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.
Trust Statement (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Liquid Gold
- Start date
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How are you stopped? You seem to be asking questions here just fine.
The coventrian
Well-Known Member
Delusional
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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 ?
Nick
Administrator
I see straight through it as they have tried it for so long.
Imagine if nobody asked any questions of them.
You can tell when they want people to see it as it is in the Telegraph, tweeted 25 times an hour, Henry Winter and David Conn.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I don't recall that.
FWIW, it is a shit location. The worst thing the club did in the 90s was let the council turn a new stadium into a dream regeneration project.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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 (in the past their statements have not been wholly reliable when checked against other facts). 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/otium. 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 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 wouldn't 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 other 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 to the EU 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
I dont know precisely what the indemnity covers only what SISU put in their statement (in the past their statements have not been wholly reliable when checked against other facts). 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/otium. 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 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 wouldn't 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 other 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 to the EU 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
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Haven't people from CCFC confirmed it would include CCFC as well as SISU? They also said it would limit their basic legal rights so it sounds like that sort of thing.
You would assume the agreement for no further action would have been on a deal being done, surely? SISU would have been a bit stupid to agree to it without that without any terms to get out of it.
Fergusons_Beard
Well-Known Member
Just one thing.
Great fucking timing.
Talk about pissing on your chips.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Great fucking timing.
Talk about pissing on your chips.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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 air
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
@shmmeee Are you still in disagreement with the highlighted point?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
"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 yet they were prepared to compromise those to sit at the negotiating table and sign them away if they got a deal ..............
Nick
Administrator
It was obviously a different level of "legal rights" wasn't it?
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
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
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
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.
This is quite important. If anyone can make a complaint about a process which has gone fully through the UK court system then this is not a continuation of legal action.
I could be wrong though. This is from what I can remember from a few years ago.
This is quite important. If anyone can make a complaint about a process which has gone fully through the UK court system then this is not a continuation of legal action.
I could be wrong though. This is from what I can remember from a few years ago.
Last edited:
mark82
Super Moderator
When is this from?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
And received nothing in return
Would the complaint only be against the action and the person ( people ) who effected it? ( I am not a lawyer )
In this case of ( presumably) a breach of some EU regulation could not attach to WASPS unless they engaged in the breach?
Not totally - they will have had the opportunity to return to the Ricoh on signing the document and lodging the cash
mark82
Super Moderator
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 need to drop the thing about changing ownership too. They need to be working with the club to make the best of whatever situation we happen to be in. Problem is, a lot of supporters trusts seem to have become protests groups rather than a vehicle to improve relationships between club & fans, so not an issue unique to us.
Nick
Administrator
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).
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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
Nick
Administrator
Would be a yearly membership?
I have told you what I have heard previously - no more / no less
I have also said - all that may have changed
Your silly responses are not worthy of you - I have raised questions to be considered.
Your final sentence is written such haste - it does not make sense
mark82
Super Moderator
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).
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Seems they’re speaking to us all separately. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to do it publicly or does that not fit into the divide an conquer strategy?
Nick
Administrator
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.
mark82
Super Moderator
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.
Nick
Administrator
Platforms for what? There are plenty about and would probably cost less than they pay security for a meeting.
mark82
Super Moderator
Not arguing that one way or another. They do have a number of board places available though, so change could be driven by the right people in conjunction with the more moderate existing board members of the trust. There are undoubtedly some on the board who could cause problems though (although some of the previous problem board members have gone).
mark82
Super Moderator
Haha. That's a fair point. Not sure why the hell they needed security. Bizarre.
For me, they'd need a platform capable of managing membership, live streaming meetings and allowing real time voting as a minimum.