Trust Statement - SISU's New Legal Action (1 Viewer)

[ashbyjan]

Club Explains Latest Legal Action

Yesterday CCFC released a statement about the latest legal move from the clubs owners SISU. Full statement from the club is here: http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/ccfc-statement-sisu-coventry-city-191214-2154793.aspx

This statement has caused a more consternation among fans about what this means, is it just yet more costly court action, will it ruin relationships with our new landlords, is it just sour grapes because they didn't get to buy the Ricoh, will it affect transfer dealings etc etc.

The Trust was in communication with Tim Fisher this morning to get clarity about this matter and he has reassured us that this is not a totally new action but more of a legal necessity concerning the existing JR appeal. The JR focused on the legality of the loan from the council to ACL in 2013 but this loan appears to have been cancelled and a new one established in 2014 as part of the deal that has resulted in Wasps buying ACL. This legal move is intended to ensure that just because the old loan no longer exists that the new one is regarded as a replacement and is thererfore now the focus of the action. He implied it was simply a necessary legal move to ensure the continuation of the JR appeal.

Tim Fisher also told us that Wasps had been informed of the move prior to it becoming public and that they understood it and the reasons behind it. He was at pains to reassure us that they had developed a very good working relationship with Wasps, were very happy with the new pitch, that Steven Pressley was absolutely delighted with the new dressing room and that they were looking at working closely with a fellow sporting organisation that understood the challenges of this type of business.

Overall the message was that this was not any sort of totally new action against the council or Wasps but more of a technical legal move to cover the fact of the rearranged loan and ensure that the JR appeal was still legally valid.

 

---

[ccfcway]

Tim Fisher also told us that Wasps had been informed of the move prior to it becoming public and that they understood it and the reasons behind it.

my company has just let some people go. We all "understood" the reasons behind it, but are not happy about it at all.

This does nothing whatsoever to cement a positive working relationship with our new landlords.

 

[skybluetony176]

Was the loan cancelled or were the terms just renegotiated?

 

[tisza]

See useful communication between the club and SBT is possible and sometimes constructive - despite what certain people may say! Well done both sides.

 

[ashbyjan]

As I understood from what he was saying was that they weren't sure themselves and this was intended to cover all eventualities.

 

[skybluetony176]

Plus if its a new loan whats the difference between this new loan and the loan NTFC have from Northampton council for their ground?

 

[ashbyjan]

What I gained from the conversation was a: this was nothing more than a legal technicality to keep the JR going b: they were developing a good working relationship with Wasps

 

[wingy]

What I gained from the conversation was a: this was nothing more than a legal technicality to keep the JR going b: they were developing a good working relationship with Wasps[/QUOTE

How does It protect the Clubs position as a tenant In Coventry, I fail to see It myself.

Didn't they suggest a one year deal ,subsequently two + two on our return .

That didn't appear to be securing our tenancy at the time did It.

 

[Nick]

Glad to see the Trust working with them

 

[skybluetony176]

What I gained from the conversation was a: this was nothing more than a legal technicality to keep the JR going b: they were developing a good working relationship with Wasps

A) I have absoulutley no idea if that stacks up or not.

B) I would hope so. But I fail to see how A cant impact on that in a negative way.


Sorry if it sounds like I'm shooting the messanger thats not the intention.

 

[chiefdave]

The Trust was in communication with Tim Fisher this morning to get clarity about this matter and he has reassured us that this is not a totally new action but more of a legal necessity concerning the existing JR appeal. The JR focused on the legality of the loan from the council to ACL in 2013 but this loan appears to have been cancelled and a new one established in 2014 as part of the deal that has resulted in Wasps buying ACL. This legal move is intended to ensure that just because the old loan no longer exists that the new one is regarded as a replacement and is thererfore now the focus of the action. He implied it was simply a necessary legal move to ensure the continuation of the JR appeal.

Do you know when in 2014, specifically was it was before we moved back? Does this mean that, as previously thought, nothing new can be introduced or does the change in the loan create a loophole for SISU to attempt to take advantage of?

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

The appeal of the existing JR is based upon the evidence which existed upto that time.

This seems to be a new action regarding the new loan which is in place and so it is a new case which may result in another Judicial Review regarding the new loan.

I want to see the best for owners and the club but believe that if SISU had only invested in buying the Ricoh rather than expensive litigation, administration and liquidation then it probably would have been cheaper and resulted in a club that would be looking forward to better things.

 

[Steve.B50]

my company has just let some people go. We all "understood" the reasons behind it, but are not happy about it at all.

This does nothing whatsoever to cement a positive working relationship with our new landlords.

The Wasps people are guests of CCFC Directors at today's game, so at least both parties are trying to work on a relationship.
Tim a Fisher openly wishes the Wasps all the best tomorrow.

 

[ashbyjan]

No probs Tony - my PERSONAL view is that this move would not have been unforseen by Wasps and they knew what they were taking on. I would rather that SISU gave up on the whole JR and just left us to get on with football related matters but I am encouraged that the club see the opportunity of working in cooperation with Wasps rather than the antagonistic relationship that existed with CCC and Higgs. I am sure this move won't have endeared them to Wasps but I think it will be viewed as a minor irritant rather than a deal breaker

 

[Sick Boy]

The Wasps people are guests of CCFC Directors at today's game, so at least both parties are trying to work on a relationship.
Tim a Fisher openly wishes the Wasps all the best tomorrow.

So what? The fans have been let down by the trust's apathetic stance on all of this.

 

[Ashdown]

Fisher confirms this Fisher confirms that Blah blah blah !! How do any genuine City fans sit in a room with that smug lying shit without wanting to dent his face ?
More smoke and mirrors bullshit, more distraction about the reduction of the City to a mid table League 1 side at best. They continually piss over everyone's chips and people go back with their hands out for more !

And...........of course Wasps are going to be polite over this crap, it's called cold professionalism !

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

No probs Tony - my PERSONAL view is that this move would not have been unforseen by Wasps and they knew what they were taking on. I would rather that SISU gave up on the whole JR and just left us to get on with football related matters but I am encouraged that the club see the opportunity of working in cooperation with Wasps rather than the antagonistic relationship that existed with CCC and Higgs. I am sure this move won't have endeared them to Wasps but I think it will be viewed as a minor irritant rather than a deal breaker

I agree with this view.
I think Wasps/CCC/Higgs would have made made sure that agreements were water tight as they would expect litigation. Disappointed to see Fisher is portraying this as a minor legal matter, probably so as not to cause another NOPM campaign.
CCFC owners should just concentrate on growing the business rather than continuing with court actions.

 

[Block19]

Maybe SISU can work with the Wasps better as they are both commercial ventures run with offshore companys. The only difference being that wasps have a little better Marketing department.
Or is it wishful thinking

 

[lamtara2006]

The appeal of the existing JR is based upon the evidence which existed upto that time.

This seems to be a new action regarding the new loan which is in place and so it is a new case which may result in another Judicial Review regarding the new loan.

My view also. The Appeal is based on whether Mr Justice Hickinbottom made a correct decision on the facts of the case presented to him in the Judicial Review, any change of circumstances since that date is irrelevant.

This smacks of Sisu wanting a second bite of the cherry based upon the revised loan arrangements. Yet another example of 'mis-speaking' by Tim on behalf of Sisu in my opinion.

 

[italiahorse]

Club Explains Latest Legal Action

Yesterday CCFC released a statement about the latest legal move from the clubs owners SISU. Full statement from the club is here: http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/ccfc-statement-sisu-coventry-city-191214-2154793.aspx

This statement has caused a more consternation among fans about what this means, is it just yet more costly court action, will it ruin relationships with our new landlords, is it just sour grapes because they didn't get to buy the Ricoh, will it affect transfer dealings etc etc.

The Trust was in communication with Tim Fisher this morning to get clarity about this matter and he has reassured us that this is not a totally new action but more of a legal necessity concerning the existing JR appeal. The JR focused on the legality of the loan from the council to ACL in 2013 but this loan appears to have been cancelled and a new one established in 2014 as part of the deal that has resulted in Wasps buying ACL. This legal move is intended to ensure that just because the old loan no longer exists that the new one is regarded as a replacement and is thererfore now the focus of the action. He implied it was simply a necessary legal move to ensure the continuation of the JR appeal.

Tim Fisher also told us that Wasps had been informed of the move prior to it becoming public and that they understood it and the reasons behind it. He was at pains to reassure us that they had developed a very good working relationship with Wasps, were very happy with the new pitch, that Steven Pressley was absolutely delighted with the new dressing room and that they were looking at working closely with a fellow sporting organisation that understood the challenges of this type of business.

Overall the message was that this was not any sort of totally new action against the council or Wasps but more of a technical legal move to cover the fact of the rearranged loan and ensure that the JR appeal was still legally valid.

So basically he's told you nothing !!!

 

[Vedere]

What eventualities are there?

They keep saying they'll build a new ground. Why fight over a ground they moved away from, where they refused to pay rent?

How do the trust's members feel about this?

 

[italiahorse]

Fisher confirms this Fisher confirms that Blah blah blah !! How do any genuine City fans sit in a room with that smug lying shit without wanting to dent his face ?
More smoke and mirrors bullshit, more distraction about the reduction of the City to a mid table League 1 side at best. They continually piss over everyone's chips and people go back with their hands out for more !

And...........of course Wasps are going to be polite over this crap, it's called cold professionalism !

.... IMHO Wasps will just run down the CCFC lease.

 

[Vedere]

The Wasps people are guests of CCFC Directors at today's game, so at least both parties are trying to work on a relationship.
Tim a Fisher openly wishes the Wasps all the best tomorrow.

That's big of him. More hot air! I wonder which end it comes out of though.

 

[ccfcway]

The Wasps people are guests of CCFC Directors at today's game, so at least both parties are trying to work on a relationship.
Tim a Fisher openly wishes the Wasps all the best tomorrow.

openly wishes them all the best tomorrow, the day after signing court proceedings to challenge the loan attributed to their stadium.

 

[albatross]

This is not about the RICOH its solely abut SISU seeking a cash settlement from CCC.

“We believe that some of the decisions the council has made were not taken in the best interests of Coventry taxpayers and had a seriously damaging effect on the club.
“Commercially, it is the right thing to do and is necessary to protect the club’s position as a tenant in Coventry.”

So to any supporters of SISUs actions and those delusional posts about them getting the RICOH hang your heads in shame and please consider the 1,000 people that are to lose their jobs due to council cut back, the closure of the school kitchens, the reduction of lollypop ladies of school crossings , library closures and the community care cuts a that see our old people left isolated with those that care for them put under unbearable pressure on very low wages and impossible working conditions.



That is the money that they are after.



Is football that important.....

I am off to CRFC this afternoon and will not return to CCFC until SISU have been sent packing

 

[Ian1779]

So to any supporters of SISUs actions and those delusional posts about them getting the RICOH hang your heads in shame and please consider the 1,000 people that are to lose their jobs due to council cut back, the closure of the school kitchens, the reduction of lollypop ladies of school crossings , library closures and the community care cuts a that see our old people left isolated with those that care for them put under unbearable pressure on very low wages and impossible working conditions.



That is the money that they are after.



Is football that important.....

I am off to CRFC this afternoon and will not return to CCFC until SISU have been sent packing

You are just as delusional by blaming SISU for the failings of the incompetent local council. Even if you take the Ricoh scenario away completely the council has shown itself for the inept organisation that it is and has been for several years.

The people that should be hanging their heads are those in local governement, who are more concerned in protecting their own interests than those of the people they serve.

 

[Ian1779]

openly wishes them all the best tomorrow, the day after signing court proceedings to challenge the loan attributed to their stadium.

It's not actually their loan though is it... they are just responsible for it's service. In the unlikely event that SISU were successful it's not going to affect Wasps one iota.

 

[oldskyblue58]

You see for me the statement from the club, the articles in the CT or Observer, the conference call by fisher raise questions not least of which is the subtle differences between them that seem to contradict.

The starting point that must be remembered is that the decision maker for SISU, CCFC and ARVO is one person. It is not Fisher or Waggott. It is and always has been Joy Seppala. In theory every decision for each entity should be viewed from the perspective of that entity, that might in theory mean a decision made for CCFC is not the best decision for SISU. JS is not a director of CCFC so in theory it can be said she doesnt make the decisions for them SW & TF do. The reality is that JS and no one else controls the purse strings at CCFC either through SISU or ARVO. So any decision that SISU makes regarding the investment project of course affects CCFC

we are told it has nothing to do with CCFC its the owners ..... but then SISU Capital issue a statement that includes this...
"This step has been taken as a precautionary measure to safeguard Coventry City FC’s position in relation to the outstanding legal appeal.". CCFC or Otium of course do not have their names on the JR documents or appeal the plaintiffs are ARVO, SBS&L and CCFC Holdings (now dissolved)

"Commercially, it is the right thing to do and is necessary to protect the club’s position as a tenant in Coventry." Commercially for who because as i understand it the club has a 2+2 year lease that safeguards its position as a tenant.

“It also ensures that all the outstanding legal action reaches its natural conclusion.” This is it really isnt it. If the loan has been repaid and a new one taken out then the claim and even the smallest chance of a pay day goes..... thats a payday for SBS&L and ARVO by the way because CCFC are not part of the original action.

My guess is that they are seeking to link the two loans if indeed there are a new and old loan from CCC, because if they dont its all over. There has been no change in the mortgage charge registered at Companies House so it appears that CCC's security is the same. The Observer article says there are new terms, the loan is now over 20 not 40 years for example - so legally does that constitute a new loan? I suspect part of the High Court case will hinge on whether the two loans are actually connected.

Is the High Court action merely an attempt to link the two because unless they are SISU lose any claim. So is there really a link to the JR claim? This does appear to me to be a new action if the loan agreed at 07/10 is viewed as a totally new loan.

I do not buy in to for one second that it is some altruistic action on behalf of the Coventry taxpayer - sorry but i find that thought total guff

I assume it is only challenging CCC or have AEHC been joined in to the action? Who has actually brought the action? SISU? if they did then it cant be linked to the JR as such because they are not plaintiffs. The Coventry Observer said this

It is understood papers were being served today at the High Court Queen's Bench division of the administrative court, separate to the Court of Appeal which would hear Sisu's judicial review appeal. Does that make it a separate action then not part of the JR? It isnt SISU's judicial review or appeal though?

Also is SISU Capital parent company - I thought they were agents for the funds involved. Certainly SISU have never been disclosed as the ultimate parent entity in any accounts I have seen

You would have to assume that CCC, AEHC and Wasps took a great deal of legal advice about the whole mechanics of this to ensure it was water tight.

This new action could simply be dismissed when it is heard before a Judge. That would be the time to really worry about the future of CCFC......

Makes good PR to cosy up to Wasps doesnt it ....... kind of deflects things and says no look somewhere else..... every time SISU or TF have used such tactics before they have been up to something somewhere else...

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

Makes good PR to cosy up to Wasps doesnt it ....... kind of deflects things and says no look somewhere else..... every time SISU or TF have used such tactics before they have been up to something somewhere else...

I think this is a very good point, this could be another smokescreen, what is really happening and will it come out in January?

 

[sotonskyblue]

"All done in the best possible taste"--yeah right!!

You see for me the statement from the club, the articles in the CT or Observer, the conference call by fisher raise questions not least of which is the subtle differences between them that seem to contradict.

The starting point that must be remembered is that the decision maker for SISU, CCFC and ARVO is one person. It is not Fisher or Waggott. It is and always has been Joy Seppala. In theory every decision for each entity should be viewed from the perspective of that entity, that might in theory mean a decision made for CCFC is not the best decision for SISU. JS is not a director of CCFC so in theory it can be said she doesnt make the decisions for them SW & TF do. The reality is that JS and no one else controls the purse strings at CCFC either through SISU or ARVO. So any decision that SISU makes regarding the investment project of course affects CCFC

we are told it has nothing to do with CCFC its the owners ..... but then SISU Capital issue a statement that includes this...
"This step has been taken as a precautionary measure to safeguard Coventry City FC’s position in relation to the outstanding legal appeal.". CCFC or Otium of course do not have their names on the JR documents or appeal the plaintiffs are ARVO, SBS&L and CCFC Holdings (now dissolved)

"Commercially, it is the right thing to do and is necessary to protect the club’s position as a tenant in Coventry." Commercially for who because as i understand it the club has a 2+2 year lease that safeguards its position as a tenant.

“It also ensures that all the outstanding legal action reaches its natural conclusion.” This is it really isnt it. If the loan has been repaid and a new one taken out then the claim and even the smallest chance of a pay day goes..... thats a payday for SBS&L and ARVO by the way because CCFC are not part of the original action.

My guess is that they are seeking to link the two loans if indeed there are a new and old loan from CCC, because if they dont its all over. There has been no change in the mortgage charge registered at Companies House so it appears that CCC's security is the same. The Observer article says there are new terms, the loan is now over 20 not 40 years for example - so legally does that constitute a new loan? I suspect part of the High Court case will hinge on whether the two loans are actually connected.

Is the High Court action merely an attempt to link the two because unless they are SISU lose any claim. So is there really a link to the JR claim? This does appear to me to be a new action if the loan agreed at 07/10 is viewed as a totally new loan.

I do not buy in to for one second that it is some altruistic action on behalf of the Coventry taxpayer - sorry but i find that thought total guff

I assume it is only challenging CCC or have AEHC been joined in to the action? Who has actually brought the action? SISU? if they did then it cant be linked to the JR as such because they are not plaintiffs. The Coventry Observer said this

It is understood papers were being served today at the High Court Queen's Bench division of the administrative court, separate to the Court of Appeal which would hear Sisu's judicial review appeal. Does that make it a separate action then not part of the JR? It isnt SISU's judicial review or appeal though?

Also is SISU Capital parent company - I thought they were agents for the funds involved. Certainly SISU have never been disclosed as the ultimate parent entity in any accounts I have seen

You would have to assume that CCC, AEHC and Wasps took a great deal of legal advice about the whole mechanics of this to ensure it was water tight.

This new action could simply be dismissed when it is heard before a Judge. That would be the time to really worry about the future of CCFC......

Makes good PR to cosy up to Wasps doesnt it ....... kind of deflects things and says no look somewhere else..... every time SISU or TF have used such tactics before they have been up to something somewhere else...

Did anyone really think SISU would just meekly accept the decision by Higgs to sell their stake in the Ricoh to WASPS and move on. Not a cat in hells chance! It really is quite bewildering how they seem to think they can have "normal commercial relations" with other parties whilst at the same time instigating legal proceedings against same parties. Sorry OSB but your pertinent list of questions outlined recently will just be dumped in the trash can. SISU have no interest in football, CCFC or its fans they simply regard us as collateral damage in their pursuit of returns for their investors.