Bid Tabled for Ricoh from CCFC (6 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

I am very concerned that both this bid and the "new stadium" will amount to nothing ........... ok CCFC have a rent deal for 2+2 years but then what?

 

---

[covcity4life]

I am very concerned that both this bid and the "new stadium" will amount to nothing ........... ok CCFC have a rent deal for 2+2 years but then what?

ccfc wil die and council and certain posters on here will be laughing before deleting their usernames and retiring.

 

[chiefdave]

I am very concerned that both this bid and the "new stadium" will amount to nothing ........... ok CCFC have a rent deal for 2+2 years but then what?

This is the big concern isn't it. SISU claim they don't posture but unless they follow through with the stadium build they are backing themselves into a corner. At the end of that deal, assuming nothing is happening with the new stadium and Wasps have 100% ownership of ACL, we are in a very weak negotiating position.

 

[stupot07]

I am very concerned that both this bid and the "new stadium" will amount to nothing ........... ok CCFC have a rent deal for 2+2 years but then what?

Absolutely, which is even more baffling why people wouldn't back this bid.

 

[Noggin]

So you don't support this bid? You would rather this bid was rejected and possibly the only chance we have to be gone, with a lifetime of matchday only rental deal....

Talk about note. cutting. spite. face.

Do you really buy into the idea wasps are going to build pubs and hotels etc? There has been nothing stopping ACL approach a hotel chain over the last 10 years and offering land to build a hotel on.

I still I want the bid to succeed, but I'm near enough 100% convinced it won't because if I put myself in the position of ACL, Wasps or the Council even as a Coventry City fan I wouldn't accept it so how I can in good conscience expect them to? and its down to how stupid the bid is. To me that means I don't support the bid.

I have no idea what wasps plan to do, but the simple fact of the matter is they would be stupid to get into bed with a 50% partner who only cares about the short term, nothing long term oriented that wasps wanted would go ahead. One half wants change, one half wants things to stay as they are, so they stay as they are and wasps don't get what they want. For the deal to appeal to wasps both wasps and ccfc need to have the same goals and aims and that absolutely requires proper long term commitment from ccfc.

 

[stupot07]

This is the big concern isn't it. SISU claim they don't posture but unless they follow through with the stadium build they are backing themselves into a corner. At the end of that deal, assuming nothing is happening with the new stadium and Wasps have 100% ownership of ACL, we are in a very weak negotiating position.

Absolutely, and again is why all Ccfc fans should be backing this bid.

 

[Moff]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely based on previous history the first thing SISU should have done before submitting any bid is to gag Fisher and make sure he shuts the fekk up through this whole process. Just having him speak or quote in the press is enough to curse or destroy any bid.

Must go as my head hurts trying to work out how such an imbecile and clown has ever made a living in the world of business.

 

[chiefdave]

Absolutely, which is even more baffling why people wouldn't back this bid.

I think most, if not all, of us want the club to own 50% of the Ricoh (which now seems to be all we can get). The problem people have is the way SISU are going about it makes it seem certain to fail. People aren't complaining about bidding for 50%, it's all the 'we're still building a stadium' rubbish they have to tack on to every statement.

If you were Higgs, Wasps or anyone else involved would you take them seriously given what they are saying?

What they should do is come out and say we want to buy the 50% and that will enable us to stay at the Ricoh permanently. That would then get all the fans onside and put pressure on Higgs and Wasps to agree or they would be seen as pushing the club out of the city. What SISU are actually doing is giving someone who, in all likelihood doesn't' want to deal with them, a ready made excuse to reject the offer.

 

[Noggin]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but surely based on previous history the first thing SISU should have done before submitting any bid is to gag Fisher and make sure he shuts the fekk up through this whole process. Just having him speak or quote in the press is enough to curse or destroy any bid.

Must go as my head hurts trying to work out how such an imbecile and clown has ever made a living in the world of business.

While I agree with you it's not just Fisher, Joy said the same thing in the Observer article.

 

[stupot07]

I still I want the bid to succeed, but I'm near enough 100% convinced it won't because if I put myself in the position of ACL, Wasps or the Council even as a Coventry City fan I wouldn't accept it so how I can in good conscience expect them to? and its down to how stupid the bid is. To me that means I don't support the bid.

I have no idea what wasps plan to do, but the simple fact of the matter is they would be stupid to get into bed with a 50% partner who only cares about the short term, nothing long term oriented that wasps wanted would go ahead. One half wants change, one half wants things to stay as they are, so they stay as they are and wasps don't get what they want. For the deal to appeal to wasps both wasps and ccfc need to have the same goals and aims and that absolutely requires proper long term commitment from ccfc.

This is the issue. If wasps veto it or higgs rejected it, almost certainly has nothing to with fisher banging on about the new ground. Wasps want 100%, their owners want to making money from it. That will be the reason wasps veto it, not because tim's building the Lego stadium. Wasps and higgs no full well there will be no stadium.

 

[stupot07]

I think most, if not all, of us want the club to own 50% of the Ricoh (which now seems to be all we can get). The problem people have is the way SISU are going about it makes it seem certain to fail. People aren't complaining about bidding for 50%, it's all the 'we're still building a stadium' rubbish they have to tack on to every statement.

If you were Higgs, Wasps or anyone else involved would you take them seriously given what they are saying?

What they should do is come out and say we want to buy the 50% and that will enable us to stay at the Ricoh permanently. That would then get all the fans onside and put pressure on Higgs and Wasps to agree or they would be seen as pushing the club out of the city. What SISU are actually doing is giving someone who, in all likelihood doesn't' want to deal with them, a ready made excuse to reject the offer.

We haven't seen the bid, so we have no idea what how serious it is or isn't. And soundbites in the media are just that, soundbites.

 

[chiefdave]

If wasps veto it or higgs rejected it, almost certainly has nothing to with fisher banging on about the new ground. Wasps want 100%, their owners want to making money from it. That will be the reason wasps veto it, not because tim's building the Lego stadium.

While that is probably correct the point is that won't be what they say publically. They will say we rejected that bid as there was no long term security and that would impact on their ability to develop the Ricoh long term, or something to that effect. SISU are giving them a ready made excuse. If you're in SISU's position and you are serious about getting the other 50% you would approach it in a manner that put maximum pressure on the other side. If you just wanted to make a token effort so it didn't look like you weren't doing anything you'd act pretty much exactly as they are.

 

[Noggin]

This is the issue. If wasps veto it or higgs rejected it, almost certainly has nothing to with fisher banging on about the new ground. Wasps want 100%, their owners want to making money from it. That will be the reason wasps veto it, not because tim's building the Lego stadium. Wasps and higgs no full well there will be no stadium.

This is my point though if sisu believe the game is rigged and they can't win then they should be putting in a good offer that we can all agree with, then if/when it's still turned down we would be angry with higgs/wasps whoever it may be. As it stands higgs/wasps have every right (and it's clearly the sensible thing to do) to turn the bid down and the criticism is still with sisu.

This bid is stupid either way, if the game is rigged and they can't win they have missed out on looking like the aggrieved party and have missed the opportunity to make the council/higgs look bad and have missed the opportunity to turn more people against wasps increasing the chance of them failing (which may be in their interests).

If the game isn't rigged then they will lose because the bid is stupid.

The only way this bid makes sense is if they don't want to win.

 

[Godiva]

While that is probably correct the point is that won't be what they say publically. They will say we rejected that bid as there was no long term security and that would impact on their ability to develop the Ricoh long term, or something to that effect. SISU are giving them a ready made excuse. If you're in SISU's position and you are serious about getting the other 50% you would approach it in a manner that put maximum pressure on the other side. If you just wanted to make a token effort so it didn't look like you weren't doing anything you'd act pretty much exactly as they are.

How do you interpret this rather cryptic statement from Fisher:
“The offer is not just a financial offer, we have also proposed a far-reaching partnership with the charity to use the power of football to create a community programme."

As long as we don't know the details we really don't know if it makes sense to Higgs.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I am very concerned that both this bid and the "new stadium" will amount to nothing ........... ok CCFC have a rent deal for 2+2 years but then what?

...oblivion.

 

[stupot07]

This is my point though if sisu believe the game is rigged and they can't win then they should be putting in a good offer that we can all agree with, then if/when it's still turned down we would be angry with higgs/wasps whoever it may be. As it stands higgs/wasps have every right (and it's clearly the sensible thing to do) to turn the bid down and the criticism is still with sisu.

This bid is stupid either way, if the game is rigged and they can't win they have missed out on looking like the aggrieved party and have missed the opportunity to make the council/higgs look bad and have missed the opportunity to turn more people against wasps increasing the chance of them failing (which may be in their interests).

If the game isn't rigged then they will lose because the bid is stupid.

The only way this bid makes sense is if they don't want to win.

But we don't know whether it is a good bid or not. We haven't seen the deal and are not likely to either.

And if it is rigged and they lose, they can always come out and say so. I agree they should drop the new stadium bollocks but lets not use that as a ready made excuse for wasps and higgs to let them off the hook.

If we don't get the 50% our future is pretty much fecked.

 

[fernandopartridge]

None of us know if SISU can get the 50% or not. Just the same as none of us know if SISU are serious about wanting the 50%. What is needed is a serious bid from SISU. No more messing about from them. No more talk about this stadium that they keep banging on about that we don't have the slightest evidence of.

Just like a year ago you knew the Ricoh was a white elephant that was going to cost the Coventry tax payer a lot of money as nobody would be interested in it. And now you and a few others won't stop bleating on as you were so wrong as others were interested. Just the same as others will be interested in our club once SISU give up on it.

The Coventry tax payer has invested £24.5m in the Arena in the form of the initial investment and the loan that hasn't been repaid (as far as we're aware because it's a council secret).

It might be a white elephant yet.

 

[chiefdave]

How do you interpret this rather cryptic statement from Fisher:
“The offer is not just a financial offer, we have also proposed a far-reaching partnership with the charity to use the power of football to create a community programme."

Personally if I was part of Higgs the through of a partnership with SISU would put me off!

 

[Noggin]

But we don't know whether it is a good bid or not. We haven't seen the deal and are not likely to either.

And if it is rigged and they lose, they can always come out and say so. I agree they should drop the new stadium bollocks but lets not use that as a ready made excuse for wasps and higgs to let them off the hook.

If we don't get the 50% our future is pretty much fecked.

Yes we do know its not a good bid, it doesn't matter what the bid says when they are telling us they arn't in it for the long term, thats all we need to know for the bid to be bad at least for wasps (who I'm assuming have veto power). Even if we don't belive them (and I don't) you still have to take them at their word, it's not like there isn't another offer on the table.

The future would look a lot brighter with the 50% but the main reason we are fucked is because our owners dont have the interests of the club as their main driver.

 

[stupot07]

Yes we do know its not a good bid, it doesn't matter what the bid says when they are telling us they arn't in it for the long term, thats all we need to know for the bid to be bad at least for wasps (who I'm assuming have veto power). Even if we don't belive them (and I don't) you still have to take them at their word, it's not like there isn't another offer on the table.

The future would look a lot brighter with the 50% but the main reason we are fucked is because our owners dont have the interests of the club as their main driver.

But any bid from sisu is bad for wasps because wasps want 100%

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes we do know its not a good bid, it doesn't matter what the bid says when they are telling us they arn't in it for the long term.

They're in it for a longer term ref: CCFC than their prospective partners if they win 50%...

 

[italiahorse]

if wasps or council veto it can sisu take them to court? i mean wasps vetoing any sale but to themselves must be against law? hope so anyway

as for the information, they better give it to sisu,and sisu better not use it as a silly excuse.

I would guess it more complicated than just paying say £2.77M

CCFC Ltd owe ACL money from the liquidation. Money they owed for rent that can be quantified and money for breaking the lease.
Surely this would need to be paid first or ACL(Wasps/Higgs) would object to someone buying in.

I would hope there is some leniency on this but if Wasps do want 100% then it's game over.

 

[oldskyblue58]

How do you interpret this rather cryptic statement from Fisher:
“The offer is not just a financial offer, we have also proposed a far-reaching partnership with the charity to use the power of football to create a community programme."

As long as we don't know the details we really don't know if it makes sense to Higgs.

I think it is an attempt at giving the Charity a reason to do the deal with them, based on the assumption that Wasps must have offered something similar. The offer never was going to be just about the cash value. I would guess it would also help the Charity form an argument on value that needs to be made to the Charity Commission. (tells us the offer is under 6.5m and not based on the option formula I think) BUT

- CCFC already have SBITC so why do they need to
- What would make AEHC believe it, and therefore value it
- it also is a positive PR element at first sight certainly
- If you know it isn't going to be successful then you can throw anything in there really cant you because it is never going to happen

 

[Noggin]

But any bid from sisu is bad for wasps because wasps want 100%

perhaps, you could make a very strong arguement though for owning 50/50 with the football club being in their interests though as long as the football club wanted to pull in the same direction.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

some people said we would never ground share

i wish people would learn from their mistakes.

You're right but they still keep up this JR new stadium bolux


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

perhaps, you could make a very strong arguement though for owning 50/50 with the football club being in their interests though as long as the football club wanted to pull in the same direction.

Yeah you could do, but then it boils down to what wasps owners want, not specifically what wasps RFC want.

Also being locked in a 50:50 partnership is more likely to get a long term commitment than 100% wasps ownership and a matchday only rent deal. Swings and roundabouts.

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

 

[Godiva]

I think it is an attempt at giving the Charity a reason to do the deal with them, based on the assumption that Wasps must have offered something similar. The offer never was going to be just about the cash value. I would guess it would also help the Charity form an argument on value that needs to be made to the Charity Commission. (tells us the offer is under 6.5m and not based on the option formula I think) BUT

- CCFC already have SBITC so why do they need to
- What would make AEHC believe it, and therefore value it
- it also is a positive PR element at first sight certainly
- If you know it isn't going to be successful then you can throw anything in there really cant you because it is never going to happen

Can I just go with your first sentence (put in bold)?
That suggest you actually think the offer is serious and that is essential so long we don't really know the content of the offer. If we believe the offer is serious, then we should support it - surely?

 

[oldskyblue58]

As CCFC fans of course we should support it not sure how we have a choice otherwise to be honest

They have to put in similar things that could have been offered to a charity, the bid has to look right whether you believe it to have been serious or not

However you then have to look at what is the likely reality which is that it will fail in my opinion

Do I think it is a serious offer confident of success - to be honest no but it is an offer that must be taken seriously by those involved

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Can I just go with your first sentence (put in bold)?
That suggest you actually think the offer is serious and that is essential so long we don't really know the content of the offer. If we believe the offer is serious, then we should support it - surely?

Unfortunately, as OSB has stated, you have to support the club in its attempt. The outcome if successful is the real doomsday scenario. They own 50% which means are they are A, going to milk the profit from any partnership to pay exorbitant management fees and interest charges on accrued debt through inter company loans or B use the share as equity against more loans? We all want option C for them to sell and use the share to recoup some of their paper investment and give some one else a chance, the problem with that is that if they were victorious in this bid would they just sell the club and keep the share? After all that I think the outcome has already been pre determined.

 

[tisza]

how do sisu get money into ccfc Ltd without the liquidator having to use it first to satisfy outstanding creditors?

 

[oldfiver]

how do sisu get money into ccfc Ltd without the liquidator having to use it first to satisfy outstanding creditors?

I wonder if he can sell the option?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Or what about 100% ownership of TWO clubs with Wasps taking over CCFC. I still think that could happen.

Plausible. But our football club being owned by a rugby club??

I'd rather fight Kerry Katona for the last pie on earth.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I wonder if he can sell the option?

not without the prior written consent of AEHC no..... PWKH (clerk to the Trustees of AEHC) confirmed that a long time back

 

[chiefdave]

Just had a look on the Wasps forum to see what they were making of this bid and someone on there, no idea if they have genuine info or not, is stating that Wasps business plan allows for 50% ownership. Interesting if true, maybe an indication they wouldn't object.

 

[Astute]

Just had a look on the Wasps forum to see what they were making of this bid and someone on there, no idea if they have genuine info or not, is stating that Wasps business plan allows for 50% ownership. Interesting if true, maybe an indication they wouldn't object.

All the chat about Wasps having a veto vote comes mainly from a few on here.

The Ricoh is in Coventry. They will know that the more people that use the arena the more money that will go into it. Upset the local people and they won't use it......or should I say the majority wouldn't use it's facilities. They could easily boycott it. This is my main reason on thinking against a veto vote. Keep the local people happy and the money will come in.