Sky Blues owners to bid for Higgs' shares in ACL (17 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Samo

Samo

Well-Known Member
Noggin said:
I think this has now been posted about 50 times so I'm obviously talking to a wall but one last attempt.

The vast vast majority of people who had a moral problem with the move to sixfields was not because they were terribly angry about franchise sport, it was because they were terribly angry about our football club being moved 35 miles away despite it being extreamly clearly against the clubs best interests in order to distress a company owned by coventry council and a coventry charity so that the hedge fund owners could obtain the stadium on the cheap.

It was not and is not hypocrisy to be furiously against the move to sixfields and yet not be outraged about the wasps situation.
Click to expand...

So Sixfields was not a moral problem then, more of a personal one. After all, you seem to have no empathy with the Wasps fans, no moral problem with them being torn from their community. So, do you have a moral problem with clubs being moved or don't you? If its only our club you care about its hardly a moral stance is it? Morals, as I understand them, being consistent.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The tests in full, btw.

Cllr Taylor set out four tests which potential buyers would have to pass before the arena was sold.

First, investors wanting to buy the Sky Blues and the arena would have to show their deal was agreed by both the football club and its bank, the Co-operative Bank.

Secondly, they'd have to promise to use the Ricoh Arena to regenerate the north of Coventry.

Thirdly, the new investor would have to bring extra management expertise and strength to running both the club and the venue.

Lastly, they'd have to show they'd enough money to do a deal which didn't short-change the joint owners of the Ricoh Arena.
Click to expand...

The second was always one that I personally was never keen on. Still not sure why we tried to handicap our club by insisting it does work that is not the responsibility of a football club.

Wonder if Wasps satisfied the third test ;)
 
N

Noggin

New Member
stupot07 said:
When have wasps bought from Alan Higgs charity before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

you're arguing semantics, choosing based on what's happened regarding the other owners of the company you are selling is just as valid.

I'm not arguing that higgs should take wasps offer if everything is equal, I'm just stating why it would be the attractive thing to do and you and fernando know full well that is the case and you surely don't bbelieve otherwise.

fernandopartridge said:
You accept both and continue to negotiate in good faith like grown up business people.
Click to expand...

I don't know how this works, if they are able to play bidders off against one another to get a better offer that would be the smart choice.

if they just take one or the other and the offers are equal you take the one from the company who has dealt honorably with the partners in your business] and not the one who has proven not to be trustworthy. That is the grown up businesspersons choice. There is nothing Childish about that, if someone isn't trustworthy, if they have manipulated the law to break contracts with you, if they have broke deals with you, sued you (weather or not you won or not is irrelevant you chose the other option, thats just common sense.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Rusty Trombone said:
Who got the money, CCFC or ??
Click to expand...

I don't know how to ask this question neutrally but... am kind of hoping someone answers quickly(!)

Wasn't some of the money used to pay a debt due to Derek Higgs?

(Now I may be wrong on this, so I don't want to ask the question on here where it's lept on whatever the 'actual' answer but hell... I'd like to know the answer and be illuminated!)
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
according to the ccfc accounts NW the money was paid to CCFC group who in part used it to repay certain directors loans that were due for payment, those directors then relent the money back to CCFC
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.

As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.
Click to expand...

wingy said:
Got a reference for that God.
Click to expand...

No, but I am pretty sure it came out at the JR.
They needed to change the JV as the original agreement didn't allow for one party to be financially involved more than the other. Or something down that line.

Maybe Duffer know?
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
One question ?

Will probably need an Accountant to Answer ,should Otium succeed with a bid ,how would the debt structure within the Club load Into the new ACL ?


Is that a showstopper ?
 
J

jas365

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueCharlie said:
I just don't understand why they (Sisu) are going through all of this hassle.

(I) They've moved on and are building a new stadium, details of which will be announced as soon as they are available so why would they want half a share in a stadium they they don't want?

(2) If they only own 50% of ACL they they won't have ALL of the revenues etc for 365 days of the year which I thought that was a pre-requisite for the new stadium.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly, maybe Mr Fisher can tell us why they want to spend money on this rather than press ahead with building their new lego set.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
oldskyblue58 said:
according to the ccfc accounts NW the money was paid to CCFC group who in part used it to repay certain directors loans that were due for payment, those directors then relent the money back to CCFC
Click to expand...

Ta for the swift answer ;)

As with everything, there are many ways of viewing the same information. As life is short, and I'd like to have one... I shall resist ploughing a particular furrow just now ;)
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
One question ?

Will probably need an Accountant to Answer ,should Otium succeed with a bid ,how would the debt structure within the Club load Into the new ACL ?

I think a better question would be how would the ACL debt structure affect CCFC?


Is that a showstopper ?
Click to expand...
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Oldfiver.

Would the Projected naming rights available to a Premier rugby club Virtually secure ACL??
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
wingy said:
Oldfiver.

Would the Projected naming rights available to a Premier rugby club Virtually secure ACL??
Click to expand...

Was it ever confirmed (proper, proper like) that the Cov Observer's claim the Ricoh deal had been extended until 2025 was incorrect?
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
I thought they were due in <2yrs time

I would like to see if the naming rights remained in ACL and to what purpose the income could be used ( and by whom)

WASPS have two problems as I see it - They are losing £3m a year currently and they have to service the CCC loan

If they only own 50% of the stadium will they have to pay some form of rent?. I presume so to enable the financing and other costs to be met by ACL

I suspect a Holding Company will own ACL shares and the playing company will pay rent.

We are speculating though
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert said:
It has been completed and is not reliant on anything else - confirmed by the council.
Click to expand...

It is all very well saying that but your article leaves some fundamental questions unanswered

Does the power of veto exist with the other owner?
Given that Higgs have already expressed a desire to sell to wasps why would they pursue this process if it would risk the sake to the preferred bidder?
What is the actual value of the shares that the council sold?
Why did your original article clearly state that the deal was for the whole of ACL and all wasps PR communication supported this until this peculiar change of course?
Has the 50% of the share already purchased taken on the full discharge of the loan? This clearly is a major issue for both parties.
Why (assuming the claim is correct) will no details of the bid be released to the potential purchaser so that the counter bid can be sensibly evaluated?

Why don't you ask these questions to the council and the charity? After all its them who are all for openness and transparamcy isn't it?
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
I get the distinct impression that if CCFC were to somehow secure a 50% stake in ACL some people would be horrified.

I don't care how they do it, but if they succeed (highly unlikely though it is), it will be the best news we've had in a long time.
 
Samo

Samo

Well-Known Member
robbiethemole said:
and still Fisher is spouting his "we will build a new stadium" shit, the bloke is a deluded fooker:jerkit:
Click to expand...

Whether or not they intend to build a new stadium (which they don't) they would be mad not to pick up half the Ricoh on the super cheap if they get the chance, purely as a business decision. If I had an option to buy half of that stadium I'd be calling in loans, ebaying the house contents and scratching around down the back of the couch!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)
Top