Interesting views on Wasps games at Ricoh..... (13 Viewers)

[Grendel]

para 1, I haven't mentioned any sound bites, I mentioned they had said they were open to offers, they were, so not really swallowing any lies there was I?

para 2, They are different things, hence the different terms, you'd have to ask Joy why she was so bothered about freehold. Of course if she had the freehold she would still need to buy ACL.

para 3, I'll entertain the idea that the Council approached wasps, this doesn't change the fact they invited offers, this constant assertion doesn't fail to acknowledge anything.

para 4, the community asset references were always about the freehold, it seems we won't ever agree about that argument. The loan answers would be of interest to many people, not sure we have any right at present to know though. When accounts are filed it should become clearer, obviously this will take a while.

Para 5, I've questioned many things. I didn't assume sold out I wrote that that's what the website said red meant, you shouldn't assume so much.

Look in the mirror

There is NO difference between a 250 year lease and freehold. Tell me the differences, educate me I am clearly mistaken.

 

---

[Rusty Trombone]

Look in the mirror

There is NO difference between a 250 year lease and freehold. Tell me the differences, educate me I am clearly mistaken.

The look in the mirror remark doesn't really work, you accused me of assuming, I said it back, do the rules of comeback allow a repeat?

I've told you before, but here's one, a lease allows you to operate from a building, the freehold gives you ownership of the building. Owning the freehold would not allow CCFC any income, owning ACL and the lease does.

 

[Grendel]

The look in the mirror remark doesn't really work, you accused me of assuming, I said it back, do the rules of comeback allow a repeat?

I've told you before, but here's one, a lease allows you to operate from a building, the freehold gives you ownership of the building. Owning the freehold would not allow CCFC any income, owning ACL and the lease does.

So the building can't be demolished and rebuilt as something else - are you sure? You see I think the freehold gives you the land and not the building at all. I lease land from the council and given normal permission laws regarding planning can do anything I want with it.

 

[wingy]

For all the debatable aspects of how come SISU never got to entertain or be entertained as a bidder ,I don't think you have to look any

further than the financial Debt laden state of our Club and the Status it currently carries .

Huge barriers to achieving a part share ,let alone sole control.

Wasps have a huge advantage over us In terms of security around paying down the loan to the CCC purely through naming rights and

Corporate/commercial support IMO.

We simply don't generate the level of funds required ,the price would have to be a lot less ,which Is as much as Joy has stated ,simple

Economics dictated they were outbid.

Historically of course from previous attempts they appeared willing to offer between £10.5M - £12.5M. for 50% on a 50 or 99 yr lease .

Now It's overpriced @ £2.77M + £7+ M. loan (guessing here ( £5- £6M injected into LTD ) ,some of which apparently would go back to themselves .

 

[Rusty Trombone]

So the building can't be demolished and rebuilt as something else - are you sure? You see I think the freehold gives you the land and not the building at all. I lease land from the council and given normal permission laws regarding planning can do anything I want with it.

Yes I'm sure.

You can lease land, you can lease land and buildings. ACL are leasing the building, and I assume some of the land.

From what you have written it looks like you lease the land and not buildings, so this would be different, but if you want me to have a look into it for you let me know.

 

[Grendel]

Yes I'm sure.

You can lease land, you can lease land and buildings. ACL are leasing the building, and I assume some of the land.

From what you have written it looks like you lease the land and not buildings, so this would be different, but if you want me to have a look into it for you let me know.

Well Lucas did let slip that all maintenance rights of the building are passed to Wasps - which is exactly the same as I have. This is a commercial lease remember not a private one.

Still you clearly have details of the lease made between wasps and the council so yes please provide concrete (ha ha) evidence that they cannot alter the building -- I suggest you first prove the building has a 250 year lifespan

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Well Lucas did let slip that all maintenance rights of the building are passed to Wasps - which is exactly the same as I have. This is a commercial lease remember not a private one.

Still you clearly have details of the lease made between wasps and the council so yes please provide concrete (ha ha) evidence that they cannot alter the building -- I suggest you first prove the building has a 250 year lifespan

ok, so you've changed your approach from demolition so I'll discuss alterations. I would also class the maintenance as a responsibility rather than a right, but each to their own.

Usually in commercial building leases, yes I'm aware that this is a commercial one, you are allowed with permission to make alterations, usually on the proviso that you put the building back to its original state at the end of the lease.

I have posted a few times that the building won't last 250 years, that's why your usual argument about averaging the £1m extra over 250 years isn't a great one.

 

[shmmeee]

There is NO difference between a 250 year lease and freehold. Tell me the differences, educate me I am clearly mistaken.

Tell that to the people of Hong Kong...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the hint is in the "250 year" bit of the name.

 

[italiahorse]

Well Lucas did let slip that all maintenance rights of the building are passed to Wasps - which is exactly the same as I have. This is a commercial lease remember not a private one.

Still you clearly have details of the lease made between wasps and the council so yes please provide concrete (ha ha) evidence that they cannot alter the building -- I suggest you first prove the building has a 250 year lifespan

It can last forever .... Just like Triggers broom !!

 

[Grendel]

It can last forever .... Just like Triggers broom !!

Go on - what is triggers broom? Why am I even asking.

 

[skybluetony176]

Go on - what is triggers broom? Why am I even asking.

You really ain't lived have you.

 

[Jack Griffin]

You really ain't lived have you.

LOL, my Dad told me that one well before the late great JS used it in his script.

 

[Noggin]

Look in the mirror

There is NO difference between a 250 year lease and freehold. Tell me the differences, educate me I am clearly mistaken.

Ground rent is the most obvious difference, it can be very significant, of course it can also be almost nothing.

There is quite likely restrictions on what can be done on the land and they will quite possibly have to seek permission for things, of course since the council want development done it's not likely to be a problem, without seeing the contract none of us can have any idea on this sort of thing.

The unencumbered freehold/ unfettered freehold was an extremely important distinction and this lease is absolutely nothing like that whatsoever. The fact that people used the words she did might have made it a soundbyte to you but the fact of the matter is SISU were publicly demanding that the the ricoh came without ties, it was a completely unrealistic, exceptionally expensive and not far off impossible demand.

not sure why I'm replying to you though, I know you already know all this and I know you have no intention of parting in reasonable discourse.