Mediation talks underway (15 Viewers)

[hutch1972]

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.

Most of your comments would be corroborated by Paul Fletcher and most happened before anyone had even heard of sisu.

 

---

[coop]

Sisu will go into talks with stupid demands so I don't think this will get done.

 

[Grendel]

I have challenged individuals in the council and the answer is they can't trust a word that is said. How have you challenged them torch or Zack?

Mutton and Lucas are fans call me 12 if you like. They want the best for the club like you and I. Why have they deliberately sabotaged it ever being able to stand on its own feet?

Lol. They demanded Sisu bought the club as their preferred bidder as Sisu promised they would not buy into their little business game ACL

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

Tonight Fisher has reiterated the same 3 points he should stop putting peoples backs up before we start go into the meeting and start from scratch with a clean sheet and negotiate don't demand listen as well see what can be negotiated but still think it will fail on J R 2.

 

[martcov]

Course Zack. How's that going? I know they love the sky blues and have for decades

That's true.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

Saying they love the club is like TF saying joy does. It's absolute drivel. They sold our club down the river in favour of a London rugby club. That is not loving the club.
As mentioned they could have spoken to the trust. They could have spoken to CRFC. Hell, they could of pulled their finger out and made the ricoh viable.

QUOTE , Tim Fisher says at the trust meeting Joy Seppala is HURTING . You couldn't make it up .
I'm a small tea pot short and stout when I open my mouth SHIT COMES OUT .

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

If people think Wasps are struggling why don't Sisu put in a bid for half the stadium(sorry for expecting them to spend money) then we would see how broke they really are. Surely they can put it to their backers for investment into the club after all they persuaded them to buy the club and they have seen what a good job they have done of that

 

[Ranjit Bhurpa]

Where does that get us chief? John mutton and Ann Lucas. I hear a lot of shit spoken about these two. What I know for certain is that they both supported our club for decades and John still attends.

Fisher and Seppalla fans? They want the club to succeed more than fans of decades?

Come on

If he still attends, I wonder if it is as a CCFC supporter or in some official Council capacity? And whilst he's sat there, I wonder if he feels the sense of despair and failure as we nosedive towards Division Four, and did he really do everything within his power whilst in office to ensure a level playing field for CCFC when needed most? Or is there perhaps an overriding feeling of smugness that the vanity project is just about in one piece and hell hasn't frozen over yet.
Genuinely interested.

 

[Captain Dart]

QUOTE , Tim Fisher says at the trust meeting Joy Seppala is HURTING . You couldn't make it up .
I'm a small tea pot short and stout when I open my mouth SHIT COMES OUT .

Does that help the football club, no it doesn't.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

I do think if I was on the council and put up with the shit being thrown their way by our owners at the time (won't pay the rent, ground to dear going to Northampton e.c.t.) I'd be glad to get shut of the problem before the ratepayers started complaining about why they were propping up A C L

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If he still attends, I wonder if it is as a CCFC supporter or in some official Council capacity? And whilst he's sat there, I wonder if he feels the sense of despair and failure as we nosedive towards Division Four, and did he really do everything within his power whilst in office to ensure a level playing field for CCFC when needed most? Or is there perhaps an overriding feeling of smugness that the vanity project is just about in one piece and hell hasn't frozen over yet.
Genuinely interested.

He still attends and as a fan he is gutted at the state of the club

 

[1940oldfive]

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

thank god for a decent summery, assume tiny tims fan boys will have kittens.

 

[1940oldfive]

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.

or if they had not bailed us out in the first place.

 

[martcov]

It's hard to see because it's just words. Anyone who loved the club wouldn't have sold it's stadium to a London rugby club. Then approved said rugby clubs training application which puts the clubs academy under threat. Don't care what they say or how long they had a season ticket. These actions speak volumes.

What speaks volumes is that Wasps have a business plan and actually put it into action whilst not upsetting everyone else in the process.

CCFC don't have a business plan. Or do you call announcing stadium plans within 3 weeks a plan?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Would it not an idea to actually question this MP to get confirmation of the claims made
eg
- When did this start ?
- what is the remit?
- who has he met?
- who has signed up for it ?
- the aim of it?
- timescales?
- first full meeting set for?
- target date for conclusion?

 

[duffer]

thank god for a decent summery, assume tiny tims fan boys will have kittens.

What does posting this kind of tripe achieve?

Tim doesn't have any fan boys. There aren't any SISU apologists here either. No one is having kittens but there are a few single-celled organisms having minor spasms, clearly.

It's sounds a bit like the meeting last night. It's not a competition to see who hates SISU the most. No one likes SISU, anyone who doesn't understand this is too thick to own a computer.

 

[duffer]

I have challenged individuals in the council and the answer is they can't trust a word that is said. How have you challenged them torch or Zack?

Mutton and Lucas are fans call me 12 if you like. They want the best for the club like you and I. Why have they deliberately sabotaged it ever being able to stand on its own feet?

Selling to Wasps was patently not in the best interests of the club - look at where we are now. It's not just SISU who can't be trusted.

 

[torchomatic]

Does that help the football club, no it doesn't.

And neither does Lucas and Mutton turning up to matches but you and Pete try to make out how vital that is.

 

[fernandopartridge]

He still attends and as a fan he is gutted at the state of the club

Well he can pat himself on the back for the part his council played. Not just with Wasps but going right back before then.

 

[Moff]

And neither does Lucas and Mutton turning up to matches but you and Pete try to make out how vital that is.

Don't be harsh, Mutton is gutted ......like anyone cares. Using a Captain Dart line 'Does that help the football club? No it doesn't'

 

[fernandopartridge]

or if they had not bailed us out in the first place.

They bailed nobody out. They wanted the stadium built as much as anybody to realise their own regeneration objectives.

 

[martcov]

They bailed nobody out. They wanted the stadium built as much as anybody to realise their own regeneration objectives.

Which, tbf, is what councils are supposed to do. Regeneration and job creation is part of their remit.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Which, tbf, is what councils are supposed to do. Regeneration and job creation is part of their remit.

Which yes, can be accepted, but then also runs counter-intuitively to what's best for the football club.

I'd blame central government myself, for putting ridiculous restrictions onto the councils.

 

[olderskyblue]

Lol. They demanded Sisu bought the club as their preferred bidder as Sisu promised they would not buy into their little business game ACL

So that's why SISU never made a bid for ACl... now we know.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Selling to Wasps was patently not in the best interests of the club - look at where we are now. It's not just SISU who can't be trusted.

I think that's correct about it not being in the best interests of ccfc

 

[shmmeee]

Which yes, can be accepted, but then also runs counter-intuitively to what's best for the football club.

I'd blame central government myself, for putting ridiculous restrictions onto the councils.

Wait I'm lost.

The argument seems to switch depending on who is making it and when.

Is the Ricoh the right place for us or not? If it is, then why the hell did we break the rental deal we had? How can it be made to work on 9k attendances? Why didn't Sisu bid when they had the chance?

If it's not, and is in fact a "turkey", why is it harmful to the club to not force them to play there?

Similarly, is owning our own stadium vital? If so, then why is the Butts being considered as it's just a baby version of the deal we have now? If not then why all the fuss about teams that don't own their stadium and the argument being for the last four years that we needed our own place?

Finally, do we want the council meddling or not? Seems people are celebrating not being tied to the evil council, yet also lambasting the evil council for not offering another joint deal.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for that side of the argument if you guys could decide between you what exactly your argument is. It seems to change day by day.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

And neither does Lucas and Mutton turning up to matches but you and Pete try to make out how vital that is.

Not vital at all torch it is information that is relevant to the discussion. Why do fans of decades take decisions that negatively affect the club?

That's all we agree all parties have blame I'm sure

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The argument seems to switch depending on who is making it and when.

Of course it does, because I'm not somebody else.

My own view is that the Ricoh should not have happened for the club, but McGinnity and Robinson pushed it through as it provided a stay of execution for administration, and prolonged the chance of fluking a promotion into the top flight and saving their bacon. They pushed the council to get onboard, who could only do so because of regeneration issues (indeed, the vote was only passed after concessions were made to Nellist, that regeneration would play *more* of a part in the project).

From this point on, the Ricoh was in trouble in terms of its setup, and its stadium management company was doomed to run counter-intuitively to the football club. Now it's freed of that, this is less of an issue. The rental deal had to be broken for the very reason it was harmful to the club. In breaking it, it became harmful to the stadium management company and its owners - inevitable.

Don't lump me in with anybody else, my opinion is my opinion, and that's *always* been that identity and culture are of vital importance in any leisure body moving forwards. In the short term, a Ricoh deal may or may not be of benefit but in the long term, is it really? I'd argue always that a city centre location would be of immense benefiot to both the club *and* city long-term as it embeds the club int the very fabric of the place it belongs. In the short term, it may be slightly worse finbancially (or may not) but in the long term, this would absolutely help both parties.

As a wise man once said, space is made place by naming it. Bringing the club into the city makes the city on stronger ground, and gives solid social foundations on which to build.

It's the social that central government always misses, and forces local government to look at financial first. This means that plans are done for the short-term, not for the long-term. It's an un comfortable truth that local authority practices become more akin to that of hedge funds in the modern world, and this is not a good thing.

So *I* know exactly what *my* argument is, and I'll leave others to make theirs. Mine is always on space, place, identity.

 

[shmmeee]

Sorry, your post was a jumping point, not on at you in particular.

FWIW, my own view is that I don't know.

I don't know what the financial viablilty of the Ricoh or the club are. I'm not a stadium management company and I don't run a hedge fund. I'm a CCFC fan and I want us on an even keel. If the people that are in the know (the owners) say that we can't make the Ricoh work, then let's find somewhere else. If the owners of the Ricoh can't offer us a deal that works then let's look somewhere else.

Yet there seems to be this bitterness towards Wasps because "they took our stadium", yet at the same time a belief that the stadium was the cause of all our ills. (FWIW, I don't think your view on the inception of the Ricoh is quite right, but that's another discussion). Similarly there's a belief that CCC want to destroy the club, yet a wish for the Council to do "another Ricoh" with the Butts or somewhere else.

Rather than getting all emotional, I just wish people would realise that different organisations have different priorities and responsibilities and the only people legally and morally who have a duty of care to CCFC are it's fans and it's owners. CCC's repsonsibility is to the tax payers of Coventry and the cold hard truth is that while a successful club is a nice thing to have, it's not their core business.

Pete is also right on a personal level that CCC is mostly made up of lifelong CCFC fans, and not in fact cartoon villians.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Rather than getting all emotional, I just wish people would realise that different organisations have different priorities and responsibilities and the only people legally and morally who have a duty of care to CCFC are it's fans and it's owners. CCC's repsonsibility is to the tax payers of Coventry and the cold hard truth is that while a successful club is a nice thing to have, it's not their core business.

I'd argue that morally, a council absolutely has a responsibility to ensure the fabric that holds the social together is there, and improves. CCFC are in this fabric. Where, worryingly, it gets reduced to nowadays is an either/or of beds in hospitals, or a leisure facility and... that's not right. Intangibles such as wellbeing can more than benefit society, without seeing an immediate, definable result.

Similarly there's a belief that CCC want to destroy the club, yet a wish for the Council to do "another Ricoh" with the Butts or somewhere else.

I don't consider this to be an oxymoron in any way. It's pretty clear that the council have been determined to affect regime change at the club. Now, philosophically, I think we'd all agree that's not a bad thing(!) but having seen our owners' previous track record, it was madness... as it is now. Sometimes, pragmatism has to override desire and yes, you could argue Wasps being here is exactly that, but I'd also argue that was a short-term move made in haste, that long-term will cost more than it appears to bring. Asking for a change of approach from CCC is not contradicting the first part of your sentence, any more than asking the club to recognise it needs to work with and not against its local authority, suddenly means we'd be supporting SISU to be here for eleventy billion years.

 

[covcity4life]

Sorry, your post was a jumping point, not on at you in particular.

FWIW, my own view is that I don't know.

I don't know what the financial viablilty of the Ricoh or the club are. I'm not a stadium management company and I don't run a hedge fund. I'm a CCFC fan and I want us on an even keel. If the people that are in the know (the owners) say that we can't make the Ricoh work, then let's find somewhere else. If the owners of the Ricoh can't offer us a deal that works then let's look somewhere else.

Yet there seems to be this bitterness towards Wasps because "they took our stadium", yet at the same time a belief that the stadium was the cause of all our ills. (FWIW, I don't think your view on the inception of the Ricoh is quite right, but that's another discussion). Similarly there's a belief that CCC want to destroy the club, yet a wish for the Council to do "another Ricoh" with the Butts or somewhere else.

Rather than getting all emotional, I just wish people would realise that different organisations have different priorities and responsibilities and the only people legally and morally who have a duty of care to CCFC are it's fans and it's owners. CCC's repsonsibility is to the tax payers of Coventry and the cold hard truth is that while a successful club is a nice thing to have, it's not their core business.

Pete is also right on a personal level that CCC is mostly made up of lifelong CCFC fans, and not in fact cartoon villians.

CCC are EVIL

 

[Captain Dart]

And neither does Lucas and Mutton turning up to matches but you and Pete try to make out how vital that is.

I've not mentioned Mutton ever as far as I can recollect and it is Grendel that mentions Lucas repeatedly alleging I know her but I've never met the woman or have anything to do with her. The only councillor I've ever been in contact with is one of the local guys who I hassled to take action clean up a litter problem near where I live, that took me 4 months of emails with photos till finally I got the council to do what was needed.

 

[_brian_]

Of course it does, because I'm not somebody else.

My own view is that the Ricoh should not have happened for the club, but McGinnity and Robinson pushed it through as it provided a stay of execution for administration, and prolonged the chance of fluking a promotion into the top flight and saving their bacon. They pushed the council to get onboard, who could only do so because of regeneration issues (indeed, the vote was only passed after concessions were made to Nellist, that regeneration would play *more* of a part in the project).

From this point on, the Ricoh was in trouble in terms of its setup, and its stadium management company was doomed to run counter-intuitively to the football club. Now it's freed of that, this is less of an issue. The rental deal had to be broken for the very reason it was harmful to the club. In breaking it, it became harmful to the stadium management company and its owners - inevitable.

Don't lump me in with anybody else, my opinion is my opinion, and that's *always* been that identity and culture are of vital importance in any leisure body moving forwards. In the short term, a Ricoh deal may or may not be of benefit but in the long term, is it really? I'd argue always that a city centre location would be of immense benefiot to both the club *and* city long-term as it embeds the club int the very fabric of the place it belongs. In the short term, it may be slightly worse finbancially (or may not) but in the long term, this would absolutely help both parties.

As a wise man once said, space is made place by naming it. Bringing the club into the city makes the city on stronger ground, and gives solid social foundations on which to build.

It's the social that central government always misses, and forces local government to look at financial first. This means that plans are done for the short-term, not for the long-term. It's an un comfortable truth that local authority practices become more akin to that of hedge funds in the modern world, and this is not a good thing.

So *I* know exactly what *my* argument is, and I'll leave others to make theirs. Mine is always on space, place, identity.

'finbancially' LOL!

 

[oldskyblue58]

Why this sudden deluge of reports etc now?

You hear nothing much about BPA, stadium arrangements, Academy, for months then there are suddenly articles, comments galore in a space of a couple of days ................

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Why this sudden deluge of reports etc now?

You hear nothing much about BPA, stadium arrangements, Academy, for months then there are suddenly articles, comments galore in a space of a couple of days ................

Er because we're going down wouldn't you think