Well if for no other reason - if WASPS want 100% they may pay more to get the remainder shares than SISU paid for them
Simples!!
Bid Tabled for Ricoh from CCFC (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Well if for no other reason - if WASPS want 100% they may pay more to get the remainder shares than SISU paid for them
Simples!!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Isn't the offer self defeating? It is conditional on the Charity making available to SISU via the liquidator confidential documents relating to ACL. Do AEHC have right to even retain such information? I doubt that AEHC has a right to divulge any of the information without the express authority of the ACL directors and, because it is a private company, the other stakeholder. That other stakeholder being Wasps of course.
So is it AEHC refusing to release information or is it simply not in their power in the first place. If the information is not forthcoming then the conditional offer fails doesn't it?
That said isn't the normal bidding process that a bid is made subject to due diligence any way ie making it conditional on detailed examination of the records. Due diligence is carried out once a bid is accepted, but not binding, and would cover such things as JV agreements etc ....... so why the emphasis on it being AEHC refusing to release the information now?
Cant help but think this is a positioning of blame for when the CCFC Ltd bid fails ......... :thinking about:
So is it AEHC refusing to release information or is it simply not in their power in the first place. If the information is not forthcoming then the conditional offer fails doesn't it?
That said isn't the normal bidding process that a bid is made subject to due diligence any way ie making it conditional on detailed examination of the records. Due diligence is carried out once a bid is accepted, but not binding, and would cover such things as JV agreements etc ....... so why the emphasis on it being AEHC refusing to release the information now?
Cant help but think this is a positioning of blame for when the CCFC Ltd bid fails ......... :thinking about:
Last edited:
Strictly speaking the Liquidator can request any party holding information to provide anything he needs relating to any asset of CCFC. Again strictly speaking the request cannot be refused.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Or is there a difference between Joy being given the information that she wants and the information being given to Appleton on if it can be used in the JR appeal?
And if Appleton should be the only one to be able to make a bid is there a reason to have to give Joy directly what she is asking for?
Whatever it is it doesn't sound good to me.
And if Appleton should be the only one to be able to make a bid is there a reason to have to give Joy directly what she is asking for?
Whatever it is it doesn't sound good to me.
What doesn't?
Here's me thinking I'd read that joy/sisu wanted the "100% unencumbered freehold" or nothing (or we build new stadium), yet we see them bidding for 50% of a leasehold???
Think as osb58 says its a case of saying "well we tired to exercise the rights but those nasty wasps/CCC/charity vetoed it"
Mmm...
Think as osb58 says its a case of saying "well we tired to exercise the rights but those nasty wasps/CCC/charity vetoed it"
Mmm...
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If I were SISU I would neglect to mention the bid being conditional on the basis that the other interested parties will reject it regardless.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They've already agreed to sell to Wasps.
At the point of no other bids. I'm shocked that neither the ccc or higgs would welcome a Coventry bid. But they wouldnt want to upset wasps now would they....
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I was just thinking of what questions SISU have asked the other parties and can only come up with the following.
CCC: Do Wasps own the power of veto or does it remain with yourselves?
Higgs: Will you take a down payment now with the balance on tick?
Wasps: We're unsure how to complete a deal having never managed it before, can you give us some pointers please?
CCC: Do Wasps own the power of veto or does it remain with yourselves?
Higgs: Will you take a down payment now with the balance on tick?
Wasps: We're unsure how to complete a deal having never managed it before, can you give us some pointers please?
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
It could be seen as jockeying for position given the JR still to be sorted in court. However what concerns me most about the statement is the intention to still build their own stadium "with access to all revenues" creating sustainability?
Ok then so 50% of those revenues of a stadium twice as large and with two teams using it is somehow worse?
Also the mention of securing their position for 4 years. I read between the lines they mean we would own 50% with all the rights and income streams that brings with it and on top of that build our own stadium with half the capacity elsewhere while still maintaining a 50% share in a 250 year lease of the Ricoh?
The only good bit about the statement their was it was said for the 'football club' as opposed to any SISU related company per sae.
I guess if they end up with a new stadium and the 50% of the Ricoh then the revenue streams would be very good. But somehow among all this conventional wisdom says that 50% of the Ricoh for 250 years is of itself all that is required. It leaves room for crowd attendances to improve as the club seeks the premier league again and the opportunity to eventually consider a takeover of WASP?
If they won the JR how would that affect what has happened since? Would the whole WASP deal have to be scrapped?
Ok then so 50% of those revenues of a stadium twice as large and with two teams using it is somehow worse?
Also the mention of securing their position for 4 years. I read between the lines they mean we would own 50% with all the rights and income streams that brings with it and on top of that build our own stadium with half the capacity elsewhere while still maintaining a 50% share in a 250 year lease of the Ricoh?
The only good bit about the statement their was it was said for the 'football club' as opposed to any SISU related company per sae.
I guess if they end up with a new stadium and the 50% of the Ricoh then the revenue streams would be very good. But somehow among all this conventional wisdom says that 50% of the Ricoh for 250 years is of itself all that is required. It leaves room for crowd attendances to improve as the club seeks the premier league again and the opportunity to eventually consider a takeover of WASP?
If they won the JR how would that affect what has happened since? Would the whole WASP deal have to be scrapped?
No. It wouldn't change anything for Wasps.
Am I missing something here....shouldn't we be happy about this? Rhetoric or not, it's better than not putting a bid in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Problem is we all know the outcome.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
We may well know the outcome, but jeez can you imagine if they hadn't of bothered. Perhaps it's time for the fans to get behind the bid.
"We only sing when we're bidding, only sing when we're bidding.."
"Higgsy, sell us your shares, Higgsy, Higgsy sell us your shares"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I repeat - the Liquidator has every right to ask - and the other parties legally have to comply
Astute
Well-Known Member
And I repeat. Why is Joy asking questions and the bid depends on getting the answers when only Appleton is allowed to bid and ask questions?
Sounds like they are after information to drag out appeals on the JR more than trying to get a share of the Ricoh.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The pantomime season never ends in these here parts!
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Am I missing something here....shouldn't we be happy about this? Rhetoric or not, it's better than not putting a bid in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nope your wrong, no one wanted us to put the bid in, just so all the usual people could come on here and wank themselves silly some more..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They have bid so at least we won't get any more posts that they are only interested in the freehold.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Don't you mean 'were' ?
Bill Glazier
Active Member
To be honest I've lost track of all the ins and outs of our plight recently, so, why do you see a 50% ownership as the perfect outcome? Do you hope Wasps will rein in Sisu? Doesn't it just mean Sisu will asset-strip and parasitise their 50% and the team will still see no investment?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They clearly never were or are.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Just like some seem to love it when the majority say things how they are so they can make out that they just hate SISU and don't care about our club as long as they can go SISU bashing.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It's hard to keep up with all their lies.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
We should be happy the bid has been made. However the serious bid should have been made years ago to give us a footing on a sustainable future.
You can never (or at least I can't never) take SISU seriously and help suspect there is some ineffectual sub plot going on! Some misguided litigation or half hearted publicity stunt.
I long for the day when Monday to Friday you just talked form and injuries and scoffed at the bleaters who say sack the manager.
You can never (or at least I can't never) take SISU seriously and help suspect there is some ineffectual sub plot going on! Some misguided litigation or half hearted publicity stunt.
I long for the day when Monday to Friday you just talked form and injuries and scoffed at the bleaters who say sack the manager.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So Joy and Fisher were bullshitting yet again but you still trust them so much.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I trust them about as much as a Maltese based hedge fund that stated its commitment to staying in the south east or a council that believed sporting clubs are the heart of the community and should never be moved.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So if it was never about the freehold like Joy was saying what do you think that their plan of attack was all about?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Comply to what? What law?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
How's that relevant to CCFC?
Sisu are again pissing up a rope in the vein hope that courts, league or the fans will turn on all the others parties involved.. Blame game has always been at the forefront of any SISU statement, its was the past owners from Day 1, it was CCC, ACL, Compass, Trust, Wasps and Fans that drove them to all the avenues they have taken..
It is time for them to stand up be honest be open make an offer for something they want, instead of condition's, Blame or lies... SISU bid or go safe in the knowledge you really have pissed everybody off in the room that could of helped you succeed and please stop talking about a new stadium.. You don't have enough to run the club and keep our best players never mind build state of the art stadia.....
It is time for them to stand up be honest be open make an offer for something they want, instead of condition's, Blame or lies... SISU bid or go safe in the knowledge you really have pissed everybody off in the room that could of helped you succeed and please stop talking about a new stadium.. You don't have enough to run the club and keep our best players never mind build state of the art stadia.....
