Could Otium (16 Viewers)

[stupot07]

So if we were to offer more for the share than Wasps Higgs would accept the smaller amount? Bearing in mind that would then give them more money for their charitable enterprises and with Wasps as the other tenant there is much less risk of SISU doing anything untoward with the stadium.

Yes I think they would take the smaller wasps offer. And besides it's very likely wasps now have power to veto any deal. Even OSB seems to think it's fait accompli



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

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes I think they would take the smaller wasps offer. And besides it's very likely wasps now have power to veto any deal. Even OSB seems to think it's fait accompli
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Why would they take less money? And has a veto ever been in place?

 

[shmmeee]

Can you explain what you mean by merger? What you think it would look like and what the benefits to each side? I'm really struggle to see the benefits, as the business definition of a merger is what I wrote earlier - two business made into one business, there would be no separate ccfc or wasps just one business. How does that work? What happens if we get promoted and the football bit's income increases by £5m? Does the rugby side get half of that after all it's now one business? What happens if after all sharing of income the football part still has losses? As it's one company both sisu and wasp owners would need to be joint liable to fund that, after all they are no longer separate entities.

To me it just doesn't work. It can't work, one 'sports' arm of the business would need to take priority over the other.


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

Businesses have different arms making and costing different amounts all the time. Off the top of my head Microsofts entertainment division was posting losses and being supported by Windows and Office. The decisions are made as to the amounts each division contributes.

WRT to sports clubs under one umbrella, isn't this how a lot of German clubs are organised? Bayern have a gymnastics, basketball and chess team for example.

Not for or against the idea, just stating how it could work.

Edit: you asked about the benefits of a merger. The most obvious one is removing redundant jobs like ticketing or even physio roles, cutting costs for both sides (or allowing them access to higher quality resources than they could afford alone).

 

[dongonzalos]

So if we were to offer more for the share than Wasps Higgs would accept the smaller amount? Bearing in mind that would then give them more money for their charitable enterprises and with Wasps as the other tenant there is much less risk of SISU doing anything untoward with the stadium.

Also their is the charities commission

 

[stupot07]

Why would they take less money? And has a veto ever been in place?

We know that the council always had the power to veto any Higgs sale.


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

 

[stupot07]

1) Businesses have different arms making and costing different amounts all the time. Off the top of my head Microsofts entertainment division was posting losses and being supported by Windows and Office. The decisions are made as to the amounts each division contributes.

2) WRT to sports clubs under one umbrella, isn't this how a lot of German clubs are organised? Bayern have a gymnastics, basketball and chess team for example.

Not for or against the idea, just stating how it could work.

3) Edit: you asked about the benefits of a merger. The most obvious one is removing redundant jobs like ticketing or even physio roles, cutting costs for both sides (or allowing them access to higher quality resources than they could afford alone).

1) Yes, I know that. But we're talking about 2 arms of a company that need all the revenue tue can get their hands on to compete and success. There is currently a wage cap in rugby, but there are calls to scrap it because of dwindling crowds. We know a lot of our fans expect the club to take a punt, invest in the squad, etc. so there are conflicting interests. You could points to BT knowing they will make a loss on BT Sports, but the aim is to increase revenue through enticing people to buy broadband. Taking a hit in one place to enhance the other. How does that work with 2 premier sports clubs (with us I mean premier as in the most popular spectator sport, not league)?

2) interesting to know, but I would bet that one arm of the club is the priority, and the others cost relatively Small % to fund? I can only see a merger working if one particular arm of the company is the priority, and there would have to be sacrifice in one arm to satisfy the other.

3) good point. Hadn't thought about those.


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

 

[dongonzalos]

Can you explain what you mean by merger? What you think it would look like and what the benefits to each side? I'm really struggle to see the benefits, as the business definition of a merger is what I wrote earlier - two business made into one business, there would be no separate ccfc or wasps just one business. How does that work? What happens if we get promoted and the football bit's income increases by £5m? Does the rugby side get half of that after all it's now one business? What happens if after all sharing of income the football part still has losses? As it's one company both sisu and wasp owners would need to be joint liable to fund that, after all they are no longer separate entities.

To me it just doesn't work. It can't work, one 'sports' arm of the business would need to take priority over the other.


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

Stu, I think it can work. Not got the time to explain my opinion at the moment but will explain tomorrow

 

[Wheelfass]

Looks to me like the deal for the Higgs share is a forgone conclusion with Wasps making it a 100% takeover. Why would any company want to work alongside Sisu with their track-record of deceit, hardball and BS. We all know the Fantasy Arena will never materialise because the finances just wouldn't back a new stadium build especially with the Ricoh in direct competition. After all what sort of 24/7 income do they think they could generate. Also for them to consider would be the location because for many 1 yard outside of the City boundary would be 1 yard too far and they would be back to Sixfields gates again. Maybe, just maybe the plan is for Wasps to buy CCFC.

 

[Limey]

Looks to me like the deal for the Higgs share is a forgone conclusion with Wasps making it a 100% takeover. Why would any company want to work alongside Sisu with their track-record of deceit, hardball and BS. We all know the Fantasy Arena will never materialise because the finances just wouldn't back a new stadium build especially with the Ricoh in direct competition. After all what sort of 24/7 income do they think they could generate. Also for them to consider would be the location because for many 1 yard outside of the City boundary would be 1 yard too far and they would be back to Sixfields gates again. Maybe, just maybe the plan is for Wasps to buy CCFC.

What about a stadium next to Warwick uni, a bit like this one....http://www.uwestadium.com/

Suddenly becomes possible and could potentially generate more than the Ricoh???

 

[Grendel]

Also their is the charities commission

Irrelevant I'm afraid. The directors of the company would decide the lower offer is in the best interests of the whole company - they would reject the bid not Higgs .

 

[Astute]

Irrelevant I'm afraid. The directors of the company would decide the lower offer is in the best interests of the whole company - they would reject the bid not Higgs .

Is that right Grendel?

 

[Gazolba]

Ever merge with Wasps. Not a take over but merger?

Could a merger happen?

They could but they wont. The two organizations have entirely different business models. A merger normally takes place when it is beneficial to both sides. Why would Wasps want to merge with a company that has proven to be utterly unsuccessful in every aspect of owning a football club.

 

[dongonzalos]

Irrelevant I'm afraid. The directors of the company would decide the lower offer is in the best interests of the whole company - they would reject the bid not Higgs .

The higher offer surely has to be I the best interests if the charity as long as it is payment up front and matches all agreed in wasps offer.
Surely a rejection if that offer would be down to previous animosity and would go against the principles of the charity commission.

How could significantly more funds for the charity not be in the best interests if the charity?

 

[skybluetony176]

I can't see a merger happening. Maybe a takeover. I would imagine that a stadium with 365 day income a premier league rugby club and a football team with potential sitting in your portfolio is an attractive proposition for a hedge fund. I don't think the time is right at the moment though.

But then again. SISU seem to be out of options and as we're hopefully at the bottom of the cycle now would be a good time to buy the club. Problem being, how much do SISU want and with how much of the "not real" debt remaining with the club. I would suspect that the "not real" debt would suddenly become very real. Perhaps debt reastructuring could be a big part of any takeover?

 

[skybluetony176]

Is that right Grendel?

Sort of see (I think) where Grendull is coming from on this. If the higher offer is vetoed then the lower offer is the only offer. So nothing for the charities commission to get involved in.

I think that's what he's saying anyway?

 

[dongonzalos]

Stu, I think it can work. Not got the time to explain my opinion at the moment but will explain tomorrow

The wasps consortium will need CCFC playing at the Ricoh.

CCFC claim they are only there temporarily whilst building a new stadium ( I do not believe them). However it is something that wasps must take seriously.

CCFC claim that they can stay at the Ricoh on a long term rent deal as it stands.

Wasps can either let CCFC move on in 4 years and forget it. Or they can assist a fellow company who can help bring extra revenue to ACL and increase the value of ACL. Increase the profile of the Ricoh and increase the marketing and sponsorship opportunities. It can also lead to the use if the stadium every week. Of course CCFC have to be more successful on the pitch to achieve this.

The signings of Madine and Martin show CCFC are serious about promotion. I personally am not sure it can be done whilst trying to break even however it seems to me the owners are serous. Promotion and a promotion rum automatically leads to greater crowds and greater profile. Which increases marketing and sponsorship opportunities.

The perfect scenario would be CCFC own half of ACL and so do Wasps so all of the above happens naturally as it is in both clubs interests to increase the value of ACL. However I am told by people on here that can happen. Personally I think it would be in wasps interests to let it happen or sell 40% of the share to CCFC once they buy it ( if they are allowed) under the guise of safe guarding the football club a condition set by the council.

