skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So Elliott says one thing and Fletcher says another. Clear as mud then. Fletcher seems to be saying that they couldn't agree terms not that the council wouldn't sell. Anybody know what the proposed terms were?
Ricoh events and Wasps ticket outlet (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
Didn't Fletcher and Robinson quit because of it? Then Elliott took over then?
It's quite clear Fletcher is saying it is down to the council isn't it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It is fairly obvious why Elliot would say one thing as he was always going to suck up to whoever bought the club.
Fletcher is less than complimentary to the council and Higgs in many interviews.
The bid by Sisu was considered "derisory" by the council but then as they would deal without insisting on the Ricoh lease they suddenly became a preferred bidder.
So we also have another Group who wanted to bid and the reason they were rebuffed by the Council and Higgs was that Higgs would only receive around £3.5 million for their shares. I use the word "only" lightly.
Nick
Administrator
Don't forget the longer lease, the cheek of it!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It's clear he says that they couldn't agree terms. You'd need to know what the terms on the table was to determine who's fault that is. If the council wanted a gazillion pounds for their shares (gazillion is an exaggeration but you get my point) then the councils terms are unreasonable and they are to blame, however if Manhattan offered £1.00 for the unencumbered freehold (again an exaggeration but you get my point) then it's Manhattan's terms that are unreasonable and they are to blame.
It seems (again reading the articles Dave linked) that Fletcher sighted the takeover or lack thereof as his reason but Robinson sights parliamentary duties doesn't he? Ha ha ha, anyone see Mark Thomas challenging Robinson over the amount of hours he spends working as an MP? I do find that excuse hard to swallow I must admit.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Ken Taylor commented on it as well. Its clear the offers were a lot better than the amount they eventually sold to Wasps for.
Nick
Administrator
But then if Manhattan had offered them 50p, he wouldn't be "calling on the council" and saying they were "scaring buyers away"?
Then you have the comments from the council that seemed to brush off the offer from Shapiro because of the cheek of what they wanted.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Manhattan didn't buy the club though did they and his comments weren't made until the deal collapsed. So using your own logic he didn't say it to suck up to whoever was going to buy the club because they wasn't going to buy the club.
Who were the "another group"?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Like I said, you'd need to see the terms offered by both parties to know that. Not likely but for all you know Manhattan could have offered 50p. Does that mean the council scared them off because they wouldn't except that offer? Do you know for a fact what either Manhattan or Shapiro or anyone else was offering and what CCC was asking for? I don't and personally I'd like to know the facts before passing judgment either way. Don't you?
Nick
Administrator
So why would he accuse the council of scaring them away if they had offered 50p? Why would he make a point of having digs at the council if the buyer was being a piss taker? He quit his job and fired shots at the council when doing it and seemed to be quite annoyed with them. The same in interviews since. Surely if he didn't think they were pretty much acceptable he wouldn't say they were scaring them away?
Do you know for a fact of the ins and outs and exact fees and offers go on at SISU before you pass judgement? Have you seen their invoices being sent out?
You try to pass it off as bullshit with the comment about finding you a link, you get links and then just ignore them anyway. There are rough figures in them, along with what they wanted.
No doubt Italia will totally ignore this and demand evidence or say it is made up, while spouting off some made up stuff he has thought of.
Does that mean people can't moan about the Wage budget if they haven't seen the transactions coming out of the bank?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You're asking to guess what he meant. I don't know the details of what was on the table. Do you? The devil is in the details and we don't know them, he hasn't stated them, he's just made an ambiguous remark with no detail, you've took it to mean what you want it to mean, I've said you need to know the details. You don't agree with me and want to decide what happened based on an ambiguous remark fine. I want to know the details so I can make an informed decision. Why you have an issue with that is anyone's guess.
What judgments have I made about SISU where I would need to see such things as invoices to make an informed decision? Enlighten me?
I haven't tried to pass anything as bullshit. You're making assumptions based on ambiguous remarks I'm asking for fact not hearsay. Not a ridiculous thing to do especially when one director is telling a different story to another. At this moment in time I don't accept either as accurate because I haven't seen the facts for either point of view. Have you?
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
I am not making assumptions, it is putting people's comments together to form an opinion isn't it? You can see the council revealing bids and amounts they are bidding and what they want, you have somebody from the club saying the council are scaring bidders away.
How much do you want before it becomes fact? Multiple parties were interested, one was rejected straight off (as said by the council) because they wanted a longer lease and a bit of land to develop with it. I am not deciding what happened based on an "ambigious" remark am I? If somebody is saying things like:
Does that read that the Higgs and Council are doing their best to help the club? Or that bidders are taking the piss?
Then a couple of years later he says:
No doubt if he had said something about SISU, then it would have been fact right? The same as when Ranson does?
There is no doubt that he believes it to be the council's fault is there?
It's quite clear what I meant about when you moan about SISU, for example keep going on about Mowbray spending money on Ryton and us losing player's wages because of it. Have you seen the transactions, the bank statements etc?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Funny how you say "adults talking" but when presenting with links you behave like a petulant spoilt child.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I'm asking the question not stating a fact.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
How much information do you need to draw the only logical conclusion? Right from the time CCC went back on their word and grabbed 100% of the Ricoh rather than splitting it with the club there has been numerous people / organisations who have not been able to deal with the council.
Manhattan Group were talking about putting £100m into the club, do you really think the deal collapsed over the value of the Ricoh if the council were willing to sell it to the football club for a similar amount they sold it to Wasps for?
Manhattan Group were talking about putting £100m into the club, do you really think the deal collapsed over the value of the Ricoh if the council were willing to sell it to the football club for a similar amount they sold it to Wasps for?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given that we do know for a fact that the other group were offering more money than wasps that's a fact even Italia and his sidekick Tony cannot deny.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Comparing Elliot's opinion to Paul Fletchers is frankly absurd. It's like saying Anne Lucas avid president Obama are of equal weighting as they are both politicians.
Then again you and Italia are probably fuming that I've dared to suggest the president of the USA is in any way comparable to the Great leader.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
So the value of the Ricoh can't go up and down over time ?
Won't the price vary depending on whether there's a team in situ or not ?
Could the price not vary if the controlling company is under stress ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Italia and Tony being bashed all over the place as per. Give up lads.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given that the only reason the arena was not in stress in its early days was the bloated rent payment then clearly no. The football club was propping it up and it itself was commercially unviable.
If the club had gone into administration in 2007 then ACL would have been totally worthless. The council were greedy and unrealistic as were Higgs who under the tenureship of the absurd PWKH were nothing like the organisation fronted by Higgs. These people are responsible for our demise. Absolutely and totally.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'm not denying anything you numpty. All I've pointed out is you have one director saying the takeover fell through because Manhattan couldn't make a deal for the Ricoh and another saying it was because of interest rates in America and the unstable currency between the US and UK. I've said I take both at face value. Manhattan may well have offered more than Wasps did, may have even been more for exactly what Wasps ended up with i.e. no land for development, 100% ownership of ACL, the debt and an extended lease. I don't know but by the same token neither do you. You have no idea on what Manhattan offered and no idea of what CCC wanted. All you have is an ambiguous remark from an ex director that is a different story to what a serving director said at the time the deal collapsed.
I don't know which is true and unlike you I don't pretend to.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm talking about the Shapiro offer Tony
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No land for development? Is that a positive? According to PWKH that was a primary motivator for Wasps purchasing their share - as the esteemed fellow himself said;
“The Trustees are pleased that the Arena project is in good hands and that the business will continue to grow and diversify to promote further regeneration in Coventry
The debt was owned by Yorkshire Bank anyway then wasn't it?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Land for development is a red herring. Mutton had a go at Manhattan for not wanting to develop land around the Ricoh and also had a go at Shapiro because they did want the land!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If CCC went back on their word and grabbed 100% of the Ricoh instead of splitting it with us how did we sell 50% to Higgs?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's was 50% of ACL, we were supposed to have 50% of the whole thing i.e.: the freehold.
Nick
Administrator
Wasn't it free hold? It's in one of the Fletcher links
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well at least you admit that they're opinions not fact which is start and all I've actually said. Glad to see you agree with me. Why is it absurd to compare Elliot's opinion with Fletcher's? He was a director when he said it, I'm sure he had insight on what happened and why. Without the benefit of tangible fact which is not something you have his opinion is relevant and can't be dismissed out of hand.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I was talking about the Manhattan offer in the post you replied to. That's all I've been talking about. Couldn't comment on the Shapiro offer as I don't recall to much about it, if anything.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Elliot was life president and a parasite that would cling onto any rock that offered him a lifeline.
He's pathetic endorsement of sisu and then when booted out by then his equally ludicrous obsession with Haskell shows he has no credibility. If Jo Dinsah offered him a key role he'd have backed him.
So yes his opinion can and should be dismissed out of hand.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Give what up? All I've pointed out is there is different versions of why the Manhattan deal collapsed from two different directors at the club who were present at the time. I've not said anything factually incorrect, I've not claimed one to be right and one to be wrong, I've admited I don't know either way.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So it should be dismissed because you don't like the bloke basically.
Last edited: