italiahorse
Well-Known Member
........ fans will be long gone by then, but lets hope eh ?
When mentioning new evidence it says "new ground was unarguable" does that mean it wasn't considered as it was new or that it was considered and wasn't relevant?
I'm increasingly of the opinion we're going to see a second JR, or equivalent, launched by SISU around the sale to Wasps. The flaw, for want of a better word, in the JR process seems to be it only considers a snapshot, by taking aim at another target SISU could extend this pretty much indefinetaly couldn't they?
It's a fair point, but as has been picked up elsewhere, it's not as though they're putting money into the club now anyway. In truth, under FFP and without other income streams, there's only so much that they could throw into the club now isn't there? Happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood though...
........ fans will be long gone by then, but lets hope eh ?
Hang on, when have I said I want legal action to continue. I'd love nothing more than this all to be settled and a bright future for the club.
Equally I would very much like to know the truth, and by that I mean the truth regarding everyone involved in this. By the end of it I'd like to know the truth and if anyone, on any side, has done anything underhand or even illegal I would expect them to suffer the appropriate punishment.
Let me be very very clear here. I am not saying I want another JR as that would mean years more in limbo, what I am saying is I suspect this is the route SISU will take.
A large part of the argument last time seemed to be that CCC had every right to protect a company they owned a share in. That wouldn't be the case in a JR involving the sale to Wasps.
There's also Lucas claims that she was only passing on information provided to her by council officers, presumably referring to Reeves and West. If that's the case then surely by now Reeves and West should have been suspended pending disciplinary action as it sounds a lot to me like fraud by false representation if what Lucas is saying is correct. Of course the other option is that Lucas is scapegoating them and the original claims that she was not telling the truth are valid, in either case there are questions to answer.
What could be the outcome of a victory for SISU, who knows? I can certainly see a scenario where CCC have to request immediate repayment of the loan, could that potentially open the door to us gaining at least part ownership of ACL. If Wasps can source alternative funding it would certainly be a possibility.
The other option would be SISU claiming compensation for lost earnings. If they successfully argue that they have lost millions through the actions of CCC and now have a bill for £20m plus to build a new stadium how much of that might they possibly be awarded in compensation.
Ultimately I think the best possible outcome for us now, be it through a business transaction or legal challenges, is a 50% stake in ACL. Given where we are now I'd be more than happy if that could be achieved at a reasonable cost. Whilst I would rather Wasps weren't here at all, for franchising reasons more than anything, at this point I would take equal billing with them. If that could be achieved maybe the club could move forward and look to make savings in other areas such as shared ticket facilities, shared shop, maybe even sharing a training complex. In fact I think that route is the only way we will see a future for the club that doesn't have us staying at this level or lower for many years to come.
Ffp only stops owners lending clubs money. Sisu are free to "donate" as much money as they want in Ccfc.
Why - at this point in time it's not exactly relevant to what's happening on the pitch anyway, is it?
I'm struggling to see how having another tilt in court at something could actually make things any worse for CCFC, it's not as though there's any commercial relationship with CCC to damage now.
I don't think it's quite that simple.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
"Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees."
So SISU could spend millions and buy big name players if they wished, but they wouldn't be able to pay their wages no matter how much they wanted to 'donate'. Which is really the whole point of FFP/SCMP - and comes back to how much not having a share of the income from ACL impacts us.
They could buy an advertising board for £1M that goes straight into income.
How would buying an advertising board for £1m go straight to the income? Where would advertising board go? And yes I get that the idea is to sell advertising space for income.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
At the Ricoh in one of the gaps ?
At the Ricoh in one of the gaps ?
What gaps? And which would wasps allow us to put up and advertising board on their land to compete for business with their electronic advertising board? And if they did, isn't it likely they would want either a cut or us to pay rental on the land that our advertising board is on and generating income from?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I think the theory is that SISU could sponsor the club, or buy fake advertising to the tune of £1m to boost the club's turnover. I'm not quite sure how permissable that is, but assuming it's OK even then only 60% of the money can be used towards player wages. It's probably fair enough to say that there are ways around FFP/SMCP, but they all presume that SISU (or another owner) would want to throw money at the club in this way. I certainly don't see that SISU want to do this - and in any case as a model it's unsustainable.
I think most people would agree that the club needs access to additional income streams, and currently that possiblity is gone.
Ffp only stops owners lending clubs money. Sisu are free to "donate" as much money as they want in Ccfc.
I am happy to be corrected by anyone with proper legal knowledge, but it looks to me that JR2 is not really linked at all to JR1, surely JR2 is just about the new loan terms to ACL, and would concentrate on how that particular decision was made. Looks to me though that a loan at 5% is a commercial loan. Obviously at the time the club said this new legal challenge was merely protecting JR1, maybe that's right.
Although the same article also said “Today’s action does not change our short, medium and long-term aims, and does not impact the financial resources available to manager Steven Pressley to spend on the pitch during the January transfer window". Again this is probably correct, there was no money, and this has not changed.
Make your mind up !!
The fact that you want SISU to win compensation from CCC in the vague hope that CCFC get 50% of ACL can only happen through a JR.
Ahem ? Sky Blue Sports and Leisure are paying for all the court cases. So if they have a budget then players budget will be cut !!
Now what are you on about? It's very very simple. I would like the truth - from all sides. Many sides in this we don't really have any hold over but CCC are, at least in theory, a publically accountable body so shouldn't just be able to sweep things under the carpet.
Gent asked, to paraphrase, if there was a second JR and SISU win what gain would there be to CCFC. I suggested two possible outcomes that could be positive for CCFC, one being the loan is recalled and if Wasps can't refinance part or all of ACL could be placed on the market, the other could be that if the actions of CCC are deemed to have caused a significant loss to the club there could be cause to claim compensation.
Equally I would very much like to know the truth, and by that I mean the truth regarding everyone involved in this. By the end of it I'd like to know the truth and if anyone, on any side, has done anything underhand or even illegal I would expect them to suffer the appropriate punishment.
You are confusing the issue.
The incomes for the calculation are after the costs to provide the income. So in this case very little.
... and I'm saying that while this happens other opportunities are passing by and ultimately the club cannot afford to miss them and survive.
What other opportunities? What are the club missing out on?
I'm not sure that there's a route to that court if they get bounced out at the oral application. I think that might be the end of the road for this particular action. However I'm not sure that this prevents them from taking further action regarding the sale to Wasps.
Personally, I'd have no problem with that. As chiefdave says, what's gone on around the ACL sale to Wasps would clearly merit further attention anyway.
I suppose there is the very slim hope that CCFC might benefit in some way, but more than that I'd just like to know that everything that CCC have done is completely above board here. This constant secrecy isn't encouraging.
I'm also not happy that it seems CCC is still on the hook if Wasps fail - in many ways this plan is far worse for the taxpayer than the one suggested by Fisher which at least involved the club buying out the mortgage. Why didn't the council insist on that from Wasps I wonder? They now get no benefit if ACL is a success - but are at risk if Wasps and subsequently ACL fail.
Before you say it, by the way, see if you can spot any apology to SISU here, OK?[/QUOTE]
Not really sure why you might think that I would say it in the first place duffer???
Not really sure why you might think that I would say it in the first place duffer???
You're right about being confused. Only 60% of turnover can be used to pay player salaries. If SISU were to put £1m into the club as advertising revenue that counts as turnover. In which case only 60% of it can go towards wages, no?
The boards change for Wasps and CCFC.
ACL before the deal gave us the income from pitch side advertising.
The advertising at CCFC matches should therefore go to CCFC.
This is the sort of detail that the club should be getting us into, not fighting everybody that has a pulse.
Get settled at the Ricoh and start establishing income streams.
when did fisher suggest the club should buy out the.mortgage? we know sisu wanted to buy out the mortgage at a hugely reduced price which the bank rejected out of hand.
We sign a third choice goalkeeper for 31 days at the same time SISU continue their and expensive futile legal actions.
Can any of their Lawyers play center half ?
I don't think you would have been the person hitting me with the 'SISU apologist' line OSB, but some others here are a bit quick to chuck that one out without merit. I just thought I'd get my retaliation in first, so to speak.
I don't think anyone would seriously say that of you Duffer. You always put good points for and against all sides.
Very nice of you to say so Astute - I think I better quit whilst I'm ahead!
In fairness mate I know that everyone here is just trying to figure out a way through the pain. I'm not saying I've got any better ideas than anyone else - there's plenty here like you who make a lot of good points too, even if we don't always agree. Anyway, screw it - it's the weekend and I'm off to get a take-away. Have a good one.
We sign a third choice goalkeeper for 31 days at the same time SISU continue their and expensive futile legal actions.
Can any of their Lawyers play center half ?
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?