The Football League and SISU - justify (1 Viewer)

Voice_of_Reason · Dec 4, 2013

In view of the Football Leagues "reluctance" in allowing Otium to groundshare with Northampton "because there was no other alternative" it is now time for pressure to be put on the Football League to request that Otium now justify it's continuation to play in Northampton in view of ACL's latest offer via the Football League. We should (or a public figure should) request that the Football League insists that Otium provides a breakdown of in comparison between the two with facts and figures ! We already know that it would now be more profitable for Sky Blues to accept ACL's offer - we now have to convince the Football League ! Bob Ainsworth ? The Trust ? Nikki Sinclair ? Jim Cunningham ? The National Press ?

Nick · Dec 4, 2013

Yes, we need to know WHY the offer isn't accepted. Are there terms in there they don't agree with? Why can't they accept it this time?

Astute · Dec 4, 2013

They gave SISU up to 5 years. Would guess they would be scared of getting taken to court if they changed these terms. They need to grow a pair but will take the easy way out. This gives SISU another 4 1/2 years to grind CCC down and the same amount of time for us to play in Northampton.

Astute · Dec 4, 2013

Nick said:
Yes, we need to know WHY the offer isn't accepted. Are there terms in there they don't agree with? Why can't they accept it this time?

:facepalm:

Or are you pretending you don't know why Nick?

Kingokings204 · Dec 4, 2013

Apparently the offer isn't acceptable because of 320k matchday costs and obviously in Northampton its free. Easy really

Nick · Dec 4, 2013

Astute said:
:facepalm:

Or are you pretending you don't know why Nick?

No, I am asking for SISU to now explain why they turned it down so I can judge if it was a valid reason or not I guess. If it is because of high matchday costs, why do they think this is high?

Astute · Dec 4, 2013

Nick said:
No, I am asking for SISU to now explain why they turned it down so I can judge if it was a valid reason or not I guess. If it is because of high matchday costs, why do they think this is high?

They know that most of us are not thick enough to believe that one. The matchday costs for the rest of the season would be covered after the first two games at the Ricoh.

thegameaintstraight · Dec 4, 2013

Nick said:
Yes, we need to know WHY the offer isn't accepted. Are there terms in there they don't agree with? Why can't they accept it this time?

I may be able to help you here. They want the Ricoh for a pittance and the offer is not yet at that level. Unfortunately for us the it could take years if the Council continue to be dragged through the courts.

Kingokings204 · Dec 4, 2013

Astute said:
They know that most of us are not thick enough to believe that one. The matchday costs for the rest of the season would be covered after the first two games at the Ricoh.

Yes they would so it cant be high costs and they should come out and reveal what costs are at Northampton then? Cant be free.

Kingokings204 · Dec 4, 2013

They do indeed just want the Ricoh as cheap as possible and make a profit from it like hedgefunds do. This isn't that hard surely? The football club is being held as hostage. CCC/ACL should just tell CCFC to build their ground and in the media when asked just say that "they have moved on" CCFC would have no choice then surely?

Voice_of_Reason · Dec 4, 2013

Kingokings204 said:
They do indeed just want the Ricoh as cheap as possible and make a profit from it like hedgefunds do. This isn't that hard surely? The football club is being held as hostage. CCC/ACL should just tell CCFC to build their ground and in the media when asked just say that "they have moved on" CCFC would have no choice then surely?

You are going off topic here --- please read my posting re cost comparison and the Football League's ruling.

Sky Blue Dal · Dec 4, 2013

Kingokings204 said:
They do indeed just want the Ricoh as cheap as possible and make a profit from it like hedgefunds do. This isn't that hard surely? The football club is being held as hostage. CCC/ACL should just tell CCFC to build their ground and in the media when asked just say that "they have moved on" CCFC would have no choice then surely?

I know this is off topic but I must agree with you. CCC/ACL should just say to Otium to build there own stadium in Coventry you have our permission. Then we see for sure how serious Otium really are.

That's what I have been trying to get across.

Nick · Dec 4, 2013

Sky Blue Dal said:
I know this is off topic but I must agree with you. CCC/ACL should just say to Otium to build there own stadium in Coventry you have our permission. Then we see for sure how serious Otium really are.

That's what I have been trying to get across.

I agree, calling the bluff publicly with no hidden terms would put pressure on them.

Sky Blue Dal · Dec 4, 2013

Ok now is the time to see the Football League and Nikki Sinclair in action . Can't see Nikki being un-biased though. She find anything to have a political swing at one of the rival labour held councils.

stupot07 · Dec 4, 2013

The FL won't get involved in a commercial dispute. They won't force then back to Coventry, after agreeing to the groundshare in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Voice_of_Reason · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
The FL won't get involved in a commercial dispute. They won't force then back to Coventry, after agreeing to the groundshare in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The FL only agreed to the groundshare as "there was no alternative" - well now there is - and a cheaper one too !

stupot07 · Dec 4, 2013

Voice_of_Reason said:
The FL only agreed to the groundshare as "there was no alternative" - well now there is - and a cheaper one too !

But the alternative is part of an ongoing commercial dispute with the JR, etc. as much as I want ccfc back in Coventry, I'm not sure the FL can force them back whilst the dispute is ongoing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

skybluetony176 · Dec 4, 2013

Nick said:
Yes, we need to know WHY the offer isn't accepted. Are there terms in there they don't agree with? Why can't they accept it this time?

FFS Nick stop clutching at sh1tsu straws. they can do their spin on their own, they don't need your help.

jesus-wept · Dec 4, 2013

Sky Blue Dal said:
Ok now is the time to see the Football League and Nikki Sinclair in action . Can't see Nikki being un-biased though. She find anything to have a political swing at one of the rival labour held councils.

You are certainly correct there she can't seem to accept that the council stance is unanimous from both parties and not political. Her politics is so far to the right she cannot or will not accept that

skybluetony176 · Dec 4, 2013

Nick said:
No, I am asking for SISU to now explain why they turned it down so I can judge if it was a valid reason or not I guess. If it is because of high matchday costs, why do they think this is high?

again, FFS nick stop giving the only people who are stopping our team come home excuses on why they shouldn't.

skybluetony176 · Dec 4, 2013

the FL are running scared, they don't fancy the prospect of a sh1tsu JR

shmmeee · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
The FL won't get involved in a commercial dispute. They won't force then back to Coventry, after agreeing to the groundshare in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Surely if the justification for the groundshare is gone and there is no progress on a new ground as promised they have the power to step in? Otherwise, what's the point of them?

TheParsonsHose · Dec 4, 2013

I would like to see all of the terms of the agreement. All we seem to here is rent free but what if any strings were attached? If it was no strings then yep something should be forced...

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
But the alternative is part of an ongoing commercial dispute with the JR, etc. as much as I want ccfc back in Coventry, I'm not sure the FL can force them back whilst the dispute is ongoing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

In dispute with a landlord who wants to give them a rent free deal

skybluetony176 · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
The FL won't get involved in a commercial dispute. They won't force then back to Coventry, after agreeing to the groundshare in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

they got involved the minute they approved the ground share. the fact, they are not willing to stay involved is the issue.

Como · Dec 4, 2013

Presumably they would need to settle the current rent arrangement?

dongonzalos · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
The FL won't get involved in a commercial dispute. They won't force then back to Coventry, after agreeing to the groundshare in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

They are involved in a commercial dispute if they continue to sanction an unjustified ground share.

The reason for the sanctioning if the ground-share was they were told SISU and ACL could not agree a rent price.

Free?

stupot07 · Dec 4, 2013

shmmeee said:
Surely if the justification for the groundshare is gone and there is no progress on a new ground as promised they have the power to step in? Otherwise, what's the point of them?

It depends what timescales the FL agreed to...we don't know what they are, it could have been 3 months, it could have been 12 months.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

dongonzalos · Dec 4, 2013

dongonzalos said:
They are involved in a commercial dispute if they continue to sanction an unjustified ground share.

The reason for the sanctioning of the ground-share was they were told SISU and ACL could not agree a rent price.

Free?

stupot07 · Dec 4, 2013

dongonzalos said:
They are involved in a commercial dispute if they continue to sanction an unjustified ground share.

The reason for the sanctioning if the ground-share was they were told SISU and ACL could not agree a rent price.

Free?

They have sanctioned it within given timescales, they cannot force sisu to come back, unless they fail to meet those timescales. As much as I want us back, I can't see the FL doing anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Tonylinc · Dec 4, 2013

stupot07 said:
They have sanctioned it within given timescales, they cannot force sisu to come back, unless they fail to meet those timescales. As much as I want us back, I can't see the FL doing anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I agree but only because they are scarred shitless of them!

Skyblueweeman · Dec 4, 2013

Buying ridiculous Xmas jumper of eBay so can't be arsed to look but does any have the link for the FL statement when they originally agreed to the ground-share in Northampton?

Tonylinc · Dec 4, 2013

How did the jumper buying go?

Brighton Sky Blue · Dec 4, 2013

Voice_of_Reason said:
In view of the Football Leagues "reluctance" in allowing Otium to groundshare with Northampton "because there was no other alternative" it is now time for pressure to be put on the Football League to request that Otium now justify it's continuation to play in Northampton in view of ACL's latest offer via the Football League. We should (or a public figure should) request that the Football League insists that Otium provides a breakdown of in comparison between the two with facts and figures ! We already know that it would now be more profitable for Sky Blues to accept ACL's offer - we now have to convince the Football League ! Bob Ainsworth ? The Trust ? Nikki Sinclair ? Jim Cunningham ? The National Press ?

SISU are miles ahead of the League in litigation expertise and have a lot more energy and resources to devote to it-the FL accepted what happened because they knew there was no chance of outcompeting SISU in a courtroom. It is just not equipped to deal with anything beyond clubs lacking devious and/or rich owners.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 4, 2013

Skyblueweeman said:
Buying ridiculous Xmas jumper of eBay so can't be arsed to look but does any have the link for the FL statement when they originally agreed to the ground-share in Northampton?

http://www.football-league.co.uk/fo...board-statement-coventry-city_2293334_3231614

The Football League and SISU - justify (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency