Football League chief: Stay-away fans can't force Sisu out of Coventry City
16 Aug 2013 06:45League chairman Greg Clarke insists Sky Blues owners have funds to cope with tens of million of pounds in combined losses during Northampton stay and the costs of a new stadium
Share on printShare on email
< /body>
Greg Clarke
Football League chairman Greg Clarke insists Sky Blues’ owners have the money to continue running the football club “for years to come”.
His words will be unpopular with many campaigning “Not One Penny More” fans hoping further financial distress from the club playing ‘home’ games at Northampton will force Otium/Sisu to sell.
In an interview with the Telegraph, Mr Clarke also insisted the League was powerless in law to intervene in the
dispute between the Ricoh Arena and Coventry City.
He re-iterated he did not know if the club’s owners Otium/Sisu will ever build a new stadium in the Coventry area within five years – a supposed League condition of groundshare approval.
But, while stating if he was a fan he would also be “marching” in protest, he challenged fans’ assumptions about Football League rules – which ultimately give the League’s board “discretion” over approving any groundshare.
Challenged over precisely what evidence of Otium’s “proof of funds” the League’s board was satisfied with when sanctioning the Northampton groundshare, he said he would have to ask the League’s financial team – and the Telegraph will continue to seek answers on fans’ behalf.
Sky Blues boss Tim Fisher claimed this week the club had shown the League proof of funds for the cash/equity part of the total costs of building a stadium (potentially more than £10million for a £25m stadium, with the rest borrowed); that Otium had been “recapitalised” by Sisu-related Cayman Islands-based hedge fund Arvo Master Fund; and that the company could fund the club’s losses while groundsharing.
Coventry City chief executive Tim Fisher Grilled over the evidence the club had provided, Mr Clarke said: “Sisu Capital have the assets to run this football club for as long as they want to. They are not short of money.”
Challenged to be more specific about the proof, he said: “I don’t know. It’s not my job to check the evidence.”
Instead, Mr Clarke said it was the League’s financial team’s job to advise the board, having examined assets, guarantees, cash available and lines of credit.
He said: “One of the first things the board discusses is, ‘Has the potential purchaser the assets, cash and credit available and a business plan that stacks up to ensure the business can survive in the long term?”
Pressed further over the level of funds proven for a stadium, Mr Clarke accepted: “I don’t know, because I don’t how anyone could know how a hypothetical stadium could be funded. You would have to get specific proposals in place for the Football League to evaluate them.”
Fans' Zone: A letter to the Football League
He added: “We’ve seen targets... areas and opportunities they are considering to develop a stadium.
“Until they finalise which one and come up with a fully drafted business plan, it is impossible for us to go through it.”
He insisted the League would demand phased evidence over time of progress on a new stadium in the Coventry area, for which a £1m bond – or ‘I owe you’ – was in place should Otium break that commitment.
Football League regulation 13.8 states: “The club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.”
Mr Clarke would not say if the League could ultimately withdraw from Otium/Sisu the crucial “golden share” enabling Coventry City to play if it defaulted on plans for a new stadium – until he had “checked with the League’s lawyers”.
He said to pre-judge sanctions might prejudice any potential legal proceedings, resulting in a “judgement set aside by the courts”.
But the former Leicester City programme seller, who rose to become chief executive of Cable and Wireless Communications Plc, added: “The board always applies pressure to ensure commitments are met.
“There is a set of circumstances which would result in them losing their bond if there is a breach.
“We want to see people developing sites and coming up with firm proposals.
“If they show progress and that they are moving in good faith, we will show tolerance. If not, we will get more aggressive.”
He denied £1m was a small amount of money for a company he insisted had the means to fund tens of million of pounds in combined losses and the capital costs of a new stadium.
Mr Clarke said the League would continue with its efforts – stated on August 3 when it awarded the golden share to Otium – to get the the club and part-Coventry City Council owned Ricoh firm Arena Coventry Limited to “enter into meaningful negotiations”.
But he conceded that would have to rely on “goodwill” from both sides.
Mr Clarke said: “We’re trying to generate goodwill. Hopefully commercial reality will overcome bad blood and both sides can be hailed as heroes.”
But he added: “We have to act within the law. We cannot impose a solution on two entities.”
Mr Clarke added he once said to a Parliamentary select committee: “Why are you beating us up for the laws you made?”
He continued: “
The Football League has never made a law. If the Companies Act allows complex ownership structures, who are we to argue?”
He said keeping Coventry City afloat while groundsharing 35 miles away was the “lesser of two evils” than potentially forcing its extinction.
