Fawaz Al-Hasawi (4 Viewers)

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Us playing in brum for longer than this season would have worse consequences

Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.

 

---

[SkyBlueDom26]

Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.

So being at the ricoh is cheaper in regards to rent, we'll have bigger crowds as lots of fans will come back..... how will that lead to us not existing

 

[chiefdave]

We'd obviously be back at the ricoh if we had new owners.... we all know the beef is between wasps and sisu with both unwilling to back down
Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes

If SISU leave the potential EC investigation doesn’t disappear so what makes you think Wasps will no longer require indemnification?

 

[ajsccfc]

Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes

If SISU sold up and were looking at taking over another club, would you tell their fans this same thing about them?

 

[shmmeee]

If SISU leave the potential EC investigation doesn’t disappear so what makes you think Wasps will no longer require indemnification?

They might want it but they’d lose their leverage to get it TBF.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

So being at the ricoh is cheaper in regards to rent, we'll have bigger crowds as lots of fans will come back..... how will that lead to us not existing

If we indemnify costs, and the EC decides that the council acted improperly in their conduct of underselling the stadium to wasps, the club would no longer exist. That isn't a risk any Coventry City fan should be willing to take.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Hoffman Fawaz and Sisu, we only attract the best

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

Is there a worse consequence than not existing? If there is, please let me know.

Why would a new owner mean we ceased to exist?

 

[clint van damme]

We'd obviously be back at the ricoh if we had new owners.... we all know the beef is between wasps and sisu with both unwilling to back down
Like i said maybe he's learnt from past mistakes

But wasps wanted the club to indemnify them against losses as well as sisu. If they still insisted on that then either we don't go back or we go back under circumstances that could severely damage if not kill the club as pointed out by Garymabbuttsleftknee above.

Obviously we don't know if that would be the case but there is plenty to be concerned about.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Why would a new owner mean we ceased to exist?

A new owner wouldn't. But a move back to the Ricoh under Wasps current terms could.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Is there any news on the legal complaint yet?? Like how long until we know the result that wasps did break the law

 

[shmmeee]

Hoffman Fawaz and Sisu, we only attract the best

Hmmm what is it about a business model that relies of throwing cash into a bottomless pit that attracts narcissistic arseholes with more money than sense?

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

A new owner wouldn't. But a move back to the Ricoh under Wasps current terms could.

I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?
At the moment they have no indemnification in place. They aren’t going to get it from Sisu, even less likely from a new owner.

 

[shmmeee]

But wasps wanted the club to indemnify them against losses as well as sisu. If they still insisted on that then either we don't go back or we go back under circumstances that could severely damage if not kill the club as pointed out by Garymabbuttsleftknee above.

Obviously we don't know if that would be the case but there is plenty to be concerned about.

It’d cost us ten points, but couldn’t we just take the terms, then if it happens go bust, not pay, and sell the golden share?

There’s probably a flaw in that plan somewhere.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

They might want it but they’d lose their leverage to get it TBF.

The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.

this is why I’ve been saying for ages - we need to pressure them and cause them problems.

If SISU walk away from the club they also don’t have to agree to indemnification.

 

[ceetee]

It’d cost us ten points, but couldn’t we just take the terms, then if it happens go bust, not pay, and sell the golden share?

There’s probably a flaw in that plan somewhere.

Yes, like the golden share belongs to the EFL not ccfc

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It’d cost us ten points, but couldn’t we just take the terms, then if it happens go bust, not pay, and sell the golden share?

There’s probably a flaw in that plan somewhere.

Yes huge flaw... if wasps then being major creditor don’t agree to administration terms we could go bust

terrible plan

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?
At the moment they have no indemnification in place. They aren’t going to get it from Sisu, even less likely from a new owner.

I stand to be corrected but I am fairly certain Wasps were holding both the club and SISU accountable in their terms. So they are already insisting on this regardless of SISU.

 

[shmmeee]

The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.

this is why I’ve been saying for ages - we need to pressure them and cause them problems.

If SISU walk away from the club they also don’t have to agree to indemnification.

It’s Sisu that the beef is with though. They’d have no reason to ask for indemnity from any new owner (not that they should anyway, it’s a ridiculous request).

So frustrating to have everything hanging off a drawn out EU process.

 

[shmmeee]

Yes huge flaw... if wasps then being major creditor don’t agree to administration terms we could go bust

terrible plan

Yeah knew it wouldn’t be that easy. Was banking on OSB popping in to inform us all of the little known clause that allows it.

God I wish we’d done a Leicester back in the day.

 

[shmmeee]

The wouldn’t because we’d still be the same position.

this is why I’ve been saying for ages - we need to pressure them and cause them problems.

If SISU walk away from the club they also don’t have to agree to indemnification.

“pressure them” just means “do something” though and there’s no actual pressure political or commercial that a couple of hundred CCFC fans (cos that’s all it’s ever really be) can exert.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I can’t see how Wasps could insist on this. They would have no dispute with the new owner. In the unlikely event that a take over happens, Sisu would presumably be happy with the money they have received from the buyer so they would have no more direct involvement with the club. Any benefit received if the EU courts found that there had been unfair state aid would be for Sisu not CCFC. The dispute would remain between CCC, Wasps and Sisu. You could say the club by that stage would be a disinterested party. How could Wasps possibly hold the club as liable?
At the moment they have no indemnification in place. They aren’t going to get it from Sisu, even less likely from a new owner.

The investigation and potential loss for Wasps flowing from it is CCFC owner agnostic.

 

[shmmeee]

The investigation and potential loss for Wasps flowing from it is CCFC owner agnostic.

Question is how much of Wasps position is about personalities I guess. They must know no one would agree to it. It’s always seems like an emotional reaction rather than a thought out strategy to me.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It’s Sisu that the beef is with though. They’d have no reason to ask for indemnity from any new owner (not that they should anyway, it’s a ridiculous request).

So frustrating to have everything hanging off a drawn out EU process.

We know that. But they’re insisting on the club being on the hook.

They know full well, SISU won’t indemnify, so if they left the only thing they have as leverage is forcing it on the club.

this is why it’s frustrating that wasps have been allowed to get away with it. The telegraph should he interviewing them night and day about this clause

 

[Gibbo]

Right as of now, I suspect we are one of the better run clubs in the bottom two tiers. It has taken them a long time to work out how to run a medium sized football club without going broke but they have done it - finally. Crucially they have ring fenced the club from the bigger dispute as far as possible (not totally). I would rather we were run by a sugar daddy with shit loads of cash, but in the absence of that, SISU in their current frame of mind is better than some medium sized business owner or wannabe who fancies themselves as a Roman Abramaovitch.

Football clubs are businesses, with a market, costs, wages and tax return. They are not in some alternate universe where such things don't matter. Unless there is a Sugar Daddy, the issues will be identical and the outcome little, different to what pertains now.

The top issue now, bar none, is the inability to score goals. SISU and the rest comes after that.

 

[SkyBlueDom26]

Right as of now, I suspect we are one of the better run clubs in the bottom two tiers. It has taken them a long time to work out how to run a medium sized football club without going broke but they have done it - finally. Crucially they have ring fenced the club from the bigger dispute as far as possible (not totally). I would rather we were run by a sugar daddy with shit loads of cash, but in the absence of that, SISU in their current frame of mind is better than some medium sized business owner or wannabe who fancies themselves as a Roman Abramaovitch.

Football clubs are businesses, with a market, costs, wages and tax return. They are not in some alternate universe where such things don't matter. Unless there is a Sugar Daddy, the issues will be identical and the outcome little, different to what pertains now.

The top issue now, bar none, is the inability to score goals. SISU and the rest comes after that.

2 Massive issues-
We can't score goals
We aren't playing in Coventry

Everything else is ok

 

[The coventrian]

Right as of now, I suspect we are one of the better run clubs in the bottom two tiers. It has taken them a long time to work out how to run a medium sized football club without going broke but they have done it - finally. Crucially they have ring fenced the club from the bigger dispute as far as possible (not totally). I would rather we were run by a sugar daddy with shit loads of cash, but in the absence of that, SISU in their current frame of mind is better than some medium sized business owner or wannabe who fancies themselves as a Roman Abramaovitch.

Football clubs are businesses, with a market, costs, wages and tax return. They are not in some alternate universe where such things don't matter. Unless there is a Sugar Daddy, the issues will be identical and the outcome little, different to what pertains now.

The top issue now, bar none, is the inability to score goals. SISU and the rest comes after that.

And made us homeless in the process(again).

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Question is how much of Wasps position is about personalities I guess. They must know no one would agree to it. It’s always seems like an emotional reaction rather than a thought out strategy to me.

To me, it's the negotiating in bad faith argument. You make a commitment, sign documents to the order of that commitment, and don't mention the fact you've tried to set something off in Europe. When this comes to light I find... interesting, and I'm not beyond a conspiracy theory that the timing was SISU's doing, in order to push Wasps to the decision they made as, much like Northampton, SISU actually wanted to push towards that position.

If parties are to be believed (and not the obvious ones, either), SISU did a remarkable job in keeping that complaint quiet from just about everybody. That approach, in itself, I find... interesting.

Anyway despite all that, please can we have an owner untainted by incompetence and disaster, just once in my lifetime? That means no Forest failures please!

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

And made us homeless in the process(again).

But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s future

 

[fernandopartridge]

I don't agree with the idea that the club is "well run" - it attempts to live within its means which is pretty standard practice, but in fairness has been reliant on the owner for cashflow and also selling players, it isn't particularly sustainable. The club hasn't increased its asset base at all under the SISU tenure. They generally seem to let Robins get on with it without much interference, again to be expected. Most clubs in League 1 and 2 are the same. It's when you go up to the next level that you start to see serious mismanagement.

 

[mark82]

Us playing in brum for longer than this season would have worse consequences

Worse than indemnifying Wasps? I can tell you that's absolutely not true.

 

[mark82]

And made us homeless in the process(again).

We've been homeless for years to be fair.

 

[mark82]

But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s future

I think this is the point everyone is missing. Moving on to another bad owner is not solving problems.

At the end of the day, if it happens, it happens. We have no say in it. I wouldn't exactly be ecstatic about it though.

 

[clint van damme]

But that doesn’t mean we jump into bed with anyone else, or sign up to terms that potentially hamstring the club’s future

I think it's imperative that the next owners are decent owners with a clear strategy for taking the club forward. If we get new owners only to realise 6 months down the line they aren't much better than sisu I think the physcoloigcal blow to the support would be huge.
Obviously if they get us back to Cov that would be a major plus but it can't be on any old terms.

 

[shmmeee]

Hypothetical:

If this dude came in with a clear plan for a new ground and the finance to build it, would that swing it?

Would we take a crappy owner who built us a ground?

Im really not sure. In some ways short term pain for long term gain, in others out of frying pan into fire.