Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (3 Viewers)

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Still - after 2 years? Don't think that is going anywhere.

What was given was --

33% management company
A ground with no rent
A loan for ground improvements to the management company that they the wiped off in the clubs favour

The notion that their council would have behaved in a manner ours have given their track record of help and support is laughable in the extreme

And what was the behavior of Swansea's owners during this period? Did it involve litigation, rent strikes, moving the club 30 odd miles away, threatening to build their own ground, agreeing deals and then reneging on them? Or was it something more constructive?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Wasn't the judge in the JR talking about a different deal to the one that Wasps got? You can have an appetite for one deal but not another if one deal is better surely?

Didn't CCC have the stance that they wouldn't deal with SISU until hell was frozen over?

I don't know if you're aware of a word called negotiation but that generally means an opportunity to change both terms and price. I guess SISU never realised this. All we got after the meeting (from ML IIRC) is "she changed her mind on the train".
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
No. The fact being you can't read. Or type seemingly

But you said the club rejected a lease arrangement? They actually stated publically they would take a lease of 125 years.

Furthermore there is no evidence they ever actually asked for unincumbered freehold is there? The only person who said that is someone who often seems to misinterpret facts (you know like when profit actually is loss).

So they would take a 125 lease and they would have looked at freehold and the council would sell but as the note said not to the football club.

All the above is correct isn't it?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
And what was the behavior of Swansea's owners during this period? Did it involve litigation, rent strikes, moving the club 30 odd miles away, threatening to build their own ground, agreeing deals and then reneging on them? Or was it something more constructive?

We didn't go on rent strike then you idiot. We bent over backwards and paid everything! That's why we are screwed now!
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
But you said the club rejected a lease arrangement? They actually stated publically they would take a lease of 125 years.

Furthermore there is no evidence they ever actually asked for unincumbered freehold is there? The only person who said that is someone who often seems to misinterpret facts (you know like when profit actually is loss).

So they would take a 125 lease and they would have looked at freehold and the council would sell but as the note said not to the football club.

All the above is correct isn't it?

I answered the point if the freehold already. Go back to that again.

And no, I didn't state they rejected anything. Show me where
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
We didn't go on rent strike then you idiot. We bent over backwards and paid everything! That's why we are screwed now!

I never asked you what we did you idiot. I asked you what Swansea's owners were doing while gaining favour with their council you idiot. It is the current owners at Swansea that gained favour with the council wasn't it? Did they behave like SISU to gain favour with their local authority or was it something else more constructive. A straight answer will be fine.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
The letter states: "In any scenario we need a freehold or clean restriction-free long lease."


- extract from a letter from Seppala to the Council, as reported by Les Reid in The Observer.


I've never seen or heard about a restriction free long lease being in operation, do they exist? So really, despite SISU and the Council agreeing a 125 year lease in principle as part of the original failed Higgs purchase, this Seppala statement goes back to freehold or nothing (or something that doesn't exist).
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
And strangely it suddenly didn't matter that Higgs weren't getting lots of cash for their shares. Not a peep about "poor orphans" or "ripping off a charity" then.

I realised at a while ago (having read someone else's post) that they had made an investment in the Ricoh - however well intentioned it was supposed to be - it was still an investment just like Joy made in our Club. "The value of your investments can go down as well as up so you may get back less than you originally invested" everyone knows (or should know) that. So I stopped feeling that sorry for them just as I don't feel sorry for the people who invested with Sisu. Also unless Wasps are giving away tickets just in the Higgs stand for their games, the charity get something like 40p a ticket sold there don't they? So it might not be a total loss for them if Wasps are successful. So not too worried about them as a result.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Wasn't the judge in the JR talking about a different deal to the one that Wasps got? You can have an appetite for one deal but not another if one deal is better surely?

Didn't CCC have the stance that they wouldn't deal with SISU until hell was frozen over?

I thought it was the Higgs match not the JR one where Joy's 'appetite' was brought up. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
No I don't. I stated the freehold quote was on record. I followed that up by saying that the burden to prove the existence of any other deal wasn't mine. It was Torchy's to make if he wanted to debate the point. Otherwise you're debating fact against opinion
That's his forte MMM. Tries to twist words, but ultimately fails lol.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I thought it was the Higgs match not the JR one where Joy's 'appetite' was brought up. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

Wasn't that when he said that all parties had no 'appetite' hence why higgs weren't awarded costs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Wasn't that when he said that all parties had no 'appetite' hence why higgs weren't awarded costs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)

Both sides had no appetite for a deal after a long length of time after initial contact and called it a nill all draw I think.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Sorry yes thats the one! Same thing, both wear a wig!

Don't worry, don't think you were the first person to say that in the thread. Those wigs look itchy.
Getting told off for reading this during Masterchef now.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Wasn't that when he said that all parties had no 'appetite' hence why higgs weren't awarded costs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)

Yes, but it was SISU who claimed they were wronged and that the deal wasn't completed due to influence from CCC. The JR judge didn't seem to see it that way, and attributed the no-deal to Higgs and SISU not having the 'appetite' for the deal
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Those offers reverted back to £1.3 million the following season.

The "unencumbered" claim has never been substantiated has it?

It was to me when I met Our Joy on my own then repeated when I and a few others met her Labo and Tim,some of the people there come on here and can confim cant remember their names.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
The letter states: "In any scenario we need a freehold or clean restriction-free long lease."


- extract from a letter from Seppala to the Council, as reported by Les Reid in The Observer.


I've never seen or heard about a restriction free long lease being in operation, do they exist? So really, despite SISU and the Council agreeing a 125 year lease in principle as part of the original failed Higgs purchase, this Seppala statement goes back to freehold or nothing (or something that doesn't exist).

Should imagine that the lease would become effectively freehold and clean of restrictions once existing contracts on the site come to an end.

125 years, and 250 years effectively offer that.

The initial length of lease offered by CCC to ACL was far too short for the amount paid for it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
CCC may even have offered a long lease? We have no knowledge in either direction. But what we do know is that Sepalla had the stance she did - it's on record, and CCC had a stance.

You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.

If after this impasse, and SISU's continued insistence they were moving on, Wasps come along and offer the 250-year lease - which gives the council the 'out' it needs; then CCC are not best served by breaking a confidentiality agreement by hawking those terms back to SISU

Maybe Wasps - understandably - didn't want to be the make-weight in a deal between SISU and CCC; to invest all that time and money in Due Diligence merely for CCC to offer a SISU a 'better Wasps offer and it's yours deal'. As a businessman, I'd have sought the same.

You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.

And again, what if CCC had turned down Wasps overtures and they'd have gone elsewhere and stated publicly that CCC turned them down? The 95%+ of the city's population who don't go regularly to football games would be up in arms; if SISU's CEO had done what had been claimed and built fresh, leaving The Ricoh as a disused piece of grass - and a potential tenant spurned

I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.

But we are all talking about this as if it was a normal business transaction, it involved local politicians, it had got very personal, both sides had been to court.

True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.

Because after that stupid statement, Fisher continued his 'we're still building a new stadium' crap. Which maybe was the last straw for CCC, who decided no bridges were being built

So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:

Yes. Being given something for nothing is always the rough end of the deal.

Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It was to me when I met Our Joy on my own then repeated when I and a few others met her Labo and Tim,some of the people there come on here and can confim cant remember their names.

They told me they'd take a long lease as it's the same as freehold
 

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
Long lease v freehold isn't the key difference the ability to sell on. Freehold you have unrestricted, long leasehold there are usually restictions from the freeholder ie CCC.

I do believe the "getting personal issue" was key in all SISU bull$hit about a new stadium they made it clear it wouldn't be in Cov.

The land grab, the Tesco deal, the high rent are all valid arguments which should have been publicised by SISU as an attempt to win more support from Cov fans & cov citizens, SISU distressing tactics however just polarized opinions, the true plight the club is now in is unknown mostly as people think the club has got what it deserves bur also because citizens think the council paid for it all.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.





You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.



I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.



True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.



So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:



Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.

So basically none of us know nothing and none of us can prove anything....because of public, private, and exclusive bullshit, spin and bollocks.

you have just ruined Nicks forum
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
We didn't go on rent strike then you idiot. We bent over backwards and paid everything! That's why we are screwed now!

We are screwed because Richardson sold HR without a replacement in place and had been spending 125% of our income on players wages. But you try to make out that he is innocent and put all the blame on CCC.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.





You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.



I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.



True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.



So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:



Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you joking? I mean really? I am perfectly aware of the difference between exclusivity and confidentiality. We all do. And I'm accused of bring arrogant. Bloody hell.

Looking at the Wasps perspective, a statement released by the club at the beginning of September*read: “We can confirm the search for a permanent home is continuing. However, all discussions are subject to confidentiality requirements and are therefore commercially sensitive; as such they have to remain confidential for the time being and we cannot make any further comment.”

So you're saying that if Wasps raised the spectre of the long lease, CCC could then approach SISU and ask them match or better it and not breach the terms of the agreement with Wasps? Are you really trying to say that?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Are you joking? I mean really? I am perfectly aware of the difference between exclusivity and confidentiality. We all do. And I'm accused of bring arrogant. Bloody hell.

Looking at the Wasps perspective, a statement released by the club at the beginning of September*read: “We can confirm the search for a permanent home is continuing. However, all discussions are subject to confidentiality requirements and are therefore commercially sensitive; as such they have to remain confidential for the time being and we cannot make any further comment.”

So you're saying that if Wasps raised the spectre of the long lease, CCC could then approach SISU and ask them match or better it and not breach the terms of the agreement with Wasps? Are you really trying to say that?

To be honest MMM your trying to have your cake and eat it. If we agree that wasps were already in advanced talks with ccc before we came back, and are likely to have an exclusivity agreement, so therefore CCC couldn't make the offer to ccfc or even listen to offers from ccfc. Then TF'a remarks made no difference to the deal going through.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
To be honest MMM your trying to have your cake and eat it. If we agree that wasps were already in advanced talks with ccc before we came back, and are likely to have an exclusivity agreement, so therefore CCC couldn't make the offer to ccfc or even listen to offers from ccfc. Then TF'a remarks made no difference to the deal going through.

Fishers constant stupid comments have everything to do with CCC giving up on SISU making a serious bid and looking elsewhere. The question is when they gave up on trying to do a deal with SISU.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
To be honest MMM your trying to have your cake and eat it. If we agree that wasps were already in advanced talks with ccc before we came back, and are likely to have an exclusivity agreement, so therefore CCC couldn't make the offer to ccfc or even listen to offers from ccfc. Then TF'a remarks made no difference to the deal going through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)

Nope. Now you're guilty of the confusion Dave mentions. First off, it's no surprise, Lucas published her 'we'll talk to anybody' articles in January 14. The story on the Wasps site is September 14, and the purchase competed a month or so after.

Wasps have a confidentiality agreement, but no exclusivity as far as I'm aware. That means CCC can't take commercially sensitive aspects of any discussions and tout them for others to match. However, if SISU had made their own approach and suggestions, CCC could still have entertained them, as no exclusivity was in place.

Joy was aware of the discussions, and decided - despite the seeming absence of exclusivity that she wouldn't 'stand in the way' of any deal. And Fisher latterly insinuated the price paid by Wasps too generous
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
So you're saying that if Wasps raised the spectre of the long lease, CCC could then approach SISU and ask them match or better it and not breach the terms of the agreement with Wasps? Are you really trying to say that?

No what I am saying is unless Wasps had exclusivity CCC could very easily say to SISU we will consider offers for ACL and as part of any sale we will consider extending the lease. That would in no way breach confidentiality. If there was no exclusivity they could have made it generally known ACL was for sale and a 250 year lease was on offer.

And come on, live in the real world, is it really that unthinkable that someone in the council could tip SISU off about Wasps and what they were up to. Happens all the time in business confidentiality clause or not.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
The invitation for offers was made in Dec 2013, SISU already knew a long lease was available having agreed the principle of one previously. Absolutely nothing stopping them putting an offer in, and no secret that ACL was for sale with a long lease. Surely there isn't any doubt about this.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
We are screwed because Richardson sold HR without a replacement in place and had been spending 125% of our income on players wages. But you try to make out that he is innocent and put all the blame on CCC.

Hogwash as per. I never said he was blameless - I did say he didn't sell the buy back clause on highfield road - which of course he didn't.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
No what I am saying is unless Wasps had exclusivity CCC could very easily say to SISU we will consider offers for ACL and as part of any sale we will consider extending the lease. That would in no way breach confidentiality. If there was no exclusivity they could have made it generally known ACL was for sale and a 250 year lease was on offer.

And come on, live in the real world, is it really that unthinkable that someone in the council could tip SISU off about Wasps and what they were up to. Happens all the time in business confidentiality clause or not.

CCC did say, very publicly that they would listen to offers. JS reports she wants freehold only, and states they'll build afresh unless they get it.

Wasps then come along. Possibly offering the compromise SISU never offered.

And yes, whispers do happen in business. But maybe a confidence in SISU had gone by then, and they were without friends to top them the wink
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Wasps have a confidentiality agreement, but no exclusivity as far as I'm aware. That means CCC can't take commercially sensitive aspects of any discussions and tout them for others to match.

It means they can't give details of Wasps bid, it does not mean they can't invite offers from others. They do not have to give details of Wasps offer just make it known a 250 year lease is available.

Joy was aware of the discussions, and decided - despite the seeming absence of exclusivity that she wouldn't 'stand in the way' of any deal. And Fisher latterly insinuated the price paid by Wasps too generous

You make it sounded like she knew all along. By the time Joy was saying she was aware of the discussions it was a done deal going before the council to be voted on!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top