Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Coventry face expulsion

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-efl-deadline-latest-15870002

I hope they get it sorted out. But just like Blackpool, Charlton, Leyton Orient etc, they will only be truly out of the woods when they are able to escape from their awful owners.

Β«1

Comments

  • God Almighty at this rate we'll get automatic promotion!

  • Imagine getting your face expelled.

  • Can I have my face expelled and replaced by George Clooney's?

  • Cov-Hi, We'd like to discuss a new contract to use your ground next season.
    Wasps-Are you still trying to sue us?
    Cov- Yes
    Cov- Can we set up a meeting?
    Cov- Are you still there?

    The investors in that hedge fund must be delighted with their progress.

  • If Wasps say feck off i thought they had the option of using Coventry Rugby's ground, as it's still in the city surely The EFA would have no reason to kick them out?

  • If they agree something there and it meets criteria, sounds like sisu trying to avoid paying for anything.

  • Too hot for a fat man

  • I've had to take me coat off

  • Of course that should be on the match day thread and is no reflection on coventry's present plight

  • . > @robin said:

    If Wasps say feck off i thought they had the option of using Coventry Rugby's ground, as it's still in the city surely The EFA would have no reason to kick them out?

    Butts Park has a capacity of just 4000 with 3000 seats and already hosts Coventry rugby and Coventry United. I can’t imagine the EFL will sanction a move there.

  • @robin said:
    If Wasps say feck off i thought they had the option of using Coventry Rugby's ground, as it's still in the city surely The EFA would have no reason to kick them out?

    Cov rugby have said whilst SISU are they then they won't even consider speaking to them.

  • Who would have thought playing in a large wasps owned stadium could have caused so many problems?

  • @Wendoverman said:
    Who would have thought playing in a large wasps owned stadium could have caused so many problems?

    Has nothing to do with Wasps but everything to do with SISU. Remember Coventry went off to Northampton before Wasps were even on the scene up there. That very action did however end up with the stadium being sold to Wasps

  • @Guppys_Left_Leg said:

    @Wendoverman said:
    Who would have thought playing in a large wasps owned stadium could have caused so many problems?

    Has nothing to do with Wasps but everything to do with SISU. Remember Coventry went off to Northampton before Wasps were even on the scene up there. That very action did however end up with the stadium being sold to Wasps

    Partly, we don't know if Wasps approached the council or the other way round, but it's clear that a) This was allowed b) They would have done it to us c) Its a risk going forward, if not a massive present one d) Life as a tennant with dodgy owners could be awful

  • I'm so delighted we managed to get shot of Wasps before they did any serious damage to our football club, but it's not nice seeing another club being completely screwed over in the process, even if Wasps are only partially to blame overall.

  • Wonder what the Booker gang make of that.
    Bet they wouldn't dare show their faces now.

    A "too big" ground you say? Which we wouldn't own? And actually pay rent yet don't profit from any of the planned "development"?

    Spiffing.

  • @StrongestTeam said:

    @Guppys_Left_Leg said:

    @Wendoverman said:
    Who would have thought playing in a large wasps owned stadium could have caused so many problems?

    Has nothing to do with Wasps but everything to do with SISU. Remember Coventry went off to Northampton before Wasps were even on the scene up there. That very action did however end up with the stadium being sold to Wasps

    Partly, we don't know if Wasps approached the council or the other way round, but it's clear that a) This was allowed b) They would have done it to us c) Its a risk going forward, if not a massive present one d) Life as a tennant with dodgy owners could be awful

    Not certain who approached who but I do know that SISU were refusing to pay the rent that they had previously agreed to, and in that process were financially distressing the stadium company that was partly the council and also a charity (classy outfit aren't they)
    They did this hoping to buy the stadium on the cheap as they thought they were the only option out there. This is course proved to be wrong.

    When Wasps did pick up the stadium (relatively) cheaply (though remember at that time Coventry were in Northampton and were speaking about building a new stadium and certainly not returning to the Ricoh) SISU then launched a legal action stating the council had sold the ground too cheaply - remembering of course they were trying to do the same themselves.
    Despite numerous judges stating they had no case they continue(d) to launch appeals.

    12 months ago Wasps granted Coventry City a 12 month extension to their tenancy, with the caveat at the time there would be no further extensions until all legal action ceased. Very black and white.
    Within a few months another judge ruled against SISU, then inspite what Wasps had previously said they then launched yet a further appeal - the outcome of this is due any time now.

    I feel terribly sorry for Coventry fans, their owners AND the EFL have continued to sell them down the river.
    The fit and proper test is a total joke and one we (as Wycombe fans) need to be VERY wary of.

    I really don't see how this is going to end unless SISU sell up in the next few weeks. Wasps are on record stating that there is a long term contract on the table as soon as the conditions (ceasing of legal actions) are met.
    If you venture onto Sky Blues Talk you will find a very disgruntled set of supporters with factions seemingly arguing amongst themselves.

    This should be a lesson to us here with what is coming our way in the very near future.

    Can we please not get into petty arguments about one bid over the other. I certainly don't agree with the way the trust has handled things so far but unless we are given full access to ALL details of BOTH bids we are going to have to trust them.

    Sorry for the rambled posting.

  • You've made a great case for scrutiny of any bid, not sure if that was the intention looking at the penultimate paragraph.

  • @StrongestTeam said:
    You've made a great case for scrutiny of any bid, not sure if that was the intention looking at the penultimate paragraph.

    Didn't start that way just ended up there! I really do believe we need to be wary of ANy potential new owners be they ex-players or from overseas.
    Cards on the table. I will be honest I don't see how a club the size of Wycombe can continue at the level we have managed to reach without external investment - sell on clauses only last so long, and you can never bank on cup runs.
    With external investment there are dangers at every turn, equally the majority of clubs are run under this structure, and only a few have problem owners.

    I think my point is that each one of us has to judge the bidders on the information they give us

  • @malone as has been pointed out at length by at least one poster...there would have been no development of Adam's park for us to benefit from.

  • @Wendoverman - Didn't we benefit from the "development" of players such as Ibe, O'Nien, Scowen, Philips etc!

  • Erm not sure I get your drift there @mooneyman

  • @Wendoverman , noted....but i meant the development around Booker, all the stuff that matey was going to build there that we wouldn't have seen a penny from.

  • I hope you're not suggesting someone unscrupulous would have been in the money from both sites while we withered on a Booker vine?

  • I expect the plan was to "hold" the money for safeguarding, and then lash it into Wycombe at a future date?
    Seems legit?

  • edited February 26

    'As I have explained before the money was simply resting in my account...'

  • Can I ask for clarity on one or two points, that I just can't get my head around please? Are we a fan owned club & if we are what is the classification of fan owned. Surely we can't have, (lets say), 5,800 owners?

  • @EwanHoosaami said:
    Can I ask for clarity on one or two points, that I just can't get my head around please? Are we a fan owned club & if we are what is the classification of fan owned. Surely we can't have, (lets say), 5,800 owners?

    Probably about time this was asked in all seriousness as its shouted as being the be all and end all by some and the source of all problems by others.

    "Fan owned club" is a nice marketing or psychological term but isn't great for explaining the processes.

    WWFC is owned by the Trust , If you are a fan or season ticket holder or superfan, drummer, volunteer, ex player or other but aren't a trust member you don't own the club at all - basic point - they may represent your best interests or work in your name, but you don't own the club. Quite a few people on Facebook particularly don't get this.

    Trust members then appoint a board. They run it not "the fans" , trust owners can vote in elections for board members and raise emergency meetings or votes in certain circumstances. Members who have held season tickets for 4 successive years - legacy members- have the right to vote on changes to certain aspects as set out in the rules.

  • @Strongest To be completely clear, Trust members may vote to elect the Trust Board. you correctly referred to the Trust as being the Owner of WWFC. Trust owners are merely a "rose by another name" if that's too prickly for you

  • In addition to the ownership of voting shares in the football club, which I think is as @StrongestTeam has explained - all owned by the trust - there are non-voting shares also, owned by various people and organisations (e.g. OWWSA, WWISC). The last set of full accounts available via the Companies House website has a full listing of who owned how many shares at the time (2016), which anyone who is interested can look at.

Β«1
Sign In or Register to comment.