that has systematically destroyed our club

riyadhskyblue said:

I really don't give a damn who said what and who you think is to blame for our situation but let me clarify something you may have missed.

Click to expand...

There's as many things you can level at the council. Such as them stitching up the club by buying the land off the clubs agents and flipping it to Tesco, in a deal negotiated by the club, in 24 hours; going back on their promise that the club would have 50% of the freehold; refusing to engage with potential owners who wanted an ownership stake in the stadium; repeatedly lying to the public about the performance of ACL; negotiating a sale to a London rugby club while taking every opportunity to state how disgraceful it was we were not playing in Coventry etc.

riyadhskyblue said:

The club as you put it agreed to a rent figure in leui of having put very little in to the build of the stadium but here I am sounding like a Simon Gilbert chapter.
Blame, slice, sisu, biggest, cake....rearrange as you see fit.

Click to expand...

And before SISU arrived on the scene the previous board tried to renegotiate the rent three months after we moved in and were told "no". Go figure.