Question for PWKH (4 Viewers)

[lapsed_skyblue]

The football league is an interesting one in my eyes.

Yes, they've let themselves be pushed into a position where they were in effect being told what to do rather than doing the telling. Not sure they should intervene in rent disputes, but they do seem to have allowed things with no more than verbal assurances.

On the other hand, from their POV, if they'd said to us 'OK then, you have no club anymore so sorry, but no league place' I guess their fear is it starts a house of cards with club after club failing once the floodgates are opened.

So from their POV I doubt they're happy about it all(!) but with the club getting to this stage, did they actually have any alternative options open to them?

The FL had already announced the promotions and relegations, and the forthcoming fixture list when CCFC applied for permission to play elsewhere. Perhaps certain officials may have even had sympathy with the club and thought the very threat of playing elsewhere would force a new agreement. In any event the priority to maintain the integrity of the fixture list took over.
The FL are probably praying that agreement is reached concerning the Ricoh because if not the FL only have one window of opportunity to make a decisive intervention - the gap between the end of the season and the confirmation of promotions and relegations. In this time period they could review whether the club has done enough to meet the undertakings it gave to return to Coventry. If they think not they could strip the club of the golden share and invite a fresh application for a spot in a lower league.
They would need to make this a decision rather than a discussion point as discussions will be dragged out leading the FL back to the same problem as they had at the beginning of last season.
I don't see them doing this, especially if SISU/ Otium make any kind of announcement concerning progress on a new ground.

 

---

[lordsummerisle]

As far as the ground share is concerned, think that the Football League couldn't really do any more when it's a dispute between landlord and club.

If, for instance, Sisu bought the ground and then sold the club to somebody else(Haskell, the Trust, whoever) and then started charging the club an excessive rent that the club couldn't afford, then the club has to have recourse to moving somewhere else that it can afford rather than being held ransom by a monopoly supplier in the area.

It's why clubs and grounds should never be seperate in my opinion.

 

[ajsccfc]

No disrespect to PWKH, but if you got nothing to say, why post on here?

You're the creator of 81 threads. You can't be serious.

 

[covcity4life]

haahhah:claping hands:

 

[lewys33]

As far as the ground share is concerned, think that the Football League couldn't really do any more when it's a dispute between landlord and club.

If, for instance, Sisu bought the ground and then sold the club to somebody else(Haskell, the Trust, whoever) and then started charging the club an excessive rent that the club couldn't afford, then the club has to have recourse to moving somewhere else that it can afford rather than being held ransom by a monopoly supplier in the area.

It's why clubs and grounds should never be seperate in my opinion.

Hindsight is a marvelous thing isn't it. I would like to think if back then they knew what was going to happen the Ricoh would have remained a pipeline dream. I was going to suggest that maybe there should be some governance on who owns what, and what rent is considered acceptable to charge, however I am sure some people would find loopholes in a Nit's testicle so would there be much point?

 

[shmmeee]

As far as the ground share is concerned, think that the Football League couldn't really do any more when it's a dispute between landlord and club.

If, for instance, Sisu bought the ground and then sold the club to somebody else(Haskell, the Trust, whoever) and then started charging the club an excessive rent that the club couldn't afford, then the club has to have recourse to moving somewhere else that it can afford rather than being held ransom by a monopoly supplier in the area.

It's why clubs and grounds should never be seperate in my opinion.

Or at the very least, owned by the community in some form and gifted to the club (See Chelsea for example). As soon as you have clubs in private hands you have no real way to stop the two being split up. Although, I'd say you shouldn't have clubs in private hands...

 

[duffer]

As far as the ground share is concerned, think that the Football League couldn't really do any more when it's a dispute between landlord and club.

If, for instance, Sisu bought the ground and then sold the club to somebody else(Haskell, the Trust, whoever) and then started charging the club an excessive rent that the club couldn't afford, then the club has to have recourse to moving somewhere else that it can afford rather than being held ransom by a monopoly supplier in the area.

It's why clubs and grounds should never be seperate in my opinion.

I see your point, but I don't think it's for the FL to intervene between a club and a landlord to the advantage of either party. And there are plenty of clubs that have chosen to lease grounds rather than purchase them, presumably a decision based on the financial reality of those institutions. It's perhaps a bit late for the league to intervene now on that, though on the back of what's happening with us I'd welcome any regulation that said that the ownership/lease of the ground and the club should reside in the same company.

To use your words, you could just as easily say that our club is being held ransom by a monopoly supplier - no one other than Otium has the right to play football in the League as CCFC, and the demand is that they are given ownership of the Ricoh, or else.

In my opinion, what the FL should do though is stick to their rules as published - rather than hide behind discretion. That would stop owners from being able to move clubs away from their fanbase (which is presumably why those rules were drafted). Owners would either have to come to terms with their landlords, or build another ground in their locality. Or at the very least have to provide genuine plans to do so, with a payable bond that would act as an adequate punishment/incentive to do the same. None of that has happened for us.

If the FL is there to enforce good governance of clubs for the benefit of the game and the fans, then they need rules that are clear, and clearly enforced.

Currently no one seems to know what the FL will do in any given circumstance, which shows how weak and ultimately useless they are.

 

[stupot07]

The FL had already announced the promotions and relegations, and the forthcoming fixture list when CCFC applied for permission to play elsewhere. Perhaps certain officials may have even had sympathy with the club and thought the very threat of playing elsewhere would force a new agreement. In any event the priority to maintain the integrity of the fixture list took over.
The FL are probably praying that agreement is reached concerning the Ricoh because if not the FL only have one window of opportunity to make a decisive intervention - the gap between the end of the season and the confirmation of promotions and relegations. In this time period they could review whether the club has done enough to meet the undertakings it gave to return to Coventry. If they think not they could strip the club of the golden share and invite a fresh application for a spot in a lower league.
They would need to make this a decision rather than a discussion point as discussions will be dragged out leading the FL back to the same problem as they had at the beginning of last season.
I don't see them doing this, especially if SISU/ Otium make any kind of announcement concerning progress on a new ground.

I can't see them being about to do that at the end of this season, they've already agreed a 3-5 season move with a £1m bond paid at the end if the 3 years if things are dragging on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[lapsed_skyblue]

I can't see them being about to do that at the end of this season, they've already agreed a 3-5 season move with a £1m bond paid at the end if the 3 years if things are dragging on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The FL could act at the end of this season on the basis that although they agreed a 3-5 year move there should be some evidence that some progress to that end has been made. So far, no identified site, and therefore no planning application or construction work. I agree that they are unlikely to do so though. In which case they will only have another opportunity at the end of next season, and so on.

 

[stupot07]

The FL could act at the end of this season on the basis that although they agreed a 3-5 year move there should be some evidence that some progress to that end has been made. So far, no identified site, and therefore no planning application or construction work. I agree that they are unlikely to do so though. In which case they will only have another opportunity at the end of next season, and so on.

Like I said, looking at it from the FL and not a fans perspective I can't see FL acting this summer. There would still be 2-4 year left on that agreement and plenty of time to make progress (I don't believe they will built a standout btw). Plus there's still another 7-8 months of this season for sisu to provide evidence - I'm sure they would not require that much evidence, not as much as us the fans would require to take their plan seriously - evidence of site scoping exercising, meetings with Planning officers, architect's, etc would probably be enough to satisfy the FL for the end of this season. I imagine they would need a lot more evidence at the end of next season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Spionkop]

Spin it anyway you like, Gunnarson didn't go on a free.

 

[stupot07]

Spin it anyway you like, Gunnarson didn't go on a free.

I'm spinning nothing. I responded to this original comment :

You have to question the transfers of Turner and Gunnarson to Cardiff (a Ranson connection) for way below market value. .

My response was this

We didn't sell gunnarsson, he ran down his contract and left on a Bosman.

You then respond with this:

Gunnarson didn't go free, as a young/under 23 player we got money for him.

So I said this:

He still ran down his contract and left on a Bosman, we got compensation we didn't sell him, let along sell him cheaply.

Please tell me where I said he left on a free. We didn't sell him, he ran down his contract and was free to leave for another club pending compensation.

 

[ajsccfc]

I said he left on a free

You WHAT?

he left on a free

On a fucking what now?

a free

I've nailed you good there. Apology to all of us accepted you filthy liar, now don't ever make such a clear statement that can be misconstrued for the sake of petty arguments again.

 

[lewys33]

he left on a free

I've nailed you good there. Apology to all of us accepted you filthy liar, now don't ever make such a clear statement that can be misconstrued for the sake of petty arguments again.

How dare you just take what you want from a statement to use it to your advantage! Just to clarify for all, this was the full statement:

he left on a free. He did however say Give SISU money or I will release the KRAKEN! So they had to pay some monies to SISU so everyone is a winner! Also just to add myself and Grendel had an illegitamate love child called Tim!

I think you will find this tells a completely different story!

 

[ajsccfc]

I've always had my suspicions about those two, sharing little jokes and making eye contact for just a second longer than usual.

 

[lewys33]

[video=youtube;WNmB7HQmwv0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmB7HQmwv0[/video]

 

[dongonzalos]

I've always had my suspicions about those two, sharing little jokes and making eye contact for just a second longer than usual.

Grendel and Torch?