dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I am assuming the council?
The agreement for Wasps to move here / 2 years on (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
I am assuming the council?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
These were part of the minutes of the council sale. Odd really isn't it they never extended the lease to
Increase ACL assert value previously.
Nick
Administrator
Well that's the 3 conditions the council voted on selling to them and what the councillors were told.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I don't argue with this one it is a good point and I don't think Wasps stance re the Ricoh fits the criteria.
It especially wouldn't if we asked for negotiations to restart on the proviso that if a deal is reached the litigation would be dropped.
Nick
Administrator
That wasn't Wasps stance, that was the Council's conditions. It was what councillors were told before voting that would happen.
How could the events of the next eighteen months had been foreseen?
Nick
Administrator
Surely if it was a "condition" then it would be upheld somehow? It is like saying "you can only have this if you do Y and Z" and then once they get it, they just ignore it.
If one of the conditions of them moving was set by the council, you wouldnt think the council, wasps and higgs would be trying to take turns on the club would you?
Especially as the council seemed to decide on the club and rugby clubs behalf too didnt it?
Doesn't read like an ongoing condition.
It's not saying, you must ensure Y and Z are maintained for time immemorial.
The test re Y and Z were the intention at the point of the decision being made.
Which comes back to my question about how could it have been foreseen what would happen over the proceeding eighteen months.
Nick
Administrator
So what is the point in a condition then? How was it judged?
Seems a bit pointless for a condition then doesn't it?
Surely if a condition is set "this can only happen if" then somebody should be saying "actually, remember the conditions that were set" rather than "high fives on that".
I think that it says "future" of the football club, how can they determine that if they can't see into the future?
What's the point in a condition if all they have to do is nod and smile until they get what they want and then just do what they want?
Strange.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Without sounding all Mystic Meg, Its was pretty bloody obvious that it was only a matter of time before the football club would be pushed out by the councils choice of ricoh owner. The clubs return was used as bait by CCC to tip the balance in getting the wasps into the city and the council in all of their guises and forms were always going to railroad things through for them. Anyone who at the time or at any time since thought otherwise is pretty naive.
Nick
Administrator
I think the fact that the stadium was pretty much sold for 250 years pretty much gave it away.
Where are the criteria for ensuring the conditions are maintained documented then?
How are they check? How frequently? How are they audited?
Nick
Administrator
That is what I am getting at because I don't know.
It just seems strange that conditions are set, Wasps nod and say yes and then everything is handed over and they can go against it?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yeah many saw it coming 2 years ago.
Now everyone's lapping up the PR. Got to hand it to thr higgs, wasps, CSF, etc they brilliant at playing the CCFC fans
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Yes, the PR has been nothing short of genius. To be able to get city fans actually doing their pr and defending them just because they hate sisu. They have managed to get people who are so against moving teams and franchising defending them doing it.
This will be the return that Fisher said would never happen?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-chief-left-ricoh-3869400
Nick
Administrator
Ah same again when people start discussing it, MUST GET IT BACK TO SISU QUICK. Why not post the bit about ACL / The council wanting to build up trust with the club while they were selling it off to Wasps on the sly?
Does posting that link really justify anything?
The different is, yes Fisher was bullshitting. The difference is, that wasn't to councillors voting on something was it?
Does anybody actually know what the point in putting conditions on it was then?
It wasn't an on going requirement, there's no grey area it's that black and white.
However this doesn't prove any master plan to oust CCFC, it's just the kind of non-committal jargon that's used in countless documents.
It's not the content, just how it sounds that matters.
Yes that's absolutely arse about face, but if conditions are rigid and need to be maintained/reviewed then it opens people up to possible legal action.
I'm not saying I agree with this - but it's how documents are constructed - wiggle room being the main priority.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Well that makes it all ok then doesn't it! Fisher goes back on something he said. The council have been duplicitous in everything they've said with regards to the club, Crfc and their dealings with Wasps. Its ok though as Fisher said we'd never go back. FFS point scoring over minor stuff is irrelevant. The councils underhanded and shady dealings however are truly awful. I don't know how the people who are supposed to represent those who put them in power can look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night.
Nick
Administrator
But how does it work if they are putting that in front of councillors?
For example if somebody put something in front of councillors saying "If this happens, the schools wont close" and then they all vote FOR it and then 2 weeks later they close all the schools?
Honestly, you need to stop the paranoia.
Tim Fisher is the reason CCFC are on their arse and why people refuse to see this is beyond me.
He's bullshitted the fans repeatedly and allowed CCFC to be shafted in the process by allowing others the opportunity to fill the gaps he keeps professing will be left.
He's even still trying to say a potential out of city site for a stadium and training facility is in the mix.
He's all but rubber-stamping the Wasps application for the Higgs centre himself.
Also, how exactly was the Ricoh sold on the sly?
Business is done behind close doors - that's just standard practice.
What we're the conditions/details of the contract agreed for CCFC to return to the Ricoh? Do we know the specific terms of this? If not, why not.
Nick
Administrator
The sly bit was that in public it was all "we want to build trust now with ccfc". The bullshit works in all directions, CCFC were on their arse even before Fisher. Tanned Ken wasn't exactly a hero was he? Nor was Ranson.
How many of the things Fisher has said have come to fruition?
Nobody in the council would put something that specific before the councillors.
Read the terms again of the Wasps deal, they are totally non-committal.
They're just saying - today, it's our intention to make sure all the parties are going to be OK.
Document signed and then filed to never see the light of day again.
Also, and this honestly isn't intended to be condescending, but do would have any knowledge/experience working with councils?
Councils are run by the officers - the back ground staff - the Cllrs are just the face of the operation who have to try and appease the public but get all their info given to them or guidance about how to proceed.
The officers are a constant and ever few years potentially the name of the party running the show might change, but those in the back officers getting everything together aren't changed if a different party are in 'power'.
Nope, definitely not.
Nick
Administrator
Is that like when Lucas was misadvised by West and Reeves for example?
So who is giving the guidance and telling them what to vote for?
Surely on that day they could see things weren't going to be ok? The same as the city fans who weren't queuing up to get a black and yellow flag saw?
Yes, it was bullshit on all sides and that's the exact point I'm making.
However, the BS from the other side has given other free rein to buy the Ricoh and build a training facility at Higgs.
We all know Wasps will get planning permission to build there and it's got nothing to do with back handers or favours being called in.
If a planning application is submitted and falls within planning law/regulations the council have absolutely no power to reject it.
If they did the application would go to the Planning Inspectorate, they'd rubber-stamp it and the council would potentially pick up the applicants costs which could be tens of thousands of pounds.
So, the development is still built, but the councils are having to also pay these costs.
Nick
Administrator
It isn't really free reign though, as they could have done it if they wanted to. All it has done has given them a perfectly PR opportunity that they can reel out every time they get questioned about it that takes the attention away from them.
I'll be totally honest, I'm not sure of the specifics of the example you've given.
With regards the vote, it would depend if it was a free or whipped vote - from memory it was a free vote in this case.
If it's a free vote you get to decided based on what you've seen heard which way to vote based on your own opinion, if its whipped you vote the way you've been told to by your party.
How are they not OK for the council, not wanting to seem flippant? The money they'd lent out has been returned and a little bit on top.
This is a situation some thought would never happen and some were actually hoping it wouldn't as a big F you to the council.
They've also off loaded the Ricoh which had, in my opinion, become nothing but a burden to them.
Nick
Administrator
But then all I am getting at is if it is a free vote, and they have a piece of paper that says "the football club will be ok, everything will be ok, the world will be amazing" then wouldn't that affect the vote? I am not saying it would or wouldn't, just wondering.
Compared to if it said "we are probably going to lose the football club, the rugby club will now be limited to how far they can ever go etc".
I think they'd have been perfectly aware it meant nothing and had no long term meaning.
It was just political flannel to soften the blow for the public.
It written to sounds like everyone is going to be looked after - but it doesn't actually say that.
The fact it's been raised here demonstrates that people believed that's what it meant, but as has been pointed out it actually just meant at the time of the decision being made.
You'd find hundreds, if not thousands of similarly worded documents in council buildings across the country - or actually more likely in their off site storage facility as they'd likely not see the light of day again.
Nick
Administrator
The other interesting part was the but where the council approved the lease extension the same time as the share sale (which was a couple of weeks before the higgs did anything wasn't it?). What is all that about?
The decision to extend the lease may well have been a condition of the sale, I honestly don't know.
Again I don't think this was an F you aimed at SISU/CCFC more part of the negotiations.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Christ almighty
