Coventry City

by Simon Gilbert

  She told me: ‘The team is only contacting organisations which we feel – based on expert advice – to be relevant at this early stage in the whole development process.

  ‘The planning consultant is correct that if we were preparing a planning application right now, we would have contacted many of those on the list provided.

  ‘However, as we have outlined previously, we are not at the stage of submitting a planning application. We are currently purchasing the land.

  ‘This is why we are working with professional planning consultants – they assess the potential for planning on a site such as this.

  ‘We said at the forums we are working towards applications on two sites. Everything is geared to that but we will not be at the stage of submitting the applications until the land is purchased.’

  She added: ‘Revealing the preferred location for a new stadium would not be in the best interests of the club or in the best interests of delivering a new stadium.

  ‘The club are committed to delivering a new stadium and have, therefore, taken the advice of their consultants that until all legal agreements have completed they will not be releasing the location of the preferred site.

  ‘Our objective is to deliver a stadium as swiftly as possible. However, we have to work within the confines of the planning system.

  ‘A planning application will take around six months to prepare as it is likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

  ‘There are then statutory timescales for the planning process and also the possibility that the application may have to go to appeal or may be called in. But the objective is to get the club back in the Coventry area as soon as possible.’

  The results of the Coventry Telegraph investigation and enquiries from supporters’ group the Sky Blue Trust were clearly causing headaches for club officials, who continued to peddle the new stadium line.

  I was soon contacted by club board member Mark Labovitch, who was never one to miss an opportunity to try to spin a story in a certain direction.

  Our conversation resulted in one of his most famous quotes of the entire saga.

  He told me: ‘We are about three weeks away from being able to name the final site. We are down to two sites and hopefully, within a month, two will be down to one.

  ‘I don’t like the position of no comment, but the commercial and political sensitivity around land negotiations is such that we cannot talk about individual sites yet.’

  Three weeks later, we were no closer to finding out the location of the new stadium. I also understand Mr Labovitch subsequently tried to suggest he had been ‘misquoted’ during that particular interview. I can tell you two things in relation to that claim: he never once complained directly to me that he had been misquoted in that interview, and he wasn’t misquoted in that interview.

  I repeated the round of FOIs 12 months after Mr Labovitch’s ‘three weeks’ timescale in January 2015 – and this time every single organisation contacted said they had not had any contact over the potential development of a large sports stadium.

  Later that month, Tim Fisher, who had now moved to the role of club chairman, told the CCFC Stadium Forum that three sites had been ruled out for a new stadium.

  According to extracts from the minutes of the meeting, Mr Fisher said the football club had looked at, and ruled out, three sites which fall in Rugby Borough Council’s boundary – Prologis Park, in Ryton, as well as another site at Ansty Park and the existing home of Coventry Speedway, in Brandon.

  Mr Fisher also claimed club representatives had been in discussions with the council about the potential of these three sites as the base for a new Sky Blues stadium.

  But, oddly, Rugby Borough Council said just weeks before this meeting: ‘Rugby Borough Council has not engaged in any formal conversations with any individual/organisation about any proposed new large sporting stadia with spectator seating within the council boundary area over the past 12 months.’

  Tim Fisher’s claims also directly contradicted evidence uncovered through the Coventry Telegraph’s stadium investigation and the responses received under the Freedom of Information Act.

  In March 2015, I pressed Mr Fisher on how any new stadium arrangement would be financed, bearing in mind the club’s financial difficulties. Surprisingly, he told me that the club would have to pay rent at any new stadium.

  Tim Fisher said any new stadium build would likely take place under a structure known as a ‘propco-opco’ arrangement.

  In simple terms, that would involve setting up a property company to raise funds and build the stadium, while a separate stadium operating company – the football club in this instance – would operate the venue and benefit from all the revenues generated at the stadium.

  However, there would also be a commitment from the operating company to enter into a rental agreement with the property company to allow the club to receive all stadium revenues, both matchday and non-matchday.

  That would allow any debts accrued by the property company – such as those acquired in the construction of the stadium – to be kept separate from the operating company.

  Tim Fisher said: ‘The capital cost would be met by a separate company, a property company. That’s the norm throughout football whenever projects like this are undertaken.

  ‘The absolutely crucial thing here is that the football club would benefit from all match day and non-match day revenues generated at the stadium.

  ‘Under the rules that now govern football – either financial fair play or salary cost management protocol – that allows us to get the best possible team on the pitch.’

  In April 2015, I revealed that high-level talks between Rugby Borough Council and Coventry City FC had taken place in March 2015. But redacted minutes obtained from the meeting following an FOI request did little to convince supporters the new stadium was a reality.

  One startling admission was that no formal plans had been drawn up for the new stadium despite the plans first being announced almost exactly two years previously – with the aim of them being delivered within three years.

  The new stadium discussion is one which is still very much rumbling on at the time of writing. The opinion that it is little more than a negotiating tool as the football club aims to secure its long-term future at the Ricoh Arena seems to be the view widely taken. And you can’t blame the club for that in some ways. Why wouldn’t they adopt a stance which gives them a commercial advantage in negotiations?

  During 2016, we have seen the suggestion that the club could seek to ground-share with Coventry Rugby Club at a redeveloped Butts Park Arena.

  The Coventry Telegraph revealed that formal discussions had taken place between rugby club bosses and football club officials in May 2016. It was another clever PR move by the football club and its owners as the idea of a city centre ground is something which would obviously appeal to many Coventry City supporters – as would a closer relationship with Coventry Rugby Club.

  But (at the time of writing) any possible ground-share deal at the Butts Park Arena had failed to get out of the starting blocks and land leaseholder Chris Millerchip (a former Coventry RFC player), had poured cold water on the plans.

  During investigations for this book, I learned that Chris Millerchip is a friend of Sisu co-founder Dermot Coleman. The two played rugby together during their time at Oxford University and Dermot Coleman arranged a meeting between Sisu chief Joy Seppala and Chris Millerchip.

  I’m told those discussions were initially very positive, but Chris Millerchip had insisted that peace talks be held between Sisu, Coventry City Council and other involved parties before any progress could be made on plans for any new stadium at The Butts. Chris Millerchip, who estimates he has invested almost half a million pounds in Coventry RFC, also wanted to ensure the long-term future of the rugby club. The previous fall-out around CCFC and the Ricoh Arena had made the former Henry VIII schoolboy anxious.

  I understand Coventry Olympian and former 5,000-metre world re
cord holder David Moorcroft and Coventry Cathedral’s Rev John Witcombe agreed to act as mediators between Sisu, the council and other organisations.

  But days before it was due to take place, a scheduled meeting between Joy Seppala and Mr Moorcroft was cancelled and never rearranged.

  Where any possible new stadium for the Sky Blues might be is as much of a mystery at time of writing as it has ever been.

  Of course, the idea that Coventry City FC has to build its own stadium might gain more traction if those at the top of CCFC and Sisu made sure they were on the same page before issuing public statements on the subject.

  In February, Joy Seppala told Coventry City FC supporters the club must own its own stadium in order to be viable as a club in the long term.

  She made the comments during a Q&A session with the Supporters Consultative Group (SCG), when she is recorded as saying ‘a new stadium is essential for the viability of the club in the long run’ in minutes published on the CCFC website.

  But a few days later Chris Anderson, managing director of CCFC, told me: ‘I think there can be a solution that doesn’t involve us owning the stadium.’

  He added: ‘Manchester City don’t own their own stadium, Swansea City share with a rugby club. Every situation is idiosyncratic.’

  Chapter 10

  Sent from Coventry

  ON 22 March 2013, Coventry City FC pulled all of their staff out of the Ricoh Arena offices as striking images emerged of removal vans clearing out the contents of the stadium-based club shop.

  For many, it was the first real sign that this dispute could actually result in the club leaving the Ricoh Arena.

  Just 24 hours earlier, the club had entered administration and it was still not clear if they would be able to finish the season.

  A statement released by Coventry City at the time read: ‘The club has taken the decision to protect its staff by moving them from the stadium.

  ‘Ideally, we would like to keep playing our home matches at the Ricoh if the stadium owners, Arena Coventry Ltd [ACL], will offer reasonable commercial terms.

  ‘All we’ve ever asked for is an affordable rent with access to matchday revenues, like any other club. We hope these will be offered to us by ACL.

  ‘We noted that the owners of the stadium, ACL, told the court they would be prepared to assist their proposed administrator “with a partial (or possibly full) deferral” of the stadium rent and licence fee during the administration process.

  ‘Following Thursday’s decision to place Coventry City Football Club Limited into administration, ACL told the appointed administrators they would require the full rent and licence fee on the stadium to be paid.

  ‘To reach an agreement with ACL to allow the club to move back and fulfil its fixtures at the Ricoh Arena, we would hope and expect ACL would extend the same terms to the club.’

  ACL responded swiftly with a short statement of their own, which read: ‘The board wishes also to reiterate that there is no truth whatsoever in suggestions reported by some media that ACL will prevent CCFC from playing at the Ricoh Arena.

  ‘The whole point of the course of legal action that the board has taken is to ensure that a successful and sustainable Sky Blues team is able to play at the Ricoh Arena for many years to come.’

  Coventry City’s chief executive Tim Fisher also reiterated the club’s desire to see out the season at the Ricoh Arena.

  He said: ‘We appreciate that our supporters have been through a great deal of upset and uncertainty, and there is a responsibility on all parties to ensure that the question of where we play our remaining three home games is resolved as soon as possible. Allowing supporters to watch the Sky Blues at the Ricoh for three games would be a sensible step forward. We have contacted ACL and hope to have some clarity in the next 24 hours.’

  An agreement for the club to see out its final three games of the season was agreed shortly afterwards.

  Despite the events of the past 18 months, there can surely have been few inside the Ricoh Arena for that final game of the season against Leyton Orient who truly believed the Sky Blues would not be back at the Ricoh Arena for 2013/14.

  The home campaign was seen out with an underwhelming 1-0 defeat and Sky Blues supporters were set for the longest summer break in their club’s history.

  It would be another 503 days – one year, four months and 16 days – before Coventry City played in their home city again.

  Days after the end of the 2012/13 season, the club officially confirmed it would not play at the Ricoh Arena during the next season. The club blamed ACL and said they were ‘locked out of the Ricoh’, but stadium bosses insisted the club was welcome to stay, saying the doors ‘remain wide open’.

  Tim Fisher told the Coventry Telegraph: ‘The fact is that we are being locked out of the Ricoh Arena. We have been told that there is no further room for negotiation and an offer that we made to get back round the negotiating table has been rejected.

  ‘It is with great regret that we now have no alternative but to consider other arrangements for next season and we would be failing the club, its supporters and its staff if we did not start making such plans now.

  ‘The club is keeping the relevant football authorities fully informed of developments, and we will keep everyone informed when there is specific further news.’

  But James Powell, the lawyer representing ACL, quickly retaliated: ‘We are absolutely flabbergasted by Tim Fisher’s statement.

  ‘Mr Fisher is the sole director of Coventry City Football Club Limited, a company that is now in administration as a result of a “catastrophic insolvency” in the words of the barrister acting for the administrator.

  ‘To compound this issue, Mr Fisher is now suggesting that Coventry City Football Club should play their games outside Coventry. We have to question on this basis alone whether he is acting in the best interests of the football club.

  ‘So that there can be no doubt in the minds of Sky Blues supporters, ACL have not locked the football club out of the Ricoh Arena. ACL have consistently acted to try to save the football club and to ensure that the football club continues to play at the Ricoh Arena. Indeed, ACL has already committed a significant level of funding to ensure that the pitch is improved for next season, after the club ceased to commit investment in the pitch towards the end of last season.

  ‘Sky Blues supporters should be told on whose behalf Mr Fisher is making these statements.

  ‘The football club, as acknowledged by The Football League in imposing a ten-point deduction, is in administration. Only the administrator should be making statements on behalf of the club at this time.’

  He added: ‘So that there can be no doubt whatsoever among Sky Blues fans, ACL would be delighted for Coventry City Football Club to play at the Ricoh Arena next season. Nobody connected to the football club has yet approached ACL in this regard.

  ‘We simply cannot comprehend Mr Fisher’s statement that he has supposedly been told that there is no room for negotiation or that negotiations have been rejected. If Mr Fisher has been told that, it was certainly not by anyone connected with ACL.

  ‘Far from being locked, the Arena doors remain wide open, and ACL remains resolutely committed to preserving Coventry City as a successful league club, and playing its games at the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, where it belongs.’

  A Football League spokesman confirmed: ‘We have had, and are continuing to have, discussions with the club. At this stage, there has been no formal application lodged requesting a move to a specific location.’

  Things were clearly getting nasty. As well as the public grandstanding, Sisu had also launched an application for a judicial review into the £14.4m Coventry City Council loan to ACL covered in the previous chapters.

  But the petty side of the Ricoh Arena row had also started to emerge. Higgs Charity clerk and ACL director Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen had apparently been caught tying ‘Sisu Out’balloons to Mr Fisher’s car after a game at Crawley.

  T
he football club chief executive apparently responded by threatening Arena Coventry Limited director Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen with his 11-stone English Mastiff, called Hector.

  One source told the Coventry Telegraph that Mr Fisher said the dog would next time ‘eat’ Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen, who was with fellow ACL director Paul Harris at the time.

  I have to interject at this point. Having met Hector during a meeting in Tim Fisher’s office at Ryton, I think this accusation is unfair. Despite his obviously large frame, Hector came across as a gentle soul who would not purposely inflict harm on anyone. I think any suggestion he would ‘eat’ a person is an unfair stain on his character.

  Speaking about the incident shortly afterwards, Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen said. ‘I’m pleading the fifth [amendment].

  He added: ‘It isn’t a question of being anti-Sisu. Let’s have some proper business discussion.’

  When the incident was again brought up during the Higgs Charity High Court Battle with Sisu in 2014, he said: ‘I have been specific that I am not and have not been orchestrating a “Sisu Out” campaign.

  ‘I had no knowledge of it and no part of it and this is what I mean by wild accusations.’

  He added: ‘I can say on oath I have never tied a balloon to Mr Fisher’s car. I placed a half-deflated balloon under his windscreen wiper.’

  Another person who apparently had little love for Sisu was former defence secretary and MP Bob Ainsworth who represented the Coventry North East constituency where the Ricoh Arena was situated.

  Over the next few months, he would go on to launch a series of high-profile attacks on the owners of the football club, condemning their actions in relation to the Ricoh Arena.

  Speaking during an address to Parliament in March 2013, he said: ‘Many of us accept the need for a realistic approach to the lease and management issues if the stadium is to reach its full potential and changes would get support for the right partner at the right time.

  ‘But Sisu are not entitled to bully their way to control over an asset they never provided. They must prove they are not simply a predator with greed running through their DNA before they could expect such treatment.