So if that can't happen the next best thing is one company takes over the other. I don't think SISU can afford wasps. I don't think SISU would sell to wasps at the current market value.

Leaving what I see as the last option a merger. The idea of a merger is that it helps both business grow. Both business then share ACL. Both business share the Ricoh. Both business can remove certain costly employees and replace them with one expert in each field who is making decisions that are best for both clubs and more importantly ACL as a whole. Within the new business different people will have share value. It would be SISU's ownership of share value that will later be of importance.

Ryton could be sold ( although this maybe tricky due to planning permission)
If it can't be sold it could be developed into a joint state of the art training facility. Again staff such as club doctors physios sports psychologists would be shared and costs automatically reduced.

Both clubs would automatically have access to the all important revenues. Sponsorship deals would now be even more profitable as spinsters would be sponsoring both CCFC and Wasps so they get massive exposure to different demographics and TV and radio audiences. One marketing team would be sorting out the sponsorship.

Tickets and marketing would would cohesive. The club shop club be at the Ricoh and a combined business.

Then in the long term after successful promotion and a large increase in the value of ACL due to success on the pitch if both teams coupled with the stability brought about by the merger. SISU could sell its share within ACL. To offset against its isolated debts that did not come with the merger.

 

[dongonzalos]

Sort of see (I think) where Grendull is coming from on this. If the higher offer is vetoed then the lower offer is the only offer. So nothing for the charities commission to get involved in.

I think that's what he's saying anyway?

Yes I get that if the power of Veto is in play.
Nobody know if it is so we should bid and bid high and make it public.

If the veto is in play and it belongs to wasps then we have list nothing.

If it belongs to the council and SISU have just offered a charity an extra half a million or a million and agreed that by getting this CCFC will be at the Ricoh for 250 years. Also all other conditions offered by wasps will be honoured. Image the pressure from the fans on the council to accept and not veto.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't get how the council could still have the veto? Surely it was either transfered to Wasps or it no longer exists? What power in law is there that would mean that an outside party had a say in what happens in a company that they no longer have a share in? Unless the council didn't sell 100% of their share to Wasps and still have a toe dipped in the water and the veto rests in this small share?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It's all words they don't want it / can't afford it!!!

They will only find another excuse, even if they get all the answers they have asked for. IMO

All this talk of revenue and other financial gains from the Ricoh is surely premature........bloody well make an offer Shitzu!!!! Due diligence and all the other other crap is just that CRAP. You know that a share in the stadium is priceless for your own ends so get on and just do it.

 

[Grendel]

The higher offer surely has to be I the best interests if the charity as long as it is payment up front and matches all agreed in wasps offer.
Surely a rejection if that offer would be down to previous animosity and would go against the principles of the charity commission.

How could significantly more funds for the charity not be in the best interests if the charity?

It has nothing to do with the charity - the directors if ACL ultimately have a duty to ACL and ACL alone

They have a strategy that 100% ownership by one company will be in its best interest and its a pretty easy argument to justify. Having two separate organisations with different aims and objectives owning half each will not be considered beneficial for the long term.

Higgs can't just sell the shares without this consideration.

If you look at the previous communication when take over was announced the Higgs share was first to be sold to the council. Legal advice clearly was to do this first.

Its a tick box excercise on legal advice to try Bd mitigate against future legal action.

The annoying thing to me is the way the parties and the local media have tried to pretend that its something different

 

[wingy]

It has nothing to do with the charity - the directors if ACL ultimately have a duty to ACL and ACL alone

They have a strategy that 100% ownership by one company will be in its best interest and its a pretty easy argument to justify. Having two separate organisations with different aims and objectives owning half each will not be considered beneficial for the long term.

Higgs can't just sell the shares without this consideration.

If you look at the previous communication when take over was announced the Higgs share was first to be sold to the council. Legal advice clearly was to do this first.

Its a tick box excercise on legal advice to try Bd mitigate against future legal action.

The annoying thing to me is the way the parties and the local media have tried to pretend that its something different

Spot on!!

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Could SISU buy the shares say for £2.7m and the do a deal to sell them to Wasps the next day for say £10m. A nice profit but would they still hold on to CCFC as well with no asset or would that be part of the deal.

 

[Wheelfass]

What about a stadium next to Warwick uni, a bit like this one....http://www.uwestadium.com/

Suddenly becomes possible and could potentially generate more than the Ricoh???

Looks to me like the deal for the Higgs share is a forgone conclusion with Wasps making it a 100% takeover. Why would any company want to work alongside Sisu with their track-record of deceit, hardball and BS. We all know the Fantasy Arena will never materialise because the finances just wouldn't back a new stadium build especially with the Ricoh in direct competition. After all what sort of 24/7 income do they think they could generate. Also for them to consider would be the location because for many 1 yard outside of the City boundary would be 1 yard too far and they would be back to Sixfields gates again. Maybe, just maybe the plan is for Wasps to buy CCFC.

Limey, it's not gonna happen. It's just spin and BS. This proposed site, that proposed site, all will be revealed in the next few weeks etc etc. If you were a builder of fine stadia would you work for a company that may decide they didn't want to pay you or maybe take you to court over the agreed costs. Where would the build money come from and it would still be in direct competition with the Ricoh wouldn't it which must surely be about to hit the ground running with big plans for a massive income hike from Wasps who I think will soon own 100%.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I don't get how the council could still have the veto? Surely it was either transfered to Wasps or it no longer exists? What power in law is there that would mean that an outside party had a say in what happens in a company that they no longer have a share in? Unless the council didn't sell 100% of their share to Wasps and still have a toe dipped in the water and the veto rests in this small share?

Wasps and the Council have both confirmed the sale has gone through, it's one of the few questions that has been answered so would be very surprising it this wasn't the case. So the Council can't veto anything, so little point trying to pressure the Council.

Also Higgs can sell when they want to who they want, the Directors of ACL work for the shareholders. If Higgs received a higher offer from SISU then I believe it would still be rejected, and things like the wider regeneration of the area promised by the other bidder (and other non specific stuff like that), meet the aims of the Charity in a better way.

 

[dongonzalos]

Wasps and the Council have both confirmed the sale has gone through, it's one of the few questions that has been answered so would be very surprising it this wasn't the case. So the Council can't veto anything, so little point trying to pressure the Council.

Also Higgs can sell when they want to who they want, the Directors of ACL work for the shareholders. If Higgs received a higher offer from SISU then I believe it would still be rejected, and things like the wider regeneration of the area promised by the other bidder (and other non specific stuff like that), meet the aims of the Charity in a better way.

So the higher offer from SISU must match the wider objectives offered by wasps.
Then yes a straight case of more money for the charity getting rejected. Why reject it?

 

[Warwickhunt]

Wasps and the Council have both confirmed the sale has gone through, it's one of the few questions that has been answered so would be very surprising it this wasn't the case. So the Council can't veto anything, so little point trying to pressure the Council.

Also Higgs can sell when they want to who they want, the Directors of ACL work for the shareholders. If Higgs received a higher offer from SISU then I believe it would still be rejected, and things like the wider regeneration of the area promised by the other bidder (and other non specific stuff like that), meet the aims of the Charity in a better way.

The trustees are duty bound to get as much money possible for the charity as they can and if Otium come in above £2.7 million then they cannot dismiss it out of hand - the wasps would need to match it

 

[Jack Griffin]

The trustees are duty bound to get as much money possible for the charity as they can and if Otium come in above £2.7 million then they cannot dismiss it out of hand - the wasps would need to match it

I don't believe any SISU offer, in the unlikely event one is made, will be entertained at all. There will be a way round it, I believe none of the other parties want them to have any influence.

 

[stupot07]

The wasps consortium will need CCFC playing at the Ricoh.

CCFC claim they are only there temporarily whilst building a new stadium ( I do not believe them). However it is something that wasps must take seriously.

CCFC claim that they can stay at the Ricoh on a long term rent deal as it stands.

Wasps can either let CCFC move on in 4 years and forget it. Or they can assist a fellow company who can help bring extra revenue to ACL and increase the value of ACL. Increase the profile of the Ricoh and increase the marketing and sponsorship opportunities. It can also lead to the use if the stadium every week. Of course CCFC have to be more successful on the pitch to achieve this.

The signings of Madine and Martin show CCFC are serious about promotion. I personally am not sure it can be done whilst trying to break even however it seems to me the owners are serous. Promotion and a promotion rum automatically leads to greater crowds and greater profile. Which increases marketing and sponsorship opportunities.

The perfect scenario would be CCFC own half of ACL and so do Wasps so all of the above happens naturally as it is in both clubs interests to increase the value of ACL. However I am told by people on here that can happen. Personally I think it would be in wasps interests to let it happen or sell 40% of the share to CCFC once they buy it ( if they are allowed) under the guise of safe guarding the football club a condition set by the council.

So if that can't happen the next best thing is one company takes over the other. I don't think SISU can afford wasps. I don't think SISU would sell to wasps at the current market value.

Leaving what I see as the last option a merger. The idea of a merger is that it helps both business grow. Both business then share ACL. Both business share the Ricoh. Both business can remove certain costly employees and replace them with one expert in each field who is making decisions that are best for both clubs and more importantly ACL as a whole. Within the new business different people will have share value. It would be SISU's ownership of share value that will later be of importance.

Ryton could be sold ( although this maybe tricky due to planning permission)
If it can't be sold it could be developed into a joint state of the art training facility. Again staff such as club doctors physios sports psychologists would be shared and costs automatically reduced.

Both clubs would automatically have access to the all important revenues. Sponsorship deals would now be even more profitable as spinsters would be sponsoring both CCFC and Wasps so they get massive exposure to different demographics and TV and radio audiences. One marketing team would be sorting out the sponsorship.

Tickets and marketing would would cohesive. The club shop club be at the Ricoh and a combined business.

Then in the long term after successful promotion and a large increase in the value of ACL due to success on the pitch if both teams coupled with the stability brought about by the merger. SISU could sell its share within ACL. To offset against its isolated debts that did not come with the merger.

Sorry don I'm not feeling it. Too much pie in the sky in there for me. I can see how they can share costs of tickets, medical staff, administrative staff etc.

I'm on my phone so can't do a lengthy responses, but for example how will sponsorship deals be more profitable?
E.g if it costs £300k (complete guess and arbitrary) to be shirt sponsor for wasps and £200k to shirt sponsor us separately, are you suggesting they will pay more than the combined cost say £700k+ to sponsor both? Same goes for pitch side advertising? Surely if anything you'd be wanting to get a better deal for sponsoring both?


Also I'm not sure how signing madine on a 1 month loan and martin on a 2 month loan shows ccfc commitment to get promoted. Promotion this season is very very unlikely.


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

 

[dongonzalos]

Sorry don I'm not feeling it. Too much pie in the sky in there for me. I can see how they can share costs of tickets, medical staff, administrative staff etc.

I'm on my phone so can't do a lengthy responses, but for example how will sponsorship deals be more profitable?
E.g if it costs £300k (complete guess and arbitrary) to be shirt sponsor for wasps and £200k to shirt sponsor us separately, are you suggesting they will pay more than the combined cost say £700k+ to sponsor both? Same goes for pitch side advertising? Surely if anything you'd be wanting to get a better deal for sponsoring both?


Also I'm not sure how signing madine on a 1 month loan and martin on a 2 month loan shows ccfc commitment to get promoted. Promotion this season is very very unlikely.


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

I agree it is a lot pie in the sky I just struggle to see any other answer.
I am not sure promotion is possible however I think the signings show they want it and are serious.
To lose Jordan and gain two players cost more money.
I don't think we would get relegated without those signings so the club are making them hoping to push for promotion.
CCFC tied into to the Ricoh getting results in the pitch could be interesting to JLR and the likes. The sponsorship deals could be increased to encompass CCFC as well. JLR then are buying into exposure from the football market as well as the Rugby as well as the Ricoh as a whole.
However in its most simplistic form CCFC tied into wasps and the Ricoh instantly increases the value of ACL in every way and form. Wasps would be daft not to consider such a proposal.

 

[Wheelfass]

I don't believe any SISU offer, in the unlikely event one is made, will be entertained at all. There will be a way round it, I believe none of the other parties want them to have any influence.

It could even be that an agreement was entered into at the sale of the councils 50% share to Wasps and accepted by Higgs that under NO circumstances can Sisu play any part in the running of ACL and that NO bids from Sisu for any part in ACL and the Ricoh Arena would be entered into.

 

[stupot07]

I agree it is a lot pie in the sky I just struggle to see any other answer.
I am not sure promotion is possible however I think the signings show they want it and are serious.
To lose Jordan and gain two players cost more money.
I don't think we would get relegated without those signings so the club are making them hoping to push for promotion.
CCFC tied into to the Ricoh getting results in the pitch could be interesting to JLR and the likes. The sponsorship deals could be increased to encompass CCFC as well. JLR then are buying into exposure from the football market as well as the Rugby as well as the Ricoh as a whole.
However in its most simplistic form CCFC tied into wasps and the Ricoh instantly increases the value of ACL in every way and form. Wasps would be daft not to consider such a proposal.

Ccfc were tied into the Ricoh under a 50 rent agreement that we thought would never be broken in a higher league but the sponsorship wasn't exactly flowing.

Any merger would mean sharing liabilities as well as revenues. Looking at our liabilities, the fact a football club nearly always losses money, the fact that any success at the Ricoh or survival in the championship for that matter will require a lot of investment why would wasps want to share that burden? How much value will it add to ACL given they' seem to have only paid £6.5m for it? What's that against the level of investment needed to get and stay in the championship (c£5-6m per annum for championship survival, c£10-15m per annum to push for promotion)? Or they could just let us tick over as a league one club....not sure the sponsors will be jumping on that.

The only way I can see it working, is with us owning 50% of ACL (not gonna happen), share revenue, but maintain separate companies but rationalise some of the administrative and medical functions from each club into 1 company. That way the liabilities (and both clubs have large debt) are separated and remain their own responsibility.


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

 

[Jack Griffin]

It could even be that an agreement was entered into at the sale of the councils 50% share to Wasps and accepted by Higgs that under NO circumstances can Sisu play any part in the running of ACL and that NO bids from Sisu for any part in ACL and the Ricoh Arena would be entered into.

Yes, for all we know, I'm sure all agreements will be commercially confidential, same excuse SISU always use to hide their affairs.

 

[dongonzalos]

Ccfc were tied into the Ricoh under a 50 rent agreement that we thought would never be broken in a higher league but the sponsorship wasn't exactly flowing.

Any merger would mean sharing liabilities as well as revenues. Looking at our liabilities, the fact a football club nearly always losses money, the fact that any success at the Ricoh or survival in the championship for that matter will require a lot of investment why would wasps want to share that burden? How much value will it add to ACL given they' seem to have only paid £6.5m for it? What's that against the level of investment needed to get and stay in the championship (c£5-6m per annum for championship survival, c£10-15m per annum to push for promotion)? Or they could just let us tick over as a league one club....not sure the sponsors will be jumping on that.

The only way I can see it working, is with us owning 50% of ACL (not gonna happen), share revenue, but maintain separate companies but rationalise some of the administrative and medical functions from each club into 1 company. That way the liabilities (and both clubs have large debt) are separated and remain their own responsibility.


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

Unfortunately at that time the football wasn't exactly flowing either

You need a successful football team for it to work. By having a merger wasps may feel they can be of assistance to ensure a successfully run club.

The costs of running CCFC is what we are told are correct have reduced dramatically. They would reduce even more with a merger. Add the revenue from ACL to it and the risks diminish considerably. Add a successful promotion campaign and you could be quids in, in conjunction with a successful wasps. Also a successful running of the other enterprises within the ACL portfolio.

 

[dongonzalos]

Ccfc were tied into the Ricoh under a 50 rent agreement that we thought would never be broken in a higher league but the sponsorship wasn't exactly flowing.

Any merger would mean sharing liabilities as well as revenues. Looking at our liabilities, the fact a football club nearly always losses money, the fact that any success at the Ricoh or survival in the championship for that matter will require a lot of investment why would wasps want to share that burden? How much value will it add to ACL given they' seem to have only paid £6.5m for it? What's that against the level of investment needed to get and stay in the championship (c£5-6m per annum for championship survival, c£10-15m per annum to push for promotion)? Or they could just let us tick over as a league one club....not sure the sponsors will be jumping on that.

The only way I can see it working, is with us owning 50% of ACL (not gonna happen), share revenue, but maintain separate companies but rationalise some of the administrative and medical functions from each club into 1 company. That way the liabilities (and both clubs have large debt) are separated and remain their own responsibility.


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

Agree with your last paragraph however it would take a very tempting offer from SISU. Would they be prepared to bid over the odds to get taken seriously?

 

[Grendel]

So the higher offer from SISU must match the wider objectives offered by wasps.
Then yes a straight case of more money for the charity getting rejected. Why reject it?

No because the directors could perfectly legitimately argue there is a potential for dispute with two seperate companies and also Higgs have already stated they prefer 100 ownership.