Open Letter to Supporters (5 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

What's your point? Everybody knows that.

Otium isn't SISU. The same as Newcastle United Ltd isn't Mash Holdings Ltd.

And I bet you don't get Geordies trying to argue that it is.

 

---

[Nick]

Don't think so. Wasps would just come out and say we have an offer on the table for CCFC to take or leave. What they're actually saying is they won't even talk to us.

That's because Wasps want to pressure the football club. I really wouldn't be surprised if we hear rumours of takeover bids like we did last time to get some more pressure.

 

[chiefdave]

That’s shocking. So my council are happy to have no professional football club in the city. Bunch of muppets

Even if you take the emotion out of it and ignore it being a football club the fact that the local council will quite happily let a business that generates millions each year for the city just fold while they standby doing nothing in quite incredible.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Having something to do with isn't the same as being the same thing.

They are the owners with significant control, see the car analogy.

You didn't hit them - the car did. So the car should be responsible.

According to your car analogy, my interpretation is as you were in control of the car you are responsible. Therefore whoever is in control of CCFC is responsible. That would be Dave Boddy, but he is employed by the shareholders of CCFC (SISU/Otium) and so therefore he is controlled by them as he has to fulfil their wishes or he gets fired.

Legally, SISU and CCFC are not the same. Practically, CCFC are controlled by SISU. One of the amazing ruses capitalists have managed to wangle. Financial benefits - yep, we're in control. Accountability and responsibility - no, we're separate legal entities.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

That is a letter from Otium under the guise of CCFC. They (the owners) have tried very hard recently to create this separation between club and owners but that's not how it works.

Far too many people are looking on this from being a supporter. From that standpoint I understand the responses. But if you look at it from a neutral standpoint it's far more nuanced.

The letter talks about what was said in 2014 but the owners of this club have been told what to do if they want a deal - end litigation. If they don't - no deal. They've ignored that and continued. As far as I can see the future of this club has been put into jeopardy just as much (arguably more so) by the owners than the council/Wasps. They had a choice to make and they made it. The club's owners could secure the future of this club in two seconds flat - end the court case. Or they could continue the court case and sell the club so the two are actually separate. They haven't done either. They've made their bed and are now going to have to lie in it. The owners are relying on supporter fanaticism to overcome reason to put pressure on other parties - they keep on playing this trick and it looks like people are getting duped yet again.

If you reverse the position - CCFC owns stadium, another team rents the facilites but is suing the owners of CCFC. CCFC have said no deal unless no court case. Should CCFC do a deal to ensure the survival of the other club? Of course not - we should tell them to do one and if they go under tough shit. They were fully aware of the consequences.

Having said that it would be very nice to hear Wasps put a definitive deal on the table that can be signed as soon as that happened, setting out the terms/rent etc. But as far as I'm concerned if legal action is not dropped, no deal should be done. If one of your kids is naughty and you threaten them with no dinner/tv etc and then cave in, they'll just carry on being naughty because they know it's just empty threats. If you're going to make the threat you have to follow through. It's time someone played hardball.

It’s different when the council are saying they won’t act to secure the city’s football club of 130 odd years history that’s just insane.

 

[chiefdave]

I would like them to play at the Ricoh but I will follow them wherever in a total about turn from my attitude about Sixfields and I don't give a toss about Wasps or the council and I no longer am interested in how we got here.

I'm the same. Never went to Sixfields and didn't agree with anyone going but if we were to move next season I'd be there if at all possible.

 

[Nick]

You didn't hit them - the car did. So the car should be responsible.

According to your car analogy, my interpretation is as you were in control of the car you are responsible. Therefore whoever is in control of CCFC is responsible. That would be Dave Boddy, but he is employed by the shareholders of CCFC (SISU/Otium) and so therefore he is controlled by them as he has to fulfil their wishes or he gets fired.

Legally, SISU and CCFC are not the same. Practically, CCFC are controlled by SISU. One of the amazing ruses capitalists have managed to wangle. Financial benefits - yep, we're in control. Accountability and responsibility - no, we're separate legal entities.

Of course he isn't in control, SISU have "significant control" over it. He isn't the one instructing lawyers and dealing with them. Do you think if he walked out tomorrow the legal action would stop?

The car would have no say if I purposely drove into somebody. I would be the one behind the wheel.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

For a non CCFC supporter maybe.
But no City fan should be speaking like that. And to be fair, he probably isn't.

Go fuck yourself.

Just because I can see things beyond my own wants and desires doesn't not make me a fan - it makes me a rounded individual. Not a groupthink sheep with clouded judgement.

 

[Nick]

Go fuck yourself.

Just because I can see things beyond my own wants and desires doesn't not make me a fan - it makes me a rounded individual. Not a groupthink sheep with clouded judgement.

Incorrect judgement judging on the stuff you are posting in this thread.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But Otium isn’t SISU - it’s an investment vehicle holding the assets - namely the name “Coventry City FC” Otium just replaces CCFC Ltd

Isn’t Otium owned by Sky Blue Spirts and Leisure? Which in turn is owned by SISU

Remember nobody has said SISU and CCFC/Otium aren’t linked - were saying they’re not the same.

If Otium/CCFC go bust... SISU don’t. It’s more than likely just part of a portfolio of companies, so the disappearance of CCFC won’t be felt

Did you read what I wrote underneath it? I specifically say they aren't the same thing. I did company law and have done company secretarial duties for a number of companies. I'm fully aware of what is and isn't the same thing.

The point of the statement was it responded to them saying the golden share was awarded to CCFC. It wasn't. It was awarded to Otium.

 

[clint van damme]

Go fuck yourself.

Just because I can see things beyond my own wants and desires doesn't not make me a fan - it makes me a rounded individual. Not a groupthink sheep with clouded judgement.

You're a fucking prick who doesn't come across as a supporter at all.
When talking about your club you're not supposed to be a rounded individual, you're supposed to be emotive and passionate, especially when the club's future is at stake. Not sound like a solicitor for the council.
And as for sticking up for the mob that uprooted a rugby club and dumped it 80 miles away, There are no words.

 

[Nick]

Did you read what I wrote underneath it? I specifically say they aren't the same thing. I did company law and have done company secretarial duties for a number of companies. I'm fully aware of what is and isn't the same thing.

The point of the statement was it responded to them saying the golden share was awarded to CCFC. It wasn't. It was awarded to Otium.

If you did company law, you would know that CCFC is trading name of Otium, which still isn't SISU.

If you did company law the conversation wouldn't have gone:

That still doesn't say they are the same thing though does it?

What I don't get is why people would be so eager to make out that SISU is the same thing as CCFC?

Who was awarded the 'golden share'?

I think most on here could have told you without having to Google it.

It's moving from "SISU are CCFC" to "SISU are linked to CCFC". Of course they fucking are.

 

[rob9872]

I'm the same. Never went to Sixfields and didn't agree with anyone going but if we were to move next season I'd be there if at all possible.

I'd only go if they acknowledge it was temporary and there was a plan already in place to return to the City, whether that be a new stadium or a long term tenancy at the Ricoh that simply couldn't have been concluded in time, but if its a move that ultimately has no end game and remains in danger of either folding or being permanently relocated ala MK Dons, then not a chance I'd travel.

 

[Nick]

I'd only go if they acknowledge it was temporary and there was a plan already in place to return to the City, whether that be a new stadium or a long term tenancy at the Ricoh that simply couldn't have been concluded in time, but if its a move that ultimately has no end game and remains in danger of either folding or being permanently relocated ala MK Dons, then not a chance I'd travel.

If it was permanent I'd have to look at where it was. I wouldn't be fixated on an invisible line set by the council but then I wouldn't go to Sixfields if it was a permanent move.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Coventry City Football Club welcomed the Coventry Telegraph’s questions to all parties involved in the current impasse over an agreement for the Sky Blues future to play matches at the Ricoh Arena.

The Club believes that it is vital to engage all parties – regardless of whether they are public or private organisations – in order to come to a positive resolution. If the current position is not resolved and the football club has no stadium to fulfil its fixtures then the outcome will be inevitable and the impact on the local community of the loss of the football club will be devastating.

For clarity for supporters, we publish the full Coventry Telegraph article here:

Whilst we welcome both Coventry City Council and Wasps confirming publicly that the issue of not agreeing a deal is due to legal actions taken by the club ownership and not an issue with the club per se, we feel it is critical to point to the fact that the consequence of not reaching a resolution will be permanent and irreversible: The loss of our football club.

In considering whether there will be a future for Coventry City then the club feels duty bound to point to a passage from Coventry City Council’s minutes of Tuesday 7th October 2014 which states:

“The commitment that any deal relating to the Ricoh Arena would not be approved unless the following three tests were satisfied:

1. A good deal for the City
2. The security and future of Coventry City Football Club
3. The security and future of Coventry Rugby Club”

It was appropriate and correct for the leader of Coventry City Council to put forward these requirements at the time of selling the Ricoh Arena to Wasps. The Council’s covenant of commitment to Coventry City Football Club was designed to reassure fans. Indeed, the leader also subsequently stated on the same day:

“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club.”

The Council’s covenant was reiterated on the 8th October: “This deal would not have happened if it threatened the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club.” Once again, reassuring Sky Blues fans.

However, the future of Coventry City Football Club is now under threat.

At the time of announcing the deal with Wasps, the Council failed to minute or present to Coventry City fans, Coventrians and the media that the Council’s covenant to secure the future of the City’s then 131 year old football club would have an expiry date and time limit of just four years…

The council point to a ‘No deal’ outcome being a “direct consequence” of legal action by the football club owners.

What is being painted is a false choice – it does not have to be a case of the Owners dropping the legal action or there is no deal, and it is not a case of “cannot enter discussions”.



In previous years a deal has been achieved by the football club whilst the Owners pursued legal action and that CAN be the case again.

Regardless of the current situation between football club owners, stadium landlord and council, the Club would like to extend an offer to meet with the landlord and the Council with the intention to resolve the issue of the football club having nowhere to fulfil its fixtures from the beginning of next season.

The Club will engage in a constructive and positive manner – with the single aim of saving our football club. The Club entirely agrees with our landlord Wasps wanting to move the situation forward for the good of Coventry City, its supporters, the Ricoh Arena and the City as a whole. The club looks forward to continuing to work together, based on the excellent day-to-day operational relationship we already enjoy.

Equally, we extend an invitation to Coventry City Council to sit and hold constructive discussions to understand how the Council might help resolve the situation for the good of everyone involved. It would be an unmitigated disaster if the club was to fold and disappear in the very year that Coventry holds the title of being the City of Sport. We will work together with the Council to ensure that this does not happen.

The Club is ready to sit at the negotiating table – we want to do a deal. A deal that preserves the football club. It is now time for all parties to work together for the good of Coventry City Football Club, its supporters and our community.

Personally I think that is a good letter from the club. It clearly puts there case and illustrates how concerned the day to day operation is . One of the best statements I have seen from the club

It won't fall on deaf ears but I doubt it will change things. Certainly the support seems as split as ever no real consensus other than a growing sense of panic.

From what I understand the 4 year time period was what Sisu signed the club up to because that was what they wanted. Citing the fabled stadium build as to why which tied in with EFL requirements. That agreement is ending but can Ccfc hold its well being as everyone else's fault for ever more and demand the safety of the ricoh for ever more without properly committing to it fully long term? If EFL wants 10 year agreements why not that as an initial rental if the intention has always been to stay there. The reason being I suspect was SISU using our club as a tool in their strategy to gain the stadium for its investors, as it stands a high risk gamble coming home to roost on the one thing we all love .... ccfc

Sisu are emphatically not Ccfc and are not one and the same, never have been. Yes Sisu control otium which is for all intents and purposes the club. Ccfc is not a legal entity to the fans, it's emotional, it's memories, it's a belonging its cultural...... but none of that actually gets this settled because it is about legal entities. The basic fact is Ccfc is not a legal entity at all, it is a trading name of a legal entity ..... It doesn't even own the legal right to be called Ccfc!

Yes you can control a car and be personally responsible for a crash.... that's factual but only part right. A car is not a separate legal entity, it has no rights or liabilities in law the driver (controller) does.. A company however is a separate legal entity, it has standing, rights and liabilities in law . It can be under control of another but it is legally responsible for its actions or the actions of its employees or owners.. It is only a legal entity that can bring a legal action. The JR2 is a legal action. It is brought by otium which legally is the assets and liabilities ( tangible or otherwise) of Ccfc. That's the problem there is no legal distinction between the club and the legal entity otium..

Otium are one of the entities taken action against CCC and wasps. Morals emotions etc don't count it is as always the legals. Ccfc can not sign an agreement, otium can but it would need the involvement of the owner to approve.... I believe a land deal needs to be approved by company shareholders nowadays

Leaving aside the reliance on the 2014 statements (doubt they stand up contractually and never did) are wasps entitled to say enough of this? If we accept that legally Sisu are entitled take these actions, legally speaking are wasps not entitled to assess the situation to decide what is best for their business and say no talk until no legal. We as Ccfc fans don't like it but they are running their club or business not ours.

That's the thing in the statement. It is the prime responsibility of the owners, shareholders and directors to do what is best for the club, for otium and thereby ccfc. Think it is pretty clear to everyone that this is about what is best in their eyes for Sisu and its investors. Their actions are not about Ccfc or otium at all. Yes wasps have general duties around the well being of business partners...... but from their point of view and of others they can argue Sisu are damaging the club themselves.

But back to the statement. I like it. It shows leadership. It shows clear thought in setting the case out. It says we want to talk properly. It is professional. It is the start I wanted to see. Got to follow it up.

Wasps won't consider talks until march. They have no reason to from their point of view. But at least some pressure is being put on them.

Bloody awful mess really

 

[rob9872]

If it was permanent I'd have to look at where it was. I wouldn't be fixated on an invisible line set by the council but then I wouldn't go to Sixfields if it was a permanent move.

Yes - I've seen people saying that the Brandon site was not an option because it's not in the city boundaries. I think that's unrealistic with limited sites available and I'd be quite happy if we owned a stadium somewhere like there.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I'm the same. Never went to Sixfields and didn't agree with anyone going but if we were to move next season I'd be there if at all possible.

I wouldn’t and there wouldn’t be more than 1000 hardcore

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If you did company law, you would know that CCFC is trading name of Otium, which still isn't SISU.

If you did company law the conversation wouldn't have gone:





I think most on here could have told you without having to Google it.

It's moving from "SISU are CCFC" to "SISU are linked to CCFC". Of course they fucking are.

https://document-api-images-prod.s3...a9d23c7352c2e6c64b6667b424d73b7d1fbc1ddb3802e

So going back to the car analogy of who has control? There it is - in black and white.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I'd only go if they acknowledge it was temporary and there was a plan already in place to return to the City, whether that be a new stadium or a long term tenancy at the Ricoh that simply couldn't have been concluded in time, but if its a move that ultimately has no end game and remains in danger of either folding or being permanently relocated ala MK Dons, then not a chance I'd travel.

You are kidding. What would make you trust a word

 

[rob9872]

You are kidding. What would make you trust a word

It's not about trusting a word - I didn't trust them last time and still don't. I'm referring to an evidenced plan of intent that we have purchased land , submitted plans and ready to start building or of a binding long term lease agreement on the Ricoh that has been signed and showing only a temporary relocation.

 

[fernandopartridge]

https://document-api-images-prod.s3...a9d23c7352c2e6c64b6667b424d73b7d1fbc1ddb3802e

So going back to the car analogy of who has control? There it is - in black and white.

See mine and OSB's post you crank

 

[Nick]

https://document-api-images-prod.s3...a9d23c7352c2e6c64b6667b424d73b7d1fbc1ddb3802e

So going back to the car analogy of who has control? There it is - in black and white.

Ay? What's your point? I can't see the images but are you just figuring out companies house

 

[ccfctommy]

But in that case you're looking at the legal sense of what is or isn't Coventry City, not the spiritual which going by what you've posted is what you care about.

Aren't AFC Wimbledon now recognised as 1988 FA Cup winners?

No. Look at the honour page on their website. They cannot legally claim it.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Did you read what I wrote underneath it? I specifically say they aren't the same thing. I did company law and have done company secretarial duties for a number of companies. I'm fully aware of what is and isn't the same thing.

The point of the statement was it responded to them saying the golden share was awarded to CCFC. It wasn't. It was awarded to Otium.

Yes Otium are the investment vehicle for Coventry City. The original owner of the share was CCFC Ltd.

It was a transfer of assets which had to be clarified by the Football League - usually in Football Admin an example would CCFC Ltd would still exist if that makes sense and therefore retain the share

 

[clint van damme]

The thing about all this that seems to be escaping some people's notice is that sisu don't give a fuck about CCFC, about the city of Coventry or it's people. They don't care one iota what people think about them
Wasps do, or at least have to appear to. Their plan can't work without the goodwill of the people of Coventry.
That is why it needs to be made blatantly clear to them that any action they take which is detrimental to the football club will not go down well in the city.
That may be unfair, it may be letting sisu off the hook. I couldn't care to be honest as I hate the pair of them. All I want is for the football club to a) survive and b) have a future.

 

[ccfcway]

I wouldn't be a car if I drove it into somebody on the pavement. It would be me controlling the car..

Some would blame the council for the pot holes which you swerved to avoid or a wasp for landing on the empty car after the mess you left behind, others would blame your Parents as they own you

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Just a question to those who said they couldn't support a 'new' Coventry City if it went under - why do you support this club after Coventry City Football Club Ltd was liquidated and dissolved? Legally, Coventry City as you knew it went out of business at that point and somebody else just acquired the assets/liabilites (inc the history) and carried on. Because spiritually it's still the same thing.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Just a question to those who said they couldn't support a 'new' Coventry City if it went under - why do you support this club after Coventry City Football Club Ltd was liquidated and dissolved? Legally, Coventry City as you knew it went out of business at that point and somebody else just acquired the assets/liabilites (inc the history) and carried on. Because spiritually it's still the same thing.

It’s not and you know it’s not and we are not there yet. Pull together and support the club we have in their need for a new deal

 

[Nick]

Personally I think that is a good letter from the club. It clearly puts there case and illustrates how concerned the day to day operation is . One of the best statements I have seen from the club

It won't fall on deaf ears but I doubt it will change things. Certainly the support seems as split as ever no real consensus other than a growing sense of panic.

From what I understand the 4 year time period was what Sisu signed the club up to because that was what they wanted. Citing the fabled stadium build as to why which tied in with EFL requirements. That agreement is ending but can Ccfc hold its well being as everyone else's fault for ever more and demand the safety of the ricoh for ever more without properly committing to it fully long term? If EFL wants 10 year agreements why not that as an initial rental if the intention has always been to stay there. The reason being I suspect was SISU using our club as a tool in their strategy to gain the stadium for its investors, as it stands a high risk gamble coming home to roost on the one thing we all love .... ccfc

Sisu are emphatically not Ccfc and are not one and the same, never have been. Yes Sisu control otium which is for all intents and purposes the club. Ccfc is not a legal entity to the fans, it's emotional, it's memories, it's a belonging its cultural...... but none of that actually gets this settled because it is about legal entities. The basic fact is Ccfc is not a legal entity at all, it is a trading name of a legal entity ..... It doesn't even own the legal right to be called Ccfc!

Yes you can control a car and be personally responsible for a crash.... that's factual but only part right. A car is not a separate legal entity, it has no rights or liabilities in law the driver (controller) does.. A company however is a separate legal entity, it has standing, rights and liabilities in law . It can be under control of another but it is legally responsible for its actions or the actions of its employees or owners.. It is only a legal entity that can bring a legal action. The JR2 is a legal action. It is brought by otium which legally is the assets and liabilities ( tangible or otherwise) of Ccfc. That's the problem there is no legal distinction between the club and the legal entity otium..

Otium are one of the entities taken action against CCC and wasps. Morals emotions etc don't count it is as always the legals. Ccfc can not sign an agreement, otium can but it would need the involvement of the owner to approve.... I believe a land deal needs to be approved by company shareholders nowadays

Leaving aside the reliance on the 2014 statements (doubt they stand up contractually and never did) are wasps entitled to say enough of this? If we accept that legally Sisu are entitled take these actions, legally speaking are wasps not entitled to assess the situation to decide what is best for their business and say no talk until no legal. We as Ccfc fans don't like it but they are running their club not ours.

That's the thing in the statement. It is the prime responsibility of the owners, shareholders and directors to do what is best for the club, for otium. Think it is pretty clear to everyone that this is about what is best in their eyes for Sisu and its investors. Their actions are not about Ccfc or otium at all.

But back to the statement. I like it. It shows leadership. It shows clear thought in setting the case out. It says we want to talk properly. It is professional. It is the start I wanted to see. Got to follow it up.

Wasps won't consider talks until march. They have no reason to from their point of view. But at least some pressure is being put on them.

The point about the council conditions is that surely they are irrelevant, made up and just to appease and even mislead councillors at the time? If they really meant it there would be a clause in there to say ccfc should play there forever, rent set at a normal rent (so neither side could milk it).

Most people can see it's sisu driving the legal action, both wasps and the council know this full well and will no doubt have discussed it directly with the people who do it on the day to day basis. Just because they are saying it's otium they will know full well they have no say in it.

