Not good News (13 Viewers)

shmmeee · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
Agreed. But how will it be viewed in 10 years time I wonder?

Very much depends how we come out of it.

If we're at the Ricoh, no revenues, paying say £150k a season, we'd still be paying for it in 10 years, make that 5 if we get revenues.

Of course, that ignores the question of if you blame our relegation on Joy taking the clubs eye off the ball, or whether we will go up or down or stay in L1.

And of course, whether the club still exists.

I'm sure it's exciting if you've got no affinity with the club. Just like watching someone playing Russian Roulette.

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
Very much depends how we come out of it.

If we're at the Ricoh, no revenues, paying say £150k a season, we'd still be paying for it in 10 years, make that 5 if we get revenues.

Of course, that ignores the question of if you blame our relegation on Joy taking the clubs eye off the ball, or whether we will go up or down or stay in L1.

And of course, whether the club still exists.

I'm sure it's exciting if you've got no affinity with the club. Just like watching someone playing Russian Roulette.

Of course there are many variables. But if we do return with revenues on a low rent and the possibility of (once the dust has settled) a leasehold or share in ACL, this whole period may be viewed rather differently with the benefit of hindsight.

skybluetony176 · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
Of course there are many variables. But if we do return with revenues on a low rent and the possibility of (once the dust has settled) a leasehold or share in ACL, this whole period may be viewed rather differently with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt it, the move to Suxfields is unforgivable because it's unnecessary. If the scenario you state is the net outcome of the move all it does is demonstrate SISU's incompetence and inability to do a business deal within the confines of standard business practice while not pissing of your customers in the process. In a strange sort of way they stand more chance of being vindicated if they actually do build us a new home (location dependant) that belongs to the club with full access to all revenues.

SIR ERNIE · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
Of course there are many variables. But if we do return with revenues on a low rent and the possibility of (once the dust has settled) a leasehold or share in ACL, this whole period may be viewed rather differently with the benefit of hindsight.

You think so?

This fan will always view 'this whole period' as an unnecessary, spiteful and deceitful action by the owners and deeply damaging to Coventry City Football Club.

Jack Griffin · Aug 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
Bit of a pyrrhic victory considering it cost them a bunch of fan goodwill, several million quid in lost revenue, the chance to own half of ACL, and arguably our Championship status.

They've lost so much good will, it is a terrible terrible miscalculation.

RegTheDonk · Aug 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
Bit of a pyrrhic victory considering it cost them a bunch of fan goodwill, several million quid in lost revenue, the chance to own half of ACL, and arguably our Championship status.

Yeah, must have money to burn the fools.

Re. the half share, was this the infamous "shook hands" deal that was poo pooed? If so, who broke it, was it the council veto or Joy being a greedy bitch? I should know but so much has happened since.

chiefdave · Aug 16, 2014

I don't really understand why they have done this. For me there are only two reasons for an appeal and neither apply:

1) they think they can win. seems no chance of this, not like they lost narrowly and can hope someone else looking at it will see it slightly differently.
2) distressing ACL. how? just on what SISU have had to pay them recently they have enough to see out any appeal.

So what's the point, it's certainly not a bargaining tool. If this gets as far as Europe this could rumble on for years. If they're building a new ground then get on with it and agree any temp deal to play at the Ricoh in the meantime - even of the old rental deal we'd be better off. If they aren't building a new ground come clean and start proper negotiations, being clear about what they want and make sure it's reasonable. If they have run out of ideas and don't know how to get back the money they've put in then walk away.

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
I don't really understand why they have done this. For me there are only two reasons for an appeal and neither apply:

1) they think they can win. seems no chance of this, not like they lost narrowly and can hope someone else looking at it will see it slightly differently.
2) distressing ACL. how? just on what SISU have had to pay them recently they have enough to see out any appeal.

So what's the point, it's certainly not a bargaining tool. If this gets as far as Europe this could rumble on for years. If they're building a new ground then get on with it and agree any temp deal to play at the Ricoh in the meantime - even of the old rental deal we'd be better off. If they aren't building a new ground come clean and start proper negotiations, being clear about what they want and make sure it's reasonable. If they have run out of ideas and don't know how to get back the money they've put in then walk away.

It seems that ACL do view it as significant, why else would they demand it be dropped?

James Smith · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
But is it an obstacle for talks? Gilbert doesn't think so. I don't really see how SISU can play anyone anymore. They are roundly despised, no one believes a word they say, about the new stadium or anything else. It certainly doesnt look like ACL will be folding anytime soon. What cards do they have left to play?

I think Simon is basing this on the fact that ACL have accepted a lower amount than was originally mooted. The problem is that the amount that they were to receive was to be decided by the FL and not something that they had any control over. So yes ACL will receive less than was originally reported, but they weren't in a position to dictate the amount that they would be satisfied with.

chiefdave · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
It seems that ACL do view it as significant, why else would they demand it be dropped?

That doesn't make it a bargaining tool. ACL are in the driving seat here, they appear to be doing just fine without the club and have just had a nice pile of cash from SISU. They are the ones in the position to dictate terms, they have what SISU need and they don't need SISU.

It would only be a bargaining tool if ACL were refusing talks altogether and SISU could say how about if we drop the appeal. ACL have been clear in their requirements for talks to take place. The appeal gives SISU no bargaining power whatsoever.

shmmeee · Aug 16, 2014

RegTheDonk said:
Yeah, must have money to burn the fools.

Re. the half share, was this the infamous "shook hands" deal that was poo pooed? If so, who broke it, was it the council veto or Joy being a greedy bitch? I should know but so much has happened since.

No, it was the option to buy the Higgs share that disappeared when we liquidated the company holding it.

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
That doesn't make it a bargaining tool. ACL are in the driving seat here, they appear to be doing just fine without the club and have just had a nice pile of cash from SISU. They are the ones in the position to dictate terms, they have what SISU need and they don't need SISU.

It would only be a bargaining tool if ACL were refusing talks altogether and SISU could say how about if we drop the appeal. ACL have been clear in their requirements for talks to take place. The appeal gives SISU no bargaining power whatsoever.

But talks could break down at any time, would you not keep that option if you were SISU?

chiefdave · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
But talks could break down at any time, would you not keep that option if you were SISU?

No, if I was SISU and I wanted to come back to the Ricoh, either temporarily or permanently, I would appreciate that I need to make some sort of gesture towards ACL given the way I have treated them over the last several years. The only thing I could do to show a change of attitude and attempt to draw a line over the mess of the last several years would be to drop the appeal. Do that and say lets put the past behind us and start from scratch and you might have a chance.

I just can't see how anyone can expect ACL to talk with, let alone agree a deal with, SISU while they are still actively trying to put them out of business.

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
No, if I was SISU and I wanted to come back to the Ricoh, either temporarily or permanently, I would appreciate that I need to make some sort of gesture towards ACL given the way I have treated them over the last several years. The only thing I could do to show a change of attitude and attempt to draw a line over the mess of the last several years would be to drop the appeal. Do that and say lets put the past behind us and start from scratch and you might have a chance.

I just can't see how anyone can expect ACL to talk with, let alone agree a deal with, SISU while they are still actively trying to put them out of business.

I do agree Chief, but business is business and any negotiator will tell you that you go to the table with every possible advantage, if only to have something to give up.

ccfcway · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
I do agree Chief, but business is business and any negotiator will tell you that you go to the table with every possible advantage, if only to have something to give up.

they wont give it up. No sense whatsoever in walking away now from the legal wranglings for SISU. They have comes too far.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
I do agree Chief, but business is business and any negotiator will tell you that you go to the table with every possible advantage, if only to have something to give up.

But if one of those 'advantages' brings with it a value in animosity that's potentially greater than the value of the advantage, then it's counter productive. Again, any negotiator will tell you this.

I really don't think they're trying to secure this as a chip to give away; they're wanting it as they desperately need to rule the ruling, and therefore the loan unlawful; and capitalise on the mayhem that would prevail should they force that to happen

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
But if one of those
'advantages' brings with it a value in animosity that's potentially greater than the value of the advantage, then it's counter productive. Again, any negotiator will tell you this.

I really don't think they're trying to secure this as a chip to give away; they're wanting it as they desperately need to rule the ruling, and therefore the loan unlawful; and capitalise on the mayhem that would prevail should they force that to happen

You think they still believe thats possible? And are prepared to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds to find out?

lapsed_skyblue · Aug 16, 2014

In a statement on 21 July (CET article) TF said that they were "ready to go" with a rental offer on The Ricoh. Their belief was that from OEG's point of view negotiations could commence as soon as the FL pronounced upon the payment amount to ACL.
I can only assume that this offer is ready in a similar way that the new stadium is ready.
If ACL had actually received this document - I don't count supposed leaks of the contents of their offer on this forum - surely they would commented?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
You think they still believe thats possible? And are prepared to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds to find out?

No, I don't. But I think - rather like with my diving simile above - they have to see it out now. If you look at it in percentage terms; they probably thought they'd smoke out ACL with their distressing tactics. A joint venture between the council and a charity - in their minds, I bet they were 70% certain of success; after the first JV hearing, maybe then 50%, then perhaps 30% at the second. Now it's got to be 5%. But it's 5% they have to hold onto. After all they cash they've thrown at it; they really have to

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No, I don't. But I think - rather like with my diving simile above - they have to see it out now. If you look at it in percentage terms; they probably thought they'd smoke out ACL with their distressing tactics. A joint venture between the council and a charity - in their minds, I bet they were 70% certain of success; after the first JV hearing, maybe then 50%, then perhaps 30% at the second. Now it's got to be 5%. But it's 5% they have to hold onto. After all they cash they've thrown at it; they really have to

Can't agree, makes no business sense and I'm sure their lawyers are telling them that. Would you bet 300k on a 1 in 20 chance? They'll drop it when/if they get the terms they want. ACL must feel confident it will fail but cannot be 100% sure and that's enough to make it leverage.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
Would you bet 300k on a 1 in 20 chance?

You might if your whole business ethos is high risk, high return.

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
You might if your whole business ethos is high risk, high return.

That's not just high risk, its suicidal.

WiganSkyBlue · Aug 16, 2014

This has all the hallmarks of going all the way to the European Court - and that can take years

duffer · Aug 16, 2014

Samo said:
I do agree Chief, but business is business and any negotiator will tell you that you go to the table with every possible advantage, if only to have something to give up.

I agree - but I think the point here is that it isn't really an advantage because it actually discourages the other side entering into negotiations, or at least gives them cover for doing so. ACL can now, quite rightly, say there's no deal to be done at the moment and we're not going to talk about one until SISU stop threatening our business.

Fwiw I negotiate a bit in business, as do more than a few others here I don't doubt. Not for multi-millions, I should add, but the basic principle is that you've at least agreed to negotiate before you start. At the moment this is holding even that agreement back, and from a PR point of view it's a disaster too. PR matters to both sides here because it can bring pressure to bear.

If I was being ultra-cynical, I'd say this might actually be a bit of an own goal. ACL, council-backed and presumably safe for the short-term, can watch SISU build mounting losses in the hope that either they see sense, or give up and sell to someone who does. What threat there is from the court case has been reduced from the absolute humping that SISU got last time around. So the pressure on them to do a deal that might not make them much financially, is actually reduced by SISU continuing the action.

SISU, in the meantime, have lost most of the goodwill they've so carefully tried to cultivate of late. And this to give them an "advantage" that they're almost certainly going to have to throw away before they can actually get to the negotiating stage.

Regardless, good negotiators in my experience, manage to come to a deal that suits everyone, and gain something out of it for their side. Sometimes you get more than you expect, and sometimes you get less than you really wanted, but if you fail to do a deal because you're being pointlessly boneheaded then that isn't good negotiation, it's stupidity (imho).

Samo · Aug 16, 2014

duffer said:
I agree - but I think the point here is that it isn't really an advantage because it actually discourages the other side entering into negotiations, or at least gives them cover for doing so. ACL can now, quite rightly, say there's no deal to be done at the moment and we're not going to talk about one until SISU stop threatening our business.

Fwiw I negotiate a bit in business, as do more than a few others here I don't doubt. Not for multi-millions, I should add, but the basic principle is that you've at least agreed to negotiate before you start. At the moment this is holding even that agreement back, and from a PR point of view it's a disaster too. PR matters to both sides here because it can bring pressure to bear.

If I was being ultra-cynical, I'd say this might actually be a bit of an own goal. ACL, council-backed and presumably safe for the short-term, can watch SISU build mounting losses in the hope that either they see sense, or give up and sell to someone who does. What threat there is from the court case has been reduced from the absolute humping that SISU got last time around. So the pressure on them to do a deal that might not make them much financially, is actually reduced by SISU continuing the action.

SISU, in the meantime, have lost most of the goodwill they've so carefully tried to cultivate of late. And this to give them an "advantage" that they're almost certainly going to have to throw away before they can actually get to the negotiating stage.

Regardless, good negotiators in my experience, manage to come to a deal that suits everyone, and gain something out of it for their side. Sometimes you get more than you expect, and sometimes you get less than you really wanted, but if you fail to do a deal because you're being pointlessly boneheaded then that isn't good negotiation, it's stupidity (imho).

And that is the worry with Joy isn't it.. she only seems to play hardball.

BackRoomRummermill · Aug 16, 2014

Do SISU have shareholders?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 16, 2014

BackRoomRummermill said:
Do SISU have shareholders?

The shareholders for SISU Capital Limited are shown as Wynacre Limited (majority shareholder), Joy Seppala, Dermot Coleman and Sisu Capital International Limited (shareholding percentage - approx. 70%, 20%, 7% and 3% receptively)

Wynacre Limited are registered to the Virgin Islands; so the trail goes very, very, very cold there. Could be anyone....

James Smith · Aug 16, 2014

duffer said:
If I was being ultra-cynical, I'd say this might actually be a bit of an own goal. ACL, council-backed and presumably safe for the short-term, can watch SISU build mounting losses in the hope that either they see sense, or give up and sell to someone who does. What threat there is from the court case has been reduced from the absolute humping that SISU got last time around.

Did you mean thumping perchance?

BackRoomRummermill · Aug 16, 2014

The whole thing with the shareholders sounds like a worry , I don't want to say too much in case I get sued !

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Aug 16, 2014

BackRoomRummermill said:
The whole thing with the shareholders sounds like a worry , I don't want to say too much in case I get sued !

And they're the shareholders. They are (simply) fund managers, investing other people's cash. The fact we have no idea of who's investments they are, and what - if any - influences they may bring to bear is another layer of concern. Being frank, it would appear we have no idea of who wields power

BackRoomRummermill · Aug 16, 2014

They are playing with the club affair without any conscience

chiefdave · Aug 16, 2014

duffer said:
What threat there is from the court case has been reduced from the absolute humping that SISU got last time around.

I would say ACL see very little threat, think about what has to happen.

SISU have to win the right to appeal. They then have to have a verdict which is a complete turnaround from last time, we're not talking a slight change, they would basically be saying the last judge was clueless and got every detail totally wrong. Even if they did manage that, which I think most people would accept is highly unlikely, they then have to get, from SISU's point of view, a best case scenario in terms of what the judge orders to remedy the situation.

As was mentioned during the JR a win for SISU does not automatically mean the loan has to be repaid. Even if the loan was ordered to be repaid it doesn't automatically follow that SISU will have any chance of getting hold of the Ricoh. If ACLs business is doing OK then they will most likely be able to find a commercial lender by the time this gets to court again.

They seem to be resting everything on something that seems hugely unlikely to come off.

Jack Griffin · Aug 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The shareholders for SISU Capital Limited are shown as Wynacre Limited (majority shareholder), Joy Seppala, Dermot Coleman and Sisu Capital International Limited (shareholding percentage - approx. 70%, 20%, 7% and 3% receptively)

Wynacre Limited are registered to the Virgin Islands; so the trail goes very, very, very cold there. Could be anyone....

And what about ARVO?

skybluefred · Aug 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And they're the shareholders. They are (simply) fund managers, investing other people's cash. The fact we have no idea of who's investments they are, and what - if any - influences they may bring to bear is another layer of concern. Being frank, it would appear we have no idea of who wields power

The investments are mainly American University funds according to earlier reports.

Astute · Aug 17, 2014

Not even sure that SISU think that they have a chance of winning. It could be about costing CCC time and money. They won't always be getting the court costs back. And a lot of what SISU do to our club don't make a lot of sense to us. And the way I see it is the more they lose trying to get what they want the cheaper they need to get it. And this makes it even less likely to happen each time.

Not good News (13 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency