shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Where we you when it was built and there were tons of people claiming it’s not in Coventry? You severely underestimate the average Coventrians ability to complain.
The 'city' boundary is an administrative border, it has no cultural significance. E.g. if the Ricoh was the other side of the Rowleys Green Roundabout it would be outside Coventry, I doubt anybody would actually complain.
Is it in the Telegraph and nationals yet? You can tell when they want to catch attention.
This is trying to stop people asking questions by doing the minimum.
DelusionalBlackpool
Birmingham
Bolton
Darlington
Derby
Chester
There are 18 league clubs in non league
anyone that failed to pay monthly salaries to players or staff ever or failed to pay tax each month. Sisu have never failed to do this
I swear you swallow the crap hook line and sinker
Serious? One word response to my evidence. Previous regimes at city didn’t pay their tax. How do you judge a good owner then if paying the bills is not a pre requisite ?Delusional
How are you stopped? You seem to be asking questions here just fine.
Where we you when it was built and there were tons of people claiming it’s not in Coventry? You severely underestimate the average Coventrians ability to complain.
I am guessing, and would think the terms demanded by wasps relate to all SISU owned companies including CCFC. I can well understand why SISU would not want to sign an open ended indemnity that restricts their or their related companies taking any legal action in the future against wasps - that is simply unreasonable by wasps. The question i have is that what was being asked for? I dont know.
That’s where I am too bottom line Mr Richardson and Ms Seppalla need to speak and agree how this will work. Everything else is hot airJust a few thoughts on the indemnity, which is clearly the thing blocking the CCFC return to the Ricoh. All sides need their heads banging together several times quite frankly. You see for me it all raises lots of questions, and i am fed up of CCFC being used as a punch bag by each and every side
I dont know precisely what the indemnity covers only what SISU put in their statement. It includes the phrase "costs and damages". That has been taken to mean the potential EU penalty/settlement, i see no reason why anyone other than wasps should be responsible for that if that is what it relates to. I also wonder if the settlement would be allowed to be passed on under EU rules, and whether what amounts to rewriting the sale contract is actually damages. My question though is what was actually demanded by wasps? we still dont know
Curious isnt it on most of the other issues there have been leaks to the press by one side or the other whether covered by NDA or not but on this not a peep from any side
I am guessing, and would think the terms demanded by wasps relate to all SISU owned companies including CCFC. I can well understand why SISU would not want to sign an open ended indemnity that restricts their or their related companies taking any legal action in the future against wasps - that is simply unreasonable by wasps. The question i have is that what was being asked for? I dont know.
Had SISU signed such an agreement that related to or included the EU complaint (signing was never going to happen) then any future legal action that SISU might take would activate the indemnity. Lets face it, if CCC lose the case wasps are sunk unless they have an indemnity against CCC - which you would expect wouldn't you? No way could they find an estimated £28m. That would leave SISU to march in and take over at the stadium wouldnt it? Why would they need to take action against wasps ? because in those circumstances wasps would have no value to go after at all.
If the indemnity were in place as apparently demanded would wasps go after CCFC though ? Everything is secured to ARVO or SBS&L in much the same way that the assets were secured in the 2013 administration - the one where SISU retained ownership despite insolvency but engineered the lease break. CCFC is not where the money or value is because of the charges on assets. Nor is SBS&L. If the indemnity had stood then if activated wasps would chase the money from SISU group companies. That could have left SISU the decision between CCFC liquidation or sale - you wouldnt liquidate because of the potential funds to be raised on a sale - that is not the same as CCFC having funds btw. THe decision though forced between the options would be SISU's So was the demand more than just an end to the legals ? Was it a potential for regime change if SISU didnt meet the indemnity terms? Is that what is meant by the threat SISU refer to? In any case it wasnt signed so its academic but the wasps demand remains a massive stumbling block in discussions between the owners to a return to Coventry and rightly pressure has to be applied in their (wasps) direction.
Sisu had the right to make the complaint but more so it appears to me to be a deliberate strategy. It had to include CCFC/Otium to be a valid complaint because EU fine print expects the complaint to involve an entity directly affected. However i refuse to believe they sat in their office and said, i know lets make a complaint just on the off chance. There are some extremely clever people involved at SISU, despite their court loses, and they understood the case they put together, they understood the process and the likely repercussions. Having made the complaint the SISU must have known that it could not be stopped, all they had to do was sit back and let process take its course. As SISU had a right to complain so to wasps had a right to defend their position, the indemnity which they had to know would block a return was probably their only card to play, from their side of things assuming they can rejig their finances it works, but not from ours
Then there is the guarantee given SISU about legals on the stadium sale etc in late April 2019. Is it still in force or did it collapse when the deal collapsed? Was the guarantee dependent on a deal being done or was it as suggested simply to get around the table, why would you give up that right if the talks could fail, simply just to sit and talk?
I am sure certain people are going to accuse me of taking wasps side, they would be totally incorrect it is nothing of the sort. I am trying, after looking at the timelines on this, to understand what has gone on to see if there is any hope of a reconciliation that will bring us back. Sadly nothing we can do really puts pressure on wasps, CCC or SISU so i dont see a return any time soon. However that doesnt mean we should not try and that does mean at this point most pressure has to be on wasps. The work Pete and few others have done i think is excellent. There are so many things that to me do not add up from either side
Bottomline is unless Seppala and Richardson reach an agreement or compromise CCFC is not coming back soon. Sadly neither are in a position to back down I fear
@shmmeee Are you still in disagreement with the highlighted point?Just a few thoughts on the indemnity, which is clearly the thing blocking the CCFC return to the Ricoh. All sides need their heads banging together several times quite frankly. You see for me it all raises lots of questions, and i am fed up of CCFC being used as a punch bag by each and every side
I dont know precisely what the indemnity covers only what SISU put in their statement. It includes the phrase "costs and damages". That has been taken to mean the potential EU penalty/settlement, i see no reason why anyone other than wasps should be responsible for that if that is what it relates to. I also wonder if the settlement would be allowed to be passed on under EU rules, and whether what amounts to rewriting the sale contract is actually damages. My question though is what was actually demanded by wasps? we still dont know
Curious isnt it on most of the other issues there have been leaks to the press by one side or the other whether covered by NDA or not but on this not a peep from any side
I am guessing, and would think the terms demanded by wasps relate to all SISU owned companies including CCFC. I can well understand why SISU would not want to sign an open ended indemnity that restricts their or their related companies taking any legal action in the future against wasps - that is simply unreasonable by wasps. The question i have is that what was being asked for? I dont know.
Had SISU signed such an agreement that related to or included the EU complaint (signing was never going to happen) then any future legal action that SISU might take would activate the indemnity. Lets face it, if CCC lose the case wasps are sunk unless they have an indemnity against CCC - which you would expect wouldn't you? No way could they find an estimated £28m. That would leave SISU to march in and take over at the stadium wouldnt it? Why would they need to take action against wasps ? because in those circumstances wasps would have no value to go after at all.
If the indemnity were in place as apparently demanded would wasps go after CCFC though ? Everything is secured to ARVO or SBS&L in much the same way that the assets were secured in the 2013 administration - the one where SISU retained ownership despite insolvency but engineered the lease break. CCFC is not where the money or value is because of the charges on assets. Nor is SBS&L. If the indemnity had stood then if activated wasps would chase the money from SISU group companies. That could have left SISU the decision between CCFC liquidation or sale - you wouldnt liquidate because of the potential funds to be raised on a sale - that is not the same as CCFC having funds btw. THe decision though forced between the options would be SISU's So was the demand more than just an end to the legals ? Was it a potential for regime change if SISU didnt meet the indemnity terms? Is that what is meant by the threat SISU refer to? In any case it wasnt signed so its academic but the wasps demand remains a massive stumbling block in discussions between the owners to a return to Coventry and rightly pressure has to be applied in their (wasps) direction.
Sisu had the right to make the complaint but more so it appears to me to be a deliberate strategy. It had to include CCFC/Otium to be a valid complaint because EU fine print expects the complaint to involve an entity directly affected. However i refuse to believe they sat in their office and said, i know lets make a complaint just on the off chance. There are some extremely clever people involved at SISU, despite their court loses, and they understood the case they put together, they understood the process and the likely repercussions. Having made the complaint the SISU must have known that it could not be stopped, all they had to do was sit back and let process take its course. As SISU had a right to complain so to wasps had a right to defend their position, the indemnity which they had to know would block a return was probably their only card to play, from their side of things assuming they can rejig their finances it works, but not from ours
Then there is the guarantee given SISU about legals on the stadium sale etc in late April 2019. Is it still in force or did it collapse when the deal collapsed? Was the guarantee dependent on a deal being done or was it as suggested simply to get around the table, why would you give up that right if the talks could fail, simply just to sit and talk?
I am sure certain people are going to accuse me of taking wasps side, they would be totally incorrect it is nothing of the sort. I am trying, after looking at the timelines on this, to understand what has gone on to see if there is any hope of a reconciliation that will bring us back. Sadly nothing we can do really puts pressure on wasps, CCC or SISU so i dont see a return any time soon. However that doesnt mean we should not try and that does mean at this point most pressure has to be on wasps. The work Pete and few others have done i think is excellent. There are so many things that to me do not add up from either side
Bottomline is unless Seppala and Richardson reach an agreement or compromise CCFC is not coming back soon. Sadly neither are in a position to back down I fear
"They also said it would limit their basic legal rights "
and yet they were prepared to compromise those to sit at the negotiating table and sign them away if they got a deal ..............
And this Gem just for a bit of balance-
SISU remains committed to providing CCFC with its own stadium in the Coventry area. We are grateful to the EFL for their support and patience in this matter and will continue to work closely with them throughout the planning and development process. We will provide CCFC with all the assistance required to enable the Club to return to the Coventry area, in a stadium it and its fans can again finally call home.
And received nothing in returnI was led to believe the indemnity had to include all SISU related companies, Directors and Shareholders
It also covered all losses and costs incurred as a result of the complaint being filed for all WASPs Companies, Directors, Shareholders and "business partners"
WASPS also wanted a cash bond lodging at the same time as signing the indemnity
All this may have changed of course over time
However your summary misses the following points :
The complaint was against CCC not WASPS
What did WASPS have to indemnify CCC for ?
Why did CCC feel they needed an indemnity ?
If SISU indemnifies WASPS for some transgression carried out in conjunction with CCC, then SISU will have paid the CCC penalty indirectly
I am not too sure a complaint needs to include any affected party. When doing EU Law at Uni they were quite specific with this. It was the process which was being argued had been completely exhausted in a member state courts system to be the unlocking principle.
I could be wrong though. This is from what I can remember from a few years ago.
And received nothing in return
A one line statement isn't going to change things. When I can see them democratising their membership so people can have a voice without attending a pub on Monday night then things might start to look different.
I've spoken to them briefly a few weeks ago. They seem open to doing something like this, but inevitably there will be costs involved. For that reason they'd probably need to look at their whole membership setup to be able to do that (something like a recurring membership). Doable, but not a small undertaking. This is my summation, not theirs.
"They seem open to doing something like this" - that is good of them. Why do they not have a ballot with options asking the members what they want?
I've spoken to them briefly a few weeks ago. They seem open to doing something like this, but inevitably there will be costs involved. For that reason they'd probably need to look at their whole membership setup to be able to do that (something like a recurring membership). Doable, but not a small undertaking. This is my summation, not theirs.
I was led to believe the indemnity had to include all SISU related companies, Directors and Shareholders
It also covered all losses and costs incurred as a result of the complaint being filed for all WASPs Companies, Directors, Shareholders and "business partners"
WASPS also wanted a cash bond lodging at the same time as signing the indemnity
All this may have changed of course over time
However your summary misses the following points :
The complaint was against CCC not WASPS
What did WASPS have to indemnify CCC for ?
Why did CCC feel they needed an indemnity ?
If SISU indemnifies WASPS for some transgression carried out in conjunction with CCC, then SISU will have paid the CCC penalty indirectly
I am not sure what the recurring payment is for
The normal route is buy a share at the price in the Constitution and you are then a member with associated rights
From that it would seem you know more than you are prepared to let on
Strangely if that was a rental bond i dont find that unusual
Yes everyone knows the complaint was against CCC and the remedy if CCC loses is?
What did wasps indemnify CCC for - you tell us
Why did CCC need an indemnity - again you tell us
If SISU indemnifies WASPS for some transgression carried out in conjunction with CCC, then SISU will have paid the CCC penalty indirectly - academic really isnt it there is no indemnity but the major cost is wasps if the decision goes against CCC
Have they looked into costs involved then?
They have less than 3,000 members. It isn't that much of an undertaking.
Paypal, Strike and other places can do recurring payments and membership. Even this forum software can link with Paypal / Stripe and charge on a monthly basis. They can even automate it so that it's an online form, people fill it out and once they pay they get access to a "members section" and they go into their database. If they stop paying, they are automatically locked out etc. Guests still see the Trust website but they have to be "members" to be able to see the member stuff (assuming polls etc etc).
Would be a yearly membership?[/QUOT
I am not sure that works - at present you are a shareholder member once you have paid your £1
I will dig out the constitution and and the supporting Act
Sorry, that was my assumption not them. I only had a few brief exchanges around concerns and they said it's something that they'd like to do and were looking into it. I don't know to what level they've looked into it, and I've not had chance to follow up since. The proof will be in the pudding.
If they are to turn themselves around its something they'd need to do, as well as moving away from being a protest group (unless, of course, this is something members voted on).
I am not sure what the recurring payment is for
The normal route is buy a share at the price in the Constitution and you are then a member with associated rights
Maybe it would have to be voluntary contributions, but if you take on additional costs they have to be met somehow, however you raise funds for it. Not sure if supporters direct provide platforms that could be used free/low cost.
It's no different to when CJ just says "I will put it to the board" and then nothing is ever heard again.
It's their way of getting you to stop asking questions of them.
Platforms for what? There are plenty about and would probably cost less than they pay security for a meeting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?