SISU might have been relying on it but it was far from certain.You could also say that if wasps didnt happen to be looking for a stadium to buy at exactly the same time (coincidence?) That the only buyers would of been sisu, which is exactly what sisu were relying on.
ah, gamboling down the entry...sweet memories.
It was either entry or jetty for me.
Ginnel I've heard, You can't watch Coronation Street as much as I do without knowing that all kinds of things happen in the ginnel
Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.I think the council/ACL may have known that ccfc were struggling with the rent for some time.
Yep it was personal I know both sides personallyThat would of been ideal. But once sisu had tried to financially distress the council by deliberately withholding rent, I'm afraid the council were reluctant to even engage with them (this is where in starts to become personal with ego mania taking over)
I have no doubt that ccc could well of been looking to off load the ricoh to any other interested party.
SISU might have been relying on it but it was far from certain.
Of course now we'll never know but I could see the likes of the NEC Group (who have been diversifying to operate venues outside of Birmingham in recent years) or someone like AEG taking an interest. Anyone who potentially wanted to become the owner of CCFC would also surely be interested. And if the asking price was as low as Wasps paid even something like a trust led bid would't be entirely out of the question.
Of course you only need two parties to be interested and the price starts rising, much better for the local taxpayer I would have thought than a deal done in secret and only offered to one potential buyer.
I think it was documented somewhere the rent was less than 10% of the club's outgoings.Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.
Complete nonsense.
Ccfc had broken a legally binding rental agreement, moved out of coventry and made public their intention to build a stadium of their own.
Wtf did you expect the council to do then with an empty stadium?
Rugby is different of course but even so!!!It's the whole ethical point though, isn't it...why be party to ripping a club from its community in London? Yes Wasps might have been fishing for a move after the approach in 2012, but why get involved in something that could prove so divisive?
They (Council/ACL) would've known forecasted revenues from the Ricoh venture before it opened. Were they doing it raise more money...ie, getting in another sports team to bring more cash in? I just don't get their motives. We were paying a good whack when they approached Wasps. It was a personal move, not a business move, to bring them here.
Ultimately, ACL and Wasps tore a club away from it's community and moved them permanently approx 100 miles away. I'm sure if we moved to Bury or Bolton, there would be uproar. Not so much when it's Wasps coming to Coventry...
I think it was documented somewhere the rent was less than 10% of the club's outgoings.
I agree that Sisu messed up and have primary responsibility for ccfc but ccc have some responsibility surely!!I’ll help you out: the people on this site are CCFC fans, not Wasps fans.
Some of us saw this coming a mile off when we gambled on a rent strike and leaving the Ricoh to get us a better deal.
Don’t blame everyone else your hare brained plan backfired. Take some responsibility. Neither Wasps nor CCC have maintaining CCFC as their primary objective as much as you may wish otherwise. Put your big boy pants on.
If you want us to have special treatment ahead of any other business, you should probably be backing the Trusts attempts to get some level of fan ownership. Until then it’s down to Sisu to set our business strategy for better or worse.
What boils my blood is the likes of Nick, Grendel, etc going on and on about how the rent strike was genius and no one would want the Ricoh and the Council would come crawling back. Then getting pissy that the entire world isn’t playing along with their delusion. Now, like Brexit, it’s endless backtracking and distraction to avoid facing the fact they backed a stupid idea that’s made us homeless.
For the slow ones at the back: yes the rent was too high. At that juncture Sisu had several options, they chose the high risk one of legal action and rent strikes. It hasn’t worked.
Whilst I can see your point here Dave and in general agree with the premise that sale should have been more open, I have a slight issue with what you've said about the other parties that might be interested. Whilst I appreciate that we were back at the Ricoh by the time the deal was signed, if the stadium had been put into the open market with no anchor sporting tenant, it would have been a big gamble for any party that wanted to be solely a stadium operator. As CCFC had left to go to Northampton, anyone doing due diligence over the potential purchase would have been massively put off as the only likely tenant (CCFC) had gone and that the reasons for leaving were due to (amongst other things), a dispute over the rent. All of a sudden Wasps appear and become their own tenant at ACL (which is still the name of the operating company).
The reason the Ricoh was valued at such a low price was that the valuation was completed when there was no tenant. In fact, in 2011 PWC did a valuation and gave a sliding scale of the valuation based on the amount of rent it brought it. I don't think it's in dispute that Wasps were lucky and got a great deal, but at the time the valuation was done, the Ricoh had no tenant and that has a direct impact on the value of a business.
So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?
Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?
So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?
Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?
It would appear not.
So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?
Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?
After all, if I was selling a house with no tenant and then got a tenant I'd sell it for the price with a tenant.
How's that the best deal for the tax payer then?
Wasps didn't appear all of a sudden, their owner was talking about it before he even bought Wasps....
But you can't know that nobody else would be interested. The price Wasps paid was the price they were prepared to pay when nobody else even got to bid so you've established a baseline. The only way is up from there, you just need one other interested party and the price rises and the local taxpayer benefits.Whilst I can see your point here Dave and in general agree with the premise that sale should have been more open, I have a slight issue with what you've said about the other parties that might be interested. Whilst I appreciate that we were back at the Ricoh by the time the deal was signed, if the stadium had been put into the open market with no anchor sporting tenant, it would have been a big gamble for any party that wanted to be solely a stadium operator.
I thought you'd previously said that ACL was loss-making with no tenant?The tax payer isn’t impacted either way - it’s a myth
I thought you'd previously said that ACL was loss-making with no tenant?
Yes of course.Did anyone use the phrase chuddy instead of chewing gum , give us a chuddy ?
Lol, fair point.Can't take you seriously after your conspiracy theories and talk of the Van Halen belt. :banghead:
I'm sorry but you are going to have to submit to an IQ test before any posts can be taken seriously.Lol, fair point.
Just a bit of fun with the conspiracy stuff, But I forgot the Oswald shooting JFK one.
WTF? That's like a millionare going into Tescos to buy a Mars Bar and being told as you can afford it, we'll charge you a fiver. Totally unconnected.Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.
Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?
Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?
After all, if I was selling a house with no tenant and then got a tenant I'd sell it for the price with a tenant.
I think they make poles.the marmite factory?
Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.
I do buy to rent want my own tenants not someone elses.
Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.
I do buy to rent want my own tenants not someone elses.
Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.
What will the threshold be?I'm sorry but you are going to have to submit to an IQ test before any posts can be taken seriously.
What will the threshold be?
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk