I mean the minutes of the recent meetings, ACL say they show that SISU agreed a deal and have gone back on it, they say that SISU have sent lawyers letters to prevent them releaseing these minutes. So if Sisu want arbitration they need to show that what ACL have recently said isn't true, because if they agreed a deal and have gone back on it why would acl agree to mediation?
So their responce to the request for mediation should have to publically say yes if they are allowed to release the minutes and that they show sisu are telling the truth.
If it goes back to court there will be a mediator....a judge....and it will be in the public domain
ACL are negotiating around legal and binding contracts, signed by previous officials of the football club. SISU are just playing for yet more time as to when they will have to pay what they owe. ACL have already offered serious concessions haven't they...........?
There will never be independent arbitrators in this dispute. The council will never ever agree to it.
Of they did produce the minutes asunder they were favourable certain posters on here will accuse nasty wasty Timmy of bribing someone to forge them.
Its been suggested in print many times as around £100k.,obviously this does'nt include the compass elelment ,if it is at that level it is insignificant and would 'nt affect greatly any funds for team building .To focus on income streams a s they are would suggest that they would like every stream the place generates to achieve the level required to make a difference ,this would obviously have to be purchased and of course holds value.
In the interview that TF gave he first quoted food & beverage revenue as an example, but then went on to mention "advertising, stadium sponsorship rights and car paking, you name it", and it is clear that beyond match day revenues, the brand of CCCFC adds significant value to such things as advertising and naming rights at the stadium, so a fair distribution of these revenues could well make a significant differences to CCFC budget for players.
Of course the rights to these revenues hold value and have to be purchased, and given the level of animosity between ACL and SISU surely it would be better to have an independent mediator assess the level, values and equitable distribution of these revenues.
To be fair though if you want stadium sponsorship rights you buy the stadium that isn't a reasonable request.
2-3 months too late, when anyone with any sense was suggesting it (Myself)
Just a stalling tactic to try and get to seasons end without resolution of this Sisu engendered Farce.:jerkit:
If this is true then it may be time to bring in a mediator.
2-3 months??? Try 7 or 8 months:
27.07.2012
Oh, I get it ... you are referring to 'people with any sense'.
Rules me out then.
Well said Godiva but I doubt any of us really believed this could be so badly handled and over such a period of time ,I was self mocking in the sense stakes you know:facepalm:
I actually think even sisu are amazed it has taken this long. When I first mentioned arbitration - or mediation - my only thought was to get the issue solved and avoid off-field disturbances like the sisu-out-campaign last season. But looking back - and judging only the negotiation tactics - I think sisu were clever enough holding this card till ACL finally got around to issue an ultimatum.
The real issue is not the rent figure - any mediator would quickly come up with a solution very close to what ACL have offered. It's the arrears that is dividing the parties. And I believe ACL will have a hard time convincing the arbitrator that the agreed rent (and the matchday profits) should not be backdated to when sisu started the rent boycot.
Put on your neutral spectacles and consider this chain of events:
- sisu ask ACL to reduce the rent
- ACL declines
- sisu says the rent is exorbitant and effectively killing the club
- ACL declines negotiation
- sisu stop paying to the escrow account
(you know the history)
- finally ACL agrees the rent is too high and over several months comes up with several offers up till the one on the table.
Status:
ACL demands arrears paid minus a rebate of £300K
sisu claim ACL have stalled and delayed and an agreement on the latest ACL offer should have been reached before the escrow account ran dry.
What would you - as a neutral mediator - suggest?
The sticking point seemed to be the £1.3m arrears.
Would it not be fair to meet halfway and Sisu agrees to pay 50%?
If you looked up the definitions of mediation & arbritation you'll find they have a lot of similarities but the main difference is that
So I think you'll find TF is choosing his words very carefully.
- mediation is advisory where the parties continue to negotiate and the mediator assists
- arbritation is a binding agreement the results of which are decided by the arbritator.
No, if the agreed new rent is 33% of the old rent of 1.2m, why would more than 33%of the arrears be fair?
imp:
I would have suggested mediation in his shoes - and if ACL then says arbitration I would accept within 15 nanoseconds.
I don't think Acl have suggested arb or mediation. They just want to sue for their pound of flesh. They are not concerned if it kills us!
imp:
The sticking point seemed to be the £1.3m arrears.
Would it not be fair to meet halfway and Sisu agrees to pay 50%?
To be fair though if you want stadium sponsorship rights you buy the stadium that isn't a reasonable request.
while it's true that without the football club the nameing rights are likely worth alot less, giveing them up is likely to mean the equivalent of reducing the rent to nothing.
