From Football League (1 Viewer)

ccfcmustang · Aug 8, 2013

I received an Email from the football league this morning.....

While we note your concerns, It is first worth clarifying that on the morning of Friday 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] August Coventry City FC effectively ceased to exist. Due to the lack of a CVA agreement, in order to attempt to enable the club to continue to exist, and retain its membership of The Football League this season, the Board agreed to transfer the club’s share to Otium Entertainment Group under its ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision.

In respect of the temporary stadium relocation, Otium made a request to the Board of Directors of The Football League to play it’s home matches at Northampton Town’s Sixfields Stadium. Again, The League has no jurisdiction to force any businesses to come to an arrangement over land or rental agreements. With no agreement in place to play at the Ricoh Arena, or any other venue, reluctantly, the Board of Directors approved the application to relocate on a temporary basis only. There are a number of stringent conditions in place regarding the temporary relocation. Failure to abide by these conditions and return to Coventry will result in cessation of the club’s membership of The Football League.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Maybe a little pressure on the club now, lets hope the league have gained a backbone throughout this saga. I wonder what the 'conditions' are? And has anyone heard of the 'exceptional circumstances' provision?

hill83 · Aug 8, 2013

In other words. "Stop emailing us you bunch of lucky bastards, you almost didn't have a club"

Or something similar.

ccfcmustang · Aug 8, 2013

The football league should have jurisdiction over clubs not coming to an agreement over a ground, proper governance needed

zigojacko · Aug 8, 2013

Bloody cop out. They could have f*cking intervened to prevent it getting thus far if they gave a $hit!

skybluesam66 · Aug 8, 2013

so they are saying we are already SISU (otium)FC and they no longer recognise Coventry city FC

Fuck off you cunts at sisu and the football league - you have killed my club

mcullen · Aug 8, 2013

Do we know EXACTLY what the "stringent conditions in place regarding the temporary relocation" are? The cessation of our membership in the football league sound far too close for comfort for my liking...

ccfcmustang · Aug 8, 2013

mcullen said:
Do we know EXACTLY what the "stringent conditions in place regarding the temporary relocation" are? The cessation of our membership in the football league sound far too close for comfort for my liking...

Your right, that does sound like the football league would prefer to get us gone rather than help

MusicDating · Aug 8, 2013

Just reply asking all the questions posed here - http://footylaw.wordpress.com/2013/...o-the-football-league-about-coventry-city-fc/

CarpyCov84 · Aug 8, 2013

Pointless email

skybluetony176 · Aug 8, 2013

what a load of bollocks

basically they lacked the back bone to call sisu's bluff and instead they let them selves be manipulated by the very type of people that they are supposed to be protecting the fans from, thus setting a president for more crooks to come into the game.

ESB · Aug 8, 2013

Best start considering the Phoenix more seriously

skybluetony176 · Aug 8, 2013

i've got a feeling that sunday at the ricoh is going to be a goodbye and thankyou for the memories more than people realise.

its a good job i believe in celebrating the life and not mourning the death

theferret · Aug 8, 2013

ccfcmustang said:
Your right, that does sound like the football league would prefer to get us gone rather than help

Hold on, are you suggesting the FL should now NOT threaten SISU with expulsion from the FL if they fail to return to Coventry? It seems that people want it both ways. They complain that they are 'complicit' with SISU's actions, then seemingly complain when they use strong language to describe the consequences for SISU if they renege on the agreement to move back. If the FL would prefer that we were gone, they would not have transferred the share in the first place.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Aug 8, 2013

ccfcmustang said:
I received an Email from the football league this morning.....

While we note your concerns, It is first worth clarifying that on the morning of Friday 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] August Coventry City FC effectively ceased to exist. Due to the lack of a CVA agreement, in order to attempt to enable the club to continue to exist, and retain its membership of The Football League this season, the Board agreed to transfer the club’s share to Otium Entertainment Group under its ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision.

In respect of the temporary stadium relocation, Otium made a request to the Board of Directors of The Football League to play it’s home matches at Northampton Town’s Sixfields Stadium. Again, The League has no jurisdiction to force any businesses to come to an arrangement over land or rental agreements. With no agreement in place to play at the Ricoh Arena, or any other venue, reluctantly, the Board of Directors approved the application to relocate on a temporary basis only. There are a number of stringent conditions in place regarding the temporary relocation. Failure to abide by these conditions and return to Coventry will result in cessation of the club’s membership of The Football League.

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

Maybe a little pressure on the club now, lets hope the league have gained a backbone throughout this saga. I wonder what the 'conditions' are? And has anyone heard of the 'exceptional circumstances' provision?

That is very interesting.....

"It is first worth clarifying that on the morning of Friday 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] August Coventry City FC effectively ceased to exist."

That very clear statement only makes sense if CCFC Ltd was the legal entity that contained the football club (rather than a non-trading property owning subsidiary).

If the FL are clear about that now, why were they so unclear about it during the administration process?

oldskyblue58 · Aug 8, 2013

the key dates
Winding up order 22/03/13
Otium acquire the rights to assets 14/06/13
Groundshare agreed 04/07/13
CVA rejected 02/08/13
Golden share awarded 02/08/13

So did CCFC ever operate under CCFC H ? If so was it actually at risk?
How does an entity not actually operating the football club agree a ground share?
Where are the players contracts and registrations now?
So up to 02/08/13 did a valid contract to play at Ricoh actually exist?
Why have rules and regulations if everything is at the discretion of a small Board of the FL?
Why hold yourself out as a regulator if you dont have the power or inclination to investigate?
what action will be taken if the discretionary rules now given us for FFP are broken?

Am in two minds here because on the one hand CCFC the team benefits from the embargo being relaxed but I can not see how the FL can be said to regulate anything - it just seems like for any team "well this is what we want to do use your discretion" "ok yes we will, go ahead and do what you want"

Football League - not fit for purpose

how did they survive 125 years !

SkyblueBazza · Aug 8, 2013

theferret said:
Hold on, are you suggesting the FL should now NOT threaten SISU with expulsion from the FL if they fail to return to Coventry? It seems that people want it both ways. They complain that they are 'complicit' with SISU's actions, then seemingly complain when they use strong language to describe the consequences for SISU if they renege on the agreement to move back. If the FL would prefer that we were gone, they would not have transferred the share in the first place.

I agree - its human nature to want the best of both worlds though. Also, as many have said SISU having been actively reducing costs at every chance (& taking the proceeds perhaps), there is little actual value in the club whatsoever. SISU have no care for the club itself really. They might just happily proceed until the young squad members make a bit of a name for themselves...then sell them in one final cull in about 3-5yrs. Once they've all gone, unless their new stadium plans are well progressed they will happily not pay the bond & let the FL carry out their expulsion threat. I am guessing they will indeed buy a plot of land & it's value in that time will increase - they can either build something else on it then or sell it on for more profit. So this FL threat has no real bearing on SISU actions into the future IMO. They will just make mugs of the FL again - but they just promote an extra club up from each their below to fill the gap, & it will be us fans that suffer most as there will be no club.
Sorry to be a prophet of doom but unless Byngs crowd (or similar) are interested in letting a drop from their ocean come our way to help promote their infrastructure interests...I am believing more & more that we are, in fact...doomed!

ccfcmustang · Aug 8, 2013

theferret said:
Hold on, are you suggesting the FL should now NOT threaten SISU with expulsion from the FL if they fail to return to Coventry? It seems that people want it both ways. They complain that they are 'complicit' with SISU's actions, then seemingly complain when they use strong language to describe the consequences for SISU if they renege on the agreement to move back. If the FL would prefer that we were gone, they would not have transferred the share in the first place.

Yes they would have transferred the share. If they didnt the club would cease to exist and obviously could not fulfill the fixtures, causing havoc for league one this year and more trouble than whats its worth. It is clear for everyone to see that SISU will not be able to continually fund the club with 0 streams of revenue. They know that SISU will have to sell or the club will go bust. The league doesnt want to be the 'bad person' in this and stop the club existing it wouldnt look good through media etc. They are hoping that SISU sell or the club liquidates on its own (AKA Nothing to do with the football league) If they cared about the club they would ensure we stayed in our city rather than 'reluctantly agreeing' to the groundshare. So to answer your statement ferret yes the FL should threaten SISU they should of threatened them months ago.

robbieray · Aug 8, 2013

Fl contradicts themseleves

luwalla · Aug 8, 2013

You really are wasting you're time with the league .. They don't give a shit about sticking to their own guidelines and rules, let alone give a shit about the fans of clubs!!

There are numerous things they could have and still could do.. but it would mean more work and headache for them.. and why would they want that - it may also uncover more of the dirty hand they have had in many a clubs downfall. They are answerable to no one , and ultimately don't care what goes on as long as they keep rolling the cash in. END OF STORY

mark82 · Aug 8, 2013

hill83 said:
In other words. "Stop emailing us you bunch of lucky bastards, you almost didn't have a club"

Or something similar.

Might have been better. Would soon have climbed back up the leagues and would have played back in Coventry. Would have been back at football league level in the time it takes SISU to build a stadium.

mark82 · Aug 8, 2013

ESB said:
Best start considering the Phoenix more seriously

bigfatronssba · Aug 8, 2013

Had the league said to sisu, play in Coventry or your out the league, then we would have been kicking off at the Ricoh on Saturday.

mark82 · Aug 8, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
Had the league said to sisu, play in Coventry or your out the league, then we would have been kicking off at the Ricoh on Saturday.

Completely agree.

Grendel · Aug 8, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
Had the league said to sisu, play in Coventry or your out the league, then we would have been kicking off at the Ricoh on Saturday.

That would be illegal.

Steve.B50 · Aug 8, 2013

Grendel said:
That would be illegal.

Why is it ?

.

bigfatronssba · Aug 8, 2013

Grendel said:
That would be illegal.

Why? Football league rules which clubs agree to as part of their league membership state that clubs must play in their own conurbation.

skybluetony176 · Aug 8, 2013

Grendel said:
That would be illegal.

and exactly when did the FL start following (or should that be playing to) their own rules?

Delboycov · Aug 8, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
Why? Football league rules which clubs agree to as part of their league membership state that clubs must play in their own conurbation.

Exactly...all they would be doing is sticking to their own rules. If they'd have insisted that to continue our league membership we needed to play in the conurbation then I have no doubt we'd be kicking off on Saturday at the Ricoh.

Danceswithhorses · Aug 8, 2013

Grendel said:
That would be illegal.

Surely even your good self must see, based on recent events, that FL rules are completely arbitrary/discretionary, so basically they can do what they like.
If they'd have stuck to their own rules, we would not be playing in Northampton, or anywhere else for that matter.

Suetonius · Aug 8, 2013

If FL had said to the club that there now appears to be a perfectly viable proposal that would enable you to continue to play at the Ricoh, how would SISU have responded?

Suetonius · Aug 8, 2013

If FL had said to the club that there now appears to be a perfectly viable proposal that would enable you to continue to play at the Ricoh so we are now withdrawing our agreement for you to play away from the Ricoh , how would SISU have responded?

skybluetony176 · Aug 8, 2013

Suetonius said:
If FL had said to the club that there now appears to be a perfectly viable proposal that would enable you to continue to play at the Ricoh so we are now withdrawing our agreement for you to play away from the Ricoh , how would SISU have responded?

my guess would be

don't you know who we are , we're SISU. YOU MUST RESPECT OUR AUTHORITAH! or we will place litigation on you

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 8, 2013

Suetonius said:
If FL had said to the club that there now appears to be a perfectly viable proposal that would enable you to continue to play at the Ricoh so we are now withdrawing our agreement for you to play away from the Ricoh , how would SISU have responded?

They'd tighten the vice in which they have their balls, saying: "If you do that, we'll let everyone know that you knowingly let us field in-eligible players who belonged to a company not holding the Golden Share. Enjoy the law suites from the clubs we won points against with them!"

James Smith · Aug 8, 2013

Suetonius said:
If FL had said to the club that there now appears to be a perfectly viable proposal that would enable you to continue to play at the Ricoh, how would SISU have responded?

Maybe they'd just have issued legal proceedings against them?

Nsgdm1 · Aug 8, 2013

I think the football league have got themselves in am almighty mess and are stubbornly won't put their hands up and say sorry we got it wrong,they could have put conditions on the awarding of the golden share but didn't I would be very suprised if legal steps are not taken against them soon by ACL (but I suppose SISU would probably have taken action against them if things had worked out differently ) I just think they are of the aloof opinion that what they say goes and they will not change their standpoint at all.
There is no way they will not change because they are being bullied by SISU because SISU are a very small fish compared to the Football League.

From Football League (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency