skybluefred
New Member
It's a 250 year lease on the Ricoh so freehold doesn't really matter. Further more the CCC are expecting the adjacent land to be developed by the
Ricoh's owners.
Higgs statement (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
It's a 250 year lease on the Ricoh so freehold doesn't really matter. Further more the CCC are expecting the adjacent land to be developed by the
Ricoh's owners.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Well firstly there appears to be a legal obligation.
Secondly for the large percentage of the population who are board of the saga, it will lodge with them oh well they had the opportunity to buy it (and let's not pretend they haven't had the opportunity and blew it).
Thirdly it probably is flipping the finger at SISU also. But people flip the finger on here all the time given the opportunity.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't people be thinking that Sisu offered pretty much what Wasps have offered, except for only 50% of the Ricoh with a much shorter lease, yet it was turned down and now been offered to a Rugby Club from miles away?
All the talk of wasted money on court cases etc would be moot as they wouldn't have happened if the original offer by Sisu had been accepted.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
It never became an offer though. The reason being I have been told is SISU kept shifting the goal posts in negotiations. Then both sides lost confidence in each other and it became a mess. The fact that the Wasps deal is very similar to the SISU one shows the deal was there and could have been carried over the line. If only Joy had accepted a long lease. Also redevelopment of the area was always key and there was a comment along the lines of "SISU never showed a clear plan". It may not be exact but it undermined people's confidence about their motives, what they intended to do.
When looking for the truth I look for consistencies. One thing consistent with SISU is they never have a clear plan.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm with you on a lot of this Hobo. In actuality, the road-map proposal Fisher put forward way back when was a really clever, credible proposal imho. It wasn't far off the Wasps deal at all. The problem was that it didn't seem to be negotiated in good faith. It started with a threat to pull out, and then SISU went behind everyone's back to the bank, and then they wanted buy-now, pay-later on Higgs and so on. In my opinion this is where the relationship between all of the parties fractured.
I understand entirely why people say it's SISU's fault - it is. But there still wasn't any need for the Council to do this, imho.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I feel the council have made mistakes also. But when they came back to the Ricoh I think the door was still open even if reluctantly. But SISU maintained their stance of going off building their own. They were given the heads up about this in the last couple of weeks. I don't think they have the money to match the Wasps deal (but that is just a hunch). With SISU being as slippery as they are, how long could CCC wait? How often would a deal like Wasps come along? They were also eyeing up venues in Birmingham.
Hopefully CCFC will come through this and give us some success in the near future. If you keep looking backwards you don't progress I know that much.
She's also flippin the bird at ccfc.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It seems to me the door is still open for CCFC to be at the Ricoh, its only TF & SISU that are saying they have to move on to this new ground they are building. There is a better deal to be done for CCFC just needs someone on both sides to show imagination, long term commitment to doing it and making it work
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
She knows it isn't possible but wants the fans to blame SISU for not purchasing it rather than the council take the flak for selling it.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
Everyone has a rear-view mirror in their car, but that does not stop them driving forwards.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
only way they can have that now is if the freeholder has some right of veto and I do not think that exists. CCC no longer own the shares nor do they have directors on the ACL board.
Last edited:
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
The CET are claiming the council have the right to veto and that right will transfer to wasps when the councils shares of ACL are officially sold to Wasps
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Can higgs veto the selling of the shares to wasps?
We've been well and truly shafted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
but the Wasps CEO confirmed on CWR this morning that they now own the Councils share. I think the transfer has taken place already
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Can higgs veto the selling of the shares to wasps?
We've been well and truly shafted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
If AEHC has received an offer from Wasps that find acceptable (which is why they have to notify CCFC Ltd ) why would they veto it?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
This is where it could get stupid with counter bid and counter bid which means the Higgs would still be the shareholder, until one side decided not to match the other. One would assume the power of veto passes from the council when they sold but whether in law it would then stay with those shares is another.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I heard on the radio on the way home something about the club now wanting a five year deal or did I not here it properly/ Anybody shed any light?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That's the test I guess but I think there is only one shot at doing it so if they fail to get an equivalent or better bid first time that's it done. SISU will not have access to the details of the bid Wasps have made to AEHC of course.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Can't they keep on extending the existing deal another 3 weeks.
albatross
Well-Known Member
its seems to me that the 30 day time period will prevent any bidding war. The liquidator has 30 days (from today I presume) to pull all this together , finance, creditors Vetoes and Egos .
What real chance is there of this happening...?
Its just due process preventing legal action down the line
What real chance is there of this happening...?
Its just due process preventing legal action down the line
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
If so then the right to veto now lies with Wasps then?
So all this, the balls in SISU's court is nonsense in reality.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
That's a good point, now that you have mentioned it, couldn't wasps just put in a derisory offer to the Higgs like say £1 and then just keep blocking any other attempted sale of the higgs shares?They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Samo
Well-Known Member
I'm sure OSB will correct me if wrong but surely the right to veto was the councils because they are the council and need to protect public assets? Surely it would be very wrong if that veto were transferable to a private business?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Both Higgs and the Council could veto any deal the other made.
And tbf... why wouldn't they have that right? Who wants to see half the business you're involved in sold to Ted Bundy?
Samo
Well-Known Member
But is that standard business practice?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
To sell to ted Bundy? Probably not.
To have the right to block who your partner sells to? Absolutely.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Or worse yet SISU. Seriously, put sentiment and love of CCFC to one side who in their right mind would get into bed with SISU out of choice?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In a 50/50 partnership why not. Even in imbalanced ones there probably would be.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So when we moved to Sixfields our new stadium was going to be ready in 3 years or 5 at the worst, that would be 2016/17 or 2018/19. We then move back to the Ricoh on the same schedule but just a month after moving back Fisher is already pushing it back to 2019/2020. If that was likely why not agree a 5 year deal. Total incompetence again.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Except for the small business of the outstanding rent owed by Sisu/our club at the time the £2m offer was made. If Sisu had offered the £5m in one lump rather than installments we might not be in this position either.
I've been thinking on my way home that the Higgs have been very supportive of the club over the years and I can't imagine that they thought they would have lost Sir Higgs nor still have the share after all these years. Don't imagine it would have been easy for them to consider following the council lead and selling up to Wasps instead of us. Probably keen to see the back of the ACL share by now though. Will listen to the PWKH interview when I get home to see what he has to say about it.
Nick
Administrator
Then if they had offered £5m would the club not been getting ripped off? Paying over the odds?
I agree though, if this whole £2m thing had gone through years ago there would be none of this shite.