Trust Statement (5 Viewers)

Well, it at least mentions the I-word.

It mentions the clause. That has to been seen as a positive

ccfctommy said:

It mentions the clause. That has to been seen as a positive

Click to expand...

It’s shocking

A baby step in the right direction I suppose.

They can fuck right off. I'm bored of the politics and the 'us versus them' narratives after all these years of arguments. Let's enjoy the football, keep the distractions to a minimum, and worry about it in the close season. It's not like the trust ever achieve anything other than dividing the fan base anyway.

Tommo1993 said:

A baby step in the right direction I suppose.

Click to expand...

No it’s not it’s deliberately imbalancing the statement in wasps favour its beyond pathetic

ccfctommy said:

It mentions the clause. That has to been seen as a positive

Click to expand...

They're still saying that SISU needs to drop the legals though - despite them promising to pursue no further legal action. Hardly much progress.

Grendel said:

No it’s not it’s deliberately imbalancing the statement in wasps favour its beyond pathetic

Click to expand...

In reference to the dreaded ‘Indemnity’ word, yeah it’s a short step in the right direction, for them anyway.

At least they mention the indemnity at last after loads of prompting. They do try and play it down though with their smarmy comment after.

However they should have made the legal stuff clearer as you know people will be demanding the legals against the council be dropped.

Wonder if this one will go out to the national papers?

Bad times that them mentioning half a story after weeks of prompting is seen as progress.

Tommo1993 said:

In reference to the dreaded ‘Indemnity’ word, yeah it’s a short step in the right direction, for them anyway.

Click to expand...

No as it caveats with whatever it means in brackets and removed brackets for it’s statement on the clubs owners. It’s pathetic

Is it possible for Coventry city council to recall the lease? Or not?

Flying Fokker said:

Is it possible for Coventry city council to recall the lease? Or not?

Click to expand...

No

I'm ok with it. Far from perfect, but we all need to find some common ground for our ultimate goal of returning to a stadium in the city with a long term sustainable deal. It's a decent start, let's not dismiss it out of hand.

Grendel said:

No

Click to expand...

Firing from the hip!
You may be wrong.

Flying Fokker said:

Firing from the hip!
You may be wrong.

Click to expand...

No the terms are clear - the lease only reverts back if the current owners go into administration

Grendel said:

No the terms are clear - the lease only reverts back if the current owners go into administration

Click to expand...

thanks for that.. just a thought. What happens if CCC loses the court case?


THE LANDLORD’S PROPOSAL FOR POSSESSION
Rather than proposing an assured periodic tenancy the landlord may seek to gain possession of the property. Whatever his grounds, or whether the tenant responds, the landlord will not be able to obtain possession without a court order.

The landlord must serve a notice, using Form 2, not more than 12 months or less than six months before the date for termination set out in the Form, which must not be before the date the lease ends, setting out in full the grounds which he or she consider justify possession.

If the tenant wishes to stay in the property they must respond to the landlord in writing, within two months from the date of the landlord’s notice. There is no special form for this. If the tenant does not respond they may lose their rights to remain in the property, or any rights they may have to buy the freehold or extend the lease.

• where the tenant has stated a wish to remain in the property, the landlord must apply to the court within two months of the date of the tenant’s response if he wishes to try and gain possession.
• where the tenant has not responded to the Form 2 notice, the landlord must apply to the court within four months of the date of the landlord’s notice.

If these time limits are not met, the landlord will not be able to proceed to obtain possession, though the landlord can begin the process again by serving another form 2.

There are a limited number of grounds on which the landlord may seek possession and these are specified in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 and Schedule 10 to the local Government and Housing 1989:

The landlord may only proceed on these grounds, must establish the facts and must also satisfy the court that it is reasonable to grant possession.

Please see the above Acts for full details of all of the grounds. Some examples of the grounds available are:

Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988

Ground 6: That the landlord who is seeking possession (or, if that landlord is a registered housing association or charitable trust, a superior landlord) intends to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of the dwelling, or to carry out substantial works to any of it, and that the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession.

Ground 9: That suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available when the order for possession takes effect. Certain proof is required and conditions need to be satisfied, as required by law, where this ground is used.

Ground 10: That rent lawfully due from the tenant is unpaid on the date on which the proceedings for possession are begun, and was in Arrears
What does this mean?Money that is owing by one party to another. This will usually be an amount owing by a leaseholder to a landlord which is payable under the lease, such as ground rent or a service charge.
" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(255, 74, 15); transition: background-color 0.3s, border-color 0.3s, color 0.3s, opacity 0.3s; border-bottom-width: 1px !important; border-bottom-style: dotted !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(14, 44, 79) !important;">arrears at the date of the service of the landlord’s notice to resume possession

Ground 11: Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.

Ground 12: Where any obligation of the tenancy (other than the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed.

Ground 13: That the condition of the property or any of the common parts has deteriorated owing to the neglect or default of the tenant or any other person residing in the property, and where caused by the person lodging with the tenant or a subtenant, the tenant has not taken such steps as they ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of the lodger or subtenant.

Ground 14: That the tenant or any other person residing in or visiting the property has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to others, or has been convicted of using the property (or allowing the property to be used) for immoral or illegal purposes, or of an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the property.

Schedule 10 to the local Government and Housing 1989:

Paragraph 5 (1)(b): The landlord is a public body and, for the purpose of redevelopment after the termination of the tenancy, proposes to demolish or reconstruct the whole of or a substantial part of the property relevant to the landlord’s function; and

Paragraph 5 (1)(c): That the premises, or part or part of them, are reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for themselves or any son or daughter over 18 years of age, or their own or their spouse’s farther or mother and, if the landlord is not the immediate landlord, that they will be at the specified date of termination.

The court cannot make an order for possession on the last ground where the landlord’s interest was purchased or created after 18 February 1966, or where the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question of whether other accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by making the order than by refusing to make it.

Where the court refuses to grant possession the landlord’s notice lapses and the lease continues until such time as further action is taken. The landlord may then serve a notice using Form 1, proposing an assured tenancy.

Similarly, the landlord may abandon his attempt to obtain possession and can withdraw his notice at any time by writing to the tenant and subsequently serve a Form 1 notice proposing an assured periodic tenancy. In this case there is also nothing to prevent the landlord from serving another Form 2 notice at a later date.

Whether the court refuses possession or the landlord withdraws his notice, there is a difference to the possible date for the termination of the lease.

Couldn’t bring themselves to use more aggressive terminology with Wasps could they? And they know full well that SISU already agreed to cease legals. Yet they continue to throw shade out there regarding it.

As regards to mentioning the indemnity? They had to really didn’t they? We forced their hand on that issue over the last few weeks. And of course now, they can say they have mentioned it, albeit rather lamely.

I reserve further comment until I see some direct action aimed at Wasps. But I won’t hold my breath.

You are talking about Rights of an individual landlord which is nothing to do with company law - there is a 250 year lease signed for gods sake by a registered limited company

usskyblue said:

Couldn’t bring themselves to use more aggressive terminology with Wasps could they? And they know full well that SISU already agreed to cease legals. Yet they continue to throw shade out there regarding it.

As regards to mentioning the indemnity? They had to really didn’t they? We forced their hand on that issue over the last few weeks. And of course now, they can say they have mentioned it, albeit rather lamely.

I reserve further comment until I see some direct action aimed at Wasps. But I won’t hold my breath.

Click to expand...

It’s pathetic

I’m not even sure it’s within SISU’s gift to withdraw the EU complaint so that part is probably an empty statement to make.

It most definitely is though within Wasps gift to withdraw the unreasonable indemnity clause. Not sure what else the trust has to say other than that. Surely.

skybluetony176 said:

I’m not even sure it’s within SISU’s gift to withdraw the EU complaint so that part is probably an empty statement to make.

It most definitely is though within Wasps gift to withdraw the unreasonable indemnity clause. Not sure what else the trust has to say other than that. Surely.

Click to expand...

well, id start by adding in a call to the council to confirm how many sites they have identified within the boundaries that they believe would have a very reasonable chance of being passed to build a new stadium on

ccfcway said:

well, id start by adding in a call to the council to confirm how many sites they have identified within the boundaries that they believe would have a very reasonable chance of being passed to build a new stadium on

Click to expand...

Bore off

New stadium plans. Jeez.

rob9872 said:

I'm ok with it. Far from perfect, but we all need to find some common ground for our ultimate goal of returning to a stadium in the city with a long term sustainable deal. It's a decent start, let's not dismiss it out of hand.

Click to expand...

I agree. Put the likes of Linnell on the spot now as well because he can't try and deny it exists now the trust have mentioned it.

Grendel said:

No it’s not it’s deliberately imbalancing the statement in wasps favour..

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

What do we know about the indemnity clause ? What are the details of what it entails ?

I do believe anyone can make an EU complaint. It would be up to the EU to see if the complaint has enough merit to warrant further investigation. It doesn't matter who made the complaint.

For Wasps to single out a business entity because a complaint has been made is something that is overlooked in all this.

olderskyblue said:

What do we know about the indemnity clause ? What are the details of what it entails ?

Click to expand...

"Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages."

NEWS: Statement issued by Coventry City Owners SISU following groundshare announcement

usskyblue said:

Couldn’t bring themselves to use more aggressive terminology with Wasps could they? And they know full well that SISU already agreed to cease legals. Yet they continue to throw shade out there regarding it.

As regards to mentioning the indemnity? They had to really didn’t they? We forced their hand on that issue over the last few weeks. And of course now, they can say they have mentioned it, albeit rather lamely.

I reserve further comment until I see some direct action aimed at Wasps. But I won’t hold my breath.

Click to expand...

Well done to yourself, Pete, and all who've chipped in via CWR and Twits to put some pressure on the Trust to finally acknowledge that their is a barrier that can be moved by Wasps.

Are we all correct in saying that SISU have signed or publically acknowleded that they have ceased any legal action?

If so, then its now down to the Trust to acknowledge that fact and call on Wasps to drop the indemnity .... otherwise, they call on Trust members and the people of Coventry to boycott attending Wasps games or Sponsors or Products assoicating themselves with Wasps.

RegTheDonk said:

Well done to yourself, Pete, and all who've chipped in via CWR and Twits to put some pressure on the Trust to finally acknowledge that their is a barrier that can be moved by Wasps.

Are we all correct in saying that SISU’s have signed or publically acknowleded that they have ceased any legal action?

If so, then its now down to the Trust to acknowledge that fact and call on Wasps to drop the indemnity .... otherwise, they call on Trust members and the people of Coventry to boycott attending Wasps games or Sponsors or Products assoicating themselves with Wasps.

Click to expand...

This article includes SISU statement regarding dropping legal action.

BREAKING: Coventry City owners Sisu will drop legal action IF Wasps agree fair Ricoh deal and council backs new stadium

Frostie said:

"Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages."

NEWS: Statement issued by Coventry City Owners SISU following groundshare announcement

Click to expand...

They always fall short of committing to inside the Coventry boundary. Regular 7k crowds could be the norm unless we are in the city. No shows at Birmingham suggest we need to be in Cov.

More needs to be done to pressure Waps by the SBT. The ball is firmly within their court to drop the indemnity clause.

It'd a shame Saracens will be relegated this year as I truly believe Wasps would've gone down and they would have needed CCFC to support financially.

Still think we will be back at the Ricoh next year.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

Well its an improvement but they've literally done the absolute minimum they could get away with after all the pressure put on them. IMO they should be speaking in far stronger terms about Wasps and dropping the indemnity requirements. And no need to caveat it with the legals, concentrate on one thing at a time.