Grendel
Well-Known Member
No they are largely costs for defence. Why bother defending an apparent open and shit case?
Council Statement due today (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Corrado
- Start date
No they are largely costs for defence. Why bother defending an apparent open and shit case?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Become a councillor
Serves me right for not checking. I thought I knew. Live or work in LA area for 1 year and 10 seconders must be registered to vote in ward nominated.
joke answer
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How much of wasps costs have been on the defence team - answer
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Steve Harrison back at the club?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Council didn't seem so concerned with taxpayers money when it was bailing out failed events at the Ricoh or paying out hush money. No way the cost is the true reason they so desperately want it called off.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
But according to you there is no case.
You seem to be saying that the council and wasps have something to hide and it needs suppressing
You haven’t been on here for a while. Has it took that long to extract yourself from Nick Eastwoods rectum? Bit busy up there with you, Duggins, Johnson and the sky blue trust up there at the same time I suppose
joke replyI
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You are the only joke on here. How did you get out? Bit of colonic irrigation
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Or when they conducted a witch-hunt against social care charity and were charged by the local government ombudsman, all at the same time as they stood idly by whilst Daniel Pelka's parents killed him.
Do people seriously believe they are whiter than white?
Chiefdave I really admire your passion , don't agreed with you all the time but don't doubt your passion for ccfc , but the question was why they are desperate for sisu to stop the legals , its dead money and time
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Hate the binary shit. The council need to practically care about helping us stay here and Sisu need to give us some honesty and wasps well Don’t get me started on wasps
How hard can it be for an arrangement to be made. Imbeciles the lot of them
How hard can it be for an arrangement to be made. Imbeciles the lot of them
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Maybe they have some sort of skeleton in the cupboard?
your getting funnier
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But it isn't really is it? Not in the grand scheme of things. They waste so much time and money on all sorts of rubbish quite happily but we're supposed to believe they're desperately concerned about that when it comes to this.
If, as is constantly claimed, there is no chance of them losing just see it through. Let the lawyers get on with it and claim as much of the cost back as possible. The loss will be minimal.
This isn't a we'd quite like the legals dropped, or if we can agree a deal the legals have to be dropped. There is a sense of desperation there which leads me to wonder why.
Agree with you , which makes joys statement about dropping the legals all the more bazar a couple of weeks before the latest rulling
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
I honestly think the only solution left is to lock everyone involved in a bloody big room, with a bloody big guy holding a bloody big bat and nobody leaves until a deal is literally thrashed out of them. Everything else has failed so far.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I've yet to hear the council make any reference to the damage the loss of the football club will do to the local economy. For that reason alone they should be doing everything they can.
It's so easy, rolling one year deal on the current terms plus annual inflation increase until the legals are over. That's all it needs. The council are convinced they are in the right, Wasps are convinced they are in the right. Just let SISU keep kicking until they tire themselves out.
I used to think this as well until I found out you can not claim all your costs , there is a set limit , that's why sisu in my opinion have beaten people in court in the past (hence fishers claim that sisu batter people in court)
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Duggins going on about Pearl Harbour like a wannabe Churchill while he knows fully well that the club is dispensable to SISU and his words won't change a thing. You can also bet that if this team defies the odds and gets into the play offs he'll be posting selfies at the semi final (who knows where that would be).
Separate the club from the owners holding it hostage and offer the bare minimum-1 season at a time. Seeing as this is in essence the same legal action that started several years ago, I'd like to see Nick Eastwood asked what's changed since he said this in 2014:
“I hope it gets resolved. I don’t think it will affect the relationship between Wasps and Coventry City, said Mr Eastwood.
“We understand there is a difference between ownership and the management and people operating the football club day to day.
“If that is what they feel they have to do to protect the football club, then so be it.'
Separate the club from the owners holding it hostage and offer the bare minimum-1 season at a time. Seeing as this is in essence the same legal action that started several years ago, I'd like to see Nick Eastwood asked what's changed since he said this in 2014:
“I hope it gets resolved. I don’t think it will affect the relationship between Wasps and Coventry City, said Mr Eastwood.
“We understand there is a difference between ownership and the management and people operating the football club day to day.
“If that is what they feel they have to do to protect the football club, then so be it.'
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
That was a weird reference to be sure. Besides Joy looks nothing like Admiral Yamamoto, much better hair.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Next he'll be comparing himself and Nick Eastwood to Harry Truman and the Enola Gay
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Maybe he's going to surprise us all early on Sunday morning.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Btw did you find Tim's new stadium while you were up his rectum.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Btw did you find Tim's new stadium while you were up his rectum.
Lots of proctologists here all of a sudden-maybe one of us has a solution in the rectum?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
We've all for solutions just like brexit we can't get it past the first vote.
In this case no deal would be a disaster.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
All sides choose carefully the "facts" of the case. No surprise is it?. Both the CCC and SISU statements have been crafted to paint specific pictures with selected quotes & emails to back specific points. Not unexpected is it? but nor is it the total truth from either side of what went on. Historical he said she said and the arguments or abuse it brings serves no solution at all. The history can not be changed and just keeps going round in circles
The important thing i take from the council statement is that they will look at any specific proposal fairly. So test that assurance. In effect CCC are calling the bluff without providing a site, so call theirs.
You could argue there is a moral duty for CCC to help find a site and i think i would support that, but without knowing the requirements to make it viable, the budget, the funding, etc it is not that straight forward. Do they want just a stadium if so how big , or to go with it retail, office space, housing, training ground, or a mix of all that (all been mentioned in the past), what is the budget and sources of finance etc. There is no legal requirement for CCC to do the work either but nor should they hinder. Some of the sites might also already be ear marked in the strategic plan for development but that's public knowledge. Generally though the locations of possible sites are public knowledge already.
SISU have said they have appointed all sorts to represent them in planning proposals. Surely they must have options to present by now? they have been working on it for 5 years. Otherwise whats the point of those professional appointments. Some sites have been rejected because of perceived obstructions, revisit them saying there could now be council support.
But there has to be proper provable and clear evidence. Not words in a statement from either side
SISU are not only going to have to come up with something for CCC but more pressing is the solution to be presented to the EFL. A stadium ownership solution could take years in planning alone. The EFL will need formal evidence of the plan to move forward much sooner than that. Not sure they have seen any yet
The important thing i take from the council statement is that they will look at any specific proposal fairly. So test that assurance. In effect CCC are calling the bluff without providing a site, so call theirs.
You could argue there is a moral duty for CCC to help find a site and i think i would support that, but without knowing the requirements to make it viable, the budget, the funding, etc it is not that straight forward. Do they want just a stadium if so how big , or to go with it retail, office space, housing, training ground, or a mix of all that (all been mentioned in the past), what is the budget and sources of finance etc. There is no legal requirement for CCC to do the work either but nor should they hinder. Some of the sites might also already be ear marked in the strategic plan for development but that's public knowledge. Generally though the locations of possible sites are public knowledge already.
SISU have said they have appointed all sorts to represent them in planning proposals. Surely they must have options to present by now? they have been working on it for 5 years. Otherwise whats the point of those professional appointments. Some sites have been rejected because of perceived obstructions, revisit them saying there could now be council support.
But there has to be proper provable and clear evidence. Not words in a statement from either side
SISU are not only going to have to come up with something for CCC but more pressing is the solution to be presented to the EFL. A stadium ownership solution could take years in planning alone. The EFL will need formal evidence of the plan to move forward much sooner than that. Not sure they have seen any yet
Last edited:
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
like i said in previous posts agree a rolling year deal with WASPs and gaurantee to pay their out of pocket court cost if WASP are found not culpible in the proceedings
so they have nothing to worry about and are still receiving rent for 23 days a week at the RICOH! Jobs a good un!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
What are commercially acceptable terms?
This has got to be a major sticking point surely. What is acceptable to Wasps probably is not going to be acceptable to CCFC/SISU
I think the notion of rolling forward the current deal is unlikely. It was widely accepted that when CCFC came back the £100k rent was a discounted rent, now people are pushing that the figure should be the norm. I doubt Wasps will see it as the norm.
Say Wasps simply offer a £300k rent plus match day expenses no access to F&B income. Is that turned down out of principle or is the pragmatic approach to accept it for the 5 years required and focus on increasing match day attendances ? What if the rent is more
Would Wasps saying its £300k or more plus match day expenses take it or leave it (subject to complete cessation of legals present & future regarding the Ricoh sale) be accepted? The commercial value of the rent to Wasps you can bet is not going to be £100k, the £300k is not wildly out of step and why in their position negotiate especially for a short tenancy. In those circumstances CCFC/SISU are they the ones making themselves homeless if they reject it?
This has got to be a major sticking point surely. What is acceptable to Wasps probably is not going to be acceptable to CCFC/SISU
I think the notion of rolling forward the current deal is unlikely. It was widely accepted that when CCFC came back the £100k rent was a discounted rent, now people are pushing that the figure should be the norm. I doubt Wasps will see it as the norm.
Say Wasps simply offer a £300k rent plus match day expenses no access to F&B income. Is that turned down out of principle or is the pragmatic approach to accept it for the 5 years required and focus on increasing match day attendances ? What if the rent is more
Would Wasps saying its £300k or more plus match day expenses take it or leave it (subject to complete cessation of legals present & future regarding the Ricoh sale) be accepted? The commercial value of the rent to Wasps you can bet is not going to be £100k, the £300k is not wildly out of step and why in their position negotiate especially for a short tenancy. In those circumstances CCFC/SISU are they the ones making themselves homeless if they reject it?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
The 100k was acceptable to wasps at the last time they signed a deal? Plus match day costs. As mentioned before why not increase it in line with inflation? Is 100k unreasonable for a few hours usage 23 days of the year?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
is it 23 days for starters...... what about cup games for example - are they extra rent or just extra match day expenses? That is £4347 per game plus match day expenses
What are the hours that the stadium is available to CCFC? and what is included in the £100k which areas?
Is £100k commercial rent or a discounted or concessionary rent? I have no idea if it is one and the same but it would seem to imply not. If its the latter how does CCFC argue it should be the same when claiming at the same time it should be a commercially acceptable rent? - that means commercially acceptable to both sides. It is also a short term rent which tend to be more expensive
First and foremost ,like it or not ,the rent demanded has to be acceptable to Wasps - given the situation does any one seriously think they wont seek to increase it? The rental figure to be paid is not CCFC's to control.
Add to that Wasps need to improve profitability. I think Wasps were paying significantly more than that in rent for a deal similar to what CCFC are paying when they were at Wycombe - likely to colour their thinking you would guess.
If it is a rise of say £200k pa in rent i don't think the EFL will be saying "we understand if you want to reject it"
What are the hours that the stadium is available to CCFC? and what is included in the £100k which areas?
Is £100k commercial rent or a discounted or concessionary rent? I have no idea if it is one and the same but it would seem to imply not. If its the latter how does CCFC argue it should be the same when claiming at the same time it should be a commercially acceptable rent? - that means commercially acceptable to both sides. It is also a short term rent which tend to be more expensive
First and foremost ,like it or not ,the rent demanded has to be acceptable to Wasps - given the situation does any one seriously think they wont seek to increase it? The rental figure to be paid is not CCFC's to control.
Add to that Wasps need to improve profitability. I think Wasps were paying significantly more than that in rent for a deal similar to what CCFC are paying when they were at Wycombe - likely to colour their thinking you would guess.
If it is a rise of say £200k pa in rent i don't think the EFL will be saying "we understand if you want to reject it"
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But again reasonable person is expecting to go in to negotiations with everything already agreed. If they will start talking to each other then there is a chance of working out what commercially acceptable terms are. A continual refusal to speak gets us nowhere.
When did this become widely accepted?
We were paying £1.2m and approx £400K a year in additional charges while in the Championship. That was for use of the Ricoh with primacy as well as the club offices, club shop and ticket office all being based permanently at the Ricoh. I don't think there is anyone who still claims that wasn't far too high.
Compared to that would £300K and approx £850K a year in additional charges while in League One (or hopefully the Championship) for rental of the stadium bowl approx 25 days a year for a few hours with no primacy be a good deal?
Is £1.15m for matchday use of the stadium really a significantly better than what we got previously for £1.6m?