Its significance should not be overstated, for we are still in the same situation we’ve been in for over a year, but today surely marked a milestone in the ongoing effort to restore some semblance of normality to Coventry City Football Club.
Sisu’s ‘defeat’ in court is at odds with the bullishness to which we’ve become accustomed. For months the minimalist rhetoric emanating from the club’s owners has been bold, brash and confident. We’ve fallen for the impression that, for Sisu to have pursued the judicial review so relentlessly, they must have a trump card; a decisive revelation. But for all the bravado, there was nothing.
To the casual observer, it was clear that Sisu had a case, but that it was always a case that defied common sense. The reason ACL needing propping up was the self-enforced absence of the Ricoh Arena’s long term tenant; the football club on which its entire business strategy depended. Whether or not you believe that Sisu were correct in leaving in order to break a contract that deprived the club of match day revenue, that the decision broke a legally-binding contract was never in doubt. The judge was always likely to sympathise with ACL given the nature of the situation. So why did so many of us believe that a Sisu victory was inevitable?
Our experience of their ownership so far has shown that they rarely deliver. There have been occasional good decisions – the appointments of Mark Robins and Steven Pressley, for example – but singling out positives is not easy. These are challenging times, and it should not be assumed that Sisu are inherently bad or incapable of making decisions beneficial to Coventry City Football Club, but their track record hardly glows.
A constant has been Sisu’s aura of self-assurance. There has always been something very ‘knowing’ about their public persona. They’re the man in an Armani suit standing at the bar alone, winking smugly at anyone who’ll go near them. They’re business people in a world of ignorant football supporters. They’ve been involved in more court cases than you’ve had final day relegation scraps. Tim Fisher is widely quoted to have described his employer as “a distressed debt fund, [which] therefore batters people in court”. This sort of bravado eventually has the effect of persuading the ignorant that there might be something in it. And ignorant, many of us would gladly admit to being. We’re not all business or accounting experts. What we have in common is an affiliation with a football club.
While Sisu may well have had successes in court in the past, today’s result exposed weakness which echoes many of the poor choices that have been made during their tenure. The decision not to adequately invest in the team prior to relegation from the Championship. The inability – or unwillingness – to offer valuable players contracts before their deals expired. The long-term alienation of an already beleaguered fan base. We have witnessed bad decisions over a long period of time, and yet envisaged a performance in court that completely contradicts the evidence.
Nothing has changed because of the outcome of the judicial review. Coventry are still scheduled to begin 2014/15 at Sixfields, and Sisu are likely to lodge an appeal. But there is already talk that the club may be willing to enter into negotiations to secure a short-term rental deal at the Ricoh. What we have witnessed is not the end of this saga, nor even the beginning of a resolution; but it feels like the first time that Sisu have been on the receiving end of a “battering”. When you lose, you can only maintain the façade of invincibility for so long. And when you are comfortable with exposing your own weaknesses, you enter into conflict more reasonably and more intelligently.
We should take no pleasure in a Sisu defeat any more than a Coventry City Council one. We should take no pleasure in any of this. The aim is, and always has been returning Coventry City to Coventry, and securing sensible, sustainable, long-term ownership for the club. The judicial review has exposed Sisu’s bullish rhetoric as bravado. Now is the time for them to stop masquerading and start negotiating, while there is still a club to salvage.
Tom Furnival-Adams 
A good and fair minded blog Tom.
I don’t know if Tim Fisher did say that SISU would batter ACL/Council in court, but before they go into a fight or in this case a court hearing, both sides always give an impression of confidence, it’s just part of the game. If I recall the Council were also very confident it would win, likewise.
I agree that despite SISU’s claims, there were no sensational revelations or a smoking gun, but part of the reason may be than the Judge would not allow some of the evidence SISU wanted to produce nor would the Judge order some productions of evidence from the Council/ACL. For example we do not know what was debated and who said what and why in the infamous Council decision behind closed doors in January 2012 to approve the £14.4 million loan to ACL! There are no debates or decisions that are allowed in secret in the Houses of Parliament, so why should the good citizens of Coventry be left ignorant of crucial decisions made on our behalf by local politicians? To me, this stinks and is totally outrageous and yet there has hardly been a murmur from anyone!
Not being a lawyer, I have absolutely no idea which side had the stronger case. But I do believe that both sides had a reasonable case to argue. The Judge was so one-sided in his responses to SISU and in the summing up of his verdict, that it make me just a tad suspicious.
I seem to recall the Law Lords or the Supreme Court sometimes being split on decisions 6 to 5, which make me think that, it is often the luck of the draw what judges are appointed whether you win your case or not! If SISU had say, a more conservative judge, SISU might have won. If SISU’s appeal is allowed, it is not impossible despite the damning verdict of Justice Hickinbottom, that SISU could overturn the decision!
Tom, ACL were being propped up by an outrageous rental/revenue deal that emaciated our football club!
Yes Tom, the owner of our football club has made many poor decisions over it’s tenure of 7 1/2 years, but so did the previous administration under Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson and Bryan Richardson. This board was the genesis of our club’s long term decline, this board oversaw the club’s relegation from the Premiership and flogged off our beloved Highfield Road. It was this board that got the club into £60 million of debt and gave notice of administration and probable relegation to the third tier in 2007/08!
SISU started brightly with Ray Ranson as Chief Executive, it had £20 million to invest and refurbished Ryton Training Ground and bought some good players. But then we had the banking crisis of 2008, the stock market crash and the biggest recession for over 80 years. This recession must have impacted SISU in particular and the club started selling players and cutting back on expenditure. I don’t think that this was a dastardly plot or entirely incompetence, it was simply practical, SISU had to make economies. This led to selling our best players and an inability to offer out of contract players a sufficiently attractive contract to make them stay.
Slowly the club’s playing staff degraded, until the point that the club were relegated from the Championship. SISU is in my opinion only partly to blame for our club’s situation, the underlying cause is the debts of the previous board and then the selling of Highfield Road followed by near administration. The result was the Council stepping in to build the Ricoh followed by the extortionate rent and the exclusion of any revenues for the football club. This meant that our club was at an egregious competitive disadvantage compared to other clubs.
The burden of debt and the sparse income has hobbled our club for years. It is grossly unfair to blame SISU for all our club’s ills. The only remote chance that our club would have returned to the Ricoh in August was if SISU had won its case. SISU’s defeat in court has put back this prospect a long way. The only prospect for Sky Blues’ fans is more blood, sweat and tears, and Sixfields!
The critical issue is not who owns the football club, but who owns the football ground. Bringing another owner in would not help the situation. Who would seriously want to take over a club that does not own its own ground, uniquely receives no revenue from the football ground, plays in the “third division”, and would probably come with at least a 15 point deduction and almost guaranteed relegation to the “fourth division”?
The football club must own its own football ground to have any sort of future, the rest is froth!
Peter Chambers
The only solution for Sky Blue fans is NOT Sixfields it is total boycott.
The reason Judge did not allow Sisu evidence is because iot was red herrings all the way.
You will find evidence for Mr Fishers battering comments if you look.Try Dan Taylor and Davic Conn .Try Cov Telegraph.
You sound remarkably like a holocaust denier. You and your friends at Sisu have been stuffed-Get used to it loser
Martin O’Connor