Meeting with Joy Seppala & Dave Boddy - Thursday 27th February 2020 (2 Viewers)

tisza

Well-Known Member
My position has been clear for years despite constant attempts to misrepresent it: we need our own ground. The Ricoh isn’t affordable while we are not at least an upper Championship team. Start building a ground. Drop the stupid legal shite and strike a short term deal while we build. Failing that drop the legals and strike a long term deal. It’s plainly obvious that the continued legal action is stopping us building relationships in the city and moving forward.
Agree with most of this.
First part is basically SISU's claimed standpoint anyway.
In terms of building relationships think many of those bridges were burnt a long time (from both sides).
If the Commission comes back and says there is no case to answer then legal action has to stop (SISU have claimed in the media this will be the case).
Very difficult to see a long-term deal that satisfies both clubs due to the respective financial situation of both.
 

Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue

Well-Known Member
Following the statement issued on behalf of this forum in January by Pete Griffiths (@Sky Blue Pete), myself and Pete met with both Joy Seppala and Dave Boddy on Thursday 27th February.

We started by sharing some background information on why forum members collectively felt the need to issue the statement, such as the perception that the local press and the Sky Blues Trust did not seem to share the same viewpoint as the forum (and, indeed, much of the wider fan base) with regards to the reason for the reason the club are playing home games in Birmingham. Pete explained some of the actions already taken, both before and after the issue of the statement, such as appearances on local radio shows and meeting with other involved parties. Both Joy and Dave seemed to be aware of much of this already and commented that they had been following with interest.

We followed this up with some general discussion about the club and football in general. It was clear from the conversation that Joy does follow our games and has a genuine interest in the club. She talked passionately about players and staff, both past and present, and shared her belief that the club should be in the Premier League. She can see clearly that the club is a big part of the community, and that Mark Robins and the players put a lot of time and effort into community work and events. Year on year more work is put into the community side of the club, to a greater extent than many clubs do in the modern era, and this is something the club are committed to continuing even as we progress up the leagues.

We then moved onto a list of discussion points that myself & Pete had agreed on prior to the meeting.

Current Performance of the CCFC group – both on & off the pitch.

Like most fans, both Joy & Dave are very happy with the performances on the pitch in league one this year. Neither were surprised that the club were doing so well on the pitch this year as they have total belief in Mark Robins, the players and the recruitment team (Chris Badlan & Stuart Benthom). They feel that recruitment has been excellent since Mark Robins reappointment in 2017.

Joy & Dave both feel the team would be competitive in the Championship next year if we are promoted. They are under no illusions that it would be difficult, but we’ve competed well with Birmingham twice this year as well as Rotherham on Tuesday. Success would naturally be relative to the improved level and avoiding relegation would be considered a successful season. They commented on the teams who went up last year and how difficult it has been for them. Because we cannot compete financially with a lot of the teams in the Championship at the current time, we have to compete by being smart with recruitment, using the academy to bring young players through and maximise opportunities on player sales. Work has been put in by the recruitment department on all scenarios for next season, including being promoted to the Championship, with recruitment lists ready to go with signings within the budget irrespective of whether we are in Birmingham or Coventry (although everyone at the club & Sisu wants to be playing in Coventry).

Up to March last year CCFC were self-sufficient. Due to the better than expected crowds at St. Andrews we are doing slightly better than projected, although would still have had a deficit. With the money from the sale of Sam McCallum we should be ok, but Sisu are supportive and have agreed to underwrite any losses if necessary. If we are promoted to the Championship, CCFC would be well within the regulations within the Championship for losses allowed over a 3-year period. All financial decisions taken have been with the long-term best interests of the club at heart.

Regarding McCallum, Dave said the club would have liked to hold onto him a little longer, but pressure from the player’s agent made it very difficult to keep him on a permanent basis. After discussions with Mark Robins and looking at what they thought Sam’s potential value would be if he remained at the club and we were promoted to the Championship, the decision was taken that the move to Norwich offered good value.

We also spoke briefly about how well the James Maddison transfer has worked out for the club in the long run. Money is still coming in for James, and they have recently invoiced Norwich for some money that has become due. This is all part of the financial model for CCFC to compete, grow & succeed. Eventually we want to become the club that is receiving the big fee for our players directly.

Relationship with Wasps RFC

During their opening remarks, Joy and Dave said that they were unable to discuss any matters with regard to the possibility of a stadium deal to return to the Ricoh Arena, due to the fact that Coventry City Football Club, SISU and all Wasps Holdings companies have signed an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) prior to the discussions that commenced in April of last year. All parties are still bound by that agreement.

When asked about how long the EU complaint would take, Joy confirmed that it normally takes around 12 months for the EU to decide whether to take the case forward to review. 12 months has now passed since the complaint was filed in February 2019, however, nothing can yet be read into there not being a decision communicated at the end of the 12-month period as this is just a rough guide. Joy felt that if the case moved to review it wouldn’t necessarily be a long process if the case did move to full review. Joy also confirmed that it wasn’t possible to withdraw the complaint, as if the EU decide there is possible state aid, they would still have an obligation to pursue this. There’s no indication yet as to what effect the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will have on this case and whether it will have an impact on the EU’s decision to pursue.

Pete explained how he had been told by individuals in the media that the club were unhappy about his public questions regarding the current challenges (including the indemnity). The club have confirmed that this is categorically not the case, and that to the contrary they thought it had been useful. They acknowledged that the statement issued by Sky Blues Talk had been balanced and sought to hold all parties to account.

Pete also advised he had spoken to Nick Eastwood at Wasps, who didn’t think Joy would entertain talks with fans (by our presence this is clearly not the case). Pete had agreed with Nick that if Joy was willing to meet with him and Derek Richardson then they would also be willing to talk, and their door was always open. Dave confirmed they continue to have active dialogue with Wasps. Joy advised that throughout past talks it had been difficult to get to speak to Derek Richardson, who is the decision maker at Wasps, and that in the past he hadn’t been present at meetings as expected. Joy and Dave were both happy for Pete to go back to Nick Eastwood to see if talks can be arranged with Derek directly.

............

Excellent work @Sky Blue Pete @mark82 a really balanced and productive piece, appreciate the time and effort you've put in and those statements are far more representative of a fan like myself, rather than anything the Trust has come out with for 4/5 years.
Shouting abuse at SISU/Fisher/Seppala has got us nowhere. This is the change in tact we need. It's better to be at the dinner table, than outside shouting and getting told a distorted opinion or version of events from the people that were at the table. Keep up the good work.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Agree with most of this.
First part is basically SISU's claimed standpoint anyway.
In terms of building relationships think many of those bridges were burnt a long time (from both sides).
If the Commission comes back and says there is no case to answer then legal action has to stop (SISU have claimed in the media this will be the case).
Very difficult to see a long-term deal that satisfies both clubs due to the respective financial situation of both.
It won't though.
 

Nick

Administrator
Whatever happened to Linnells expert? Can he put you in touch? Did he ever get back to Pete about this?

Ive read the same Telegraph article and it does seem the case but clearly Wasps believe it’s not. Frankly I’d back the council to have access to decent advice on this stuff, better than most, and Wasps to be talking to them. So if they think that’s the case there must be a reason for it.

Where have Wasps said they believe it's not?

They have just kept saying "Drop the legals" because it distracts people from asking them questions.

Independents have all said it can't be dropped?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
You haven’t answered questions

1 if the owners ask the Eu to drop the complaint where is the procedure and are there potential implications?

2 If ACL goes into administration the lease returns to the council with ccfc as sub tenants does it not?

For the third time: 1) I don’t know. Ask Wasps. It’s their request and they should have better advice than a boomer marketing guy on the internet.

2) I don’t know. I asked you if you meant the original lease which surely is void after the rent strike? You said I’d been at the sherry, remember?
 

Nick

Administrator
For the third time: 1) I don’t know. Ask Wasps. It’s their request and they should have better advice than a boomer marketing guy on the internet.

2) I don’t know. I asked you if you meant the original lease which surely is void after the rent strike? You said I’d been at the sherry, remember?

Where have Wasps requested this? You keep failing to answer.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Whatever happened to Linnells expert? Can he put you in touch? Did he ever get back to Pete about this?

Ive read the same Telegraph article and it does seem the case but clearly Wasps believe it’s not. Frankly I’d back the council to have access to decent advice on this stuff, better than most, and Wasps to be talking to them. So if they think that’s the case there must be a reason for it.

Nobody at Wasps is asking for SISU to withdraw the complain to the EU, knowing it can't be withdrawn they're instead asking for indemnity from any losses flowing from it. It doesn't show they believe it can be withdrawn.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Wasps and council must be getting smart advice

Sisu? Just evil with their actions!!!

Hold all sides accountable guys...

Sisu have probably got good advice as well. Which is why they are so reluctant to try this thing which the legal experts of SBT have decided wouldn’t do anything. Keep up.
 

Nick

Administrator
Nobody at Wasps is asking for SISU to withdraw the complain to the EU, knowing it can't be withdrawn they're instead asking for indemnity from any losses flowing from it. It doesn't show they believe it can be withdrawn.

Exactly, he has got something in his head and is going hell for leather with it.

Much the same as "SISU refuse to drop the legals" even though he has had it pointed out to him multiple times.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nobody at Wasps is asking for SISU to withdraw the complain to the EU, knowing it can't be withdrawn they're instead asking for indemnity from any losses flowing from it. It doesn't show they believe it can be withdrawn.

Except both the Trust and Stuart Linnell have met with Wasps and come away saying “NDA covers most of it so I have to be careful, but I get the impression that if Sisu were to ask for it to be forgotten that’d help”. Why are you ignoring this? Nick even got his panties in a bunch because they’re we’re both saying the same thing so it must be a conspiracy.

It’s the only communication we’ve had since the NDA from Wasps. Damn right I’m gonna jump on it. I’ve still yet to see a single reason not to try it in 22 pages of single handedly fighting the entire forum. Which’s suggests such a reason doesn’t exist.
 

Nick

Administrator
Except both the Trust and Stuart Linnell have met with Wasps and come away saying “NDA covers most of it so I have to be careful, but I get the impression that if Sisu were to ask for it to be forgotten that’d help”. Why are you ignoring this? Nick even got his panties in a bunch because they’re we’re both saying the same thing so it must be a conspiracy.

It’s the only communication we’ve had since the NDA from Wasps. Damn right I’m gonna jump on it. I’ve still yet to see a single reason not to try it in 22 pages of single handedly fighting the entire forum. Which’s suggests such a reason doesn’t exist.

You are forgetting that Linnell said the week before there was no indemnity.....

This was all around the time that Pete was asking questions, don't you think for a minute that it's to get the attention away from questions being asked about the whole indemnity?

You love the conspiracy stuff, maybe you can answer about your old man working with Haskell? Maybe you can answer about Wasps being involved with Hoffman? You won't though as you prefer to make shit up to discredit others.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Chill out, it sounded like he was looking for the lease so I told him where he could find it.
No you did not
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006)Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit theHead Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets,has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect offorfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenantof CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claimforfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could becontested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 bymaking application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets ofACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointedadministrator or with the leave of the courts.If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity thatwill hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value inthe event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on theBondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such aninsolvency event.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Im fine. I used to teach so I can handle 30 arseholes having a go at me.

But if people insult me, I’ll insult them back. If people ask a question, I’ll answer it. I notice no one can actually answer the points I raise so it’s all family members and concern trolling now but that’s fine too.

I know where I stand and I’m happy with it. Same as always. One day maybe one of you will have a rational argument laid out that I can get behind. But today is not that day so here I am. Same place I’ve always been.

Not mentioned your family once.
And I've answered you. You were the one who starts with the condescending bullshit but crack on you're obviously on one.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
No you did not
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006)Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit theHead Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets,has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect offorfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenantof CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claimforfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could becontested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 bymaking application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets ofACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointedadministrator or with the leave of the courts.If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity thatwill hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value inthe event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on theBondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such aninsolvency event.

I mean I quite literally did.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Nobody at Wasps is asking for SISU to withdraw the complain to the EU, knowing it can't be withdrawn they're instead asking for indemnity from any losses flowing from it. It doesn't show they believe it can be withdrawn.
It doesn't necessarily show that the case is lost or won either.
Could simply be pernicious.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I mean I quite literally did.

In that case why have you been dribbling on as if you did not know these were the terms and CCFC cannot break any lease?
 

mark82

Moderator
Excellent work @Sky Blue Pete @mark82 a really balanced and productive piece, appreciate the time and effort you've put in and those statements are far more representative of a fan like myself, rather than anything the Trust has come out with for 4/5 years.
Shouting abuse at SISU/Fisher/Seppala has got us nowhere. This is the change in tact we need. It's better to be at the dinner table, than outside shouting and getting told a distorted opinion or version of events from the people that were at the table. Keep up the good work.

Yep, and it works both ways. Shouting abuse at Wasps and any others involved will also get you nowhere.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Not mentioned your family once.
And I've answered you. You were the one who starts with the condescending bullshit but crack on you're obviously on one.

No. I started with an expression of frustration that we didn’t get any answers out of Joy or press her on the things we need to know. Not aimed at anyone personally. Just frustration that yet again we’ve got a nothing burger statement with some fanciful shite about a fantasy stadium in it.

That triggered the entire forum to start at me, standard, and I responded in kind. You have not brought my family into it but others have. You were concern trolling. I’m not on one. I just don’t bow to peer pressure without good reason and in among all the insults and demands I fuck off, I’ve yet to see a cogent argument why I’m wrong. So I will crack on.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
In that case why have you been dribbling on as if you did not know these were the terms and CCFC cannot break any lease?

Ive not found it. I just work in property and know where to find long leases. Fucking hell.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Ive not found it. I just work in property and know where to find long leases. Fucking hell.

Of course you do - you think CCFC can end a lease and that we still would be charged against the mortgage! If you can find it why didn't you?
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'll certainly ask how they see the process and note that Sisu believe it can't be withdrawn (and that has always been my understanding on the process too, to be fair - I think the Telegraph also covered it at some point?).

If anyone knows anyone with a good knowledge of EU state aid law, that would be really helpful too. Would be good to get an independent opinion.
mentioned in an earlier thread we're considering a claim against a local European authority re:state aid and a building sale.
Once a complaint is reported it can't be withdrawn or forgotten. (Some EU govts/authorities may not be above applying pressure on complainants to drop cases). I've mysteriously had 2 tax office raids on my companies and 1 on my home since we raised the possibilty of a complaint :)
Again let's be clear this isn't technically a legal process atm. Sure the BBC or one of the local papers interviewed an expert on the process when it became public.
Also none of the "stuff" around the Ricoh, CCFC, CCC, Wasps is relevant. Who signed what, who did this etc.
As public funds were involved was the Ricoh "sold" at the right price, did this benefit Wasps over any other business (inc. CCFC, other professional EU rugby clubs etc)
 

Nick

Administrator
No. I started with an expression of frustration that we didn’t get any answers out of Joy or press her on the things we need to know. Not aimed at anyone personally. Just frustration that yet again we’ve got a nothing burger statement with some fanciful shite about a fantasy stadium in it.

That triggered the entire forum to start at me, standard, and I responded in kind. You have not brought my family into it but others have. You were concern trolling. I’m not on one. I just don’t bow to peer pressure without good reason and in among all the insults and demands I fuck off, I’ve yet to see a cogent argument why I’m wrong. So I will crack on.

You were the only one triggered by this, read the thread back.

You consistently keep making things up that nobody has said.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
To be honest, I'm not sure what something like this would gain. There are 2 parties that can bring us back - Seppala & Richardson. CCC are now very much irrelevant in the immediate discussion. Where they can help, and so far are unwilling to do so, is by providing some impact statements on the club being out of the city and confirmation they'll work with the club to find a stadium. We can then use those things to apply pressure to Wasps and Sisu. Unfortunately, they seem to have decided without reason (just like @shmmeee) that there is some agenda against them (the council).
Yep a memorandum of understanding would be good
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I don’t know anyone in here that is happy. Not 1 single person

Then I don’t get why they don’t want Sisu to try everything to get us back. I really don’t. If it’s not Wasps changing their mind they don’t want it. Would rather stay in Brum than rent under Wasps. I don’t get it mate. I don’t get it at all. Hating another team so much you’re happy to kill your own. Wanting councillors “held to account” for attending their games. Being willing to wait for years outside the city if it means they go bust. As a Christian, tell me that comes from a good place. Because it just seems like blind hatred to me clouding their judgement.

The message seems to be we’ve decided the indemnity is the problem. Nothing else matters and if it’s not Wasps backing down it’s not worth it. Well I have no faith in Wasps backing down because we asked them nicely. Sorry. I don’t think either Wasps or Sisu give a shit about CCFC. So if there’s something we as fans can do aside from hope Wasps grow a conscience I’ll ask for it to be done. Call me what you want.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Yep, and it works both ways. Shouting abuse at Wasps and any others involved will also get you nowhere.

I think shouting abuse at Wasps should not be discouraged
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Why are you so violently against trying something? That’s what I don’t get? Why shouldn’t we try everything?

What’s the cost to trying that you are so desperate to avoid?
I'm not violently against it or desperate to avoid it but lets looks at facts.

Everyone who has talked about the EC complaint says it can't be withdrawn. Not to mention Wasps haven't actually requested this, or if they have I can't find it.

The EC procedures are freely available online and I can find no mention of any available process to withdraw the complaint. Its not a back and forth process where SISU are in contact with someone at the EC, they fire in the applicable forms and thats the end of their involvement. Simply on a practical level how do you suggest SISU go about doing something that isn't possible? There's no form for it, there's no person to contact at the EC regarding it so what's the plan?

There's two options here. Either Wasps drop the indemnity demands that pretty much everyone agrees are unreasonable or SISU do something which as far as we know isn't actually possible. I know which one I think should be concentrated on to achieve our return to Cov.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I'm not violently against it or desperate to avoid it but lets looks at facts.

Everyone who has talked about the EC complaint says it can't be withdrawn. Not to mention Wasps haven't actually requested this, or if they have I can't find it.

The EC procedures are freely available online and I can find no mention of any available process to withdraw the complaint. Its not a back and forth process where SISU are in contact with someone at the EC, they fire in the applicable forms and thats the end of their involvement. Simply on a practical level how do you suggest SISU go about doing something that isn't possible? There's no form for it, there's no person to contact at the EC regarding it so what's the plan?

There's two options here. Either Wasps drop the indemnity demands that pretty much everyone agrees are unreasonable or SISU do something which as far as we know isn't actually possible. I know which one I think should be concentrated on to achieve our return to Cov.

Why only concentrate on one?

Ive given my reasons for my thinking (back channels, advice, Sisus reaction) you seem determined to pretend I haven’t but there we are.

Why not ask Sisu to try and drop it AND ask Wasps to drop the indemnity? Double your chances, no? Again this thread is about Sisu, I’m assuming we all agree about Wasps.
 

Nick

Administrator
Why only concentrate on one?

Ive given my reasons for my thinking (back channels, advice, Sisus reaction) you seem determined to pretend I haven’t but there we are.

Why not ask Sisu to try and drop it AND ask Wasps to drop the indemnity? Double your chances, no? Again this thread is about Sisu, I’m assuming we all agree about Wasps.

Why would Wasps need to use a back channel to say they think SISU can drop the EU request? Has it occured that it's put out so that people start shouting "drop the legals" knowing they can't when the indemnity was brought up by Pete?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top