Positive News for the Academy - Wasps pull out of Higgs (11 Viewers)

[eastwoodsdustman]

I think they spent some money on pitch improvements.

Amusingly there are rumours of Wasps players becoming pissed off by having to change in portacabins at their Broadstreet facility.
DrunkenWasps.com - Training Base

Jesus, That link should be removed forever. Just looked on their message board and a bigger bunch cocks blowing smoke up eachothers arses I've never seen. There's even on whole page on players past and present nicknames complete with explanations.

 

---

[Captain Dart]

They have submitted nothing of the sort. No planning applications, no outline planning applications. No plans at all, just hot air that the drips at the council fell for.

This is the application.
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Details
There are links to application and plans here.
training-ground

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

They have submitted nothing of the sort. No planning applications, no outline planning applications. No plans at all, just hot air that the drips at the council fell for.

The council didn't fall for it, I'm fairly sure that it was part of their anti football spin policy at the time and that they knew full well that there'd be nothing done. Coventry - City of Rugby, Remember?

 

[Nick]

This is the application.
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Details
There are links to application and plans here.
training-ground

That's the Higgs, not the Ricoh which is what they were talking about wasn't it?

All pointless now anyway for those plans.

 

[fernandopartridge]

This is the application.
Coventry City Council: Planning Application Details
There are links to application and plans here.
training-ground

He said development around the Arena. The council has always, for whatever reason, put this expectation on any would-be owner of the Arena.

 

[Esoterica]

Council leader Ann Lucas, said the Labour party insisted on three ‘deal-breakers’ before agreeing to back the move.

She said it must allow continued regeneration of the north east of the city, allow Coventry City FC to remain at the stadium and must not disadvantage the city’s existing rugby team - Coventry Rugby Club.

She said: “The Ricoh is a much-loved community asset that every one of us is proud of. “No one here has ever been prepared to sell the Ricoh Arena or the leasehold unless we can be completely satisfied our original aims can be met and include a home for the football club.
“We have always had the interests of the people of Coventry, taxpayers and local residents at the heart of any decision about future ownership of the stadium or ACL.
“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club

If one of the caveats of Wasps being here was to not 'threaten the future of the Sky Blues' what is refusing to talk to CCFC about letting us play there beyond the end of this season classed as?

 

[Captain Dart]

He said development around the Arena. The council has always, for whatever reason, put this expectation on any would-be owner of the Arena.

This thread is about the Academy/Higgs.

 

[fernandopartridge]

This thread is about the Academy/Higgs.

Hobo quoted Grendel's post which was quite clearly about the Arena. Let's not pretend that thread titles have much to do with the majority of content therein!

 

[Captain Dart]

Hobo quoted Grendel's post which was quite clearly about the Arena. Let's not pretend that thread titles have much to do with the majority of content therein!

LOL, I might have missed that, don't always look at what Mr G has to say, so much of it is cobblers.

I do believe Wasps managed to get Hilton to put some money into the Arena to revamp the hotel, but no new building/jobs as such.

 

[chiefdave]

She said it must allow continued regeneration of the north east of the city, allow Coventry City FC to remain at the stadium and must not disadvantage the city’s existing rugby team - Coventry Rugby Club.

Thats going well then. No development around the Ricoh, refusing to talk to the club about staying and went back on their promise not to have games the same time as CRFC.

 

[oucho]

Council leader Ann Lucas, said the Labour party insisted on three ‘deal-breakers’ before agreeing to back the move.

She said it must allow continued regeneration of the north east of the city, allow Coventry City FC to remain at the stadium and must not disadvantage the city’s existing rugby team - Coventry Rugby Club.

She said: “The Ricoh is a much-loved community asset that every one of us is proud of. “No one here has ever been prepared to sell the Ricoh Arena or the leasehold unless we can be completely satisfied our original aims can be met and include a home for the football club.
“We have always had the interests of the people of Coventry, taxpayers and local residents at the heart of any decision about future ownership of the stadium or ACL.
“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club

If one of the caveats of Wasps being here was to not 'threaten the future of the Sky Blues' what is refusing to talk to CCFC about letting us play there beyond the end of this season classed as?

She made that statement before SISU tried to bankrupt Wasps through spurious legal action. Any reasonable person would agree that CCFC being allowed to stay at the Ricoh would be conditional on CCFC/SISU behaving reasonably, which they have demonstrably not done. Wasps aren't obliged to provide a home for CCFC, nor are the council ESPECIALLY when SISU are trying to destabilise them.

 

[Grendel]

She made that statement before SISU tried to bankrupt Wasps through spurious legal action. Any reasonable person would agree that CCFC being allowed to stay at the Ricoh would be conditional on CCFC/SISU behaving reasonably, which they have demonstrably not done. Wasps aren't obliged to provide a home for CCFC, nor are the council ESPECIALLY when SISU are trying to destabilise them.

So you support hedge funds buying distressed businesses as long as they are not in their own back yard?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I do believe Wasps managed to get Hilton to put some money into the Arena to revamp the hotel, but no new building/jobs as such.

Negative ghost rider.

Hilton don't own the hotel. It's like a landlord asking a tenant to pay for new paint for the bedroom. Defo didn't happen. Any money on refubs would come from the owners - ACL/Wasps.

 

[oucho]

So you support hedge funds buying distressed businesses as long as they are not in their own back yard?

I support hedge funds buying distressed businesses wherever they may be, that's business. But what I don't support is SISU trying to bankrupt Wasps, or, for that matter, reneging on the obligations of a perfectly valid lease then putting the club into administration to avoid a winding up petition when the wronged party tried to use the courts to ensure they were paid their due...all as part of an attempt to bankrupt the very entity that had bailed out CCFC and ensured the Ricoh was completed for the club to play in. Then moving the club to Northampton after this action understandably alienated the landlords.

 

[Captain Dart]

Negative ghost rider.

Hilton don't own the hotel. It's like a landlord asking a tenant to pay for new paint for the bedroom. Defo didn't happen. Any money on refubs would come from the owners - ACL/Wasps.

So who paid for this refurb? I think Hilton probably have a licence to run it & pay Wasps for the privilege.
https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/363797/doubletree-by-hilton-opens-in-coventry
Doubletree hotel opens at the Ricoh Arena

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Negative ghost rider.

Hilton don't own the hotel. It's like a landlord asking a tenant to pay for new paint for the bedroom. Defo didn't happen. Any money on refubs would come from the owners - ACL/Wasps.

So when a tenant moves into a property the landlord paints and decorates it to suit the tennent, well as a landlord that' news to me.
They normally get one neutral colour throughout, any changes come from the tennnt and then have to be returned to original state before vacating it.
its like When a shop rents a unit it is up to them to do the decor in their prefured style.

 

[Esoterica]

She made that statement before SISU tried to bankrupt Wasps through spurious legal action. Any reasonable person would agree that CCFC being allowed to stay at the Ricoh would be conditional on CCFC/SISU behaving reasonably, which they have demonstrably not done. Wasps aren't obliged to provide a home for CCFC, nor are the council ESPECIALLY when SISU are trying to destabilise them.

Of course I knew that would be the counter argument but I disagree - Wasps were given a 250 year leasehold with the caveat that it included a home for the football club. It's there in black and white and Wasps are going back on one of Anne's 3 'dealbreakers'. SISU are pursuing legal action which, whether we like it or not, is their right to do and the council, as the owners of the Ricoh, should be stepping in to apply the relevant pressure to make sure rent talks happen.
I always find it really strange when people hold two lying hedge funds to completely different standards. The question for me is simple - are Wasps honoring the caveats that were fundamental to them being here in the first place and put there for the good of the people of Coventry? It's a yes or no answer and not one that should be muddied with a 'well that hedge fund are even more evil than we are!'

 

[chiefdave]

Wasps aren't obliged to provide a home for CCFC

Yes they are, it was a condition of the sale.

“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues

 

[chiefdave]

So who paid for this refurb? I think Hilton probably have a licence to run it & pay Wasps for the privilege.

Its a franchise, ACL pay Hilton is the same way you'd pay McDonalds if you wanted to open a branch.

 

[oucho]

Yes they are, it was a condition of the sale.

Of course I knew that would be the counter argument but I disagree - Wasps were given a 250 year leasehold with the caveat that it included a home for the football club. It's there in black and white and Wasps are going back on one of Anne's 3 'dealbreakers'. SISU are pursuing legal action which, whether we like it or not, is their right to do and the council, as the owners of the Ricoh, should be stepping in to apply the relevant pressure to make sure rent talks happen.
I always find it really strange when people hold two lying hedge funds to completely different standards. The question for me is simple - are Wasps honoring the caveats that were fundamental to them being here in the first place and put there for the good of the people of Coventry? It's a yes or no answer and not one that should be muddied with a 'well that hedge fund are even more evil than we are!'

Correct me if I am wrong but, by your logic, SISU could say they'll pay £1 per year and no more for their tenancy, and if Wasps say no then Wasps are breaking the terms?

If the above is right then clearly the agreement itself isn't reasonable. If the above is wrong then that calls into question the correctness of your interpretation of the agreement.

 

[chiefdave]

Correct me if I am wrong but, by your logic, SISU could say they'll pay £1 per year and no more for their tenancy, and if Wasps say no then Wasps are breaking the terms?

If the above is right then clearly the agreement itself isn't reasonable. If the above is wrong then that calls into question the correctness of your interpretation of the agreement.

Given they were conditions of the sale I would expect them to be detailed in a legally binding contract stating exactly what the requirements are but as this is CCC they were probably accepted a day out at the rugby and didn't bother doing anything to ensure the conditions were actually met or enforceable. Of course that doesn't mean Wasps should just be able to ignore them.

 

[Ian1779]

I support hedge funds buying distressed businesses wherever they may be, that's business. But what I don't support is SISU trying to bankrupt Wasps, or, for that matter, reneging on the obligations of a perfectly valid lease then putting the club into administration to avoid a winding up petition when the wronged party tried to use the courts to ensure they were paid their due...all as part of an attempt to bankrupt the very entity that had bailed out CCFC and ensured the Ricoh was completed for the club to play in. Then moving the club to Northampton after this action understandably alienated the landlords.

So you think the lease agreed under duress by the club back in 2004/5 was valid and fair?

 

[oucho]

Given they were conditions of the sale I would expect them to be detailed in a legally binding contract stating exactly what the requirements are but as this is CCC they were probably accepted a day out at the rugby and didn't bother doing anything to ensure the conditions were actually met or enforceable. Of course that doesn't mean Wasps should just be able to ignore them.

So what do you think the answer to my question to you and Esoterica is? Do you think the Wasps/CCC agreement stipulates that Wasps have to allow CCFC to be tenants unconditionally?

I work in contracts / paralegal and I can tell you that any such agreement would normally contain some conditions e.g. that the tenanting party doesn't engage in legal claims against the landlord. The very fact that negotiations are needed tells you that it's not the case that CCFC can offer up a nominal £1 to stay for ever more.

 

[oucho]

So you think the lease agreed under duress by the club back in 2004/5 was valid and fair?

Yes. There was no duress, it was a fair agreement then and the club entered into it willingly.

 

[oucho]

So you think the lease agreed under duress by the club back in 2004/5 was valid and fair?

By definition it must have been valid, as SISU had to go to the lengths of putting the club into liquidation to be able to wriggle out of their obligations under the lease.

 

[oucho]

So you think the lease agreed under duress by the club back in 2004/5 was valid and fair?

Considering that no private backer would touch the bailout of the Ricoh project, £1m payback over 50 years was very reasonable. It was the club who rejected the option of having the rent vary according to the division in which CCFC played, expecting of course to be back in the Premier League rather than in League One.

 

[Nick]

Considering that no private backer would touch the bailout of the Ricoh project, £1m payback over 50 years was very reasonable. It was the club who rejected the option of having the rent vary according to the division in which CCFC played, expecting of course to be back in the Premier League rather than in League One.

Payback? Didn't the lease cost wasps a million for 200 years?

 

[dongonzalos]

They haven’t bought it - they’ve piled debt against it - you know the thing a certain other hedge fund were going to apparently do.

Then it was a community asset that should be protected from such beastly activity.

What changed?

The owners

 

[stupot07]

Considering that no private backer would touch the bailout of the Ricoh project, £1m payback over 50 years was very reasonable. It was the club who rejected the option of having the rent vary according to the division in which CCFC played, expecting of course to be back in the Premier League rather than in League One.

Tbf, we have no details about what the sliding scale rent deal would have been. For all we know if could have been something like.

PL £2.5m
Champ £1.3m
League one £1.15m
League two £1m

Or it could have been significantly cheaper, which I doubt given the financial pressure ACL were under.

Anyway you cut it, £1.3m pa was extortionate.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

Please find a single shred of evidence that says the Ricoh was ever for sale at a fair and reasonable price. £24m for the F&B rights at one point wasn't it??

SISU should have got the deal done before they even took over, another one of their mistakes. But once that error was made it was never on the table, certainly not for a price that was fair or that wouldn't have crippled another owner.

They were told to put in their best offer by January or it would go elsewhere . Years after that 24 million figure had been banded around abd years after the business getting depreciated in value by SISU.
It sold for around 5.5 plus taking on the loan.
SISU not only did not put in their best offer they did not put in any offer until the deal was done with Wasps.

 

[dongonzalos]

Dong, take a look at post #177..

Sorry mate it doesntt show as post numbers on my display

 

[Hobo]

All football clubs run at a loss. The losses are funded by its owners.

So in 2016-17 Arsenal didn't have a pre tax profit of 44.6 million?

 

[Hobo]

It was part of the break down in trust with the council and SISU. SISU's lack of transparency over their plans for the Ricoh.

Let's face it in every negotiation and litigation they hop from foot to foot depending on which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Hobo]

All football clubs run at a loss. The losses are funded by its owners.

A lot of rugby clubs run at a loss and are funded by their owners: Richmond for example. Propped up by local wealthy businessmen.

 

[oucho]

Payback? Didn't the lease cost wasps a million for 200 years?

The council got all the money back from the Wasps deal.