Mediation, as used in law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes between two or more parties with concrete effects. Typically, a third party, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a variety of domains, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.
The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others reach agreement. More specifically, mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics that "ordinary" negotiation lacks. The process is private and confidential, possibly enforced by law. Participation is typically voluntary. The mediator acts as a neutral third party and facilitates rather than directs the process.
Mediators use various techniques to open, or improve, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement. Much depends on the mediator's skill and training. As the practice gained popularity, training programs, certifications and licensing followed, producing trained, professional mediators committed to the discipline.
The benefits of mediation[1] include:
- Cost—While a mediator may charge a fee comparable to that of an attorney, the mediation process generally takes much less time than moving a case through standard legal channels. While a case in the hands of a lawyer or a court may take months or years to resolve, mediation usually achieves a resolution in a matter of hours. Taking less time means expending less money on hourly fees and costs.
- Confidentiality—While court hearings are public, mediation remains strictly confidential. No one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator(s) know what happened. Confidentiality in mediation has such importance that in most cases the legal system cannot force a mediator to testify in court as to the content or progress of mediation. Many mediators destroy their notes taken during a mediation once that mediation has finished. The only exceptions to such strict confidentiality usually involve child abuse or actual or threatened criminal acts.
- Control—Mediation increases the control the parties have over the resolution. In a court case, the parties obtain a resolution, but control resides with the judge or jury. Often, a judge or jury cannot legally provide solutions that emerge in mediation. Thus, mediation is more likely to produce a result that is mutually agreeable for the parties.
- Compliance—Because the result is attained by the parties working together and is mutually agreeable, compliance with the mediated agreement is usually high. This further reduces costs, because the parties do not have to employ an attorney to force compliance with the agreement. The mediated agreement is, however, fully enforceable in a court of law.
- Mutuality—Parties to a mediation are typically ready to work mutually toward a resolution. In most circumstances the mere fact that parties are willing to mediate means that they are ready to "move" their position. The parties thus are more amenable to understanding the other party's side and work on underlying issues to the dispute. This has the added benefit of often preserving the relationship the parties had before the dispute.
- Support—Mediators are trained in working with difficult situations. The mediator acts as a neutral facilitator and guides the parties through the process. The mediator helps the parties think "outside of the box" for possible solutions to the dispute, broadening the range of possible solutions.[2]
These are the problem areas of mediation. It would mean that we the fans would actually know even less about negotiations than we presently do. And it requires that parties are already on reasonable terms and ready to move their position. Whilst ACL have done this several times, SISU refuse to do so. I'd question whether Fisher really understands this given that he spoke about how there were people in their last meeting that "don't shake hands". If that's the case, mediation would be all but impossible.
Why are "fans" entitled to know anything? When we buy a new shirt to show who we support - do we show any interest or concern, or moralise about whether we're paying sufficient for the potential slave-labour used to produce the thing?
I don't think Acl have suggested arb or mediation. They just want to sue for their pound of flesh. They are not concerned if it kills us!
imp:
Why are "fans" entitled to know anything? When we buy a new shirt to show who we support - do we show any interest or concern, or moralise about whether we're paying sufficient for the potential slave-labour used to produce the thing?
But ACL acting Chief Executive and other ACL officers have been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing football at the arena, they've also proposed a deal on the rent and F&B revenue, how does that square up with killing the club?
Its the other way round, SISU are trying to kill ACL, that is why they stopped paying rent.
But ACL acting Chief Executive and other ACL officers have been on the radio to say they want CCFC playing football at the arena, they've also proposed a deal on the rent and F&B revenue, how does that square up with killing the club?
Its the other way round, SISU are trying to kill ACL, that is why they stopped paying rent.
Whatever the rights and wrongs in the way SISU has gone about its business in taking on ACL over the whole rent/rates/revenue issue, and i am not seeking to defend them here, the deal that ACL has proposed doesn't offer any significant increase in revenue, which CCFC needs in order to build a better team under FFP rules, and which would better reflect what the CCFC brand and matchday activities contribute to the overall revenue stream of the Arena.
Whatever the rights and wrongs in the way SISU has gone about its business in taking on ACL over the whole rent/rates/revenue issue, and i am not seeking to defend them here, the deal that ACL has proposed doesn't offer any significant increase in revenue, which CCFC needs in order to build a better team under FFP rules, and which would better reflect what the CCFC brand and matchday activities contribute to the overall revenue stream of the Arena.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?