italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It will be the consortiums money so that won't be the case.
Unless you think just working with Wasps is the same thing ?
I don't want any consortium in charge of CCFC that is in wasps back pocket.
Be the end for me too.It would be the end for me, no question. I believe that to remove our club outside the city was a travesty and through their incompetence for it to happen again would be a line I will not cross literally and emotionally.
The Butts thing was a smokescreen, there was never any prospect of it happening.
You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?The council haven’t had anything to block.
That worked really well the last time the owners of ACL tried it.I'd imagine if Wasps are refusing a deal it will be to force regime change at CCFC. After all, any new owner could do a deal with Wasps in a matter of days if they are willing.
You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?
We know Fisher showed the FL round the Butts.
We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.
The fact that the council had to rapidly backpedal when it was leaked means nothing, SISU already have what they need to show the FL.
All of which helps no one.
It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.
I'm glad you'll be happy when they move.
Hi Nick. There has been no change since what was published previously, in that we are hopeful of being able to bring fans positive news very soon. #PUSB
No change from CCFC, really disappointing and it just undoes all the good work that’s been going on recently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They can't really say anything until it's done can they other than generic things like that.
We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.
It doesn't really put them in the same boat as CRFC.
It is a known fact the council tried to put a clause in for pro football at the Butts. That's what he was referring to wasn't it?
I think they can, why can’t the Club say;
“We met with Wasps, we’ve put forward terms on a new agreement which will benefit all parties and we await their response”
Or flip it..
“The Club is continuing dialogue with Wasps over an extension to the current deal to remain at the Ricoh, we hope to be able to agree new terms with Wasps for next season.”
By tweeting “we are hopeful of bringing news soon” just brushes the matter under the carpet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How can they force it though? They would open a massive can of worms, it won't happen.
Yes, it would be great if they had it so every team had to own a stadium and had to be fan owned, self-sufficient etc but how do they force it through now? How do they force a deal between stadium owners and tenants?
IF it does turn out Wasps are refusing to sign the deal that's been agreed, the FL won't really have much option than to allow a move. Otherwise what then stops other stadium owners from saying "actually, we want shit loads more because if you don't pay us then the FA will take the club off you".
This whole thing that the FA / FL are going to start taking clubs off owners is madness, yes if they are committing crimes, laundering money and doing illegal stuff they are likely to do it more but with teams like Leyton Orient where the guy chucks loads of money in and then turns off the money tap, they can't force him to hand the club over because he doesn't want to plough money in anymore.
It’s also a known fact that the clause has never been applied so doesn’t exist. It’s also a known fact that JS has said not while SISU are involved and given that John Sharp is the first hurdle. So it’s complete bollocks to say that the council have blocked it. Who’s whipping what up exactly. If you’re that concerned about people whipping things up at least point that concern in the right direction.
Initially yes.That worked really well the last time the owners of ACL tried it.
I hear what you are saying and do agree with most of it. However this is not a new case nor is it something that the league have not, in their words been keeping an eye on. I cannot find the actual wording of what they said when they allowed the move to Northampton. But I am sure it was on the lines of "too late other than to let it go this time" but then they put stipulations in like a bond or some such and said they would want answers to "long term" and that was re-iterated when we came back to the Ricoh. Even as recently as last year they said they were monitoring and keeping close eye on it. They CAN withdraw the golden share they have said so many times about other circumstances. You are right ti would start a catalogue of other issues but maybe that is what is required . I would ate for us to get to June again and then the League forced to agree to a ground move because the "fixture list" had been issued !
No. Which is why I hope that any future owner isn't welded to the idea of a long term lease at the Ricoh, just for political (both small and large p I guess) reasons.cant see it being a deal that would be that favourable to CCFC whoever the owner is
You're both missing the point. What level of evidence do you think the FL will require?
We know Fisher showed the FL round the Butts.
We also know that Jon Sharp was informed that in exchange for the requested sub-lease changes a clause would be inserted that prevented “professional association football or training associated therewith" taking place at the Butts. This occurred right after Sharp had submitted a 3 year business plan to the council that included a ground share with CCFC. That was all confirmed by Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council.
The fact that the council had to rapidly backpedal when it was leaked means nothing, SISU already have what they need to show the FL.
Realistically what else can the FL do?
If Wasps don't agree to a deal for example, how can the FL then withdraw the golden share? On the other hand what if Wasps say "yeah you can stay, but we want 4 million a year because if you dont you lose the golden share" (not saying they will or have either, just examples of why the FL cant force a deal).
As I've said I'd love for it to be a rule that every stadium has to be owned by the club, but how do they enforce it with existing clubs?
It only helps the FL justify it. They haven’t got the backbone to oppose SISU or the financial clout to risk a court case with them. SISU don’t need a case, the FL are running scared.It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.
Seems you and CD are alone on this.It helps SISU case with the FL, while everybody is saying the FL should take back the golden share or take the club from them. They have things like that to put a case forward they are being forced out so the FL pretty much have to sanction a move.
It only helps the FL justify it. They haven’t got the backbone to oppose SISU or the financial clout to risk a court case with them. SISU don’t need a case, the FL are running scared.
Seems you and CD are alone on this.
