Cwr (4 Viewers)

[stupot07]

Did they promise that? I thought they were just making sure CCFC had the same deal the club wanted and had signed up for, and the Cov bit was more of a fingers crossed, hopefully they will be alright, may even use some of Wasps training and players.

Wasps couldn't stop the current ccfc deal even if they wanted to, wasps are buying shares in ACL, acl still exists, the contract is between ccfc and ACL. Just politicking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

---

[stupot07]

Can you get the show on catch up?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Paxman II]

That's what bugs me Otis. All this time I've stuck up for the council and Higgs against SISU, I think with at least some degree of justification, and then they do this.

It's just so hasty and ill-judged.

It's like Wasps came and did a presentation to the Councillors along the lines of, we'll bring tens of thousands of fans, we'll look after the football club, and the rugby club, and we'll build a training ground etc., and the council took them at their word. You would think that after being completely mugged by SISU when they bought out the club (as I was too, in all honesty) they might have learnt something.

Too many on here backed the council and ACL over their football club and took issues solely with SISU for all our ills.
The fact is I warned many times that the council had some obligation towards the football club (not SISU) and should have been trying their best to engage with them on behalf of the community. That clearly has not been done and in much the same underhanded way as SISU, have been very underhanded. There is a lot of egg on posters faces here and I sincerely hope a lesson has been learned. - Back your football club no matter what or you may reap what you sew.
As for SISU? Well who knows what might happen next....

 

[martcov]

That's what bugs me Otis. All this time I've stuck up for the council and Higgs against SISU, I think with at least some degree of justification, and then they do this.

It's just so hasty and ill-judged.

It's like Wasps came and did a presentation to the Councillors along the lines of, we'll bring tens of thousands of fans, we'll look after the football club, and the rugby club, and we'll build a training ground etc., and the council took them at their word. You would think that after being completely mugged by SISU when they bought out the club (as I was too, in all honesty) they might have learnt something.

maybe they learnt that whatever happens, it can't be worse than what we have now. At the moment TF insists that the club are leaving the city and JS backs him on this.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Wasps couldn't stop the current ccfc deal even if they wanted to, wasps are buying shares in ACL, acl still exists, the contract is between ccfc and ACL. Just politicking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Contracts have been broken before, saying that they won't be for the club still doesn't stop it happening, just means that there may be more compensation to pay.

 

[martcov]

Too many on here backed the council and ACL over their football club and took issues solely with SISU for all our ills.
The fact is I warned many times that the council had some obligation towards the football club (not SISU) and should have been trying their best to engage with them on behalf of the community. That clearly has not been done and in much the same underhanded way as SISU, have been very underhanded. There is a lot of egg on posters faces here and I sincerely hope a lesson has been learned. - Back your football club no matter what or you may reap what you sew.
As for SISU? Well who knows what might happen next....

no egg on my face. I said SISU should drop the JR and the new stadium, grab the bull by the horns and kick the council door down. They didn't. Now we have Wasps in the driving seat. The inevitable has happened and you're blaming the council for it. You were in favour of the new stadium. So, it could well be panning out well for you.

 

[stupot07]

Contracts have been broken before, saying that they won't be for the club still doesn't stop it happening, just means that there may be more compensation to pay.

Ha ha, any excuse to make out the club was even considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You would think that after being completely mugged by SISU when they bought out the club (as I was too, in all honesty) they might have learnt something.

It does look as much a desire to 'win' a battle with SISU as anything else...

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Ha ha, any excuse to make out the club was even considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I don't see how stating a fact is making an excuse.

CCC have said the contract that the club asked for should be honoured by whoever takes over.

Wasps have said they will honour the contract.

It makes perfect sense for Wasps to honour the contract, they will make money out of it.

Contracts can be broken.

Don't know which of these statements you disagree with Stu.

 

[duffer]

maybe they learnt that whatever happens, it can't be worse than what we have now. At the moment TF insists that the club are leaving the city and JS backs him on this.

Then they haven't learned mate, because CCFC leaving the city forever is a lot worse than we have now, and what the Council have done has just made it a lot more likely.

They could've offered the same deal to CCFC that they offered to Wasps. They could have insisted on some contractual commitments to give CCFC more than the 2+2 that Wasps are legally obliged to give them. They could've consulted the rugby club, instead of pretending that they welcomed the deal before they even knew about it.

Instead they've bought a load of flim-flam from someone who can see a commercial advantage to himself, and cares not a jot about the city, or CCFC, or CRFC, or seemingly his own club's supporters. And it's the second time they've done it which makes it far, far worse.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Then they haven't learned mate, because CCFC leaving the city forever is a lot worse than we have now, and what the Council have done has just made it a lot more likely.

They could've offered the same deal to CCFC that they offered to Wasps. They could have insisted on some contractual commitments to give CCFC more than the 2+2 that Wasps are legally obliged to give them. They could've consulted the rugby club, instead of pretending that they welcomed the deal before they even knew about it.

Instead they've bought a load of flim-flam from someone who can see a commercial advantage to himself, and cares not a jot about the city, or CCFC, or CRFC, or seemingly his own club's supporters. And it's the second time they've done it which makes it far, far worse.

How can they insist the club sign up to any agreement? The club only wanted 4 years, Fisher is now talking about wanting 5. Wasps will want to make money so the club will be welcome for as long as they want.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Wasps will want to make money so the club will be welcome for as long as they want.

So we accept that the stadium owners have been making money off the back of the football club?

 

[duffer]

I don't see how stating a fact is making an excuse.

CCC have said the contract that the club asked for should be honoured by whoever takes over.

Wasps have said they will honour the contract.

It makes perfect sense for Wasps to honour the contract, they will make money out of it.

Contracts can be broken.

Don't know which of these statements you disagree with Stu.

And how would Wasps break the contract, exactly. Wind up ACL?

How much help do you think Wasps will offer to CCFC in the future. Do you think they'll willingly let them buy the 50% that Higgs own, for example?

What benefit is it to CCFC to simply remain as a tenant at the Ricoh?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

So we accept that the stadium owners have been making money off the back of the football club?

Yes, that would be their job. Do you know anyone that would run it for free?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes, that would be their job. Do you know anyone that would run it for free?

tbh I wopuldn't expect an organisation who refuse(d) to countenance dealing with SISU because they were supposed to be making money off the back of the football club... to themselves be making money off the back of the football club, no.

 

[martcov]

Then they haven't learned mate, because CCFC leaving the city forever is a lot worse than we have now, and what the Council have done has just made it a lot more likely.

They could've offered the same deal to CCFC that they offered to Wasps. They could have insisted on some contractual commitments to give CCFC more than the 2+2 that Wasps are legally obliged to give them. They could've consulted the rugby club, instead of pretending that they welcomed the deal before they even knew about it.

Instead they've bought a load of flim-flam from someone who can see a commercial advantage to himself, and cares not a jot about the city, or CCFC, or CRFC, or seemingly his own club's supporters. And it's the second time they've done it which makes it far, far worse.

city are leaving the city, ask Tim. They are going to the Coventry area to a smaller stadium. The biggest club left in Cov will be the Wasps rugby club. It don't get much worse.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

And how would Wasps break the contract, exactly. Wind up ACL?

How much help do you think Wasps will offer to CCFC in the future. Do you think they'll willingly let them buy the 50% that Higgs own, for example?

What benefit is it to CCFC to simply remain as a tenant at the Ricoh?

If I break a phone contract I don't have to make myself bankrupt, if a company cancels a car lease they don't have to go into administration. There may be penalties for breaking a contract, but to suggest a contract can't be broken is just a nonsense.

I would imagine Wasps would help the club just enough to make the club think it's a better option to stay than go elsewhere. I doubt very much they would sell their shares unless they receive a worthwhile offer.

It benefits CCFC to remain a tenant as we haven't got any money to do anything else. I think that's a big benefit.

 

[duffer]

How can they insist the club sign up to any agreement? The club only wanted 4 years, Fisher is now talking about wanting 5. Wasps will want to make money so the club will be welcome for as long as they want.

The club don't have to sign up to any agreement - but the council could have insisted on a whole bunch of stuff that would secure CCFC's right to a tenancy under certain set terms for as long as Wasps remained. That would've been part of the deal to sell to Wasps, and would not require any agreement with CCFC.

And they could, as you've avoided mentioning, have offered a similar deal to CCFC first. They may well not have taken it, but until the deal with Wasps was done the council's line was that ACL was profitable, and seemingly not for sale. Who knows how SISU would've reacted to 100% of ACL, and a 250-year lease?

 

[martcov]

tbh I wopuldn't expect an organisation who refuse(d) to countenance dealing with SISU because they were supposed to be making money off the back of the football club... to themselves be making money off the back of the football club, no.

is that true? I thought SISU couldn't deal with CCC and want to build a stadium somewhere nearby. The door was always open - apparently.

 

[martcov]

The club don't have to sign up to any agreement - but the council could have insisted on a whole bunch of stuff that would secure CCFC's right to a tenancy under certain set terms for as long as Wasps remained. That would've been part of the deal to sell to Wasps, and would not require any agreement with CCFC.

And they could, as you've avoided mentioning, have offered a similar deal to CCFC first. They may well not have taken it, but until the deal with Wasps was done the council's line was that ACL was profitable, and seemingly not for sale. Who knows how SISU would've reacted to 100% of ACL, and a 250-year lease?

freehold or nothing. JS

 

[Paxman II]

A lease remember is a saleable asset. So what security do CCFC have by remaining a tenant to Wasp? The better option is to join them as a 50% lease holder surely? Rumoured to be a 250 year lease that is tantamount to freehold. But a 50/50 partnership can't work in the long run can it? Who takes priority over decisions?
The upside is 50% of the whole Ricoh deal with two clubs bringing fans through the gates is a lot more enterprising than a pee wee stadium on the outskirts of Coventry. Quite how they can work it out together must be a major issue.

When Miss Sepella suggested they would only be interested in a freehold deal did she ever think the council would give away a 250 year lease for peanuts? Probably not. So she needs to adjust her position and see what benefits can be agreed. The fact the council acted this way is no longer the point, it's done.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

is that true? I thought SISU couldn't deal with CCC and want to build a stadium somewhere nearby. The door was always open - apparently.

There's also the 'we won't deal with a hedge fund' line that was peddled pretty regularly...

I did think we'#d moved on from that, adopted a more conciliatory tone under Anne Lucas, but the Stalinesque way this deal has gone through, misleading and smokescreening, while shafting just about every community asset they can get into the mix... makes me doubt any of the words beforehand and suspect it was more of the same old, same old.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

tbh I wopuldn't expect an organisation who refuse(d) to countenance dealing with SISU because they were supposed to be making money off the back of the football club... to themselves be making money off the back of the football club, no.

I don't recall such comments or what context they were said in, if you want me to comment post them up.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

freehold or nothing. JS

This, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the height of laziness.

This has been corrected often enough by board members at the club, it has been acknowledged this is an oversimplification and they would have been open to a long lease.

 

[duffer]

If I break a phone contract I don't have to make myself bankrupt, if a company cancels a car lease they don't have to go into administration. There may be penalties for breaking a contract, but to suggest a contract can't be broken is just a nonsense.

I would imagine Wasps would help the club just enough to make the club think it's a better option to stay than go elsewhere. I doubt very much they would sell their shares unless they receive a worthwhile offer.

It benefits CCFC to remain a tenant as we haven't got any money to do anything else. I think that's a big benefit.

I don't think you've understood how leases work...

https://www.gov.uk/terminating-a-commercial-property-lease-early

They actually aren't that easy to break. The tenant can sue to remain in the property, and not just for financial loss. Wasps had no option but to honour the contract, to pretend that's somehow a piece of great negotiation by the council is daft.

This deal doesn't secure the future of the club - it clearly makes the club's future more likely to be away from the Ricoh. Or to be stuck at the Ricoh with little hope of ever benefitting from the income streams.

Either of those is a worse future for the club, let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[martcov]

A lease remember is a saleable asset. So what security do CCFC have by remaining a tenant to Wasp? The better option is to join them as a 50% lease holder surely? Rumoured to be a 250 year lease that is tantamount to freehold. But a 50/50 partnership can't work in the long run can it? Who takes priority over decisions?
The upside is 50% of the whole Ricoh deal with two clubs bringing fans through the gates is a lot more enterprising than a pee wee stadium on the outskirts of Coventry. Quite how they can work it out together must be a major issue.

When Miss Sepella suggested they would only be interested in a freehold deal did she ever think the council would give away a 250 year lease for peanuts? Probably not. So she needs to adjust her position and see what benefits can be agreed. The fact the council acted this way is no longer the point, it's done.

its' done, and it's up to SISU to see if they can get something out of the new situation. I sincerely hope they can find a way to benefit the club. The council are virtually history now ( at least for the next 250 years ) and it's time to build a good relationship with the new ACL.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The club don't have to sign up to any agreement - but the council could have insisted on a whole bunch of stuff that would secure CCFC's right to a tenancy under certain set terms for as long as Wasps remained. That would've been part of the deal to sell to Wasps, and would not require any agreement with CCFC.

And they could, as you've avoided mentioning, have offered a similar deal to CCFC first. They may well not have taken it, but until the deal with Wasps was done the council's line was that ACL was profitable, and seemingly not for sale. Who knows how SISU would've reacted to 100% of ACL, and a 250-year lease?

I would have preferred that the Council offer the same deal to the club. No avoidance from me, just because I haven't written something here doesn't mean I'm avoiding it.

CCC have insisted that the club remain there for the 4 years the club wanted, it makes sense for Wasps to want the club there. I really don't see the issue with this bit.

 

[skybluetony176]

This, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the height of laziness.

This has been corrected often enough by board members at the club, it has been acknowledged this is an oversimplification and they would have been open to a long lease.

Shame they never pursued one. Clearly it was available if they did.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Shame they never pursued one. Clearly it was available if they did.

Alternatively, it was indeed available to anyone but a Cayman islands based hedge fund.

Hang the future of the club, let's win the ideoloigical war.

Even if it's all in the representation after all.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I don't think you've understood how leases work...

https://www.gov.uk/terminating-a-commercial-property-lease-early

They actually aren't that easy to break. The tenant can sue to remain in the property, and not just for financial loss. Wasps had no option but to honour the contract, to pretend that's somehow a piece of great negotiation by the council is daft.

This deal doesn't secure the future of the club - it clearly makes the club's future more likely to be away from the Ricoh. Or to be stuck at the Ricoh with little hope of ever benefitting from the income streams.

Either of those is a worse future for the club, let's not pretend otherwise.

I know how leases work, thanks anyway.

Have the club got a lease, or are they renting the stadium on a match basis?

 

[duffer]

freehold or nothing. JS

Indeed. Remind me again when they turned down a 250-year lease?

Here's a good quote too.

"As for the future, I think we should take one day at a time and not get ahead of ourselves and use this period to rebuild trust."

“All parties concerned need to learn to open doors the door for one another as opposed to allowing it to slam in other people’s faces.

There’s been too much personal criticism in the past. A conciliatory approach is in the best interests of all parties concerned.”


Councillor Phil Townsend - August 21st. Around the same time they were finalising the deal with Wasps, presumably.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-chief-need-time-rebuild-7651892

 

[martcov]

Alternatively, it was indeed available to anyone but a Cayman islands based hedge fund.

Hang the future of the club, let's win the ideoloigical war.

Even if it's all in the representation after all.

how's the new consortium fit into the ideological war? I don't see a lot of difference ( except in the Geography ).

 

[Deleted member 5849]

how's the new consortium fit into the ideological war? I don't see a lot of difference ( except in the Geography ).

Which shows, indeed, the idiocy of it all.

 

[martcov]

Indeed. Remind me again when they turned down a 250-year lease?

Here's a good quote too.

"As for the future, I think we should take one day at a time and not get ahead of ourselves and use this period to rebuild trust."

“All parties concerned need to learn to open doors the door for one another as opposed to allowing it to slam in other people’s faces.

There’s been too much personal criticism in the past. A conciliatory approach is in the best interests of all parties concerned.”


Councillor Phil Townsend - August 21st. Around the same time they were finalising the deal with Wasps, presumably.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-chief-need-time-rebuild-7651892

sounds great to me. What was Tim's response? The stadium's definitely going ahead and SISU are continuing with the JR?

Not so awe-inspiring and probably the final point/ justification for agreeing the wasps deal.

 

[duffer]

I know how leases work, thanks anyway.

Have the club got a lease, or are they renting the stadium on a match basis?

Oh, right - you think the 2+2 deal isn't a lease. You're thinking it's a rent deal for a set period. The set period being 2+2 years. Possible, but either way, if Wasps broke it they'd be up before the court wouldn't they? So again, let's not pretend that the council have asked them to do anything other than what they are legally obliged to do.