I saw a good point earlier, at what point can people blackmail into dropping legal action so openly? Is it because it isn't a criminal case they can?

I don't think anybody (bar maybe 1 or 2) would genuinely think that sisu are doing the best for the club. I don't think any party in this mess for years has.

 

[Nick]

Just a question to those who said they couldn't support a 'new' Coventry City if it went under - why do you support this club after Coventry City Football Club Ltd was liquidated and dissolved? Legally, Coventry City as you knew it went out of business at that point and somebody else just acquired the assets/liabilites (inc the history) and carried on. Because spiritually it's still the same thing.

Because it's still the same club? It's not an afc Wimbledon

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The thing about all this that seems to be escaping some people's notice is that sisu don't give a fuck about CCFC, about the city of Coventry or it's people. They don't care one iota what people think about them
Wasps do, or at least have to appear to. Their plan can't work without the goodwill of the people of Coventry.
That is why it needs to be made blatantly clear to them that any action they take which is detrimental to the football club will not go down well in the city.
That may be unfair, it may be letting sisu off the hook. I couldn't care to be honest as I hate the pair of them. All I want is for the football club to a) survive and b) have a future.

I agree with this. It is exactly the game I believe our owners are playing. They can rely on the partisan blinkered support of Coventry City fans due to the hsitory of the club and the fan base. Wasps can't, and they can't afford to lose any potential fans (or present ones who follow both Wasps and CCFC) by being part of a process that could see the football club fail.

It's like a robber taking their own kid hostage and threatening to shoot them unless you do want they want. If anything happens to the kid it'll be your fault for not meeting the demands, not theirs for actually shooting the kid.

 

[Nick]

I agree with this. It is exactly the game I believe our owners are playing. They can rely on the partisan blinkered support of Coventry City fans due to the hsitory of the club and the fan base. Wasps can't, and they can't afford to lose any potential fans (or present ones who follow both Wasps and CCFC) by being part of a process that could see the football club fail.

It's like a robber taking their own kid hostage and threatening to shoot them unless you do want they want. If anything happens to the kid it'll be your fault for not meeting the demands, not theirs for actually shooting the kid.

Apart from wasps would be shooting the child hostage target than the parent and joining in with digs

If they shoot sisu without the kid, fair play to them. I'd applaud it

You don't get armed police shooting the kid between the eyes thinking the parents would be damaged by it in that position.

 

[Grendel]

Some would blame the council for the pot holes which you swerved to avoid or a wasp for landing on the empty car after the mess you left behind, others would blame your Parents as they own you

Well done for your as ever excellent contribution to the discussion

 

[oldskyblue58]

The point about the council conditions is that surely they are irrelevant, made up and just to appease and even mislead councillors at the time? If they really meant it there would be a clause in there to say ccfc should play there forever, rent set at a normal rent (so neither side could milk it).

Most people can see it's sisu driving the legal action, both wasps and the council know this full well and will no doubt have discussed it directly with the people who do it on the day to day basis. Just because they are saying it's otium they will know full well they have no say in it.

I saw a good point earlier, at what point can people blackmail into dropping legal action so openly? Is it because it isn't a criminal case they can?

I don't think anybody (bar maybe 1 or 2) would genuinely think that sisu are doing the best for the club. I don't think any party in this mess for years has.

But there isn't such a clause. Probably would not have got past the lawyers and are uwe sure that Sisu would have wanted it ? I certainly wouldn't recommend any client to sign a forever more agreement whatever side they were on.... the potential financial risks could be huge

"Blackmail" goes on all the time in business in different forms. As such the problem here is that any agreement ends next summer and Ccfc have no legal rights to be at the ricoh. Wasps can simply do nothing, say they made the position clear 12 months ago and wave goodbye. I doubt they contest Sisu right to legals but legally speaking they are not doing anything wrong in saying so long as legals continue they won't talk. Be perhaps more interesting if otium removed from the legals.

Yes they know Sisu are driving it but it is still the clubs legal entity on the court docs. They can properly and legally choose not to engage no matter who is driving it. It's their choice just as Sisu choice is to continue legals.

 

[Grendel]

Just a question to those who said they couldn't support a 'new' Coventry City if it went under - why do you support this club after Coventry City Football Club Ltd was liquidated and dissolved? Legally, Coventry City as you knew it went out of business at that point and somebody else just acquired the assets/liabilites (inc the history) and carried on. Because spiritually it's still the same thing.

Stop being a twat