I never said you did say it had been applied. Take a look in the mirror if you want to accuse people of struggling to read. CD said that CCC had blocked a move to BPA. They haven’t. They’ve never had the opportunity. You then jumped in rather than acknowledging CD had posted an inaccuracy started justifying his post as if correcting him with the facts is wrong. Then you start talking about people trying to whip things up. You’re doing a good job of assisting CD in that so again look in the mirror.How many times do I have to point out when something is going to come out that usually means something bad / could be decieved as bad for Wasps. Ignore it all you want, but I have been proven right multiple times
I didn't say it had been applied, that's why I said the word "tried".
It seems both you and Dart are struggling to read today so just resort to making things up.
Quite.Not really how it works though tony. If there were a block by CCC then it wouldn't be in the form of a formal statements - that might prejudice their legal position. There are other ways eg not supporting infra structure developments around the ground, getting other developments done that could hamper Butts Park, quiet back ground talks that put pressure on. CRFC & Sharpe need the support of CCC to get anything done - that's a lever CCC can use. I think it would be naiive to think they haven't used it
I never said you did say it had been applied. Take a look in the mirror if you want to accuse people of struggling to read. CD said that CCC had blocked a move to BPA. They haven’t. They’ve never had the opportunity. You then jumped in rather than acknowledging CD had posted an inaccuracy started justifying his post as if correcting him with the facts is wrong. Then you start talking about people trying to whip things up. You’re doing a good job of assisting CD in that so again look in the mirror.
Even if it comes to leaving the Ricoh again SISU have been given all the ammunition they need. They just go to the FL and say they tried to agree a deal to stay at the Ricoh but Wasps walked away, they looked in to moving to the Butts but the council tried to block it. Do you really see the FL challenging them, if they did it would be another court case.
Sorry for quoting againThe EFL will not take the share away or force regime change
- it would set a precedent that would be very dangerous for the EFL & FA. Where do you then stop. It would be an action by the board against a member that effectively closes the club down
- taking the share away doesn't under the regulations mean it comes back to CCFC
- it would certainly bring multi million pound court cases and compensation claims that would go on for years
- SISU are awful owners but I think you would be hard pressed to find any illegality in their actions or ownership
- owners of football clubs are free to do what they like with their investment, taking a club down two divisions and losing its home and assets is sadly part of that freedom. So long as no law or EFL broken there is very little available as a remedy
- The EFL can not force Wasps to do a deal that is best for CCFC, if the SISU assessment is that the deal is detrimental to CCFC then the EFL has to support its member in finding alternatives
- quite deliberately many EFL rules are based on the discretion of the EFL board
There is a thought that the EFL ineptitude and lack of action is quite deliberate. If the CCFC problem is solved by bankruptcy or relegation it would suit them
Seems not.Seems you and CD are alone on this.
Are you deliberately missing the point? It will be SISU talking to the FL not anyone else, from what perspective do you think they will present things? The simple fact is CCC have publically confirmed, via the CT, that they attempted to block a plan for CCFC to groundshare at the Butts. If anyone turns round to SISU and says it would never happen as Sharp wouldn't allow it then can again present confirmation from CCC, via the CT, that a groundshare with CCFC was in the CRFC business plan submitted to the council.We’re all aware of what sisu have done. We’re also all aware of what CCC have done and the fact is unlike what you’ve claimed CCC haven’t blocked anything. They haven’t had to, Jon Sharp blocked a move while SISU are in charge so there isn’t even an opportunity to test the theory. That’s the point. When you try to portray it as anything else you’re either deliberately bullshitting or completely misinformed. You’re also better than that Dave.
We all know from past experience the FL won't dig too deeply.I agree SISU can argue they have tried, so long as EFL doesn't actually dig too deeply.
Council official says Butts Park football block was just a tacticA leaked email to the rugby club in January 2016, said the council wanted a new clause inserted which would specifically prevent “professional association football or training associated therewith” in exchange for making other changes to the sub-lease.
The Telegraph asked Nigel Clews, assistant director of property and asset management at Coventry City Council, why they had tried to insert the clause at that time.
He said: “No, it doesn’t look good. But we were trying to flush out details. We wanted to bring the issue out.
“Media reports had circulated that there could be a potential ground share with Coventry City. But Mr Sharp had previously told us during meetings that this was out of the question.
“A few months later we received a three-year plan for Butts Park Arena that included a ground share with Coventry City.”
The EFL will not take the share away or force regime change
- it would set a precedent that would be very dangerous for the EFL & FA. Where do they then stop. It would be an action by the board against a member that effectively closes the club down
- taking the share away doesn't under the regulations mean it comes back to CCFC
- it would certainly bring multi million pound court cases and compensation claims that would go on for years
- SISU are awful owners but I think you would be hard pressed to find any illegality in their actions or ownership
- owners of football clubs are free to do what they like with their investment, taking a club down two divisions and losing its home and assets is sadly part of that freedom. So long as no law or EFL broken there is very little available as a remedy
- The EFL can not force Wasps to do a deal that is best for CCFC, if the SISU assessment is that the deal is detrimental to CCFC then the EFL has to support its member in finding alternatives
- quite deliberately many EFL rules are based on the discretion of the EFL board
There is a thought that the EFL ineptitude and lack of action is quite deliberate. If the CCFC problem is solved by bankruptcy or relegation it would suit them
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?