Supporters' group tells Coventry City FC owners to clarify stadium plans (1 Viewer)

[Astute]

Considering you actually think that the purchase price included a loan debt to the company then there is little point in discussing it.

I'm not saying it was a good offer. That was Mr West - a point you conveniently ignore, or in all probability goes over your head.

You used to call the arena a worthless white elephant. But since Wasps paid more than SISU offered and also paid off the loan you say they got it too cheaply.

 

[Astute]

They didn't pay that for the arena as such. They paid it to the council to pay off the council's debt, albeit without the "small profit" the council used to justify taking on the debt originally.

Imagine buying a house where the current owner has decided to remortgage and now owes its lender more than the value of the house. You wouldn't want to take that debt on would you?

If they never paid it for the arena what did they pay it for?

 

[Grendel]

Absolute bollocks. SISU wouldn't negotiate. They got offers to meet. It was a take it or leave it offer. And they wanted the freehold.

So what was this offer you said about?

On 7 December 2012 an e mail stated CCC will not/ever do a deal with sisu.

There is no evidence they only wanted the freehold so again I'm afraid you are just swallowing council spin and not bothering to read up on the available documentary evidence.

 

[Nick]

Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.

Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.

Yep, it was as if she went out of her way to tell everybody when it was requested to be confidential. The deal / meetings must have meant that much to her, just not as much as the PR battle.

 

[fernandopartridge]

If they never paid it for the arena what did they pay it for?

To pay off the operating company's debt. They'd already got hold of the 250 year lease by the time it was paid off.

 

[The_Coventry]

Many of us didn't want them to sell it to them either. They wanted it to make money and not benefit our club. But we didn't want Wasps to get it either. We wanted it to be kept until we had decent owners.

I've always been bemused by that argument. Why wouldn't you want the club to buy the stadium? Regardless of owners surely it's best that we own it? If anything it makes us more attractive to any potential buyers.

 

[Astute]

Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.

Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.

Confidentiality? Was that in case they lost the arena for our club?

If they wanted confidentiality on making an offer that they didn't make why go public with wanting to build their own stadium?

 

[The_Coventry]

And SISU didn't have a clue?

Maybe they thought the same as I did?

 

[skybluetony176]

Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.

Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.

So what was the offer that SISU made in this "no longer confidential" meeting that you now acknowledged happened despite previously claiming that CCC wouldn't engage with the club?

Did the other side actually claim that they wanted it to remain confidential? Any link or is this more fabricated history from you? I will of course apologise should you provide evidence to back up this claim.

 

[Grendel]

If they never paid it for the arena what did they pay it for?

Your not seriously saying that the debt is added to the purchase price to give its value are you?

Christ.

 

[Monners]

 

[Astute]

On 7 December 2012 an e mail stated CCC will not/ever do a deal with sisu.

There is no evidence they only wanted the freehold so again I'm afraid you are just swallowing council spin and not bothering to read up on the available documentary evidence.

OMG news Flash. Grendel says Fisher works for CCC

 

[Nick]

So what was the offer that SISU made in this "no longer confidential" meeting that you now acknowledged happened despite previously claiming that CCC wouldn't engage with the club?

Did the other side actually claim that they wanted it to remain confidential? Any link or is this more fabricated history from you? I will of course apologise should you provide evidence to back up this claim.

Yes, there are letters to Ann Lucas showing disappointment after meetings they were assured would be confidential became public knowledge. After letters asking for it to be confidential.

It was speechly bircham I think who wrote to Lucas to start with emphasising it must be confidential and unreported. Then another just after it was somehow reported....

So..

Ann Lucas wants to talk away from the glare of the media
Joy Seppalla says ok, but it must be confidential, no media
It gets reported in the CET
The lawyers write another letter saying they need to be assured it will be confidential and unhappy that it was reported

 

[Grendel]

So what was the offer that SISU made in this "no longer confidential" meeting that you now acknowledged happened despite previously claiming that CCC wouldn't engage with the club?

Did the other side actually claim that they wanted it to remain confidential? Any link or is this more fabricated history from you? I will of course apologise should you provide evidence to back up this claim.

A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side

 

[Astute]

Your not seriously saying that the debt is added to the purchase price to give its value are you?

Christ.

So if there was no outstanding loan they wouldhave paid 14.4m less for the arena as CCC would have charged them the same amount?

Christ!

 

[skybluetony176]

Your not seriously saying that the debt is added to the purchase price to give its value are you?

Christ.

No. He's saying that the debt contributed to the overall costs of doing the deal. The purchase price is the purchase price but that included taking on a substantial debt that needed to be serviced.

 

[Astute]

A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side

So what was this offer you said about?

 

[Nick]

A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side

It was just part of the PR game, again.

Hence one did open letters, the other did it in private. You then see the full picture when the private letters come out.

 

[italiahorse]

Even if SISU had the money I think it's become quite apparent that the council had no intention of selling to them.

IMHO if they made a reasonable offer and took on the loan the council would have entertained it.
The problem with Sisu (it's their business) is, if they can leverage something more from what they already have, they will.
If they had owned it all, like Wasps do, there is no risk to CCC so it would be entertained. Even 50% would allow a play for the CCC share.

The issue has always been that Sisu didn't want to pay the market value for ACL (£2M 'charitable' offer was there best/only offer) for Higgs share or the 'fabled' YB loan (£2M-£5M) so CCC were never really put in a position to reject it.

If CCC rejected an offer then we could criticise them. To say they would reject 'any' offer is silly.

 

[skybluetony176]

A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side

Then I apologise.

But I ask again. What was SISU's bid?

There wasn't one was there?

Why wasn't there one?

 

[Captain Dart]

It was because CCC made a strategic decision to refuse to engage with the club and look to dispose to anyone else who was interested.

Did your friend Ann tell you that, if not who did?

It appears that you are claiming to have knowledge about something that you had no involvement in or are you just repeating what you were told to say.

 

[Astute]

IMHO if they made a reasonable offer and took on the loan the council would have entertained it.
The problem with Sisu (it's their business) is, if they can leverage something more from what they already have, they will.
If they had owned it all, like Wasps do, there is no risk to CCC so it would be entertained. Even 50% would allow a play for the CCC share.

The issue has always been that Sisu didn't want to pay the market value for ACL (£2M 'charitable' offer was there best/only offer) for Higgs share or the 'fabled' YB loan (£2M-£5M) so CCC were never really put in a position to reject it.

If CCC rejected an offer then we could criticise them. To say they would reject 'any' offer is silly.

CCC can be criticised. They have fucked up the short term minimum of our club. But I do like to see the truth said on the buildup to the shitfest that happened before it.

 

[Nick]

Why wasn't there one?

Because the invitation to come and make an offer was a PR stunt, the same as it was when Wasps had 50% and it was all over the CET that "CCFC should come and make an offer for the other 50%". Wasps were always in it for 100%.

I don't know 100% and just a thought, but I think CCFC knew they had no chance with the other 50% so bowed in to the PR pressure, they added the working in the community to try and claw back some pr points.

 

[Nick]

IMHO if they made a reasonable offer and took on the loan the council would have entertained it.
The problem with Sisu (it's their business) is, if they can leverage something more from what they already have, they will.
If they had owned it all, like Wasps do, there is no risk to CCC so it would be entertained. Even 50% would allow a play for the CCC share.

The issue has always been that Sisu didn't want to pay the market value for ACL (£2M 'charitable' offer was there best/only offer) for Higgs share or the 'fabled' YB loan (£2M-£5M) so CCC were never really put in a position to reject it.

If CCC rejected an offer then we could criticise them. To say they would reject 'any' offer is silly.

Was that £2m "charitable" offer not Market Value then? The purchase price seems to think so, the council seemed to think that the £5.5m was way over value.

