"Let’s be clear, we absolutely want the football club to stay at the Ricoh" (17 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Dal]

The idea that they would invest in the Ricoh and only use it for Euro games has been mentioned on the Wasps forum as well. Interestingly there seems nowhere near the level of outrage on there that there is on here about the idea. The majority seem to have taken it will never happen stance with the rest arguing if it's a good or bad thing.

From our POV we really need some details of what is being proposed before everyone gets up in arms about it. If there is something to this story then clearly if Wasps fans and / or Cov rugby start a campaign against any move they should have our full support but I don't think it's our place to do it for them.

So if you put that to one side you're left with what in essence is a business transaction. The Ricoh stadium bowl has no permanent tenant, we're only renting for a few hours 20-something days a year for a maximum of 4 years. We're so desperate to not pay them any extra our team photo this year is in the cathedral rather than at the Ricoh! Strip out the emotive argument around franchising and what should be done with the Ricoh, should they just wait for us to move out again and leave it empty? What if they said we've got no tenant so we're going to knock it down?

SISU need to call their bluff. Be clear that they want a stake in the Ricoh, get a valuation and make a formal offer. If they do that and get rejected out of hand then we can put pressure on the stakeholders but we look slightly foolish demanding nobody else gets their hands on the Ricoh when our owners keep saying they are building a new stadium and we don't want or need the Ricoh.

A very sensible post. 100% agree.

 

---

[ccfcway]

I was told yesterday that if and he emphasised if this Wasp proposal becomes real and all the cards are put on the table, there will be little objection from the football fans and it could be the first steps towards returning to the football club we once were. Any deal would incorporate the football side of things. Couldn't get any more out of him other than I asked about sisu and he said they are soon to be insignificant and will not be involved in any way, shape or form in any discussions while they pursue the legal route. I asked about for a time scale and he said imminent.

sorry, I must have missed this, but who is "HE" ?

 

[rupert_bear]

sorry, I must have missed this, but who is "HE" ?

His name is Geoff Chater, an associate of mine.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I was told yesterday that if and he emphasised if this Wasp proposal becomes real and all the cards are put on the table, there will be little objection from the football fans and it could be the first steps towards returning to the football club we once were. Any deal would incorporate the football side of things. Couldn't get any more out of him other than I asked about sisu and he said they are soon to be insignificant and will not be involved in any way, shape or form in any discussions while they pursue the legal route. I asked about for a time scale and he said imminent.

So you are saying this is a takeover!

 

[Grendel]

His name is Geoff Chater, an associate of mine.

Always preferred him in his serious roles - like The strange world of Planet X. He must be in his 90's now?

 

[skybluericoh]

Liked this article BUT Andy turners right about one thing.. he is naïve.

The talks with Wasps had been going on after SISUhave:

1. Failed to pay the rent, offer a reasonable value for the share of the stadium.
2. leaving for Sixfields and threaten to build a new stadium
3. Taking ACL/CCC to court for misuse of state aid.
4. At the same time demanding they want to own the Freehold and the leasehold is not an optioion.
5. and then finally return back to the Ricoh and then still carry on about owning and building there own stadium.

Quite a few punches by SISU there don't you think Andy T.

Fact is as soon as they left the Ricoh, stop paying the rent, carrying on threatening court action and building of a new stadium they had lost any rights to be involved in bidding for the stadium as soon as the Wasps came in with a committed proposition.


You cannot expect the ACL/CCC to renege on any business agreement that probably has been taking place for over a while now and way before SISU sent CCFC into exile 30 miles away. Obviously it hasn't worked for SISU.

The facts are ACL/CCC cannot take the risk of losing this business deal in hope of waiting for SISU to make a realistic offer which probably will never come. As a business they have to do what's best for this city asset.

There is something else that CT are forgetting, many years ago there was a joint stadium in the offing and Cov FRC said no way on this earth. Now I don't wish them any bad, but ACL need to do whatever they need to do to survive. SISU were offered part ownership, they said no. They want to build their own ground, I don't believe that they will, but then I thought they would never leave in the 1st place. So if SISU want this to end then they need to sign up to a long term deal, buy in on the open market. That means paying a fair price not distressing ACL to try and get it on the cheap. Stop this court action, and talks of the fantasy ground. Oh and get rid of Fisher!

Do I want WASPs at the Ricoh? For one offs, yes why not, but owning all or part and playing there all the time? No. But I also understand that ACL have to do what is right for their Business, Employees and Share holders. Lets not forget this is down to SISU, not CCFC not ACL. If SISU have the means to build a new ground, they have the means to end this. They just don't want to.

 

[lordsummerisle]

No. But I also understand that ACL have to do what is right for their Business, Employees and Share holders. Lets not forget this is down to SISU, not CCFC not ACL. If SISU have the means to build a new ground, they have the means to end this. They just don't want to.

Are ACL a business or a Community Asset? Seems to change depending on the circumstances.

Is the club a business or a Community Asset? Again seems to change depending on circumstance.

If both merely "businesses", then they both have a right to operate purely in the manner they see fit.

If both "Communty Assets", then they should both do what is best for the local community.

Whatever that is.

 

[Nick]

There is something else that CT are forgetting, many years ago there was a joint stadium in the offing and Cov FRC said no way on this earth. Now I don't wish them any bad, but ACL need to do whatever they need to do to survive. SISU were offered part ownership, they said no. They want to build their own ground, I don't believe that they will, but then I thought they would never leave in the 1st place. So if SISU want this to end then they need to sign up to a long term deal, buy in on the open market. That means paying a fair price not distressing ACL to try and get it on the cheap. Stop this court action, and talks of the fantasy ground. Oh and get rid of Fisher!

Do I want WASPs at the Ricoh? For one offs, yes why not, but owning all or part and playing there all the time? No. But I also understand that ACL have to do what is right for their Business, Employees and Share holders. Lets not forget this is down to SISU, not CCFC not ACL. If SISU have the means to build a new ground, they have the means to end this. They just don't want to.

So if SISU moved us away to try and pressure ACL or whatever the hell they wanted to do to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap or whatever the aim was. That is ok then is it? Just looking after their business and trying to survive?

 

[skybluericoh]

So if SISU moved us away to try and pressure ACL or whatever the hell they wanted to do to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap or whatever the aim was. That is ok then is it? Just looking after their business and trying to survive?

No. That is my point. SISU have totally mis managed this. They could have been the good guys if they had been open and honest, engaging the fans. ACL would have been the bad boys, over charging, no share of the revenues. But no, like the hedge fund they are they have tried to get the Ricoh by distressing ACL- The judges summary not mine. So they come back and straight away Tim Fisher is saying we are still building our own ground. ACL as a business are looking after that business by looking for alternative tenants. Take away the Sky Blue glasses and they are doing what I would expect them to do.
What I want to happen is The owners of CCFC owned the Ricoh or lease, but they keep telling us that the ship has sailed....

 

[lordsummerisle]

No. That is my point. SISU have totally mis managed this. They could have been the good guys if they had been open and honest, engaging the fans. ACL would have been the bad boys, over charging, no share of the revenues. But no, like the hedge fund they are they have tried to get the Ricoh by distressing ACL- The judges summary not mine. So they come back and straight away Tim Fisher is saying we are still building our own ground. ACL as a business are looking after that business by looking for alternative tenants. Take away the Sky Blue glasses and they are doing what I would expect them to do.
What I want to happen is The owners of CCFC owned the Ricoh or lease, but they keep telling us that the ship has sailed....

Best change your name to blackandyellowricoh.

 

[James Smith]

It's a very good article by AT and he's quite right when he says if the wasps negotiations were started before the negotiations with CCFC/Sisu then that's our tough luck, and if after then very naughty. If it's the former then it's not quite the same as us moving to NTFC (as we were saying we weren't coming back) and if the latter then there are some similarities.

I said a while ago that if we weren't careful ACL would start looking for another tenant, and was told that they wouldn't find one. If Wasps did buy most of ACL then it would be a shame for both us and our local rugby club. However it's not like we haven't had ample opportunity to buy at least half of ACL and didn't.

why are ACl looking to strike a deal with anyboy , i thought they could survive with or without tennants at the arena

By that logic you would still have us playing at Sixfields as ACL wouldn't have been looking to strike a deal with us.
Most businesses try and maximise the return for their owners? I can't blame ACL for trying to get maximum return on their leased asset i.e. the Ricoh, but not if those negotiations started after they were negotiating with us.

 

[dongonzalos]

It's a very good article by AT and he's quite right when he says if the wasps negotiations were started before the negotiations with CCFC/Sisu then that's our tough luck, and if after then very naughty.

Sorry James I disagree with that. We came back saying we are only here temporarily whilst we build a new stadium.
So of course ACL must look at other options if the charity would prefer to be out as they said they would.
Talks like these have to be confidential so I can't see anything 'naughty' in it.

If we came back in a more open and transparent way saying a new stadium will cost us over 20 million. So really over time we we would like to acquire ACL through above board negotiations. Coming back is part of this. Then I could see something 'naughty' in it.

 

[Lord_Nampil]

What's the difference between Wasps Rugby club wanting to buy into ACL and the people that own Wasps wanting to buy into ACL?? To many people they look the same thing, but to me they look totally different..... Maybe it is the same, but having explained would be helpful!

 

[James Smith]

Sorry James I disagree with that. We came back saying we are only here temporarily whilst we build a new stadium.
So of course ACL must look at other options if the charity would prefer to be out as they said they would.
Talks like these have to be confidential so I can't see anything 'naughty' in it.

If we came back in a more open and transparent way saying a new stadium will cost us over 20 million. So really over time we we would like to acquire ACL through above board negotiations. Coming back is part of this. Then I could see something 'naughty' in it.

Whilst I can see what you're saying, the fact is doing simultaneous negotiations can't be ideal. It would have been better (assuming it happened) that all the focus and energy had been on getting us back to Coventry, not half on us half on Wasps.

I'm not saying that the Higgs aren't free to sell to whoever they like, just that getting us back to Coventry even if it is only whilst we build our own should have been the most important thing.

 

[dongonzalos]

Whilst I can see what you're saying, the fact is doing simultaneous negotiations can't be ideal. It would have been better (assuming it happened) that all the focus and energy had been on getting us back to Coventry, not half on us half on Wasps.

I'm not saying that the Higgs aren't free to sell to whoever they like, just that getting us back to Coventry even if it is only whilst we build our own should have been the most important thing.

You always have to look at two things long term and short term.

If to be believed, CCFC have clearly set out their short term (Ricoh) long term (new stadium)
ACL have no choice but to do the same if they threw all their eggs into doing a deal with SISU. After what happened last time combined with SISU's current sound bites. They would be heavily criticised as been if it never came off and it turned out that during this time other suitors were dissuaded, who then went elsewhere.

 

[skybluetony176]

So if SISU moved us away to try and pressure ACL or whatever the hell they wanted to do to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap or whatever the aim was. That is ok then is it? Just looking after their business and trying to survive?

How did that work out for SISU Nick? 1 year later we're back and they've given the green light for anyone to have a go at acquiring what should be our stadium with their continued mantra of we've moved on, we're building our own stadium blah blah blah. Not very well I'd say and even worse for us. Not really an argument is it.

 

[James Smith]

You always have to look at two things long term and short term.

If to be believed, CCFC have clearly set out their short term (Ricoh) long term (new stadium)
ACL have no choice but to do the same if they threw all their eggs into doing a deal with SISU. After what happened last time combined with SISU's current sound bites. They would be heavily criticised as been if it never came off and it turned out that during this time other suitors were dissuaded, who then went elsewhere.

I always said that if we kept saying that we'd moved on ACL would do the same.

 

[martcov]

What's the difference between Wasps Rugby club wanting to buy into ACL and the people that own Wasps wanting to buy into ACL?? To many people they look the same thing, but to me they look totally different..... Maybe it is the same, but having explained would be helpful!

That is an important point. The same as if another SISU company were to buy the shares or a new stadium and make a profit from Rent to anyone, e.g. Wasps and CCFC, and F&B etc., or Otium/ CCFC were to buy/ build and make a Profit primarily from the success of CCFC. If it is the owners, not the Rugby club, then the club could stay in Wycombe apart from big games. Their core business would be renting a stadium - potentialy with CCFC as anchor tenant. I don't know what the plan is either, and we haven't heard from SISU.... yet.

 

[Nick]

How did that work out for SISU Nick? 1 year later we're back and they've given the green light for anyone to have a go at acquiring what should be our stadium with their continued mantra of we've moved on, we're building our own stadium blah blah blah. Not very well I'd say and even worse for us. Not really an argument is it.

I can't remember saying it worked, I am saying they were just looking after their investors. It is just business fella, just trying to pay the bills. It is fine!