Ground sharing (1 Viewer)

Didn't SISU have to provide a £1m bond to the EFL as a ransom to ensure that CCFC will return to Coventry?

The move to Birmingham is temporary. How long temporary is, is the same length as a piece of string.

Personally I'm convinced we will be back at the Ricoh in the next two years. Wasps gambled with their terms and conditions with the only tenant that will and can use the Ricoh other than them. They will not sustain their current financial model without CCFC.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

skyblue1991 said:

Didn't SISU have to provide a £1m bond to the EFL as a ransom to ensure that CCFC will return to Coventry?

The move to Birmingham is temporary. How long temporary is, is the same length as a piece of string.

Personally I'm convinced we will be back at the Ricoh in the next two years. Wasps gambled with their terms and conditions with the only tenant that will and can use the Ricoh other than them. They will not sustain their current financial model without CCFC.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's correct
The bond is held to ensure we fulfil the fixtures and return to Coventry next season

better days said:

That's correct
The bond is held to ensure we fulfil the fixtures and return to Coventry next season

Click to expand...

Next season? I thought it was to return at a given point, but we don't know quite yet what that given point is.

To be honest I became distracted at the spelling of Boateng !

I just hope that CCC are found to have breached State Aid rules and that Wasps go bust !

Voice_of_Reason said:

I just hope that CCC are found to have breached State Aid rules and that Wasps go bust !

Click to expand...

Unlikely, not been proven yet.. despite SISU efforts in every court in this land.. but then the law is an ass.

Voice_of_Reason said:

I just hope that CCC are found to have breached State Aid rules and that Wasps go bust !

Click to expand...

I think we will know within the next 12 months whether the EC State Aid case is to be pursued. If it *isn't*, maybe W*sps will feel inclined to come back to the negotiating table without the conditions that SISU were unable to accept (and rightly so).

boatang said:

Leaving aside the blame for going to St Andrews, dont the Football league need to know it is only temporary?
When we went to Sixfields, it was sanctioned because we were building a new ground, and would return to our home city when it was done.
This time though, there is nothing to show how it can end. It is not for the FL to get into the ins and outs, and even if they do, they will be probably be as confused as we all are.
My thinking is it can only end when the legals do, which is beyond control, and could be years down the line. So if this move is allowed, what is to stop any other clubs moving to different cities saying they cant agree rental deals with councils, or whoever owns their ground, and the slippery slope to franchise footbal?
I imagine the FL are terrified of a legal battle with SISU, but they must see how dangerous this could be.

I guess my point is, do we think we know what the FL have been told? Would they believe the new ground story considering there has been no movement on that for years? Have they been told of the exit strategy, or have they accepted it could be for years?

Click to expand...

We're not the first club to have to do this and it hasn't led to franchise football so I don't think thats a worry. Its simply doesn't make business sense for clubs to move around the county. Where are all these cities without teams they could move to?

You really need to flip it round and look from the point of view of the EFL. What realistically are you expecting them to do? From their standpoint they have a club who they want to remain a member. That club has seen its ground sold to a rugby team, seen a move to an alternative stadium in the city blocked, seen the clubs landlords refuse to allow the club to stay and seen a council be less than helpful with regards to a new stadium. We can discuss and dispute those things as long as we like but unfortunately the council have dropped themselves in it more than once giving SISU all the evidence they need to show the EFL.

That left very little option for the EFL other than agreeing the move. And for the same reason not much, other than a few soundbites, will happen even if we're still in Brum in 10 years time. All SISU have to do is show they have identified a site or fired in a query about some council owned land and an extension will get waved through.

The best thing would have been for the council to respond to the Woodlands query with either an immediate no, with reasons that stand up to a little scrutiny, or give the club an option on the land, say 12 - 18 months, to set a time limit on planning permission being submitted.

Do that and have SISU fail to move forward and the EFL could potentially ask more questions of SISU, although ultimately other than throw us out of the league there is little they can do.

Voice_of_Reason said:

I just hope that CCC are found to have breached State Aid rules and that Wasps go bust !

Click to expand...

that will hurt the coventry rate payers VOR! we get screwed over by the CCC as they will increase the rates to cover the fine from the EU.

Well if the sale of ACL was above board that wont happen.
And if it does happen it's because they didn't sell for enough in the first place so the council tax payer has already been screwed

Warwickhunt said:

that will hurt the coventry rate payers VOR! we get screwed over by the CCC as they will increase the rates to cover the fine from the EU.

Click to expand...

Why 'we' if you are from Warwick? (unless you are not!)
Edit: I've re-read it twice and think I understand the 'we' context. Apologies (perhaps!)

Warwickhunt said:

that will hurt the coventry rate payers VOR! we get screwed over by the CCC as they will increase the rates to cover the fine from the EU.

Click to expand...

Council will have, or at least should have, insurance for this kind of thing.

chiefdave said:

Council will have, or at least should have, insurance for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Or have to dip into their cash reserves which they generally waste.

Sky Blue Harry H said:

To be honest I became distracted at the spelling of Boateng !

Click to expand...

It could’ve been boating

Obviously we weren’t party to any discussions between Wasps, sisu and the EFL about our ground situation but. something must have been said by our owner to indicate something happening in the next 12 months, hence this £1million bond. As things are now to me there are only two options, Wasps to back-off or sisu to aquire and atleast start the process of building a new stadium, I think the EFL want regular updates re. this.
Not a lot we the fans can do other than harangue the CCC to find this parcel of land. Don’t think sisu can find a possible location and just demand we’ll have that please but
I think it reasonable for us fans and Council Tax payers to ask IF there is a suitable spot somewhere. As usual there seems to be more questions than answers, I’m still hopeful of an eleventh hour decision which keeps us at the Ricoh for another year.

Magwitch said:

hence this £1million bond

Click to expand...

Not sure I would read too much in to that. Could just be a face saving exercise for the EFL and the last time they said we'd put up a bond it turned out that it hadn't actually been paid, was just a promise to pay it in the future if the club didn't return to Cov.

chiefdave said:

Not sure I would read too much in to that. Could just be a face saving exercise for the EFL and the last time they said we'd put up a bond it turned out that it hadn't actually been paid, was just a promise to pay it in the future if the club didn't return to Cov.

Click to expand...

This one is the same I think

Sky Blue Harry H said:

Why 'we' if you are from Warwick? (unless you are not!)
Edit: I've re-read it twice and think I understand the 'we' context. Apologies (perhaps!)

Click to expand...

Coventry born and bred my old friend! My user name is a bit of fun (worr-a-kunt)

chiefdave said:

Council will have, or at least should have, insurance for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Hope so Chiefdave! Rates are bad enough as it is!

Warwickhunt said:

Hope so Chiefdave! Rates are bad enough as it is!

Click to expand...

The councillors/officers who have acted wrongly should be personally liable.

A few houses being reposessed who concentrate thier minds, somewhat.

There is a lot of mismanagement/corruption/wrongdoing, call it what you like. Why else would people be being paid off with gagging orders and artificially and unrealistic severance packages?

Ricketts said:

The councillors/officers who have acted wrongly should be personally liable.

A few houses being reposessed who concentrate thier minds, somewhat.

There is a lot of mismanagement/corruption/wrongdoing, call it what you like. Why else would people be being paid off with gagging orders and artificially and unrealistic severance packages?

Click to expand...

Also attack their over inflated pension pots if they are found to be in the wrong

chiefdave said:

Not sure I would read too much in to that. Could just be a face saving exercise for the EFL and the last time they said we'd put up a bond it turned out that it hadn't actually been paid, was just a promise to pay it in the future if the club didn't return to Cov.

Click to expand...

This is what I touched on in another tread earlier this week. Could it be that the bond is simply there for the EFL to show that it's 'doing something'?