 

[tisza]

I'll beat Grendel to his normal reply.

So you choose to believe when Fisher is telling the truth when it suits you

gotta be honest not sure how much i care anymore. Chasing down % points to see who is the most wrong doesn't change the fact that all sides have allowed a situation where the football club isn't in control of a stadium that was built for it.
Far too much he said /she said and it seems to me in this thread that some of the event timelines are a bit-off anyway.
As regards who is telling the truth (and how often) everyone has taken a stance on the reliability /integrity of all the parties and no-one seems to emerge particularly well from it.

 

[Astute]

Because the invitation to come and make an offer was a PR stunt, the same as it was when Wasps had 50% and it was all over the CET that "CCFC should come and make an offer for the other 50%". Wasps were always in it for 100%.

Offers to meet were made from the rent strike time. SISU played hardball and ended up losing our club the Ricoh. But you are absolutely right about the 50% once Wasps were on the scene.

 

[Captain Dart]

We've not seen that detail from Wasps either remember

Just as irrelevant. The public simply do not have any details to be certain of.

 

[Grendel]

Did your friend Ann tell you that, if not who did?

It appears that you are claiming to have knowledge about something that you had no involvement in or are you just repeating what you were told to say.

It's in an e-mail from Lisa Commane to Chris West regarding the deployment of a media strategy against sisu. It confirms they will no longer deal with sisu and never do a deal with them.

It also I assume is at the time Richard Keys was doing his "bit" about take overs as he seems to be a party they wanted to join forces with.

 

[Astute]

Was that £2m "charitable" offer not Market Value then? The purchase price seems to think so, the council seemed to think that the £5.5m was way over value.

So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.

Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?

I think not.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.

Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?

I think not.

I've just explained to you how the paying off of the loan has no value in the actual deal.

 

[Nick]

So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.

Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?

I think not.

I don't know, I always thought it should get 3 independent valuations to get a true / close to true market value.

As the purchase price was not much more than they offered, I wouldn't say it was too far away though.

Either they got it too cheap, or they were lying in their prospectus for the bonds?

 

[Astute]

I've just explained to you how the paying off of the loan has no value in the actual deal.

So with the loan being paid off would the asking price be the same?

 

[Grendel]

So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.

Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?

I think not.

1. Sisu claim they would have paid the loan - unless you have some evidence to the contrary then your assumption is based on guesswork and prejudice.
2. The Higgs share in isolation is worthless as the council representatives pretty much acknowledged. Wasps would never have just wanted the half share.
3. For the 100th time council officials had already by then stated that official policy was not to deal with sisu.

 

[Astute]

I don't know, I always thought it should get 3 independent valuations to get a true / close to true market value.

As the purchase price was not much more than they offered, I wouldn't say it was too far away though.

Either they got it too cheap, or they were lying in their prospectus for the bonds?

They paid nearly double although the terms had changed.

I said at the time that 2m was too low. And I say that Wasps never paid enough. But ACL was in a distressed state with a big loan on top.

 

[skybluetony176]

Because the invitation to come and make an offer was a PR stunt, the same as it was when Wasps had 50% and it was all over the CET that "CCFC should come and make an offer for the other 50%". Wasps were always in it for 100%.

I don't know 100% and just a thought, but I think CCFC knew they had no chance with the other 50% so bowed in to the PR pressure, they added the working in the community to try and claw back some pr points.

PR for who?

All I know is that if I was serious about buying something I'd make an offer. You can bitch all you like about not buying it but if you never but a bid in isn't that always going to be the case? If SISU had have put a bid in when invited I'd be on their side but they didn't. They chose not to buy the Ricoh. The reasons are in most likelihood numerous for that and FP highlighted perfectly earlier in this thread the most important one.

There's only one reason Wasps got a deal done and that's simply because they had the appetite to do so with the debt in place whereas SISU wasn't. If they were they would have made a bid to the council, any bid. Not no bid.