JR2 - SISU's bargaining tool? (4 Viewers)

[italiahorse]

How do the JRs cost Wasps time or money?

Directly by involving legal/management teams and indirectly by affecting potential local Wasps sponsors who don't want to be associated with CCFC demise.

 

---

[Astute]

And thus be sympathetic to the clubs (not sisu's) needs by using their discretion.

To answer your 2 questions:

Ofcourse they have been following what's gone on since sixfields, they have been involved in discussions around the (non) stadium and academy.

And whilst there is no new stadium on thr horizon, the club have (from what they tell us) kept the FL up to date on it, and even showed them around the butts.

So you agree with what I said then.

 

[Nick]

... because you are a little thick and can't accept other opinions perhaps ?

You haven't said it's your opinion about the JLR stuff have you? It reads to me like fact.

 

[stupot07]

So you agree with what I said then.

Yes, just like you agreed with what I said.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[italiahorse]

You haven't said it's your opinion about the JLR stuff have you? It reads to me like fact.

Its an opinion based on information from people 'in the know'.
Until it actually happens it can't be fact.
For information I said 'Land Rover' not JLR.
Still stand by it.

 

[Nick]

Once CCFC have settled the Ricoh naming rights will happen.
CCFC uncertainty is holding it back.

That doesn't read like opinion. It is very certain.

 

[Captain Dart]

I could be wrong but to my mind JR2 seems even more limp wristed than JR1. Are SISU really going to go into court and say that the council didn't get a good price after spending the last three years in court arguing that it was worthless and therefore a loan shouldn't have been made. They can't argue that they were never given opportunity to make an offer ever as they clearly were and JS even had the then council leader in her office to discuss an offer which never came. I can't see that there is a protocol issue as there doesn't seem to be a process for offloading a half share in a stadium management firm from a local authority and the council also still hold the freehold so disposal of land guidelines don't come into it either. So to recap CCC sold something that SISU have said numerous times in court is worthless for a few million quid, CCC have secured payment in full of a loan SISU have argued in court shouldn't have been made in the first place partly due to the risk of loaning said worthless company and even the lease extension could be seen as a stroke of genius because as it well outstrips the design life of the arena the taxpayer won't have to pick up the bill of redevelopment the leaseholder will.

What's a judge going to say other than well done on getting this deal for the taxpayer?

JR2 is no bargaining chip. SISU could well be stupid enough to think it is though going by their philosophy of doing the same things expecting different results.

All JR2 will give is what JR1 has given. Wasted money, time and effort that could have been better invested in the club's interest's, lost opportunities, erosion of bridges and a further spiralling down of the club. This is why they have to go for the good of the club and we need to use any and every opportunity to tell them until they start listening. Them staying give's us a worst case scenario of disappearing and a best case scenario of years of stagnation. My guess is we'll fall somewhere in between.

Subsequent events undermine the arguments deployed in JR1.

It would seem that SISU are just trying to wear down the council be repeated legal action regardless of whether it has merit or not.

Such behaviour does nothing to make me look kindly on our owners.

Until SISU are gone this club will be mired in the shit they bring, they have to go if progress is ever to be made.

 

[italiahorse]

That doesn't read like opinion. It is very certain.

Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?

 

[Captain Dart]

Unless I've missed something what OSB has said is the figure Wasps paid is the value of ACL which is not the same as the lease. However that doesn't mean the valuation of the lease stacks up.

So the lease is worth £48.5m. What in ACL caused the value of the company to be £42m lower than the value of its major asset?

Or you could say what is it about the new ownership that has enhanced the value of the lease. Remember when it was bought there was no permanent sporting tenant.

 

[Grendel]

Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?

The only person convinced is yourself.

I've already challenged you that what you are saying is against code of conduct and pre commitment arrangements which institutions such as JLR have in place. Not even withstanding the fact budgets and strategies are agreed and tied down not just left in the air on some whim that circumstances may change.

Thats why I know your bluffing and trying to claim their are issues which would never exist

 

[Captain Dart]

It's in the FL rules, have a look

Only 1 year. http://www.efl.com/global/section4.aspx

 

[Captain Dart]

No. Wrong again.

Don't tell him Pike!

 

[Grendel]

Don't tell him Pike!

What do you think will happen first?

1. There will be a human landing on Mars
2. Captain Dart will comment on a match day thread?

 

[Nick]

Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?

No, it is because you write them as if they are fact and hope everybody believes it and not ask for more info

 

[Nick]

What do you think will happen first?

1. There will be a human landing on Mars
2. Captain Dart will comment on a match day thread?

Maybe him, Oucho and PWKH are having a bottle of pimms as we speak? Chaps on tour.

 

[dongonzalos]

They are not named as defendants only primary witnesses ( or whatever the term is )

Yes that correct and as a result of that they will have had their lawyers all over it. To asses the implications how it affects them ect ect
Which is all time and money.
They had to make reference to it in their bond prospectus. So they will have to had to assess it with fine comb.

 

[James Smith]

What evidence can CCC give to show they maximised the return for the taxpayer?

There are certainly questions around the value of the lease given the price Wasps paid for ACL and the lease extension compared to the lease valuation immediately after. If the £48.5m valuation of the lease stands up to scrutiny then would you say £1m for a 200 year extension was a good deal for the taxpayer?

Would certainly be interested to see if the Wasps valuations stand up in court. Not suggesting that there is anything wrong with them (if the lawyers are reading this) but would like to know how accurate they are.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

What do you think will happen first?

1. There will be a human landing on Mars
2. Captain Dart will comment on a match day thread?

Maybe him, Oucho and PWKH are having a bottle of pimms as we speak? Chaps on tour.

Are ins't that sweet , Grendel gives Nick a like . :wtf:

 

[CCFC54321]

I very much doubt JLR will take over the sponsorship after the Ricoh contract expires. I work at JLR and there has been no indication from what I've heard that this will happen although wasps will have been banging the door ! The wasps/Land Rover sponsorship is as far as it will go I believe. Wasps aren't big enough headliners for JLR at this moment - really, how many times do you hear the Ricoh arena mentioned on TV and radio? Not much and not enough to sponsor a ground.

Wasps will be getting sweaty hands soon. The repaying of the bonds will be like a rope around there neck in the next couple of years. Wasps are heading for choppy waters soon and what I've read and hearing the gates are dropping and the £ numbers are not matching up.

 

[oldfiver]

I very much doubt JLR will take over the sponsorship after the Ricoh contract expires. I work at JLR and there has been no indication from what I've heard that this will happen although wasps will have been banging the door ! The wasps/Land Rover sponsorship is as far as it will go I believe. Wasps aren't big enough headliners for JLR at this moment - really, how many times do you hear the Ricoh arena mentioned on TV and radio? Not much and not enough to sponsor a ground.

Wasps will be getting sweaty hands soon. The repaying of the bonds will be like a rope around there neck in the next couple of years. Wasps are heading for choppy waters soon and what I've read and hearing the gates are dropping and the £ numbers are not matching up.

Home / Lifestyle / Is F-Pace proving too hot for Land Rover?

Is F-Pace proving too hot for Land Rover?

Jaguar F-Pace
6th December 2016

LAND ROVER has seen a near 20% dip in vehicle sales in the UK, according to new figures.

New registrations figures for November, released by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, show that 5,278 Land Rover vehicles were registered last month as against 6,535 for the corresponding month last year, a fall of 19.2%.

Sales are still ahead more than 21% for the year-to-date so alarm bells won’t be ringing just yet. However, the fall is one of the most significant in recent times.

 

[oldfiver]

I must be missing something then as in the Strutt and Parker valuation report dated 23 April 2015 it explicitly states that the valuation is the market value they would expect a buyer to pay on that date.

You are not missing anything except - how they got to the valuation figure
They assess the income stream then apply a current yield rate that is appropriate to that business/property / entity
For example in a recent property sale. The underlying rack rent was agreed from local market rates. Then a capital value obtained producing a yield at just under 10% which was agreed by both sets of valuers as being appropriate

To some degree it would not matter if there was a buyer or seller because the valuer would be using his knowledge to reach the above which would be his estimated value suitable for buyer and seller,

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

I very much doubt JLR will take over the sponsorship after the Ricoh contract expires. I work at JLR and there has been no indication from what I've heard that this will happen although wasps will have been banging the door ! The wasps/Land Rover sponsorship is as far as it will go I believe. Wasps aren't big enough headliners for JLR at this moment - really, how many times do you hear the Ricoh arena mentioned on TV and radio? Not much and not enough to sponsor a ground.

Wasps will be getting sweaty hands soon. The repaying of the bonds will be like a rope around there neck in the next couple of years. Wasps are heading for choppy waters soon and what I've read and hearing the gates are dropping and the £ numbers are not matching up.

Your point regarding the "value" of the stadium naming rights is a good one. Football hits a greater range and scope of the target audience, in comparison to rugby.

 

[italiahorse]

Your point regarding the "value" of the stadium naming rights is a good one. Football hits a greater range and scope of the target audience, in comparison to rugby.

Well it does in the PL and Championship.

 

[Bennets Afro]

The Ricoh gets more coverage now with CCFC in League 1 then it does for Wasps being in the egg chasers top league

 

[duffer]

I might be the only person here that is entirely unconcerned with SISU launching a second JR against the council regarding the sale of ACL to Wasps.

I'd be surprised if it succeeds, but there clearly are some questions over the process followed for the sale and valuation of ACL, and I think that it is entirely fair and proper for the council to be challenged in regard to it. That's the way that the law works and our opinions as to the merits of the case are just that, opinions.

This legal action in and of itself in no way prevents Wasps from dealing with CCFC. There is no direct threat to the Wasps deal for ACL here, it seems well accepted that it cannot now be unwound.

The fact that Wasps are refusing to talk to CCFC because of ongoing legal action against CCC suggests to me an unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, one perhaps in which each side is offering the other favours for preferential treatment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that in any way acceptable.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

Well it does in the PL and Championship.

The issue for a company entering into naming rights will be the impact on their target market. They will have calculated the scale and value of any sponsorship or promotion. So is a stadium with a Div 1 or 2 football team of significant value over just sponsoring the shirts for a Premiership Rugby team? Probably YES.

 

[oldfiver]

I must be missing something then as in the Strutt and Parker valuation report dated 23 April 2015 it explicitly states that the valuation is the market value they would expect a buyer to pay on that date.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I might be the only person here that is entirely unconcerned with SISU launching a second JR against the council regarding the sale of ACL to Wasps.

I'd be surprised if it succeeds, but there clearly are some questions over the process followed for the sale and valuation of ACL, and I think that it is entirely fair and proper for the council to be challenged in regard to it. That's the way that the law works and our opinions as to the merits of the case are just that, opinions.

This legal action in and of itself in no way prevents Wasps from dealing with CCFC. There is no direct threat to the Wasps deal for ACL here, it seems well accepted that it cannot now be unwound.

The fact that Wasps are refusing to talk to CCFC because of ongoing legal action against CCC suggests to me an unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, one perhaps in which each side is offering the other favours for preferential treatment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that in any way acceptable.

No, you're not the only one. I am glad it's happening to hopefully get some facts out in the open.

 

[Nick]

I might be the only person here that is entirely unconcerned with SISU launching a second JR against the council regarding the sale of ACL to Wasps.

I'd be surprised if it succeeds, but there clearly are some questions over the process followed for the sale and valuation of ACL, and I think that it is entirely fair and proper for the council to be challenged in regard to it. That's the way that the law works and our opinions as to the merits of the case are just that, opinions.

This legal action in and of itself in no way prevents Wasps from dealing with CCFC. There is no direct threat to the Wasps deal for ACL here, it seems well accepted that it cannot now be unwound.

The fact that Wasps are refusing to talk to CCFC because of ongoing legal action against CCC suggests to me an unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, one perhaps in which each side is offering the other favours for preferential treatment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that in any way acceptable.

Like where the council leader says they have nothing to do with Wasps stance over and over as they are separate, but then says if SISU pay them loads of money they weren't legally owed then he can "help".

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Like where the council leader says they have nothing to do with Wasps stance over and over as they are separate, but then says if SISU pay them loads of money they weren't legally owed then he can "help".

Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?

 

[wingy]

Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?

What money????

 

[Nick]

Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?

I wasn't on about the money paid, it was about how he distanced himself from it when Wasps said they won't talk as if it was nothing to do with CCC but then jumped on it when asking for money acting like he can fix it all.

 

[wingy]

View attachment 6039

A 3% contribution or is there more to that as my eyes hurt trying to read it?

 

[wingy]

I wasn't on about the money paid, it was about how he distanced himself from it when Wasps said they won't talk as if it was nothing to do with CCC but then jumped on it when asking for money acting like he can fix it all.

Which money Nick?

 

[Nick]

Which money Nick?

It was when he first came in, he said if legal action was dropped and all of the council's legal fees were paid he would help with the Wasps discussions. Previously he had distanced himself from them to say it was up to Wasps.

Don't get me wrong, if the judge says "pay £2m legal fees" then they should be paid. This was before anything was awarded.