observer article (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Bob Bones was as mad as a shoe. I'd rather read his insanity that this skewed diatribe from this Award Winning Journalist. I mean, is this an article in a paper purporting to offer a measured, and accurate spectrum of facts? Its so selective in its choice of 'facts' to suit the intended narrative of the author to make its publication in its current form frankly astonishing

I have no problem with most of it tbh, to claim journalists are neutral is as mad as anything Bob Bones ever came up with. I'd also have little issue, incidentally, with Simon Gilbert writing an overt 'I love the council' piece, in terms of his journalistic credibility or otherwise, anyway

It's just... GMK and Nii Lamptey show as a voice of authority?!? it kind of jars. Love GMK dearly but... not quite sure how it helps the case really! It's also a message board, it's a bunch of people who go and bicker and come up with top five crisps (can't beat Walkers Prawn & Cocktail btw)... it's not something you can use in a piece like that and expect to be taken seriously!

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 3, 2015

Honestly, wind the clock back before Judicial Review and it a resultant appeal. Different newspaper. Same hyperbole. Extravagant claims. None of which came to pass. The flavour of those articles was found to be so far out of kilter with the finding of the judges as to bring into question the competence of the author.

And now we're here again. Groundhog day....

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Honestly, wind the clock back before Judicial Review and it a resultant appeal. Different newspaper. Same hyperbole. Extravagant claims. None of which came to pass. The flavour of those articles was found to be so far out of kilter with the finding of the judges as to bring into question the competence of the author.

And now we're here again. Groundhog day....

I'd tend to agree the hyperbole (or rather, the unremitting hyperbole) does no favours either.

The frustrating thing is I'd be all for sides being held to account (they're not alone in local councils in making decisions behind closed doors, but the practice sits uncomfortbly with me in certain instances)... but not entirely sure this furthers the cause!

PUPPET SHOW
Spinal Tap

skybluetony176 · Feb 3, 2015

"The Wasps company's last accounts revealed £3.2million losses and £10million debt to a parent company in offshore low tax Malta.

Coventry City Council's Labour leaders, supported by Tory opponents, consistently claimed they would only invest taxpayer-supported loans in viable and sustainable companies, amid unprecedented cuts to council jobs and services. We were misleadingly told ACL was profitable."

Is this LR's way of saying that ACL shouldn't of been sold to the club in a month of Sundays? Because I would be delighted if our books looked that healthy.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 3, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
I have no problem with most of it tbh, to claim journalists are neutral is as mad as anything Bob Bones ever came up with. I'd also have little issue, incidentally, with Simon Gilbert writing an overt 'I love the council' piece, in terms of his journalistic credibility or otherwise, anyway

It's just... GMK and Nii Lamptey show as a voice of authority?!? it kind of jars. Love GMK dearly but... not quite sure how it helps the case really! It's also a message board, it's a bunch of people who go and bicker and come up with top five crisps (can't beat Walkers Prawn & Cocktail btw)... it's not something you can use in a piece like that and expect to be taken seriously!

The 'knowledgeable majority'. Well, that's not condescending or divisive/elitist, is it?

And: 'They also know the club laid the groundwork for private investment to build the Ricoh, and made ACL viable with extortionate £1.3million rent payments, until sky high rent was withheld in 2012 and talks over Ricoh ownership broke down.'

Extortionate? Sky high? Are these measured terms? And that's got to be the most myopic precis of the rent strike, whilst neatly sidestepping its judged motivation, I've ever heard.

Back to Bob Bones and pictures. Life seemed so much easier back then...

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Back to Bob Bones and pictures. Life seemed so much easier back then...

He'd have soon sorted them all out tbf. One pic of Lucas and Seppala in flagrante, being rogered by a massive six foot cock, and they'd have all been around the table and sorting a deal like nobody's business.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 3, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
He'd have soon sorted them all out tbf. One pic of Lucas and Seppala in flagrante, being rogered by a massive six foot cock, and they'd have all been around the table and sorting a deal like nobody's business.

The lack if this critical artwork sits right up there in significance with selling Highfield Road

Deleted member 5849 · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The 'knowledgeable majority'. Well, that's not condescending or divisive/elitist, is it?

Yeah true, I read it in more depth after I posted that

Of course such people are more knowledgeable but yes, not entirely sure what audience he's aiming at, implicitly suggesting some of his readership are immensely thick!

Perhaps I should rephrase, and suggest the general principle is fine, the execution of the call to arms anything but!

tisza · Feb 3, 2015

If The Observer wants to make some real breaking news then tell us who really owns the club? Who are SISU Capital investors and ARVO investors.[/QUOTE] their star reporter had. the opportunity to ask those questions of JS when he was at the CET but failed to deliver. it seems like the Observer is now the club's and owner's paper of choice.

Noggin · Feb 3, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yeah true, I read it in more depth after I posted that

Of course such people are more knowledgeable but yes, not entirely sure what audience he's aiming at, implicitly suggesting some of his readership are immensely thick!

Perhaps I should rephrase, and suggest the general principle is fine, the execution of the call to arms anything but!

Some of his readership are immensely thick, he spends half his time retweeting those same people

will am i · Feb 3, 2015

Samo said:
And 15 or 20 on here. Including me.

15-20 on her doesnt really back up his claims of mounting calls unfortunately. Im more interested in my football club tha political point scoring against what seems to have been a united council decision by Labour and Conservatives. The case against the council can and will be pursued in court by SISU. Id rather not waste my taxes on an unnecessary independent inquiry and a bit more energy on how are our owners going to improve our football club. Independent inquiry is nothing more than a sideshow to deflect attention from more important things like avoiding League 2

Terry Gibson's perm · Feb 3, 2015

People seem to throw these independent inquiries around all the time I am sure us tax payers waste a fortune on them and also people who keep bringing stupid court cases, maybe the writer of this article or his newspaper would like to fund the inquiry?

Samo · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The 'knowledgeable majority'. Well, that's not condescending or divisive/elitist, is it?

And: 'They also know the club laid the groundwork for private investment to build the Ricoh, and made ACL viable with extortionate £1.3million rent payments, until sky high rent was withheld in 2012 and talks over Ricoh ownership broke down.'

Extortionate? Sky high? Are these measured terms? And that's got to be the most myopic precis of the rent strike, whilst neatly sidestepping its judged motivation, I've ever heard.

Back to Bob Bones and pictures. Life seemed so much easier back then...

Condescending and elitist? Coming from you of all people? It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 3, 2015

Samo said:
Condescending and elitist? Coming from you of all people? It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.

I don't get paid to be measured or informative. That's the difference.

You think serf.

See what I did there?

Samo · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I don't get paid to be measured or informative. That's the difference.oh

You think serf.

See what I did there?

Oh deary me.

cloughie · Feb 3, 2015

Can't hep but notice but the inaccuracies of this statement and the bias

We have highlighted many misleading public claims by council leader Ann Lucas concerning the secretive deal, which saw £14million of council taxpayers' money tied up in the loss-making Ricoh

As always missing the point the loan has not come out of the Coventry people rates or services provided

Ian1779 · Feb 3, 2015

lapsed_skyblue said:
We didn't get an investigation into whether assets were transferred between CCFC and Holdings despite the supposedly involvement of an administrator. We didn't even get published accounts. Nobody seems to be calling for that now. This too will pass.

Seeing as it was ACL that rejected the CVA causing us a 10point deduction the onus was on them.

So either they did not pursue it.. in which case the deduction was done out of spite.... or they did pursue it, and it was all above board.

Danceswithhorses · Feb 3, 2015

Samo said:
Irrelevant. The stadium will be demolished before the lease is up. Effectively, they own the stadium.

Not at all irrelevant-legally they do not own the stadium.

fernandopartridge · Feb 3, 2015

cloughie said:
Can't hep but notice but the inaccuracies of this statement and the bias

We have highlighted many misleading public claims by council leader Ann Lucas concerning the secretive deal, which saw £14million of council taxpayers' money tied up in the loss-making Ricoh

As always missing the point the loan has not come out of the Coventry people rates or services provided

The council is cutting and has cut services. It had £14m in cash balances. It possibly could have retained any one of its cut services with £14m but chose instead to use it to prop up a stadium management company. True or false? If false please explain why.

Samo · Feb 3, 2015

Danceswithhorses said:
Not at all irrelevant-legally they do not own the stadium.

And that will have exactly what bearing?

tisza · Feb 3, 2015

Ian1779 said:
Seeing as it was ACL that rejected the CVA causing us a 10point deduction the onus was on them.

So either they did not pursue it.. in which case the deduction was done out of spite.... or they did pursue it, and it was all above board.

absolute tosh. it is up to the administrator to investigate company activities prior to the administration.
ACL had every right to ask where the money had gone since the last published set of accounts.
the nonsense is that the administrator still hasn't published his findings and continue to get paid large fees.

Ian1779 · Feb 3, 2015

tisza said:
absolute tosh. it is up to the administrator to investigate company activities prior to the administration.
ACL had every right to ask where the money had gone since the last published set of accounts.
the nonsense is that the administrator still hasn't published his findings and continue to get paid large fees.

An administrator has to work under legal framework. Any wrongdoing (which is what was intimated by ACL in their rationale for rejecting the CVA) would mean he would be putting his own livelihood at risk. To suggest such actions took place is a nonsense. There is a huge difference between what is illegal and something happening which people didn't like.

You say ACL had the right to ask where the monies went, and in the same breath you are saying it's not necessary to investigate the way the sale was conducted to Wasps... Can you even see the hypocrisy??

Rusty Trombone · Feb 3, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The council is cutting and has cut services. It had £14m in cash balances. It possibly could have retained any one of its cut services with £14m but chose instead to use it to prop up a stadium management company. True or false? If false please explain why.

At 31.3.14 the Council had £81m of usable reserves, so having another £14m is, I would suggest, unlikely to change any decisions around cutting services. It could be argued that the annual profit on the loan interest is helping to keep some services.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 3, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The council is cutting and has cut services. It had £14m in cash balances. It possibly could have retained any one of its cut services with £14m but chose instead to use it to prop up a stadium management company. True or false? If false please explain why.

Surely reserves cannot be used for operational budget needs? We've covered this one off before

tisza · Feb 3, 2015

Ian1779 said:
An administrator has to work under legal framework. Any wrongdoing (which is what was intimated by ACL in their rationale for rejecting the CVA) would mean he would be putting his own livelihood at risk. To suggest such actions took place is a nonsense. There is a huge difference between what is illegal and something happening which people didn't like.

You say ACL had the right to ask where the monies went, and in the same breath you are saying it's not necessary to investigate the way the sale was conducted to Wasps... Can you even see the hypocrisy??

again absolute tosh. nobody has mentioned anything illegal just for proper explanations of how and when assets were moved as those accounts were never published.
I'm confused as to where you think I've said it wasn't necessary to investigate the Wasps deal.
if you can be bothered to check I've always stated from day 1 that:
1. i don't see how people can take such definitive standpoints when no side has made full disclosure of their activities.
2. I've always called for proper investigations / explanations of all activities from all parties relating to the football club, its ownership, the council and ACL /Ricoh issues.

fernandopartridge · Feb 3, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Surely reserves cannot be used for operational budget needs? We've covered this one off before

Why not? It's only in the mixed up world of public finance and hundreds of budget holders and cost centres it can't! If it can be used for loaning money it can support a budget elsewhere surely. It isn't like a central government grant for a specific purpose which can only be used for that purpose.

tuousis · Feb 3, 2015

AndreasB said:
Fuck off Les Reid you creep. How sad is it to quote GMK and the Lamptey podcast as some sort of weird affirmation of your 1 man campaign. It's fucking pathetic and ranty and beneath anyone who likes to think they are a serious journalist.
Didn't buy it when you were anti sisu and don't buy it now.
Cant disagree with that post,well said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 4, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
Why not? It's only in the mixed up world of public finance and hundreds of budget holders and cost centres it can't! If it can be used for loaning money it can support a budget elsewhere surely. It isn't like a central government grant for a specific purpose which can only be used for that purpose.

I'm sure it's been covered that reserves can be used for investments with a view to return, ie bonds, or profit returning loans such as the ACL one; but can't be used to prop up a reduced operational budget. I'm certain that's been outed in recent times

dongonzalos · Feb 4, 2015

It's an interesting article leads to a few questions

"THE Coventry Observer today joins mounting calls for an independent inquiry into shadowy affairs which resulted in a council deal to sell the Sky Blues' football stadium to wasps"

Q1) Coventry have a fan base of potentially 30k that would be prepared to go to a match as seen by the Gills game . Other than the observer where are these mounting calls? Would you mind doing an informal Poll to see how many people want more public Money spent on such an inquiry.

"Amid high emotion, we share widespread concerns about debt and team failures under the football club's current owners Sisu, who say without a stadium they have nothing to sell with no obvious potential buyer on the horizon."

Q2) you share the concerns, it seems you may have journalist access to the owners/board. I apologise if I am wrong but I haven't seen an article from you analysing these debts and the future plans for the owners. An investigation into the progress of the new stadium and how the club are to finance it. If you share these concerns I think you will find these are the biggest current worries for the owners. Why are you not asking these vital questions.

"We have highlighted many misleading public claims by council leader Ann Lucas concerning the secretive deal, which saw £14million of council taxpayers' money tied up in the loss-making Ricoh firm Arena Coventry Limited, now 100 per owned by London Wasps Holdings Ltd."

Q3) I see the one point you have highlighted what are the 'many' others. The deal with SISU did not fail because SISU are in debt. So I fail to see the huge significance of the point?

"Professor of politics Andrew Russell is among many questioning why council leaders should be trusted now over their assurances the Wasps deal is good for the city's taxpayers and economy."

Q4) After the initial deal collapsed SISU have always maintained they are building a new stadium outside of Coventry. Have you asked the Professor how or why bringing a sports team into the stadium is not beneficial to Coventry? Have you asked the owners why they did not manage to buy ACL in a straight forward manner leading to Wasps coming in at the potential expense of CCFC?

"There is a wide groundswell of public resentment and despondency, as acknowledged by councillors in October, over the council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity's private Ricoh deal with Wasps, whatever some one-sided anti-Sisu campaigners claim."

Q5) There should be, but again where is the widespread resentment. Again why not do some research and show the resentment.

"What attempts were made at the council to shut down media challenge and the public's right to know, while a hired London PR firm sought to discredit ordinary fans who questioned the whole agenda?"

Q6) what attempts? Other than in this article where is there a claim of this nature? Can you give this claim some substance otherwise just making this point on its own is frustrating for us readers. You could make any allegation it needs some background or foundation surely?

"Their agenda does little to accommodate the clear views of the quieter majority who recognise all sides must carry responsibilty for what became an acrimonious and litigous dispute, and welcome the council being held to account."

Q7) I clearly see your attempts to hold the council to account. You say all sides must carry responsibility what attempts are you doing to hold the other parties to account?
I think you are in danger of been the exact opposite of the people you criticise and are just as bad.

"What is Coventry City Council prepared to do now to support the football club? Can it help identity land for a new stadium in Coventry for whoever owns the club? If not, why not support building a stadium just over the Coventry border?"

Q8) Completely agree also with your access to the club could you ask the club if such land if found within the Coventry border. Would they be will to put the fans first and build closer to home?

What could Wasps as borrowers of Coventry taxpayers' money - and the council as Ricoh freehold owners and lenders - do now to provide the football club with fair access to all revenues while it remains at the Ricoh?

Q9) Do you think you should ask our owners and wasps themselves this question. Also whilst you do could you ask them about closer working relationships and sharing facilities, advertising, marketing and staff.?

Q10) could you also ask about the club shop it seems a tad rich that we are dying as a club over access to revenues and people want the give the club money and the stock is not there to buy.

Q11) also could you ask what is the ultimate aim of the legal action and how will it eventually help the club? I think if people understand how it will help the club going forward they maybe more supportive of it. At the moment people see minimal investment and the pitch and millions spent in losing court cases. Rightly some wonder could that million be spent in the pitch to earn 5 million on promotion?

oldskyblue58 · Feb 4, 2015

Just seems to be a repeating again and yet again of the original article. Is the thought sticking in the public psyche? haven't found much evidence of it myself - most people are sick and tired of it all is what I have found, with a fair number moving on from it. See no evidence of a ground swell of high emotion to be honest.

There does seem to be two thrusts to the articles, firstly the challenge to CCC but also the challenge as to the actions of the Trust. I am not saying both should not be challenged in a reasoned reasonable and fair way.

I would like to know what went on certainly. Do I believe that CCC have done the best they can for the city? I think they believe they have I don't know myself only time will tell. Do I think that CCC have done the best for CCFC? I am sure they haven't but then again what exactly is their legal duty to do so? I am not comfortable with deals done by public bodies behind closed doors but come on in the real world that must happen often and in most if not all councils. Should they be held accountable - certainly, the first way you do that is at the ballot box surely?

Would an inquiry make a jot of difference other than to give a relatively small number of people something to analyse, opionate, argue about? What would the terms of reference be? Hasn't the original loan deal been covered by the original JR & appeals? Isn't the Wasps deal subject to a second JR application? Would an inquiry before the settlement of both of those cases be possible, likely, or be cost effective? Who would conduct such an inquiry, what powers to obtain evidence would they have, and who would pay for it? Would it be binding? What would be the options on the outcome? What are the outcomes looked for and by who? Why is it assumed that there is wrong doing when nothing is said it might be everything was above board? Are we to have an inquiry every time a councillor or politician says something and then months later has to back track? What was actually said in the council chamber (that's the important thing not press sound bites)?

That's just some of the questions isn't it.

What are the sources of Mr Reids information. With the greatest of respect to Nii Lamptey and GMK they do not carry much weight as sources and to be fair nor would I on here. As it stands you cant see that CCC, Lucas, West, Reeves, ACL, AEHC & trustees/officers, Wasps, Eastwood/Richardson etc are going to be falling over themselves to give him frank interviews can you?

As for some of the "facts" then you have to look at the context of said quotes/facts.

Take the Wasps "high risk of going bust" for instance. The official quote actually read about staying at Wycombe “Option 1 – Stay as we are, losing £3 million a year. Outcome – high risk of going bust.” OR “Option 2 – Stay where we are but cut the squad budget in half to survive financially. Outcome – high risk of being relegated.”

ACL is loss making. Well yes in 2 of the 8 years+ it has been operating. One of those when there was next to no stadium bowl usage and there were exceptional costs to account for. Ah but they would have made a bigger loss without the £961k lease appropriation each year except 1, well yes if you rewrite established accountancy rules (UK GAAP as established by the ICAEW/ACCA etc) to suit the argument that might be true. Except both 2007 and 2008 would be unaffected and 2009 accounts would have shown a profit of £9.8m and 2012 a small profit still

The Wasps structure is so secretive that the 2013 accounts for London Wasps Holdings limited give the following address where copies of the Moonstone Group accounts can be obtained Sardonyx, Triq Ghanj, Tuffieha, Mgarr, Malta. But relying on out dated 2013 accounts to prove a point about viability in a completely different set up is stretching a point isn't it. But surely that has to lead you ask how could CCFC be considered with the level of debt developed and retained by SISU (which seems to lack a business plan)

The poll by the Trust may have been flawed in some ways but the one thing they have done is to ask questions and get a mandate from its members. Sorry if you are a member and chose not to have your say then that doesn't actually mean the mandate is not there. To suggest the Trust are pursuing an agenda without support is wrong.

The stadium was built for CCFC. Well you could argue the stadium bowl was intended for CCFC certainly. But the exhibition halls etc that form over 50% of the building? The net cost of CCFC involvement in the project was 300k, and that could easily be said to be accounted for as interest paid on the loans they never actually paid off. You see CCFC might have contracted for costs but CCFC never actually paid it all off so the asset and the liabilities were transferred in to the project and CCFC played no further part (details are in the published accounts)

There are other "facts" I would debate or query. But do the "facts" being capable of reasonable challenge weaken or strengthen what is said in this challenge to CCC?

What is hoped to be achieved by this debate/challenge. We get to know the truth perhaps, we might learn a truth certainly but then what. I really do not see how the deal with Wasps can be set aside legally. The Charity would not be subject to such an inquiry and could sell its shares to who it wants. Wasps of course now hold the deciding shareholder and board votes.

Surely what we as fans want to know is how does it change things for CCFC - not CCC, not ARVO, not SISU, not Wasps. So far there has been no mention of how CCFC benefits so what is the purpose and result aimed for of such a process. Or is it just the admirable pursuit of the truth?:thinking about:

dongonzalos · Feb 4, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
Just seems to be a repeating again and yet again of the original article. Is the thought sticking in the public psyche? haven't found much evidence of it myself - most people are sick and tired of it all is what I have found, with a fair number moving on from it. See no evidence of a ground swell of high emotion to be honest.

There does seem to be two thrusts to the articles, firstly the challenge to CCC but also the challenge as to the actions of the Trust.

I would like to know what went on certainly. Do I believe that CCC have done the best they can for the city? I think they believe they have I don't know myself only time will tell. Do I think that CCC have done the best for CCFC? I am sure they haven't but then again what exactly is their legal duty to do so? I am not comfortable with deals done by public bodies behind closed doors but come on in the real world that must happen often and in most if not all councils. Should they be held accountable - certainly, the first way you do that is at the ballot box surely?

Would an inquiry make a jot of difference other than to give a relatively small number of people something to analyse, opionate, argue about? What would the terms of reference be? Hasn't the original loan deal been covered by the original JR & appeals? Isn't the Wasps deal subject to a second JR application? Would an inquiry before the settlement of both of those cases be likely, be cost effective? Who would conduct such an inquiry, what powers to obtain evidence would they have, and who would pay for it? Would it be binding? What would be the options on the outcome? What are the outcomes looked for and by who? Why is it assumed that there is wrong doing when nothing is said it might be everything was above board? Are we to have an inquiry every time a councillor or politician says something and then months later has to back track? What was actually said in the council chamber (that's the important thing not press sound bites)?

That's just some of the questions isn't it.

What are the sources of Mr Reids information. With the greatest of respect to Nii Lamptey and GMK they do not carry much weight as sources and to be fair nor would I on here. As it stands you cant see that CCC, Lucas, West, Reeves, ACL, AEHC & trustees/officers, Wasps, Eastwood/Richardson etc are going to be falling over themselves to give him frank interviews can you?

As for some of the "facts" then you have to look at the context of said quotes/facts.

Take the Wasps "high risk of going bust" for instance. The official quote actually read about staying at Wycombe “Option 1 – Stay as we are, losing £3 million a year. Outcome – high risk of going bust.” OR “Option 2 – Stay where we are but cut the squad budget in half to survive financially. Outcome – high risk of being relegated.”

ACL is loss making. Well yes in 2 of the 8 years+ it has been operating. One of those when there was next to no stadium bowl usage and there were exceptional costs to account for. Ah but they would have made a bigger loss without the £961k lease appropriation each year except 1, well yes if you rewrite established accountancy rules (UK GAAP as established by the ICAEW/ACCA etc) to suit the argument that might be true. Except both 2007 and 2008 would be unaffected and 2009 accounts would have shown a profit of £9.8m and 2012 a small profit still

The Wasps structure is so secretive that the 2013 accounts for London Wasps Holdings limited give the following address where copies of the Moonstone Group accounts can be obtained Sardonyx, Triq Ghanj, Tuffieha, Mgarr, Malta. But relying on out dated 2013 accounts to prove a point about viability in a completely different set up is stretching a point isn't it. But surely that has to lead you ask how could CCFC be considered with the level of debt developed and retained by SISU (which seems to lack a business plan)

The poll by the Trust may have been flawed in some ways but the one thing they have done is to ask questions and get a mandate from its members. Sorry if you are a member and chose not to have your say then that doesn't actually mean the mandate is not there. To suggest the Trust are pursuing an agenda without support is wrong.

The stadium was built for CCFC. Well you could argue the stadium bowl was intended for CCFC certainly. But the exhibition halls etc that form over 50% of the building? The net cost of CCFC involvement in the project was 300k, and that could easily be said to be accounted for as interest paid on the loans they never actually paid off. You CCFC might have contracted for costs but never actually paid it all off so the asset and the liabilities were transferred in to the project and CCFC played no further part (details are in the published accounts)

But what is hoped to be achieved by this debate. We get to know the truth perhaps, we might learn a truth certainly but then what. I really do not see how the deal with Wasps can be set aside legally. The Charity would not be subject to such an inquiry and could sell its shares to who it wants. Wasps of course now hold the deciding shareholder and board votes.

Surely what we as fans want to know is how does it change things for CCFC - not CCC, not ARVO, not SISU, not Wasps. So far there has been no mention of how CCFC benefits so what is the purpose and result aimed for of such a process

Last paragraph most important. Les if you are going to ask questions I want to know the club's plans for the future.
What is the aim of the legal action?
Where does the money come from for the legal action?
How do we get promoted from league one?
Where is the new stadium going to be built?
How does a the financial model work for the new stadium.
Can we work more with Wasps whilst we build it allowing us to cut costs and be better than we are.
When will we have stock in the shop again.
Can the shop return to the Ricoh?
Etc etc etc

JimmyHillsbeard · Feb 4, 2015

dongonzalos said:
It's an interesting article leads to a few questions

Q4) After the initial deal collapsed SISU have always maintained they are building a new stadium outside of Coventry. Have you asked the Professor how or why bringing a sports team into the stadium is not beneficial to Coventry?

Previous council assurances about the viability of ACL without the Football Club had been proven to be wrong. The Council denied actively misleading the public but said they information they had been given about ACL 'washing its face' was inaccurate. With their track record of failing to recognise wrong information when it was presented to them, surely it's right to ask how we can be sure that the council have been properly rigorous about economic benefit data this time around.

dongonzalos · Feb 4, 2015

JimmyHillsbeard said:
Previous council assurances about the viability of ACL without the Football Club had been proven to be wrong. The Council denied actively misleading the public but said they information they had been given about ACL 'washing its face' was inaccurate. With their track record of failing to recognise wrong information when it was presented to them, surely it's right to ask how we can be sure that the council have been properly rigorous about economic benefit data this time around.

Unless somehow 8000-27000 fans coming to the city every second week is going to lose money for the economy. How can it not economically benefit us?

dongonzalos · Feb 4, 2015

'When Wasps played a Heineken Cup match here in 2007, it brought about £6million into the local economy.'

I suppose this could be bull?

And this maybe wrong

Bucks economy millions of pounds a year.

Meanwhile, Claire Prosser, Policy Executive, Buckinghamshire Chamber of Commerce, said: “It’s unfortunate news for Wasps fans and the High Wycombe local business community that the club has decided to move to Coventry.

“Although it is understandable that the decision has been made for financial reasons, the biggest impact will be felt by the hospitality sector in the area, which has served visitors to Adams Park for 12 years. We hope that the rest of the community will support the businesses affected.”

I just can't see it myself though

oldskyblue58 · Feb 4, 2015

One other point

The Coventry Observer states that support for the inquiry has come from the SCG. Has it? When was that need to support discussed and approved? The Trust are members of the SCG are they not? Who confirmed that support?

observer article (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active 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

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency