Moderator (3 Viewers)

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
agreed wingy...Without the emtiocon.
2-3 months too late, when anyone with any sense was suggesting it (Myself):(

Just a stalling tactic to try and get to seasons end without resolution of this Sisu engendered Farce.
jerkit.gif
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
I mean the minutes of the recent meetings, ACL say they show that SISU agreed a deal and have gone back on it, they say that SISU have sent lawyers letters to prevent them releaseing these minutes. So if Sisu want arbitration they need to show that what ACL have recently said isn't true, because if they agreed a deal and have gone back on it why would acl agree to mediation?

So their responce to the request for mediation should have to publically say yes if they are allowed to release the minutes and that they show sisu are telling the truth.

Ah ok, just listened closely to that part of the PKH interview, and he seemed to be referring to wanting to publish his notes rather than any official minutes of the meeting, but i understand your point.
Having listened to both PKH and TF interviews my impression is that PKH is absolutely sincere in his belief that TF gave a verbal agreement to a deal, and it is completely plausible that TF was later overridden by JS.
If there are official minutes that have been agreed by both sides i would be interested to see them, and i would also be interested in seeing PKH notes for what they are worth.
Whether or not we get to see either of these i would still like to see the outcome of mediation to get an independent view of what a fair deal should be.
 

Ashdown1

New Member
ACL are negotiating around legal and binding contracts, signed by previous officials of the football club. SISU are just playing for yet more time as to when they will have to pay what they owe. ACL have already offered serious concessions haven't they...........?
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
ccfc pay for each matchday costs but get nothing back in revenue for the privilege.

All we get at the moment is a place to play football in. We don't get anything back from what us fans spend at the stadium. Car parking is by ccfc fans, food is gobbled by ccfc fans, the ricoh is know as the home of ccfc...

We are the biggest advertisers of the ricoh as i bet you no most of the country would not of heard of the place unless it was the home of coventry city football club.

We should have a cut of the naming rights.

ACL need to look at the bigger picture on how we are essential to their business growth.
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
If it goes back to court there will be a mediator....a judge....and it will be in the public domain

Yes but on the sole issue of rent, not the bigger picture of rent and revenue combined, which is the real issue here and which needs mediation.
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
ACL are negotiating around legal and binding contracts, signed by previous officials of the football club. SISU are just playing for yet more time as to when they will have to pay what they owe. ACL have already offered serious concessions haven't they...........?

Yes ACL has offered serious concessions on rent that was agreed in a legally binding contract, and even TF accepts this, but unless ACL is prepared to negotiate on the wider issue of a fair distribution of revenue for CCFC (not SISU), then the football club does not have a sustainable business model going forward. As a City fan that concerns me more than SISU honouring a contract they were stupid to sign up to in the first place.
 

Ashdown1

New Member
We all want what's best for the club I'm sure but again its not that simple. ACL cannot just cancel similarly legal and binding contracts already established with the likes of 'Compass' can they? From my understanding Compass make the bulk of the money in this deal and ACL as landlords take a relatively small percentage cut as a fee. The real dumb deals all round were signed off 7 years or so ago pre SISU, but they are not just verbal agreements these are binding contracts. Its all conjecture all round again anyway as very few people know the true figures and the real value of the catering franchise.
 

Monkeyface

Well-Known Member
Of they did produce the minutes asunder they were favourable certain posters on here will accuse nasty wasty Timmy of bribing someone to forge them.

You're losing your argument, not to mention self respect, with comments like 'nasty wasty Timmy'.
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
Its been suggested in print many times as around £100k.,obviously this does'nt include the compass elelment ,if it is at that level it is insignificant and would 'nt affect greatly any funds for team building .To focus on income streams a s they are would suggest that they would like every stream the place generates to achieve the level required to make a difference ,this would obviously have to be purchased and of course holds value.

In the interview that TF gave he first quoted food & beverage revenue as an example, but then went on to mention "advertising, stadium sponsorship rights and car paking, you name it", and it is clear that beyond match day revenues, the brand of CCCFC adds significant value to such things as advertising and naming rights at the stadium, so a fair distribution of these revenues could well make a significant differences to CCFC budget for players.
Of course the rights to these revenues hold value and have to be purchased, and given the level of animosity between ACL and SISU surely it would be better to have an independent mediator assess the level, values and equitable distribution of these revenues.
 

Noggin

New Member
In the interview that TF gave he first quoted food & beverage revenue as an example, but then went on to mention "advertising, stadium sponsorship rights and car paking, you name it", and it is clear that beyond match day revenues, the brand of CCCFC adds significant value to such things as advertising and naming rights at the stadium, so a fair distribution of these revenues could well make a significant differences to CCFC budget for players.
Of course the rights to these revenues hold value and have to be purchased, and given the level of animosity between ACL and SISU surely it would be better to have an independent mediator assess the level, values and equitable distribution of these revenues.

To be fair though if you want stadium sponsorship rights you buy the stadium that isn't a reasonable request.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
To be fair though if you want stadium sponsorship rights you buy the stadium that isn't a reasonable request.

Seems reasonable to me. If I own the stadium, I own the sponsorship rights...& get the sponsorship revenue.
The give & take comes because Ricoh might well say their sponsorship of the stadium is dependent upon CCFC playing there. If they cease to be...or move out - the sponsorship deal is void.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
2-3 months too late, when anyone with any sense was suggesting it (Myself):(

Just a stalling tactic to try and get to seasons end without resolution of this Sisu engendered Farce.:jerkit:


2-3 months??? Try 7 or 8 months:

27.07.2012
If this is true then it may be time to bring in a mediator.

Oh, I get it ... you are referring to 'people with any sense'.
Rules me out then.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
2-3 months??? Try 7 or 8 months:

27.07.2012


Oh, I get it ... you are referring to 'people with any sense'.
Rules me out then.

Well said Godiva but I doubt any of us really believed this could be so badly handled and over such a period of time ,I was self mocking in the sense stakes you know:facepalm:
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Well said Godiva but I doubt any of us really believed this could be so badly handled and over such a period of time ,I was self mocking in the sense stakes you know:facepalm:

I actually think even sisu are amazed it has taken this long. When I first mentioned arbitration - or mediation - my only thought was to get the issue solved and avoid off-field disturbances like the sisu-out-campaign last season. But looking back - and judging only the negotiation tactics - I think sisu were clever enough holding this card till ACL finally got around to issue an ultimatum.

The real issue is not the rent figure - any mediator would quickly come up with a solution very close to what ACL have offered. It's the arrears that is dividing the parties. And I believe ACL will have a hard time convincing the arbitrator that the agreed rent (and the matchday profits) should not be backdated to when sisu started the rent boycot.

Put on your neutral spectacles and consider this chain of events:
- sisu ask ACL to reduce the rent
- ACL declines
- sisu says the rent is exorbitant and effectively killing the club
- ACL declines negotiation
- sisu stop paying to the escrow account
(you know the history)
- finally ACL agrees the rent is too high and over several months comes up with several offers up till the one on the table.

Status:
ACL demands arrears paid minus a rebate of £300K
sisu claim ACL have stalled and delayed and an agreement on the latest ACL offer should have been reached before the escrow account ran dry.

What would you - as a neutral mediator - suggest?
 
Last edited:

coundonskyblue

New Member
I actually think even sisu are amazed it has taken this long. When I first mentioned arbitration - or mediation - my only thought was to get the issue solved and avoid off-field disturbances like the sisu-out-campaign last season. But looking back - and judging only the negotiation tactics - I think sisu were clever enough holding this card till ACL finally got around to issue an ultimatum.

The real issue is not the rent figure - any mediator would quickly come up with a solution very close to what ACL have offered. It's the arrears that is dividing the parties. And I believe ACL will have a hard time convincing the arbitrator that the agreed rent (and the matchday profits) should not be backdated to when sisu started the rent boycot.

Put on your neutral spectacles and consider this chain of events:
- sisu ask ACL to reduce the rent
- ACL declines
- sisu says the rent is exorbitant and effectively killing the club
- ACL declines negotiation
- sisu stop paying to the escrow account
(you know the history)
- finally ACL agrees the rent is too high and over several months comes up with several offers up till the one on the table.

Status:
ACL demands arrears paid minus a rebate of £300K
sisu claim ACL have stalled and delayed and an agreement on the latest ACL offer should have been reached before the escrow account ran dry.

What would you - as a neutral mediator - suggest?

The sticking point seemed to be the £1.3m arrears.

Would it not be fair to meet halfway and Sisu agrees to pay 50%?
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
If you looked up the definitions of mediation & arbritation you'll find they have a lot of similarities but the main difference is that
  • mediation is advisory where the parties continue to negotiate and the mediator assists
  • arbritation is a binding agreement the results of which are decided by the arbritator.
So I think you'll find TF is choosing his words very carefully.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
If you looked up the definitions of mediation & arbritation you'll find they have a lot of similarities but the main difference is that
  • mediation is advisory where the parties continue to negotiate and the mediator assists
  • arbritation is a binding agreement the results of which are decided by the arbritator.
So I think you'll find TF is choosing his words very carefully.

I would have suggested mediation in his shoes - and if ACL then says arbitration I would accept within 15 nanoseconds.
 

grego_gee

New Member
No, if the agreed new rent is 33% of the old rent of 1.2m, why would more than 33%of the arrears be fair?
:pimp:

I would have suggested mediation in his shoes - and if ACL then says arbitration I would accept within 15 nanoseconds.

I don't think Acl have suggested arb or mediation. They just want to sue for their pound of flesh. They are not concerned if it kills us!

:pimp:
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
The sticking point seemed to be the £1.3m arrears.

Would it not be fair to meet halfway and Sisu agrees to pay 50%?

Let us not forget that when it comes to the legal position, both parties have been to independent arbitration, this being known as a court. SISU didn't even bother to turn up.

I agree, someone like Deliotte would be good. But why the idea now? Why not ahead of stopping payments? Why not ahead of looking at Rushden & Diamonds or Hinckley, or agreeing heads of terms and reneging? Why not ahead of trying to distress ACL? Why not instead of this Disneyesque £30m stadium in Rugby?

As all these tactics have done is to defer agreement, and as NO rent us being paid, increases the size if the arrears and compound the problem
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
To be fair though if you want stadium sponsorship rights you buy the stadium that isn't a reasonable request.

I agree that the full rights to all revenue streams from the arena should only come from purchasing the arena. This is why the Council position that the arena (and with it the rights to all the income streams) is not for sale to any buyer, is to the detriment of CCFC as it may deter any other potential investors in the football club.
In the meantime the half way house that SISU is seeking to reach an agreement on, is a distribution of revenue based on what each party (ACL/CCFC) contributes to generating the revenue streams that flow through the Arena, and as i have already said it is clear that beyond match day revenues, the brand of CCCFC adds significant value to such things as advertising and naming rights at the stadium.
 

Noggin

New Member
while it's true that without the football club the nameing rights are likely worth alot less, giveing them up is likely to mean the equivalent of reducing the rent to nothing.
 

CCFC_GT

New Member
while it's true that without the football club the nameing rights are likely worth alot less, giveing them up is likely to mean the equivalent of reducing the rent to nothing.

Not sure what it means value wise to be honest, which is why mediation would be a good thing if it can be done.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
Mediation, as used in law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes between two or more parties with concrete effects. Typically, a third party, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a variety of domains, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.
The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks. The process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. Participation is typically voluntary. The mediator acts as a neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process.
Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much depends on the mediator's skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs, certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, professional mediators committed to the discipline.
The benefits of mediation[1] include:
  • Cost—While a mediator may charge a fee comparable to that of an attorney, the mediation process generally takes much less time than moving a case through standard legal channels. While a case in the hands of a lawyer or a court may take months or years to resolve, mediation usually achieves a resolution in a matter of hours. Taking less time means expending less money on hourly fees and costs.
  • Confidentiality—While court hearings are public, mediation remains strictly confidential. No one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator(s) know what happened. Confidentiality in mediation has such importance that in most cases the legal system cannot force a mediator to testify in court as to the content or progress of mediation. Many mediators destroy their notes taken during a mediation once that mediation has finished. The only exceptions to such strict confidentiality usually involve child abuse or actual or threatened criminal acts.
  • Control—Mediation increases the control the parties have over the resolution. In a court case, the parties obtain a resolution, but control resides with the judge or jury. Often, a judge or jury cannot legally provide solutions that emerge in mediation. Thus, mediation is more likely to produce a result that is mutually agreeable for the parties.
  • Compliance—Because the result is attained by the parties working together and is mutually agreeable, compliance with the mediated agreement is usually high. This further reduces costs, because the parties do not have to employ an attorney to force compliance with the agreement. The mediated agreement is, however, fully enforceable in a court of law.
  • Mutuality—Parties to a mediation are typically ready to work mutually toward a resolution. In most circumstances the mere fact that parties are willing to mediate means that they are ready to "move" their position. The parties thus are more amenable to understanding the other party's side and work on underlying issues to the dispute. This has the added benefit of often preserving the relationship the parties had before the dispute.
  • Support—Mediators are trained in working with difficult situations. The mediator acts as a neutral facilitator and guides the parties through the process. The mediator helps the parties think "outside of the box" for possible solutions to the dispute, broadening the range of possible solutions.[2]

These are the problem areas of mediation. It would mean that we the fans would actually know even less about negotiations than we presently do. And it requires that parties are already on reasonable terms and ready to move their position. Whilst ACL have done this several times, SISU refuse to do so. I'd question whether Fisher really understands this given that he spoke about how there were people in their last meeting that "don't shake hands". If that's the case, mediation would be all but impossible.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
These are the problem areas of mediation. It would mean that we the fans would actually know even less about negotiations than we presently do. And it requires that parties are already on reasonable terms and ready to move their position. Whilst ACL have done this several times, SISU refuse to do so. I'd question whether Fisher really understands this given that he spoke about how there were people in their last meeting that "don't shake hands". If that's the case, mediation would be all but impossible.

Why are "fans" entitled to know anything? When we buy a new shirt to show who we support - do we show any interest or concern, or moralise about whether we're paying sufficient for the potential slave-labour used to produce the thing?
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
Why are "fans" entitled to know anything? When we buy a new shirt to show who we support - do we show any interest or concern, or moralise about whether we're paying sufficient for the potential slave-labour used to produce the thing?

Because it is our football club. No fans=no club. Plus transparency is generally better, y'know?!? Leads to accountability.

Moralising about the use of third world labour in the manufacture of kits is an issue that effects the clothing industry and everyone who wears clothes, not just the football industry! Bit of an odd thing to say..:confused:
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I don't think Acl have suggested arb or mediation. They just want to sue for their pound of flesh. They are not concerned if it kills us!
:pimp:

But ACL acting Chief Executive and other ACL officers have been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing football at the arena, they've also proposed a deal on the rent and F&B revenue, how does that square up with killing the club?

Its the other way round, SISU are trying to kill ACL, that is why they stopped paying rent.
 

coundonskyblue

New Member
Why are "fans" entitled to know anything? When we buy a new shirt to show who we support - do we show any interest or concern, or moralise about whether we're paying sufficient for the potential slave-labour used to produce the thing?

Wasn't that kit@ brand that made the shirts a few years ago based in Coventry?
 

grego_gee

New Member
But ACL acting Chief Executive and other ACL officers have been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing football at the arena, they've also proposed a deal on the rent and F&B revenue, how does that square up with killing the club?

Its the other way round, SISU are trying to kill ACL, that is why they stopped paying rent.

Oh that's ok then. If they've been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing at the Ricoh that's a contract! - good as shaking hands after a meeting! Don't know why I was worried!

:pimp:
 
Last edited:

CCFC_GT

New Member
But ACL acting Chief Executive and other ACL officers have been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing football at the arena, they've also proposed a deal on the rent and F&B revenue, how does that square up with killing the club?

Its the other way round, SISU are trying to kill ACL, that is why they stopped paying rent.

Whatever the rights and wrongs in the way SISU has gone about its business in taking on ACL over the whole rent/rates/revenue issue, and i am not seeking to defend them here, the deal that ACL has proposed doesn't offer any significant increase in revenue, which CCFC needs in order to build a better team under FFP rules, and which would better reflect what the CCFC brand and matchday activities contribute to the overall revenue stream of the Arena.
 

coundonskyblue

New Member
<p>
Whatever the rights and wrongs in the way SISU has gone about its business in taking on ACL over the whole rent/rates/revenue issue, and i am not seeking to defend them here, the deal that ACL has proposed doesn't offer any significant increase in revenue, which CCFC needs in order to build a better team under FFP rules, and which would better reflect what the CCFC brand and matchday activities contribute to the overall revenue stream of the Arena.

They've offered them matchday income. How much money would you like acl to give sisu?

Perhaps acl should go and take out a wonga.com loan at 125% interest and just give all that money to sisu?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Whatever the rights and wrongs in the way SISU has gone about its business in taking on ACL over the whole rent/rates/revenue issue, and i am not seeking to defend them here, the deal that ACL has proposed doesn't offer any significant increase in revenue, which CCFC needs in order to build a better team under FFP rules, and which would better reflect what the CCFC brand and matchday activities contribute to the overall revenue stream of the Arena.

Given SISU have made a truly awful job of running the club so far, and have behaved reprehensibly in their efforts to clamour for additional income; what confidence can you instill in me that they deserve a bigger train set to play with?

ACL have constructed a tidy little business, against a model agreed with CCFC's officers at the time. You now want them to give away income to support a company that's so far proven itself incapable of operating properly. Do you know that the club lost in its last set of accounts? Over £6m in one trading year. How can this be managed from a debt-free position?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top