The never ending court story (1 Viewer)

[Magwitch]

Don’t we all? Trouble being with the business model of “Self sufficient” is that it will only get you so far ie L2 and L1 at best. If we did manage to get to the Championship (despite and not because of the owners) we would come straight back down if no or minimal investment was forthcoming. The Championship is no longer akin to when we were relegated from it under Thorn-who by the way was another Sisu mastersroke!

That was said this time last year if we went up from L2 to L1. Two of the three who got promotion to championship last season are doing pretty well as for finance there seems to be a mixture of ex prem clubs and old school championship teams surely they are not all up to their necks in debt.
I read recently if our old friends Aston Villa don’t get promotion this season the shite really hits the fan for them finance wise. How much TV money do championship clubs get nowadays seem to remember in our time it was £4m.

 

---

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

I read recently if our old friends Aston Villa don’t get promotion this season the shite really hits the fan for them finance wise. How much TV money do championship clubs get nowadays seem to remember in our time it was £4m.

A lot less if this article is anything to go by: Aston Villa have banked THIS from 16 matches on Sky Sports

I believe the TV money this year is £90m spread out amongst Championship (getting the higher share), League One and League Two. Either way, it's not a huge amount.

 

[christonabike]

A lot less if this article is anything to go by: Aston Villa have banked THIS from 16 matches on Sky Sports

I believe the TV money this year is £90m spread out amongst Championship (getting the higher share), League One and League Two. Either way, it's not a huge amount.

I love this from a Villa fan who isnt bitter and twisted...:woot:

541 days ago
SmallHeathTillIdie
Well, if it isn't old Biffo the Bum Sniffer, now popping up on the Villa pages. You talk sh*te on the Small Heath pages and now you're doing it here. That win for the Villa a week last Sunday, yet another against the spineless muppets from Small Heath, has really hurt, hasn't it? you're so bitter and twisted it's laughable.
Were you one of the 12,000 plastic Small heath fans who turned up for the first time at the Sty last Saturday? You sound like one. I'm told the £10 tickets had directions to the ground on the back of them plus the words to the Keep Right On dirge so they could join in the communal singing. I hope the announcer told the 12,000 what colours Small heath were playing in too. Wouldn't do to be cheering the wrong side, would it. And what about the child cruelty charges for taking the £5 kids along too. Disgraceful.
A fake club with a fake name and fake fans. A complete joke.

 

[fatso]

Not to single you out as its certainly not only you but this is what I don't get from our fans. We've been out of the city once. Surely it's something that everyone wants to desperately avoid and we all know the only option is the Ricoh.

It should be clear to Wasps that the city won't accept them forcing the club out but you've got our fans already making excuses for them.

I couldn't care less about SISU, Fisher, Sepalla, the council, ACL, Wasps or anyone else. I care about Coventry City and the club having a long and successful future in Coventry. Why does that seem a difficult concept for many of our supporters?

Unfortunately, just saying that you don’t care about sisu, ACL, wasps etc etc, dosnt make them any less relevant. They are the main protagonists whether YOU like it or not. The political issues won’t just go away because the fans (me included) don’t like to consider the worse case sonario.
For ccfc, the only realistic long term solution IS the Ricoh, but our future lies in the hands of third parties who have their own agendas, and that isn’t going to change while ccfc is owned by sisu.
None of the clubs supporters want to see us evicted, but what I don’t get is why so many fans fail to put their own passions to one side, and can’t see the basic issues behind all the problems.
Saying you dont care about any other participants is completely ignoring the whole problem. No one, and I mean no one is making any excuses for wasps, what we are doing is explaining the situation to all those who refuse to see it for what it is.

 

[Nick]

Unfortunately, just saying that you don’t care about sisu, ACL, wasps etc etc, dosnt make them any less relevant. They are the main protagonists whether YOU like it or not. The political issues won’t just go away because the fans (me included) don’t like to consider the worse case sonario.
For ccfc, the only realistic long term solution IS the Ricoh, but our future lies in the hands of third parties who have their own agendas, and that isn’t going to change while ccfc is owned by sisu.
None of the clubs supporters want to see us evicted, but what I don’t get is why so many fans fail to put their own passions to one side, and can’t see the basic issues behind all the problems.
Saying you dont care about any other participants is completely ignoring the whole problem. No one, and I mean no one is making any excuses for wasps, what we are doing is explaining the situation to all those who refuse to see it for what it is.

There are plenty that make excuses for Wasps. Not too sure where you are looking, it's been the same since they moved here and people who were shouting about clubs moving suddenly said it was good business.

You were suggesting they charge the club £1m in rent as a way to get at SISU weren't you? What you want is for Wasps to hammer CCFC with rent, somehow thinking that is battering or getting one over on SISU. This is where people's passion of hatred for SISU gets confused with passion for CCFC. They would rather see the club take a beating to think "that will show SISU".

I think you are missing his point.

 

[fatso]

There are plenty that make excuses for Wasps. Not too sure where you are looking, it's been the same since they moved here and people who were shouting about clubs moving suddenly said it was good business.

You were suggesting they charge the club £1m in rent as a way to get at SISU weren't you? What you want is for Wasps to hammer CCFC with rent, somehow thinking that is battering or getting one over on SISU.

I think you are missing his point.

The comment about £1m rent was an ironic statement, relating to the fact that that was the original rental figure, and as I said that would bring events “full circle”. As in nothing changed after so many years wasted and all the legal cases etc etc. etc.

I do get what chefdave said, but as I pointed out, the people he says he dosnt care about, are exactly the ones who will at some point have to sit round the table and talk about ccfc and it’s future, You cannot seperate those people and ccfc. (As much as we would like to)
People need to realise, Wasps are a buisiness, and as such their owners will have to decide whether it’s worth their while to offer a rent that sisu can afford,
and whether that rental income is worth the risk of having to defend against any future costly legal actions incurred. It’s as simple as that really. Why can’t people see that?

 

[Nick]

The comment about £1m rent was an ironic statement, relating to the fact that that was the original rental figure, and as I said that would bring events “full circle”. As in nothing changed after so many years wasted and all the legal cases etc etc. etc.

I do get what chefdave said, but as I pointed out, the people he says he dosnt care about, are exactly the ones who will at some point have to sit round the table and talk about ccfc and it’s future, You cannot seperate those people and ccfc. (As much as we would like to)
People need to realise, Wasps are a buisiness, and as such their owners will have to decide whether it’s worth their while to offer a rent that sisu can afford,
and whether that rental income is worth the risk of having to defend against any future costly legal actions incurred. It’s as simple as that really. Why can’t people see that?

It didn't look too ironic, that's why I double checked you were being serious.

You can separate them when you talk about "getting one over" though can't you? That's his point.

Far too many would be happy to see CCFC get hammered by Wasps or the Council because they see it as "getting one over on SISU".

The fact you think it is charging "SISU" rent and what "SISU" can afford sums it up. It's really not how it works.

If Wasps send an invoice for the rent for a million a year, that isn't going to SISU. It's not coming out of Joy or Dermot's pocket. While you might celebrate thinking it has really got one over on SISU, that's not how it works.

His point was that he doesn't care for them, so Wasps could take every penny SISU have and he wouldn't be bothered.

 

[Magwitch]

I get confused Is it ccfc taking Wasps/Council to court then ?

 

[duffer]

The comment about £1m rent was an ironic statement, relating to the fact that that was the original rental figure, and as I said that would bring events “full circle”. As in nothing changed after so many years wasted and all the legal cases etc etc. etc.

I do get what chefdave said, but as I pointed out, the people he says he dosnt care about, are exactly the ones who will at some point have to sit round the table and talk about ccfc and it’s future, You cannot seperate those people and ccfc. (As much as we would like to)
People need to realise, Wasps are a buisiness, and as such their owners will have to decide whether it’s worth their while to offer a rent that sisu can afford,
and whether that rental income is worth the risk of having to defend against any future costly legal actions incurred. It’s as simple as that really. Why can’t people see that?

In terms of the cost of defending potential legal actions, whether Wasps offer a deal to CCFC or not is academic. SISU could pursue an action regardless of the club's location or remt costs.

I get that Wasps wouldn't want to be blamed for the club leaving the town again; the fact that the spin on this is winding up makes me a bit nervous about that.

Does anyone remember the Council saying that the main criteria for the sale to Wasps was that it wouldn't detrimentally impact CCFC? We're seeing now what a crock of shit that claim was...

 

[fatso]

In terms of the cost of defending potential legal actions, whether Wasps offer a deal to CCFC or not is academic. SISU could pursue an action regardless of the club's location or remt costs.

I get that Wasps wouldn't want to be blamed for the club leaving the town again; the fact that the spin on this is winding up makes me a bit nervous about that.

Does anyone remember the Council saying that the main criteria for the sale to Wasps was that it wouldn't detrimentally impact CCFC? We're seeing now what a crock of shit that claim was...

I dont believe Wasps are legaly obliged to offer ccfc a rental deal (although I’m not 100% sure). But if they chose not to deal with ccfc/sisu then surely they would make themselves immune from any legal action.
What grounds would sisu have?

 

[Nick]

I dont believe Wasps are legaly obliged to offer ccfc a rental deal (although I’m not 100% sure). But if they chose not to deal with ccfc/sisu then surely they would make themselves immune from any legal action.
What grounds would sisu have?

Why would it make them immune if they kicked ccfc out?

According to the conditions of the sale it couldn't put ccfc or crfc at risk (or along those lines)

Unless of course they were made up for pr reasons

 

[fatso]

It didn't look too ironic, that's why I double checked you were being serious.

You can separate them when you talk about "getting one over" though can't you? That's his point.

Far too many would be happy to see CCFC get hammered by Wasps or the Council because they see it as "getting one over on SISU".

The fact you think it is charging "SISU" rent and what "SISU" can afford sums it up. It's really not how it works.

If Wasps send an invoice for the rent for a million a year, that isn't going to SISU. It's not coming out of Joy or Dermot's pocket. While you might celebrate thinking it has really got one over on SISU, that's not how it works.

His point was that he doesn't care for them, so Wasps could take every penny SISU have and he wouldn't be bothered.

But sisu will not fund a loss making venture for ever, once all legal avenues have finally been exhausted, they will have to either sell the club, wind the club up, or start new litigation. Hence the risk to Wasps.

 

[fatso]

Why would it make them immune if they kicked ccfc out?

According to the conditions of the sale it couldn't put ccfc or crfc at risk (or along those lines)

Unless of course they were made up for pr reasons

It may well of been just PR, or blatant BS.
If they are legaly obliged to offer a reasonable tenancy, I’d be very surprised that we havnt heard about it by now.

 

[Nick]

But sisu will not fund a loss making venture for ever, once all legal avenues have finally been exhausted, they will have to either sell the club, wind the club up, or start new litigation. Hence the risk to Wasps.

That's why they have made it so it isn't loss making and it's self sufficient.

What you are now trying to imply is that wasps try to damage ccfc financially to force a sale?

 

[Nick]

It may well of been just PR, or blatant BS.
If they are legaly obliged to offer a reasonable tenancy, I’d be very surprised that we havnt heard about it by now.

I'm more surprised that if it is just bs or pr it gets swept under the carpet so easily.

Same as the council leader openly lying.

 

[fatso]

That's why they have made it so it isn't loss making and it's self sufficient.

What you are now trying to imply is that wasps try to damage ccfc financially to force a sale?

No, I’m saying why would Wasps deal with sisu/ccfc at all.
If Wasps deal with sisu, wasps leave themselves open to possible future legal action, So don’t deal with sisu full stop.

The effect on sisu/ccfc if they have no ground available is potentially devastating,
But that is not the intent of Wasps, purely the outcome.
I hope I’ve made that clear. Wasps would only be acting in self preservation.

 

[fatso]

I'm more surprised that if it is just bs or pr it gets swept under the carpet so easily.

Same as the council leader openly lying.

That’s politics for you. I wouldn’t like to deal with any the sides involved myself.
It comes down to who you thing is bullshitting the least.

 

[Nick]

No, I’m saying why would Wasps deal with sisu/ccfc at all.
If Wasps deal with sisu, wasps leave themselves open to possible future legal action, So don’t deal with sisu full stop.

The effect on sisu/ccfc if they have no ground available is potentially devastating,
But that is not the intent of Wasps, purely the outcome.
I hope I’ve made that clear. Wasps would only be acting in self preservation.

Sisu could have taken legal action against wasps whether they gave ccfc a deal or not though?

If wasps give ccfc a 1 year rental deal, how does that make them any more or less wide open to legal action?

 

[fatso]

Sisu could have taken legal action against wasps whether they gave ccfc a deal or not though?

If wasps give ccfc a 1 year rental deal, how does that make them any more or less wide open to legal action?

If wasps refuse to give sisu/ccfc a deal, what grounds would there be for a legal case against them? Unless there was a clause stating that ccfc must have access to the ground for ever, And I’m sure we would of heard that.

 

[Nick]

If wasps refuse to give sisu/ccfc a deal, what grounds would there be for a legal case against them? Unless there was a clause stating that ccfc must have access to the ground for ever, And I’m sure we would of heard that.

What grounds are there if they do? What's different? How does it open them up any more?

The jr stuff could have happened anyway with or without a deal.

 

[fatso]

If wasps don’t deal with sisu, then sisu have no grounds for litigation.

If wasps do deal with sisu, then sisu could make any bs up, or wait for any issue to arise, regardless of however petty, and then initiate a legal action. That is sisu’s M.O.
sisu could literally use any minor disagreement at any time to take wasps to court, in view of this why would wasps take the risk.

 

[fatso]

If wasps don’t deal with sisu, then sisu have no grounds for litigation.

If wasps do deal with sisu, then sisu could make any bs up, or wait for any issue to arise, regardless of however petty, and then initiate a legal action. That is sisu’s M.O.
sisu could literally use any minor disagreement at any time to take wasps to court, in view of this why would wasps take the risk.

I’m not making excuses for wasps, I’m just pointing out their position.

 

[Nick]

If wasps don’t deal with sisu, then sisu have no grounds for litigation.

If wasps do deal with sisu, then sisu could make any bs up, or wait for any issue to arise, regardless of however petty, and then initiate a legal action. That is sisu’s M.O.
sisu could literally use any minor disagreement at any time to take wasps to court, in view of this why would wasps take the risk.

They could still start legal action without a deal though if they wanted to? They could have persued the jr.

 

[MalcSB]

Deal or no deal makes no difference to the possibility of legal action. Threatening not to do a deal unless legal actions are dropped is effectively blackmail.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

They could still start legal action without a deal though if they wanted to? They could have persued the jr.

The litigation has the potential to continue infinitum.
What this boils down to is the price that Wasps are prepared to put up with CCFC as tenants, whilst the parent company is seeking financial redress via the courts. Money will talk, but I can't help but think the price could be higher than this season by a margin.

 

[fatso]

They could still start legal action without a deal though if they wanted to? They could have persued the jr.

Yes, I believe they could still do that, But wasps may say we are not going to offer you a new tenancy if you continue to do that. Which would make life very difficult for ccfc.

 

[duffer]

I dont believe Wasps are legaly obliged to offer ccfc a rental deal (although I’m not 100% sure). But if they chose not to deal with ccfc/sisu then surely they would make themselves immune from any legal action.
What grounds would sisu have?

I'm pretty certain there's no legal obligation on Wasps to offer CCFC a deal (though funnily enough that is one of the conditions that the Council could have insisted on when selling to Wasps, had they genuinely cared about the future of the club).

However the presence or absence of a deal doesn't in itself protect Wasps from legal action. What they're embroiled in currently is an historic matter unrelated to CCFC renting from Wasps; SISU can keep going at this until all legal avenues are exhausted, regardless of a deal with Wasps.

If Wasps were worried about (say) another rent strike, should a new deal be offered and then reneged upon by the club, then they could insist on a deposit against that contingency. Otherwise, assuming they conduct themselves as any new deal's contract stipulates, it's hard to see how a new deal exposes Wasps to further risks. It seems to have worked fine from a purely legal standpoint over the last year or so, with CCFC paying the rent and Wasps supplying the stadium without dispute.

In all honesty fatso, I think the 'future legal action' thing is a bit of a red herring here.

 

[fatso]

Deal or no deal makes no difference to the possibility of legal action. Threatening not to do a deal unless legal actions are dropped is effectively blackmail.

No it isn’t, it’s purely a statement of fact.

 

[fatso]

I'm pretty certain there's no legal obligation on Wasps to offer CCFC a deal (though funnily enough that is one of the conditions that the Council could have insisted on when selling to Wasps, had they genuinely cared about the future of the club).

However the presence or absence of a deal doesn't in itself protect Wasps from legal action. What they're embroiled in currently is an historic matter unrelated to CCFC renting from Wasps; SISU can keep going at this until all legal avenues are exhausted, regardless of a deal with Wasps.

If Wasps were worried about (say) another rent strike, should a new deal be offered and then reneged upon by the club, then they could insist on a deposit against that contingency. Otherwise, assuming they conduct themselves as any new deal's contract stipulates, it's hard to see how a new deal exposes Wasps to further risks. It seems to have worked fine from a purely legal standpoint over the last year or so, with CCFC paying the rent and Wasps supplying the stadium without dispute.

In all honesty fatso, I think the 'future legal action' thing is a bit of a red herring here.

I hear what you say. But sisu have plenty of form regarding legal action, so as I’ve said before, why risk it.

 

[Sbarcher]

I believe Oxford pay £500,000/year + costs to Kassam ( well, his Firoka Group actually) for a 3-sided stadium. Could be the going rate?

 

[duffer]

No it isn’t, it’s purely a statement of fact.

No, it's quite clearly a threat. Whether it's a legitimate one or not is a matter of opinion.

 

[duffer]

I hear what you say. But sisu have plenty of form regarding legal action, so as I’ve said before, why risk it.

Why risk what? Again, what are the risks here to Wasps with a new deal? If the contract is solid, CCFC pay rent and Wasps provide the stadium, then what risk is there?

 

[Limey]

I believe Oxford pay £500,000/year + costs to Kassam ( well, his Firoka Group actually) for a 3-sided stadium. Could be the going rate?

Sounds like theyre getting screwed as we have done in the past. Doesn't make it the going rate.

 

[fatso]

Why risk what? Again, what are the risks here to Wasps with a new deal? If the contract is solid, CCFC pay rent and Wasps provide the stadium, then what risk is there?

The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts.
Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead mate, what could go wrong, or would you say run a mile mate, do not talk to them, they have a history of frivolous litigation, and I’d advise against i?

 

[fatso]

No, it's quite clearly a threat. Whether it's a legitimate one or not is a matter of opinion.

The wording would be along the lines of, “we won’t discuss any new deal with you while we are still involved in litigation with you”
That’s not blackmail, just a statement of fact.