covmark
Well-Known Member
If the club had a share of ACL, we'd have access to a lot more revenue than just pie money. How can you not see this is a monumentally bad thing for our club?
Wasps do have the veto (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
If the club had a share of ACL, we'd have access to a lot more revenue than just pie money. How can you not see this is a monumentally bad thing for our club?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The only perceived benefit of not getting half of ACL is not buying into the council loan.
Does anybody know if the council could call for early repayment of that loan?
If SISU believe they have a serious chance of successfully appealing the JR then would they really want to be a joint partner in ACL?
Does anybody know if the council could call for early repayment of that loan?
If SISU believe they have a serious chance of successfully appealing the JR then would they really want to be a joint partner in ACL?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Those things don't make it a better offer from Higgs point of view.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Will CCFC and Wasps play on alternate weekends do we know?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Businesses face all sorts of challenges.
Good businesses take ownership for their own problems and performance.
Sorry, other organisations may have had an influence, but there is only one business/organisation responsible for what has and has not happened at our club in the last 7 years SISU. They had the option to buy, negotiate a better rent contract, they opted for a distress model, alienated the fan base, misjudged the market, postured about a new stadium, more recently failed to negotiate with Wasps (the only way of getting back on track the opportunity to buy the 50 per cent share and nullify the right/need to veto).
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Leaving aside the fact Yorkshire Bank said they were not minded to accept the deal proposed in settlement and the fact that AEHC turned down flat the £2m. Why would that have been a better deal for AEHC?
Because whilst we all want what is best for CCFC the decision the Trustees have to make is based on what is best for AEHC. In fact the decision for AEHC is not about what is best for any other party other than AEHC and its charitable aims.
If the charity had taken £2m two years ago even with 10% interest added it would still be well short of the £2.77m now offered by Wasps and we assume CCFC. Have the charity incurred the massive legal bills of the JR no that's the council and probably most of that will be a liability of ARVO & SBS&L in the end. Of course there were some significant costs for the Charity but they didn't bare the brunt of it. So on what basis was the 2012 verbal offer of £2m better for AEHC?
Yes the council have played a far less than glorious part in all this but the current offer now has nothing to do with them
The charity decision not to do the deal did not cause the points deduction, it didn't cause the JR, it didn't cause the move to Sixfields. The trustees were well within their rights to refuse a deal because it didn't suit the Charity as it was it turned out SISU were not interested eiither. CCFC has never been anything other than a means to an end in this for the clubs owners. There is a clear route through legal procedure in all this and it starts well before July 2012 when the half hearted attempt at buying the Charity 50% failed
Because whilst we all want what is best for CCFC the decision the Trustees have to make is based on what is best for AEHC. In fact the decision for AEHC is not about what is best for any other party other than AEHC and its charitable aims.
If the charity had taken £2m two years ago even with 10% interest added it would still be well short of the £2.77m now offered by Wasps and we assume CCFC. Have the charity incurred the massive legal bills of the JR no that's the council and probably most of that will be a liability of ARVO & SBS&L in the end. Of course there were some significant costs for the Charity but they didn't bare the brunt of it. So on what basis was the 2012 verbal offer of £2m better for AEHC?
Yes the council have played a far less than glorious part in all this but the current offer now has nothing to do with them
The charity decision not to do the deal did not cause the points deduction, it didn't cause the JR, it didn't cause the move to Sixfields. The trustees were well within their rights to refuse a deal because it didn't suit the Charity as it was it turned out SISU were not interested eiither. CCFC has never been anything other than a means to an end in this for the clubs owners. There is a clear route through legal procedure in all this and it starts well before July 2012 when the half hearted attempt at buying the Charity 50% failed
Last edited:
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
At this moment we will play on saturdays , but when they get the other 50% and their feet completely under the table expect us to be playing second fiddle.
(in time the seats and everything within will be wasps colours)
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Then why did they bail out the club in the first place? The millions lost to the city of Coventry & who-knows how much from their own coffers WRT lawyers aren't a consideration to a Coventry charity?!?
Ah well, as long as Sisu get theirs then it'll all work out OK in the end and nobody else needs to be held to account.
Coward.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Are you going to organise some action on this? What about doing something when you're at tomorrow's game? I think LAST/BHSB said after Worcester they're taking a sisu out flag tomorrow - you/others might prefer to focus on Wasps, ccc etc but you need to take some action cos just posting on here doesn't change anything
spider_ricoh
New Member
Nope - nobody was arguing about the "need for revenue" before Timmy starting using that as his excuse. I don't agree it is as critical as he says.
Also please don't misrepresent me - I am only supporting this because it will help get rid of SISU, not because I want bad things ot happen purely out of (well-deserved) spite.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Not sure how merely pointing out that you are wrong makes me a coward, maybe you could explain.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think you've answered your own question there Fernando. SISU clearly have no chance of winning the JR appeal. The whole "we batter people in court line" has been exposed as "we use the courts to batter people" CCC did their home work called SISU's bluff and said "go on then give it your best shot" and SISU failed miserably. Unless of course you want to believe Grendull and SISU deliberately lost the JR.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
How will it get rid of sisu? What about medium to long term if sisu go?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Was it because the Higgs crystal ball was away being calibrated that week so they had no idea that SISU and the shit storm that's followed them was coming?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
sorry but the whole original idea was to provide CCFC with income, its even why the option is in place, so of course no one was arguing about it because that is precisely what was intended. What TF did was to make an issue of it and attach that issue to one particular solution - out right ownership. There were and are still ways that CCFC could develop income streams at the Ricoh or even the surrounding area but the CCFC owners choose not to consider such options. The CCFC owners it seems prefer confrontation to partnership. However income is important to achieve success does it have to be the income from events conferences etc to compete against other teams - that's a different question
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Well, you might not have noticed but I've been away from this nuthouse for a while and I'm well aware of the futility of posting here ;-) Just wasting time before I scoot out for more worthwhile escapades.
As far as Get Cov Back to the Ricoh are concerned, we've done our job although the situation at the Ricoh might be perilous to say the least. The problem is, there is no real focus for protest.
Sure Sisu Out will always go down well amongst the knee-jerk brigade but nobody has ever explained how that happens and what happens afterwards. The council have washed their hands of the whole thing and the Higgs brigade are still trying to make out that it's everyone else's fault but theirs.
Do those of us who are against franchise sport protest Wasps games? Do we protest our own trust board who seem to be supporting franchise sport?
I have to say, I'm a bit stuck for a way forward as it is all such a complete mess. I get the feeling that there are a few more skeletons to emerge and things will trundle on for a bit until the Wasps deal gets done. (I'm assuming that the AEHC will wuss out and not accept the CCFC bid. Their PR gang seem to be preparing the ground for just that.)
Then we're left with either a new stadium or trying to work out some kind of deal with another bunch of offshore owners. (Who are apparently the OK kind in some people's eyes.)
BTW, total respect to you and others (e.g. John Fletcher) who have spoken out against the Wasps deal and what it represents. It has really shocked me how some people have accepted it as Sisu's just desserts and overlooked the long term implications for local sport in the UK. Fair play to you for speaking out and taking the flack.
spider_ricoh
New Member
For the ten millionth time.... because they are a hedge fund, they exist to make money - no Ricoh share means no chance of that. They won't be to the trouble and expense of building a new stadium when they've already had to write of however many millions.... it's going to get to "sell the club for a quid time" through lack of other options.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Rob S
Well-Known Member
You are a coward because you don't want to consider (or speak out about the fact) that anyone else apart from our beloved owners are responsible and you don't consider that anybody else needs to be held to account.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
You're being a bit naive here. So when will they leave? Next week? Next month? Next year? Two years? 5 years?
They have other options, run the club at cost neutral in league one for 4-5, maybe 10 years a wait for wasps to struggle or move back down south. For me this is the most likely scenario. You're focussing on the hedgefund part but not seeing that this is just one of a portfolio of funds, there would be no need to panic sale.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Oblivion
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Wrong again, which seems to be getting a habit for you.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
covmark
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll humour you. Say Sisu go in 6 months time. Then what? Wasps will still own the Ricoh. Therefore Ccfc is still fooked.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Have they vetoed already ? Must have missed it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Given the situation we are in now what good is it going to do us complaining to CCC or Higgs? Given Wasps power of veto practically assures them of ending up with 100% neither of those parties can have much impact on the future of the club. We might as well all go and protest outside Richardson / Robinson / McGinnity's houses for all the impact it will have. If people feel strongly enough about franchising to protest Wasps games that's up to them but that's not really going to help us either.
Nobody comes out of this smelling of roses but SISU have to shoulder the majority of the blame. They put a plan in place that has not only failed it has spectacularly backfired to an extent that could very well damage our club for decades to come, if not worse.
There's a lot of what if's of course but for me, if SISU had taken the option on Higgs 50% on day one, or even at any point over the next several years, it would be unlikely anyone else involved would have even been talking to Wasps or any other potential tenant.
SISU have shot themselves in the foot at every turn. Only a couple of weeks back we had Sepalla saying she had no problem with Wasps buying the Ricoh and would not interfere, even saying it was virtually impossible to bid due to the setup of ACL (seemingly not a problem for Wasps). Even at that late stage, prior to the council vote, SISU could have taken action. A simple statement that there is no new stadium and they want / need ownership of ACL with an extended lease would have put huge pressure on the council and most likely united the vast majority of the fanbase supporting them in that. Instead they pretty much stood aside and let it happen.
Now they're trying to buy the 50% it's been pretty clear all along they have no chance of getting. Sounds like we'll be hearing a lot of 'we tried but got vetoed' from now on.
We keep hearing that they don't posture, well now we'd better hope they don't and that everything they have been saying about the new stadium and the bright new future it will bring to the club is true because if it isn't they have left us in a terrible, possibly terminal, position.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Think this is exactly what they'll do. The danger with that plan is if / when Wasps exit the Ricoh will we even need a stadium or will we be non-league playing at the Butts. Wouldn't rule it out in the next 5 - 10 years unless something changes.
Ownership is pretty much out of the question unless Wasps sell it to us so, unless you think the new stadium will happen, we are going to have to try and work in partnership with them. That means SISU negotiating the best possible long term rental deal, a scary prospect given their track record with this kind of thing.
You're being a bit naive here. So when will they leave? Next week? Next month? Next year? Two years? 5 years?
They have other options, run the club at cost neutral in league one for 4-5, maybe 10 years a wait for wasps to struggle or move back down south. For me this is the most likely scenario. You're focussing on the hedgefund part but not seeing that this is just one of a portfolio of funds, there would be no need to panic sale.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
can you run the club at cost neutral in league one? (especially with crappy sponsors, no ground, large loans and massively disillusioned fanbase) or does it result in crowds dropping and a team that can't stay up leading to relegation where crowds fall again and the team has to be cut again, leading to struggling in league two so income falls again and the vicious cycle continues. I'm sure you can do it in years where you produce a top class young striker and draw one of the 2 most financially beneficial away days but these years are raritys.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yes, I imagine you can run a cost neutral team in league one, that's one of the reasons for the specific FFP rules has been brought in to this league and league two. Most teams have low crowds, and most teams have a lower wage bill than us. I imagine sisu could easily keep us ticking over as a lower midtable side with little extra investment. You only need the odd decent cup draw every other season to tied you over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
spider_ricoh
New Member
I agree with that - does that make me a coward too? As far as I can see, the council and Higgs have got the right to sell to Wasps 100%, as they certainly have no obligation to CCFC morally or in fact. They've bent over backwards sufficiently for the club but ended up dealing with a rent strike and a judicial review for their troubles. Good on both the ACL parties for ensuring SISU don't get the Ricoh. I'm sure the damage can be undone by future CCFC owners who can operate within the world of cooperation and fair play.
No idea why everyone seems so unhappy - for the record I don't care about franchising in rugby.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Hate to say I told you so Grendel
But ' I told you do'
Not the ACL board that makes the decision its the shareholders and wasps have the veto
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No the hedge fund that owns Wasps will rent it to them and hopefully us.
The hedge fund that owns CCFC could have rented it to us but didn't bother taking up the option.
We will be renting off one Hedge fund or another.
Just need to get access to incremental football rentals and now is the time to do it.
However, I guess the JR and new stadium nonsense will get in the way.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Happy to accept league one football for the foreseeable future? Regardless of the rent, that's exactly what we will be restricted to without access to matchday and addition revenue.
Our last season in the champions, turnover on the bottom 3-4 in the league despite having better attendances than 9-10 other clubs.
How does that fit in with your anything less than PL is unacceptable, and lack of ambition?
And no, I don't think building a new stadium and associated mortgage payments is the answer. One of the answers in front of us, getting at least 50% stake in ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Happy to accept league one football for the foreseeable future? Regardless of the rent, that's exactly what we will be restricted to without access to matchday and addition revenue.
Our last season in the champions, turnover on the bottom 3-4 in the league despite having better attendances than 9-10 other clubs.
How does that fit in with your anything less than PL is unacceptable, and lack of ambition?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
er er....sisu suck!
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Entertain me with an explanation of your statement.