lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coventry Evening Telegraph. (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluebeduff
- Start date
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Is it right that the ricoh was never offered to the club or public market at the price wasps paid?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
To be honest there were only two players in the market.
The problem for us was Sisu (and Grendel) thought there was only one.
With Sisu's history CCC also thought there was only one. Wasps !!
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
I give up.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Do you think there a law requiring it to be publically tendered? Everybody & their dog knew the council wanted to sell to any 'serious' bidder, they made statements in Jan 2014, they also said they "the council could not continue to let their agenda be dictated by the stadium saga."
Seems pretty clear to me, a message to SISU to put up or risk losing out to other interested parties.
Last edited by a moderator:
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
There is certainly guidelines. No need to follow them as long as you get one up on sisu though. What happens if the club can't get the rental deal required to progress and secure their future? What if the club slowly slides into the abyss? Will it all be justifiable because sisu have made bad decisions? That they have mismanaged us so serves them right? Fact is Richardson mismanaged us. So did Robinson and mcginnity. People continued to support the club tho. After all owners directors and chairman come and go. A club with the history of ours don't. Once it's gone it's gone. Don't let that stop you justifying the council's decision tho. One that in ny opinion was out of spite and one upmanship. They could have held on to acl. They could have sold it with certain clauses in place. We as a club will struggle to progress long after sisu have gone but hey ho. We showed them sisu baddies hey?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's correct.
I've seen this justification from a couple of people now and its crazy. You're saying SISU and Grendel are stupid for thinking nobody else would be interested but also saying CCC were right to sell to Wasps as nobody else would have been interested!
The simple fact is there is not one person who knows if there would have been other interest as it was never marketed.
Not a law but there are requirements for the council to meet. They seem to have ignored them on a technicality due to the ownership structure. The general gist is that a council must ensure they achieve best value for the taxpayer (there are exceptions, for example they could have made a case for selling to CCFC or even CRFC as long standing local sporting teams), they have to be aware of the market value at the time via appraisals and they have to market the sale fully (the level of marketing is dependent on the asset being sold, in the case of ACL it would require international marketing by a specialist).
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I guess that CCC should say it's for sale and they have a bid from an interested party.
However, in view that no offer had been received from Sisu over several years what would happen if Wasps said that they would pull out if the offer was not accepted immediately ?
However, in view that no offer had been received from Sisu over several years what would happen if Wasps said that they would pull out if the offer was not accepted immediately ?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No that's not what they should do. Forget about SISU, assume we went to Northampton permanently and aren't ever coming back.
Now how does CCC achieve the best return for the taxpayer? Do they agree a secret deal incurring a loss for them and Higgs whilst surprising the local media or do they, as their own guidelines suggest, bring in an outside agent to properly market what they have for sale?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The same as the clock ticking over SISU's bid for CCFC. A scare tactic designed to drive the price down...
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
But surely the stadium needs to have a tenant to make the whole set up viable.
In that respect CCC had to choose between Sisu or Wasps.
Both had made their intentions clear, one positive, one negative.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This legal narrative may or may not help
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...l-duties&catid=58:property-articles&Itemid=26
The caveats being this was not a disposal of land or buildings by CCC. In addition as I understand it regular valuations of the lease were carried out in order to complete the audits. I would be very surprised if CCC had not taken professional advice as to their duties and as to the legality of an unlisted share disposal. I also think that the narrative says they could dispose of assets in any manner they say fit, that it doesnt have to be the highest bid and in certain circumstances can dispose at less than market value. All this is covered in Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and is not so clear cut in terms of duty as some would have us believe.
I dont doubt the moral duty seen but thats quite different to actual statutory regulation etc
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...l-duties&catid=58:property-articles&Itemid=26
The caveats being this was not a disposal of land or buildings by CCC. In addition as I understand it regular valuations of the lease were carried out in order to complete the audits. I would be very surprised if CCC had not taken professional advice as to their duties and as to the legality of an unlisted share disposal. I also think that the narrative says they could dispose of assets in any manner they say fit, that it doesnt have to be the highest bid and in certain circumstances can dispose at less than market value. All this is covered in Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and is not so clear cut in terms of duty as some would have us believe.
I dont doubt the moral duty seen but thats quite different to actual statutory regulation etc
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But again you can't possibly know that. How do you know, for example, that one of the other rugby teams who ground share wouldn't have been interested? How do you know someone wouldn't have been interested in buying it to sublet, or to convert it to another use.
That's the whole point. Have an open and honest sales process and you get to see what all the options are.
And the choice would be between CCFC and Wasps. The way you're phrased that shows exactly what your priority is, get one over on SISU at the expense of the football club.
SISU have done many terrible things but when they finally leave there is nothing they have done the club couldn't recover from. The same can not be said for the actions of CCC. What they have done will impact on this club for decades.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
CD where is the regulation that says the council had to offer it in a bid process on the open market?
Yes I agree it may have been better for CCFC but did CCC have to? Did CCC have to accept the CCFC bid even then. What else did Wasps offer in the deal, what other investment in cash or otherwise did they pledge? Could would CCFC/SISU match it or come up with a better deal -- we just dont know and will never know from either side.
Seems to me that case law says they could sell in any way they see fit including by selling/offering to one particular party.
The accounts could indicate value and the totals received were very similar to net assets on the balance sheet.
It should have been CCFC's no doubt but the reason it wasnt isn't just down to CCC.
I also doubt that CCC offered Wasps such a long lease from the get go - it was negotiated to that and those negotiations were covered by an NDA. So how exactly do CCC offer the same terms to CCFC in those circumstances without being in breach of the NDA? Also what is stopping SISU making new offers including a long lease.
No I dont think CCC are without criticism but .....
I also would think the long lease was agreed after Wasps took over. That way there is no value to any third party in owning it. Which in turn means it has low value. The worth to wasps is something else entirely
Yes I agree it may have been better for CCFC but did CCC have to? Did CCC have to accept the CCFC bid even then. What else did Wasps offer in the deal, what other investment in cash or otherwise did they pledge? Could would CCFC/SISU match it or come up with a better deal -- we just dont know and will never know from either side.
Seems to me that case law says they could sell in any way they see fit including by selling/offering to one particular party.
The accounts could indicate value and the totals received were very similar to net assets on the balance sheet.
It should have been CCFC's no doubt but the reason it wasnt isn't just down to CCC.
I also doubt that CCC offered Wasps such a long lease from the get go - it was negotiated to that and those negotiations were covered by an NDA. So how exactly do CCC offer the same terms to CCFC in those circumstances without being in breach of the NDA? Also what is stopping SISU making new offers including a long lease.
No I dont think CCC are without criticism but .....
I also would think the long lease was agreed after Wasps took over. That way there is no value to any third party in owning it. Which in turn means it has low value. The worth to wasps is something else entirely
Last edited:
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Sisu wanted unencumbered freehold. No chance. Wasps take over. All contracts renegotiated. Ricoh sponsors city of culture bid. It was one rule for sisu and another for wasps. Anyone clarify why? Other than there not very good at running a football club.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Seems to me that some posters think there should be special treatment for CCFC, if there was a good relationship there might well be, but if you go on rent strike, keep moving the goalposts when everybody thinks a settlement was agreed, move the club out of town and start litigation then you've pretty well burnt your bridges & can't expect anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What guidelines are these Dave?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't surprise me but a CCFC forum packed with people who dont really give a fuck about CCFC is pretty weird.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's various guidelines on the CCC website, and every other council seems to have documents very similar. The closest matches are probably disposal of assets and disposal of land both of which are very similar in that they require marketing and the seller to be able to illustrate fair market value has been achieved. As I say though I think due to the ownership structure they don't actually apply to ACL but as OSB says it illustrates a moral duty to act a certain way.
In many ways it parallels with the administration process. Pretty much everyone agreed something was not quite right but as no law breaking could be shown nothing could be done.
There may be an NDA in place but we all know that means little if someone were to have a quiet word suggesting a bid be put in by SISU on a certain basis. Of course if there was an open sales process with all interested parties invited to bid on the same thing on the same terms that wouldn't be an issue.
Anyway we seem to have got a touch sidetracked, for a change! The original point was italia asserting CCFC / SISU could have purchased the whole lot for £13m. There is little evidence to support that. There is however evidence that, for reasons unknown, long before SISU arrived on the scene CCC have not wanted to sell to the club.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Whereabouts CD?
Admittedly the CCC website isn't the easiest to navigate but I can't find anything like guidelines for the sale of assets or land on their website.
Plenty on central government website but that's all about disposal of land not assets like their half share in ACL.
Admittedly the CCC website isn't the easiest to navigate but I can't find anything like guidelines for the sale of assets or land on their website.
Plenty on central government website but that's all about disposal of land not assets like their half share in ACL.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The Press Police over bias reporting towards Wasps missed this.....
http://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/wasps-mascot-helps-explain-rules-rugby-coventry-youngsters/
Littke link to the Wasps website at the end of the article
http://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/wasps-mascot-helps-explain-rules-rugby-coventry-youngsters/
Littke link to the Wasps website at the end of the article
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The club have said they would not have done the Wasps deal
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The club have said they would not have done the Wasps deal.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
You stuck on repeat? Or are you incapable of answering individual points?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Regarding the observer article they didn't collude with the council to suppress news. You seem to miss that point entirely. Behaviour like that will lead to suspicions and accusations. For example if you were a convicted thief and something went missing. People would suspect. Would you not agree? Or maybe the answer is the club have said they would not have done the wasps deal.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Ah yes, Fisher speaks the truth when it suits your argument.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Err...because it wasn't for sale to ccfc. #thickasshit
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Two points answered quite clearly with the same answer.
The club have said they would not have done the deal Wasps did.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No it's not that answer, as that answered your poorly made point about SISU not getting offered what Wasps got.
The article one shows the conspiracy hype that surrounds when the CET post a positive Wasps story.
Observer do it. Not a squeak.
I guarantee certain posters would have been all over that same article if it appeared in the CET.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Who has ever said conspiracy when it has been something like that with Wasps going into schools?
No mention of the telegraph making deals with councils to suppress news?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-30809867
Strange how that wasn't reported in the Telegraph though.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Wouldn't quiet conversations like that be double dealing - something everyone on here seem to get up in arms about? :thinking about:
But I think we have established that guidelines are just that, an indication of best practice it doesn't mean they are appropriate in every instance or even binding. Also whilst an open sales process we would all feel was desirable the regulations and case law permit a sale to a particular party (wasn't that what was going on in 2012 & 2013 between CCC and SISU? ).
I think we are also coming round to the notion that the guidelines for land and property might not apply to a sale of unquoted shares in the same way.
Which ever way you look at it there was fault on many sides and it is a matter of degree where we as individuals place the proportionality of that blame. Bottom line is that CCFC lost out in the process acted out between CCC and SISU and the club will never get that loss back
Last edited:
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Poorly made point? Or just one you can't answer? Before sisu arrived the club nor public market were offered that deal. It's ludicrous that fans are happy for the club to suffer if it gets one over on their shit owners. Another thought is the council's decision has divided the fan base more than sisu. We were all united in wanting sisu out. Yet we are now split by the decision ccc made. How is that right? Richardson etc were shit. Why didn't the council try to oust them? The ricoh has been used as a pawn by all concerned. Yet some would still like to believe ccc rescued the club and stadium. Another thought. If sisu weren't here and funding losses. Where would the club be? Would there be another consortium? Would they be any better? Other than Northampton what have sisu done? They employed shit managers and chairman. Man United have done that recently. Sometimes a manager just clicks. It's all a bit hit and miss. There is no science to it.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
We do care.
However we know why we are here and understand we need to make the most of a poor situation.
You can whinge on forever but at some point you need to move on.
We can have a 'drive everyone to the bottom' attitude but its achieves nothing.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That's inarguable... although the last point may not necessarily pan out. Stadiums in the US seem to decline in value over time, where new franchises move in and fail, to be replaced by another. There's certainly an argument to be made that CCFC could actually do well out of not buying the stadium until it reaches the bottom of the market.
Whether that happens depends on whether Wasps succeed or not, of course. It's not the most secure way to plan long term, either...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Same as he tells lies when it suits your argument.