Who wants a public enquiry? (1 Viewer)

[torchomatic]

Who knows? To be honest, I'm sure CCC have done everything above board with the deal with Wasps. Not morally though.

What "otherwise" do you think would lead to that end result Torch?

 

---

[Steve.B50]

My comments are mine and nothing to do with any "fan organisations".

So do you think that an enquiry could change the ownership of our stadium?

Sorry, but cannot see what any sort of an enquiry will change or achieve.
We should move forward and if a new stadium outside of Coventry is what they are going to do then I suggest they get on with it and stop all this crap.
I for one will no longer follow CCFC if a stadium is not in Coventry.

Again my personal view and not that of any "fan organisation".

 

[Thenose]

It will clear up questions for a start. If it's shown that the Wasps deal was straight down the middle and warranted then great, we forget it and move on. If it shows otherwise then there's a chance that CCFC could own their own stadium in Coventry. Surely, even our fans' organisation wants that?

Lets get it on the table, nothing is going to reverse the sale of Ricoh to the Wasps. Its done, the JR, fresh action, public enquiry, all the way to Europe. The Ricoh sale is complete and not reversible in anyway

 

[torchomatic]

I'm sure you're right.

Lets get it on the table, nothing is going to reverse the sale of Ricoh to the Wasps. Its done, the JR, fresh action, public enquiry, all the way to Europe. The Ricoh sale is complete and not reversible in anyway

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Who knows? To be honest, I'm sure CCC have done everything above board with the deal with Wasps. Not morally though.

Which is surely why any enquiry would be a wate of time?

In fact, wouldn't it work in reverse, and take the heat off a general question about local councils selling off physical assets to plug holes in budgets?

 

[Thenose]

I'm sure you're right.

Its annoying, people banging on about this action and that action, lets get the microscope on the sale. Its sold, move on. Why put the council tax up just to come all the way back round to where we are today...

Lets quote Jim Lovell from Apollo 13

Jim Lovell: All right ,look, we're not doing this, gentlemen, we're not gonna do this. We're not gonna go bouncing off the walls for the next ten minutes, because we're just gonna end up right back here with the same problems! Now let's try to figure out how to stay alive!

 

[Nick]

So all of this "move on" stuff means people won't hold anything against any party from the past that has happened?

 

[Samo]

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
2. No idea

 

[torchomatic]

I don't think so. They have made a once-in-a-lifetime decision and the deal should be scrutinized. After all, there maybe questions to answer.

Which is surely why any enquiry would be a wate of time?

 

[torchomatic]

Er...it doesn't work that way.

So all of this "move on" stuff means people won't hold anything against any party from the past that has happened?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think so. They have made a once-in-a-lifetime decision and the deal should be scrutinized. After all, there maybe questions to answer.

As I'm sure you know, they're not the only local council disposing of physical assets sharp-ish, and also not the only ones doing it behind closed doors.

Therefore, as the practice is fairly commonplace, it seems to me unlikely anything has been done wrongly outside of procedure.

Take that away however, and I personally am rather uncomfortable at the haste with which many councils are selling their family silver - what happens futher down the line, after all? Do we end up with a public service equivalent of CCFC post-McGinnity?

An enquiry that allows a result of 'we were right to do this' however, which it would if all procedures have indeed been followed, could be rather destructive to any hope of winning that particular argument, and would only encourage further sales in my view.

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

To be fair I didn't say you had insulted them, nor that they didn't deserve insulting

One of the biggest shames is the eleventh billion protest groups!

I agree with you, but since this is a City forum, am I allowed to agree?

I am forming the Coventry City Fans Popular Front (CCFPF) - membership: ONE

 

[Hobo]

Let's have a public enquiry....because lots of people want one.
however like the JR it won't give the results some desire.
It will achieve nothing.

 

[lewys33]

I have no definite answer on this? Should we have one? Yes, like has been said if there is nothing to hide then why not?

Do I think there is much point in one? No. It would be a vast waste of time, and to what end result? A few people MAY be ridiculed and forced to resign. Then what .............. well nothing quite frankly.

 

[tisza]

i still don't get how this would be supposed to work alongside the jr process.
first jr appeals etc. haven't run their course. then sisu want to start again with the wasps loan - so there's another minimum 18 months. can they really run concurrently?
the council's actions will then be scrutinised by judges in the jrs.
by then the auditors will have done their work.
what is to be investigated whether the council were right to sell the ACL, was the procedure correct, who they sold it to, was it a good deal?

 

[The Gentleman]

Does anybody know who would carry out such an enquiry and what the cost would be to foot it?

 

[Sub]

Does anybody know who would carry out such an enquiry and what the cost would be to foot it?

appelton for loads of money

 

[torchomatic]

A lot I guess, which is why there won't be one. It'll be just auditors looking over the deal.

Does anybody know who would carry out such an enquiry and what the cost would be to foot it?

 

[James Smith]

Yes if someone else is paying then why not have another enquiry. Isn't this something that will be covered in JR2? Problem is it will probably just conclude that the council did everything to the letter of the law and statements made about profitability were based on projections that proved to be optimistic. Council provide the club/Sisu statements about the new stadium being plan A. There'll be some criticism of the length of the extension of the lease and the sale price but nothing major. Someone will take a fat fee for conducting it and whilst it is happening we'll welcome a new season in League Two with Elvis at the helm because we can't afford to buy him out of his contract

How much has JR1 cost and do we have any guesses for the cost of JR2?

 

[Woz01]

Between the audit and endless court cases is there a need? Cost surely has to come into it and will anything change depending on the result? I don't think so. Some seem to think we will get more information in the audit than an inquiry anyway so is there a need?

 

[skybluetony176]

A lot I guess, which is why there won't be one. It'll be just auditors looking over the deal.

And that's happening anyway as per the norm.

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

Coventry City fans have funded the administration, liquidation, litigation and Judicial Reviews via costs charged to the football club funded by SISU Capital and ARVO.

Coventry City tax payers have funded the Coventry City Council defence against the law suits.

A Coventry charity have paid for expensive court cases.

Now there are calls for a public enquiry which would be funded by Coventry tax payers.

Who loses? ... Coventry!
Certainly not SISU!

 

[mark_ccfc]

So what? It's not about whether people are "unhappy" or not with the council. It's about if they conducted the sale to Wasps correctly. It's public money and assets they are playing with so they have to be whiter than white. Not sure why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. SISU have shown themselves to be crap owners with little care for us fans so I get all the shit they get. It's warranted.

What would I have done if I were the council? I would have kept the Ricoh. It's not going anywhere, ACL were supposedly doing nicely, CCFC had gone back after their year away and it could have been a new start. Do I mean they could have sold it to SISU? No, not necessarily but SISU won't be here forever. Unfortunately, Wasps are.

That decision has meant we will NEVER own the Ricoh and pushes SISU closer to trying to get a new stadium organised. Even if we were taken over I wouldn't be surprised if our new owners felt the same. The Ricoh was pretty soulless before, it's even more of a horrible place now.

Selling to a franchise was a massive decision and it needs to be scrutinized.

But it is about whether people are unhappy or not. If you want to demand a public enquiry you are going to need some support. Besides you are not taking things in context. The post is "Who wants a public enquiry". The answer from my point of view is "No". What part of that concept can't you grasp?

Forget the "ACL were supposed to be doing nicely" crap. Yes they were being stressed by SISU, we all knew they weren't doing well due to SISU withholding the rent.

"Selling to a franchise needs scrutiny"

The truth is the council were backed into a corner. CCFC were back but dwindling fan numbers were never going to bring in the income that ACL needed. If CCFC had bought ACL the crowds would have still been too low to make ACL viable. WASPS investment was a golden opportunity. It brings in income from the Rugby team and the football team. It was the best business decision by far so doesn't need any enquiry.

I am gutted we will never own the Ricoh, but it's SISUs actions that have led us there.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I am gutted we will never own the Ricoh, but it's SISUs actions that have led us there.

Spot on - and everything else is just noise.

 

[lewys33]

If we are having an enquiry on this we should have one on the admin process and also the shenanigans surrounding which part of the football club was which.

 

[Ian1779]

If we are having an enquiry on this we should have one on the admin process and also the shenanigans surrounding which part of the football club was which.

Hasn't this already been done? Given that ACL rejected the CVA on these grounds it would have only been right for them to do this immediately afterwards.

If they didn't then the rejection could have been only in spite

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Hasn't this already been done? Given that ACL rejected the CVA on these grounds it would have only been right for them to do this immediately afterwards.

If they didn't then the rejection could have been only in spite

So so you think there has already been "an enquiry" into the administration process?

is there a link to a copy of the report (I understand that asking for a link is the correct etiquette for this site).

 

[lordsummerisle]

So so you think there has already been "an enquiry" into the administration process?

is there a link to a copy of the report (I understand that asking for a link is the correct etiquette for this site).

I think ACL/CCC were looking for "a smoking gun".

Something else that is also part of the etiquette..

 

[The Gentleman]

So so you think there has already been "an enquiry" into the administration process?

is there a link to a copy of the report (I understand that asking for a link is the correct etiquette for this site).

I would also like to see what 'evidence' was shown to the Football League for us to comply with the new stadium being built and our continued death decline at Sixfields

 

[Jack Griffin]

Lets have a public inquiry on the governance of Football.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ball-governance/football-governance-timeline/

Oh yeah, there was one and as a result NOTHING HAS CHANGED. But the pressure is a growing.. is is so.

 

[Calista]

So what? It's not about whether people are "unhappy" or not with the council. It's about if they conducted the sale to Wasps correctly. It's public money and assets they are playing with so they have to be whiter than white. Not sure why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. SISU have shown themselves to be crap owners with little care for us fans so I get all the shit they get. It's warranted.

What would I have done if I were the council? I would have kept the Ricoh. It's not going anywhere, ACL were supposedly doing nicely, CCFC had gone back after their year away and it could have been a new start. Do I mean they could have sold it to SISU? No, not necessarily but SISU won't be here forever. Unfortunately, Wasps are.

That decision has meant we will NEVER own the Ricoh and pushes SISU closer to trying to get a new stadium organised. Even if we were taken over I wouldn't be surprised if our new owners felt the same. The Ricoh was pretty soulless before, it's even more of a horrible place now.

Selling to a franchise was a massive decision and it needs to be scrutinized.

Really well-argued Torch, and it makes me feel that an independent report or inquiry is probably needed, or the suspicions of many people like yourself will linger for evermore. Having said that, I’d be really surprised if the Council were found culpable. Call me naïve, but I just can’t see the entire Council voting to stitch up CCFC. They were in a “no win” situation, and both they and the Higgs must be glad to be out.

Wouldn’t the Council have been open to terrible ratepayer criticism if they had turned down the package that a big player like Wasps offered? It breaks my heart, but the football club has been relentlessly turned into a small-town operation, totally unsuited to being the primary tenant in a major stadium. Eventually CCC might have had to cave in to SISU’s demands to write off most of the loan, wind up all the ACL contracts at their own expense, and deliver the stadium “unfettered”. Some people might even have called it state aid.

 

[James Smith]

Hasn't this already been done? Given that ACL rejected the CVA on these grounds it would have only been right for them to do this immediately afterwards.

If they didn't then the rejection could have been only in spite

Whilst as I've said before I'm in favour of an independent inquiry into the whole mess, the mention of the administrator earlier that prompted me to do some reading. It looks like it was that 'clever' moving of assets between companies that proved to be quite costly for us. I re-read the Higgs reasons for rejecting the Otium offer for their share othe Ricoh earlier.

Further the question of ownership of the Option agreement has been made ambiguous by the Joint Liquidators.“

"They claim both that it is the right of the liquidators of CCFC Ltd exclusively to exercise their option to buy and also that the Option was sold to Otium in 2013 out of the Administration of CCFC Ltd.

"Further, the Option has been reported in the annual accounts of the Sisu company that owns Otium, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as an asset (valued at £1m).

"To be absolutely clear the Option was expressly stated to be non-assignable without the express consent of the Trustees, which consent has not been asked for or given. The Trustees were reluctant to enter this morass of conflicting spurious claims."

It would appear that they didn't agree to the transfer of the option (expressly didn't) and we then further helped ourselves by making our offer conditional when Wasps had made theirs unconditional - something the Higgs apparently preferred.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323

In addition to the financial aspects of the offers, the Trustees considered all other factors.

“Amongst other factors considered, the Wasps offer was unconditional; the Otium offer was conditional. The Wasps offer requires in effect nothing of the Trustees other than the transfer of the shares.

“The offer from Otium through the Joint Liquidators is expressly stated to be non-binding and subject to a number of conditions. It contains conditions, none of which can be fulfilled wholly by the Trustees owing to duties of confidentiality to third parties.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323
So by doing all this moving of assets to get out of lease etc. we appear to have helped screw ourselves out of the option for the Ricoh. Didn't need any help from the hypocritical council to do it either.

Joy has no limits when we look to the sky.

 

[albatross]

Whilst as I've said before I'm in favour of an independent inquiry into the whole mess, the mention of the administrator earlier that prompted me to do some reading. It looks like it was that 'clever' moving of assets between companies that proved to be quite costly for us. I re-read the Higgs reasons for rejecting the Otium offer for their share othe Ricoh earlier.


It would appear that they didn't agree to the transfer of the option (expressly didn't) and we then further helped ourselves by making our offer conditional when Wasps had made theirs unconditional - something the Higgs apparently preferred.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323
So by doing all this moving of assets to get out of lease etc. we appear to have helped screw ourselves out of the option for the Ricoh. Didn't need any help from the hypocritical council to do it either.

Joy has no limits when we look to the sky.

Further to that it also shows that with the transfer of the option (valued at 1Million) SISU had no intention of the football club CCFC Ltd of ever owning the stadium or benefitting from the revenue that it might generate. CCFC Ltd being a separate company to the one SISU intended to purchase the arena, therefore the only conclusion that you can infer from that is the CCFC Ltd would always be paying rent.

 

[skybluetony176]

Further to that it also shows that with the transfer of the option (valued at 1Million) SISU had no intention of the football club CCFC Ltd of ever owning the stadium or benefitting from the revenue that it might generate. CCFC Ltd being a separate company to the one SISU intended to purchase the arena, therefore the only conclusion that you can infer from that is the CCFC Ltd would always be paying rent.

you can't say that. SISU are our saviors. This will be where certain posters will tell you that this is how all club's do it even though they don't know how SISU intended to do it because SISU the great communicators have never told us what the set up would be if they owned either the Ricoh or a stadium built by themselves. In fact IIRC the question has been quite deliberately dodged anytime it's been raised which you would think given our experience of being owned by SISU would set alarm bells ringing in any CCFC supporters head.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes i agree there should be an inquiry, but we should have it two fold and look into the administration of the club as well.....



After all didn't Sisu choose who they wanted to run it for them? Not much difference to what CCC are now doing.

Can't really see it changing much even if it is overturned Tim has already said it was a shit deal and that the loan was a deal breaker?

So will they take it over from the Wasps if it is given to them at the same deal?

I would like to think they would then they an sell up and fuck off forever, but sadly I doubt it very much.