Reasons not to push for an independent mediator and/or arbitrator (2 Viewers)

covcity4life · May 6, 2014

Astute said:
Do you honestly think that a bit of pie money will make up for lower attendances and build cost repayments?

i honestly believe that owning a stadium is best way for CCFC to move forward.

Astute · May 6, 2014

covcity4life said:
i honestly believe that owning a stadium is best way for CCFC to move forward.

It would be......if our club would own it and also if our club could afford to have it built. Both are not true though.

torchomatic · May 6, 2014

Have to agree. Even if SISU left tomorrow then the new owners would own the Ricoh (or wherever we play) the club never will again. Richardson saw to that.

Astute said:
It would be......if our club would own it and also if our club could afford to have it built. Both are not true though.

duffer · May 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Have to agree. Even if SISU left tomorrow then the new owners would own the Ricoh (or wherever we play) the club never will again. Richardson saw to that.

Never say never, but I take your point. Three epic mistakes led us here, imho:

1) Selling HR
2) Selling the 50% share to Higgs
3) Not buying back the 50% share, ASAP

Could it be that out of the carnage, there is a route back? A deal, one day, between all of the parties for the good of the club, which insists that whatever stake in the Ricoh is sold to the owners is irretrievably and forever bound to the part of the club that holds the golden share. Nothing stopping SISU then selling the club for a 'profit', but whoever buys it can't then split the club and the stadium apart at any point.

World peace is probably more likely, torchy, but if I was negotiating it's where I'd start...

James Smith · May 6, 2014

Grendel said:
We will not actually know the full situation until the JR I suspect.

Well roll on the Judicial Review then.

fernandopartridge · May 6, 2014

Astute said:
Or maybe more realistic than a few others and can see all the problems ahead.

And nobody has even mentioned whether it would be a legal proposition as council freeholds are supposed to be sold to the highest bidder. I suppose that we can always ignore the most important parts though.

An independent valuation would set a framework for bids. It wouldn't sell it to the lowest bidder.

Deleted member 5849 · May 6, 2014

duffer said:
I've no issue with binding arbitration, but I think there are a few things here to consider.

There are of course things to consider. That's where the agreement for the club to move back at cost whilst this goes on shows goodwill from both sides, and a willingness to enforce a deal.

Furthermore, if it's done with a third party there, we might actually get detail about what, if anything, stalls a process - as it currently stands we had a load of bollocks about handshakes.

Nobody said it would be easy... but I'm amazed some people seem even against the principle, because it just wouldn't work.

It certainly won't if nobody tries, and nobody will try if there's no pressure and thus obligation on them to do so.

The absolute *worst* conclusion of such a push, is it'd clarify some of the smoke and mirrors, and see who was being most obstructive - there'd be less of the he said, she said... and a formalised process instead.

Can't see how that's a bad thing?

lewys33 · May 6, 2014

Something has got to be sorted over the summer break. Even if it was a rental deal thrashed out that got us back home, it is a start that can be built on.

Deleted member 5849 · May 6, 2014

shmmeee said:
and how would we pick someone both sides are happy with?

See, that's a more practical question than 'it just wouldn't work'. It's an issue that needs a resolution. Personally I'd suggest this is where the football league *could* involve themselves in making some suggestions. Ultimately, their stated desire is a club called Coventry City still existing, and playing in Coventry, their vested interests coincide with the hoped for conclusion to such a process.

Noggin · May 6, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
See, that's a more practical question than 'it just wouldn't work'. It's an issue that needs a resolution. Personally I'd suggest this is where the football league *could* involve themselves in making some suggestions. Ultimately, their stated desire is a club called Coventry City still existing, and playing in Coventry, their vested interests coincide with the hoped for conclusion to such a process.

acl wouldn't be happy with the football league surely, they have shown they will listen just to sisus side lock stock and barrel no matter how obviously incorrect it is. Weather thats due to sheer incompetence or due to being bullied by lawyers we perhaps will never know.

Deleted member 5849 · May 6, 2014

Noggin said:
acl wouldn't be happy with the football league surely, they have shown they will listen just to sisus side lock stock and barrel no matter how obviously incorrect it is. Weather thats due to sheer incompetence or due to being bullied by lawyers we perhaps will never know.

ACL were happy to send a rental offer via the football league, apparently, so they clearly have faith in their integrity.

Ian1779 · May 6, 2014

Noggin said:
acl wouldn't be happy with the football league surely, they have shown they will listen just to sisus side lock stock and barrel no matter how obviously incorrect it is. Weather thats due to sheer incompetence or due to being bullied by lawyers we perhaps will never know.

ACL played just as many games as SISU did around that time. Both had preferred administrators, both parties were happy to muddy the waters all the way through the process. As much as there is questions about how SISU benefited from the process, there was some suggestion that one of the bids came from ACL itself, bidding on a company they had push to put in admin. There are unanswered questions from both sides of the dispute.

IMO blaming the football league is just a bit lazy, they are bound by the law - just look at the Leeds situation.

Noggin · May 6, 2014

Ian1779 said:
ACL played just as many games as SISU did around that time. Both had preferred administrators, both parties were happy to muddy the waters all the way through the process. As much as there is questions about how SISU benefited from the process, there was some suggestion that one of the bids came from ACL itself, bidding on a company they had push to put in admin. There are unanswered questions from both sides of the dispute.

IMO blaming the football league is just a bit lazy, they are bound by the law - just look at the Leeds situation.

Not talking about who was playing games (though I disagree with you), I'm saying that the football leagues position (on which they based their actions) is that ccfc was kicked out of the Ricoh Arena. How on earth could ACL trust the football league to be an independent mediator when they came to that conclusion?

Deleted member 5849 · May 6, 2014

Noggin said:
How on earth could ACL trust the football league to be an independent mediator when they came to that conclusion?

Not to be the arbitrator, to suggest the arbitrator.

lordsummerisle · May 6, 2014

Noggin said:
acl wouldn't be happy with the football league surely, they have shown they will listen just to sisus side lock stock and barrel no matter how obviously incorrect it is. Weather thats due to sheer incompetence or due to being bullied by lawyers we perhaps will never know.

One of the reasons I'm not sure nowadays that it is all just "Sisu bad" is the way that the Football League were so complaisant over the whole move to Northampton and the granting of the Golden share to Otium, this combined with Les Reid and Nikki Sinclaire doing a complete 180 on their initial starting points makes me feel that they have all seen stuff to change their opinions.

It's not exactly been to court popularity has it?

Ian1779 · May 6, 2014

Noggin said:
Not talking about who was playing games (though I disagree with you), I'm saying that the football leagues position (on which they based their actions) is that ccfc was kicked out of the Ricoh Arena. How on earth could ACL trust the football league to be an independent mediator when they came to that conclusion?

Although SISU did play the kicked out of the stadium card, in essence there was no longer any agreement in place for them to be there once the Admin began. So were they advised to not be at the venue - and if so did that almost remove that aspect from the FL decision making.

Would the granting of the golden share be based on (amongst many other things) having somewhere to play? SISU may well have never had the Ricoh on their list of options (due to their poor relationship) and tried to demonstrate that they could work with another partner - and that NTFC and Sixfields was just that.

Certainly not defending the course of action, but it negates the power of the FL somewhat.

Sky Blue Harry H · May 6, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
50% of something is better than 100% of nothing..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually Robbo - if it is worth nothing, 50% of it is still nothing apologies for being a smart arse, or maybe just an arse

Reasons not to push for an independent mediator and/or arbitrator (2 Viewers)

covcity4life

Well-Known Member

Astute

Well-Known Member

torchomatic

Well-Known Member

duffer

Well-Known Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

lewys33

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Noggin

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Ian1779

Well-Known Member

Noggin

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member

Ian1779

Well-Known Member

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Reasons not to push for an independent mediator and/or arbitrator (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency