Who wants a public enquiry? (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

Les Reid 11th Feb 2015 Coventry
Observer

TRADE unions and Coventry City fans' groups have joined calls for an independent inquiry into the council's deal to sell the Ricoh Arena company to loss-making London Wasps using taxpayers' money.

It comes as Coventry City Council responded to our investigation and inquiry calls by stating councillors' private decision last October would be reviewed by an external auditor as part of the council's usual annual audit of its accounts.

Several fans' groups, other organisations and individuals claim this would not go far enough.

They are calling for a review with much wider terms of reference, to examine the council's conduct over the entire affair.

Its remit would include an examination of inaccurate key public claims by leading council figures; the council/ACL's management of communications via a hired London PR firm; and how much councillors knew about the true finances of a loss making company Arena Coventry Limited being sold to another reportedly loss-making and indebted company, London Wasps Holdings Limited, which declared it was "at high risk of going bust".

The deal meant nearly £14million of taxpayers' money remained tied up in ACL, amid unprecedented council cuts to jobs and services.

Many fans especially want an external inquiry into why the same deal on a huge 250-year lease, with a 20-year payback on the loan first revealed by the Observer, was not offered to the football club on which the Ricoh project and ACL always depended.

We have shown how ACL's bottom line figures in its accounts over five years were masked by previous income of nearly £1million a year from former casino owners Isle of Capri, and were also dependent on income from the council and football club rent.

The Coventry Observer has also questioned why the auditor should be accountancy firm Grant Thornton, given its previous work on the council's loan deal.

Five CCFC fans' organistions, including the Supporters' Consultative Group (SCG) and the London Supporters' Group, have now distanced themselves from the position of counterpart the Sky Blue Trust. It is waging a campaign to remove the club's owners Sisu while not calling for an independent revew of the actions of ACL's former owners the council, and Alan Edward Higgs Charity.

The fans' organistions are also calling for an inquiry with a view to the council repairing the damage and stating what it will do to finally support the football club, whoever owns it.

The Coventry Trades Union Council has now added its voice to the concerns of ex-MP and ex-councillor Dave Nellist of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, and professor of politics Andrew Russell. Labour MP Jim Cunningham has also called for a full public explanation of the council's decision following our investigation.

Darrall Cozens, president of Coventry Trades Union Council, joined calls for a wide-ranging independent inquiry.

He said: "The duty of any elected council is to defend the services it provides for its citizens, not to lend to outside private companies who the evidence suggests are in fact loss-making companies. On this highly sensitive matter, there clearly needs to be a full independent inquiry into what happened."

Mr Russell, a Sky Blues fan and politics professor at Manchester University, said an inquiry conducted by the Local Government Ombudsman or another truly independent body could "flush out" and separate what information was truly commercially confidential, and what the public had a right to know about.

Councillors are signed up to a constitutional commitment in the council's code of conduct to "openness and transparency" with the public.

Mr Russell said leading councillors had throughout the Ricoh Arena dispute claimed they could not speak on certain issues for "commercial or legal reasons", only for them to later speak publicly on some of the same issues.

He said such an inquiry with a wide remit should take place irrespective of whether Sisu's latest threat of judicial review proceedings on a narrower remit actually happened at a later date.

Arguments to justify the council's continuing secrecy concerning "subjudicy" - or prejudicing future court proceedings - would not apply as a High Court judge cannot be "predjudiced", or swayed by advance publicity.

Mr Russell added: "The council has exploited the fact that the owners of the football club have not had the best of Press, and have had their own PR disasters.

"But that's no reason to shroud their own actions in secrecy. Daylight is the best disinfectant. An inquiry would exonerate the council if everything was completely above board.

"An inquiry should examine whether there was ever a fair competition between the football club and Wasps. It should examine if there was any period of time between when councillors realised the public was not being told the truth, and when the council leader publicly admitted this last month.

"We need to know how much councillors knew about things which turned out not to be true when the deal was agreed. We need to know if they really acted in the best interests of the club and community."

Peter Ward, an "international businessman" who runs the Coventry City supporters' SCG, said: "My view is most fans want as much exposing as possible of why this was allowed to happen and would welcome an independent inquiry. If there's nothing to hide, why not?

"The council has a responsibilty to tell the truth to city taxpayers and the people who elect them. Many Coventry City fans worldwide will not be able to vote them out.

"The Sky Blue Trust clams to represent the views of fans but it does not."

Mr Ward said the Trust's recent survey question to which a few hundred fans responded was one-sided and unreasonably loaded against the club's owners. He added many fans would have welcomed an additional question, asking: Should fans support the team, at least until there is any clear and realistic takeover proposal with Sisu prepared to sell'?

Mr Ward added the 'Sisu out' campaign could push the club to extinction, and he called on fans to support the need for better stadium revenues for the club whoever owns it, including if that meant owning a new stadium in the Coventry area.

He added: "The council used and abused the football club to use the stadium as a catalyst for North Coventry regeneration.

"One question the council needs to be asked now is, 'What value do they put on having a successful football club? The value of the existence of the club seems to have been completely missed.

"The council have turned their backs on the football club and instead welcomed complete strangers with no vested interest in Coventry and surrounding area."

Paul Knowles of fans internet forum GMK Online, and the popular podcast show Nii Lamptey Show, also re-iterated calls for an independent inquiry this week, as have the Get Cov Back To The Ricoh group.

More detailed questions put to the council by the Coventry Observer have not been answered this week.

 

---

[Ian1779]

If there's nothing to hide then why not.

 

[dongonzalos]

Wouldn't mind getting a feel of people's opinions on this.
It's clear Les wants a public enquiry. I am guessing SISU do. He has quoted Mr Ward and Knowle from GMK.
He has said the Sky Blue Trust have taken a SISU out stance which does not represent most fans views.

So two questions
1) do you want a public enquiry
2) do you think the sky blues trust represent most fans views?

 

[Bennets Afro]

Why wouldn't people want one? If the council have nothing to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem

 

[fernandopartridge]

Carry on. It probably won't help CCFC either way mind you.

 

[dongonzalos]

Myself personally I don't want a public enquiry, I don't see what it will achieve. I don't think it will help us the sky blues fans and it will waste a load more public money.
The legal action taken by SISU will determine if the council did anything wrong. So far it seems they have not. SISU have taken further legal action into the wasps deal so again it will achieve that. In my own opinion these legal actions have been a waste of both SISU's and the council's money. Both of which could have better of spent elsewhere that would have benefited me personally.
The council on providing services and SISU on proving enjoyable football.
I don't want any more council money wasted on something with no realistic end game.

The second point the sky blues trust do not represent the most of the fans with the SISU out stance. I get the impression from reading on here and the attendances that the majority would prefer new owners so I think they actually do. Most seem unhappy with the action if the SCG so I think the SCG don't really represent the fans.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Ian1779]

1) Yes
2) It is impossible to tell. Given that they have approx 3K members (is that right?) then you could argue they may not. However it
does not mean that the majority that are not part of Trust don't share similar views. I personally feel that the Trust have an
obligation to engage the club and not take a stance either way.

 

[dongonzalos]

Carry on. It probably won't help CCFC either way mind you.

That's my point it won't help us at all and just wastes money. The legal action is doing it anyway.

 

[Godiva]

Wouldn't mind getting an use of people's opinions on this.
It's clear Les wants a public enquiry. I am guessing SISU do. He has quoted Mr Ward and Knowle from GMK.
He has said the Sky Blue Trust have taken a SISU out stance which does not represent most fans views.

So two questions
1) do you want a public enquiry
2) do you think the sky blues trust represent most fans views?

1) Yes - a truly independent investigation.
2) No - not 'most' fans.
(Interesting how just about every party involved claim they have the support of 'most' fans).

 

[dongonzalos]

1) Yes
2) It is impossible to tell. Given that they have approx 3K members (is that right?) then you could argue they may not. However it
does not mean that the majority that are not part of Trust don't share similar views. I personally feel that the Trust have an
obligation to engage the club and not take a stance either way.

You don't think the trust as representing fans should take a stance? How do they represent us then they are not an independent body in a way they are more like a trade union than someone who must stay neutral

 

[hill83]

I agree that the questions asked by the trust were loaded against Sisu. I still believe the majority want them gone though but not at any cost.

Might as well have the independent enquiry. There's no reason to not have it.

 

[Bennets Afro]

Would you say that the trust represents most fans when the number of members is less then 10% of the Ricoh capacity and less then 25% of members actually could be arsed to vote in their last poll?

I would say it shows a small cross section of fans opinion, but to say the represent "most fans" is clearly wrong. They represent their own members only.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What would you expect an enquiry to show? I suspect much as with the Jr, all follows procedure.

Mr. Reid has contacts, he'd be better served investigating himself if he wants answers beyond procedure.

 

[italiahorse]

So a Sisu set up consultation group, a small CCFC group in London and a old MP can be considered many CCFC fans.
I would think most support the trusts views on getting rid of Sisu.

No problem with the enquiry as it will only bring out the obvious facts.
It will not help CCFC but it will give Sisu talk of a smoking gun which will mask there court actions for years to come.

..... and meanwhile a few more fans find something else to do on a Saturday afternoon.

 

[Ian1779]

You don't think the trust as representing fans should take a stance? How do they represent us then they are not an independent body in a way they are more like a trade union than someone who must stay neutral

What is the point of a supporters trust if it does not engage with the club at a basic level?

Do you think sending a strongly worded letter telling them to sell up will help?

I'd want a Trust to be talking to the club about their 5 point plan... wanting timescales, more information, pressurising them to produce tangible evidence.

There is also a part of a supporters Trust that should be focusing on improving the matchday experience, engaging new and young fans in community projects, providing support for fans to travel away working in tandem with the club.

 

[tisza]

i don't see how Reid puts so much stock in Peter Ward's opinion as head of the SCG - which has how many members?
Reid has taken a stance and unfortunately not very professionally. he seems determined to load the argument.there seems to be no balance in any of the pieces he has done for the Observer which makes it hard to take him too seriously.
I still don't understand who is supposed to initiate, instruct and finance this inquiry.

 

[italiahorse]

Would you say that the trust represents most fans when the number of members is less then 10% of the Ricoh capacity and less then 25% of members actually could be arsed to vote in their last poll?

I would say it shows a small cross section of fans opinion, but to say the represent "most fans" is clearly wrong. They represent their own members only.

Just because people don't vote doesn't mean the they are against the trust.
Just because the trust membership is less than 10% of the Ricoh does not mean there are no non members out there that agree with what they say.
I would say the Trust tactic of getting Sisu out would satisfy the majority of fans.

The trust has faults but until people step in to help and improve it, it's an easy target for the moaners.
All these articles do are help Sisu 'divide and conquer'

We do need one body to represent us and the 2 mentioned in the OP are not the ones.

 

[Big_Ben]

Wouldn't mind getting a feel of people's opinions on this.
It's clear Les wants a public enquiry. I am guessing SISU do. He has quoted Mr Ward and Knowle from GMK.
He has said the Sky Blue Trust have taken a SISU out stance which does not represent most fans views.

So two questions
1) do you want a public enquiry
2) do you think the sky blues trust represent most fans views?

1. Yes. The revelation that ACL was loss-making, and the precarious situation with Wasps finances are enough to cast some doubt on the council deal. We need to know whether all the councillors were fully aware, or whether some were manipulated by the prime movers.

2. No. SBT may have a membership of 3k who all paid £1 for a lifetime membership at a time when it seemed like a good idea. If that had been £100 or even £10 they wouldn't have got nearly that much, and seeing how they have acted since, I regret even having paid them my £1 because they don't represent my thinking at all now.

 

[italiahorse]

What is the point of a supporters trust if it does not engage with the club at a basic level?

Do you think sending a strongly worded letter telling them to sell up will help?

I'd want a Trust to be talking to the club about their 5 point plan... wanting timescales, more information, pressurising them to produce tangible evidence.

There is also a part of a supporters Trust that should be focusing on improving the matchday experience, engaging new and young fans in community projects, providing support for fans to travel away working in tandem with the club.

They have done that many times and they, like us all, have been ignored.

 

[Sub]

I would also like an inquiry into the FL handling of this situation, the administrators, our owners and the council because they all as guilty as each other when it comes to CCFC they all are a shower of shit who have gone out for the own gains not that of CCFC or its fans. The whole situation stinks.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

2. No. SBT may have a membership of 3k who all paid £1 for a lifetime membership at a time when it seemed like a good idea. If that had been £100 or even £10 they wouldn't have got nearly that much, and seeing how they have acted since, I regret even having paid them my £1 because they don't represent my thinking at all now.

Out of interest what has changed to make you feel that way?

 

[Godiva]

I still don't understand who is supposed to initiate, instruct and finance this inquiry.

The Trust using their war chest?

 

[italiahorse]

1. Yes. The revelation that ACL was loss-making, and the precarious situation with Wasps finances are enough to cast some doubt on the council deal. We need to know whether all the councillors were fully aware, or whether some were manipulated by the prime movers.

2. No. SBT may have a membership of 3k who all paid £1 for a lifetime membership at a time when it seemed like a good idea. If that had been £100 or even £10 they wouldn't have got nearly that much, and seeing how they have acted since, I regret even having paid them my £1 because they don't represent my thinking at all now.

Then get off your arse and change the way they do it.
We need one body to represent us, we need people to engage with them to get one powerful voice.
I suspect most people in reality feel powerless to challenge Sisu as they seem happy to ignore fans views, councils, judges, lease agreements, etc etc etc

 

[Bennets Afro]

Just because people don't vote doesn't mean the they are against the trust.
Just because the trust membership is less than 10% of the Ricoh does not mean there are no non members out there that agree with what they say.
I would say the Trust tactic of getting Sisu out would satisfy the majority of fans.

The trust has faults but until people step in to help and improve it, it's an easy target for the moaners.
All these articles do are help Sisu 'divide and conquer' and if you ask me Les Reid is on Sisu payroll.

We do need one body to represent us and the 2 mentioned in the OP are not the ones.

Who said anything about being against the trust? 500 members voting to get sisu out from nearly 3000 members doesn't even represent most members let alone most fans.

And I am not saying that all non members or people who never voted want sisu to stay, or are that sisu are doing a good job either. Like is said it can only gage opinion from a small cross section of fans. I think most fans have given up on the club and have lost interest and will that spark ever be re-ignited. It's going to take something special.

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

I believe that a public enquiry will be a lengthy process, costing public money and will eventually state that there was no wrong doing.
I would assume that any commercial agreement was carefully reviewed from a judicial perspective before being agreed given that the parties knew the litigious approach taken by SISU Capital.

This is a campaign raised by Leslie as he wants to keep his name known and writing an article stating the same tired comments is just lazy journalism but it pays him some money. Although the numbers in the Trust can be challenged, they do represent the largest fans group, in contrast to his supporters quoted in the article representing a very small group of people.

I would like to see an end to all of the divisive reporting which is polarising fans opinions, an end to all of the law suits, and instead to have investment in time and money into the team.
This can be done with SISU Capital as the leader in this drive to turn around the club and we can then support SISU and the club.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Carry on. It probably won't help CCFC either way mind you.

That's my point it won't help us at all and just wastes money. The legal action is doing it anyway.

Yes, if the council are at fault I'd welcome this if it benefits the taxpayer. It would be great if it helped CCFC too, but I can't see how. The only people it can't hurt is SISU. Interesting article Mr Reid. Nice to also see Mr Ward giving it his full backing.

I believe that a public enquiry will be a lengthy process, costing public money and will eventually state that there was no wrong doing.
I would assume that any commercial agreement was carefully reviewed from a judicial perspective before being agreed given that the parties knew the litigious approach taken by SISU Capital......

Yes Sil, given the previous court action, I would be surprised if they hadn't ensured any future deal wasn't water tight legally.

 

[dongonzalos]

What is the point of a supporters trust if it does not engage with the club at a basic level?

Do you think sending a strongly worded letter telling them to sell up will help?

I'd want a Trust to be talking to the club about their 5 point plan... wanting timescales, more information, pressurising them to produce tangible evidence.

There is also a part of a supporters Trust that should be focusing on improving the matchday experience, engaging new and young fans in community projects, providing support for fans to travel away working in tandem with the club.

Unfortunately I think they have exhausted that approach. There are now people sitting in the board who will not apply such pressure or ask such questions unfortunately.
It seems a lot of Coventry fans don't have belief in the 5 point plan or the new stadium.
For me it should be the football club engaging the CET, the Sky blues trust in an attempt to convince them and the fans of future plans. They should be doing this for the pure and simple reason of wining back fans and making more money
It would be good business practice.

 

[Otis]

I'm happy for there to be an investigation.

Why not? If everything is above and beyond board then no-one has anything to worry about.

Plus, for me, while there is still hope the City can get their hands on the Ricoh, then it stops all the nonsense of moving elsewhere and building a new stadium.

I want us to stay at the Ricoh, so am all for an enquiry on both fronts.

 

[dongonzalos]

1. Yes. The revelation that ACL was loss-making, and the precarious situation with Wasps finances are enough to cast some doubt on the council deal. We need to know whether all the councillors were fully aware, or whether some were manipulated by the prime movers.

2. No. SBT may have a membership of 3k who all paid £1 for a lifetime membership at a time when it seemed like a good idea. If that had been £100 or even £10 they wouldn't have got nearly that much, and seeing how they have acted since, I regret even having paid them my £1 because they don't represent my thinking at all now.

Ben excuse my lack of knowledge in this.
However if point one was correct that Anne Lucas knew ACL were losing money and she hid that from the other councillors making the decision. Two questions for me spring to mind.

If that was the case and it was a very bad thing to do. Do you not think by now one whistleblower out of all those councillors would have emerged saying he or she felt duped?
Secondly if when you came as a councillor to do this vote and you heard ACL had just lost money in the year you were voting on it. I am wrong here it would that not make you even more inclined to vote yes to the takeover?

 

[dongonzalos]

I would love an enquiry looks at what information were the FL given by SISU and by ACL when they made that decision to allow us to move to Northampton. Leading to me missing the only exciting football this club has had for 14 years.
That's the enquiry I would really love to hear.
Was there really no other option or were we just a pawn getting moved in a bitter battle?

 

[Ian1779]

Unfortunately I think they have exhausted that approach. There are now people sitting in the board who will not apply such pressure or ask such questions unfortunately.
It seems a lot of Coventry fans don't have belief in the 5 point plan or the new stadium.
For me it should be the football club engaging the CET, the Sky blues trust in an attempt to convince them and the fans of future plans. They should be doing this for the pure and simple reason of wining back fans and making more more.
It would be good business practice.

I completely agree with your first point... I think it is a real shame as the Trust has lost it's vision for why it existed in the first place.

The most worrying thing is that as much as people don't believe in the plan and new stadium - which is understandable, it is really our only way out of this mess we currently are in.

The problem with engaging the CET is that you could argue that their loyalties are clearly marked out, just like those who believe the same about Les Reid.

 

[skybluetony176]

Carry on. It probably won't help CCFC either way mind you.

Or SISU.

 

[hill83]

Or SISU.

Or Janet in accounts

 

[Ian1779]

I would love an enquiry looks at what information were the FL given by SISU and by ACL when they made that decision to allow us to move to Northampton. Leading to me missing the only exciting football this club has had for 14 years.
That's the enquiry I would really love to hear.
Was there really no other option or were we just a pawn getting moved in a bitter battle?

I think the move was sealed the day the CVA was rejected. Up to that point there was a way back.

The FL remember had a duty to oversee the implementation of the FFP (SCMP) regulations, and SISU probably argued that the existing deal would never allow the club to stand on it's own two feet. A promise of building a new stadium and a bond and really there was probably nothing they could have done. They would have struggled to argue not allowing the club to find a way of becoming self sufficient in the future (even if the reality was questionable) even if there was a short term hit.

 

[dongonzalos]

I completely agree with your first point... I think it is a real shame as the Trust has lost it's vision for why it existed in the first place.

The most worrying thing is that as much as people don't believe in the plan and new stadium - which is understandable, it is really our only way out of this mess we currently are in.

The problem with engaging the CET is that you could argue that their loyalties are clearly marked out, just like those who believe the same about Les Reid.

Yep the CET in my opinion has an opinion on this matter that I think mirrors that if the majority of its readers and the majority of Skyblues fans (just my opinion)
If the club believe in the 5 point plan and the new stadium and it is the best way forward you will stand up to scrutiny.

SISU should meet the trust, they should meet Simon Gilbert. They should mix with the fans over in the main stand.

They should engage us and change our minds. Tim Fisher and Joy Sepalla are very charismatic people. They are capable of doing that.
However the only way it would not work is if the plan does not stand up to scrutiny.
My fear is that it doesn't hence why we are not seeing the charm offensive