Wasps do have the veto (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No you didn't. You argued the Higgs charity could sell to who they want. They can't.
I did say the board would often have the say as normally the board on a 50 50 arrangement has equal representation.
I think you will find I said the minute this was announced it was 199% wasps. How do you reconcile the subsequent statement by Anne Lucas with the reality.
I also pointed out a shareholder cannot sell the shares without the existing shareholder authorising the sale - something you would not accept.
What I do not understand with you is that you were morally outraged from the start that the charity should get their money back.
Now the council having agreed to sell their shares have dictated the value if Higgs share and its a low price.
Yet oddly you don't complain.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Quality, at least you recognise when you're beat.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Unlike you.
italiahorse
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
Have Wasps said we can't have incremental football revenues?
Have Sisu even said they would want these revenues to stop them building the new stadium ?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Grendel
"It has nothing to do with the charity - the directors if ACL ultimately have a duty to ACL and ACL alone"
Grendel....
"The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?"
Me
"At the end of the day unless SISU want to be renting for a long time.
They need to approach wasps and Higgs with a business proposal behind their offer.
The proposal needs to include all the things Higgs were looking for in the first place. Secondly the proposal needs to show wasps why it would be advantageous to be in business with CCFC.
Otherwise it is Veto and renting or a new stadium."
Originally Posted by dongonzalos
Still think it is Higgs selling their share so it would be Higgs making the decision.
Wasps as replacement for the council could Veto.
However Higgs' initial decision prior to a veto would based on what is best for Higgs not ACL or wasps.
Any other way round is completely illogical
Grendel
"So you know more than OSB now. Ok."
Me
"OSB never said it was purely a decision from the directors of ACL that is like the tail wagging the Dog.
Higgs own the shares the directors of ACL are employed partly by them and partly by the wasps consortium.
Higgs are selling their shares they will decide who they sell them to, their employees will not dictate to their employers.
The owners of the other shares however can block the bid once Higgs accept an offer.
The directors of ACL sit on a ring lower than the trustee of Higgs in this matter. Apart from the ones from wasps."
Grendel
"Only in your own head Don but fair enough. You know more than anyone including someone who has 50% share in a private company - fair enough."
(I especially like this bit) ...........
Originally Posted by Brighton Sky Blue
You really don't help yourself sometimes Grendo with this stonking great arrogance.
Grendel
Oh come on there are numerous posters who explain this over and over again but ithe facts are just ignored over and over again.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What are "incremental football revenues"?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Have wasps said we can have incremental football revenues? You said incremental rentals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The 100% deal was agreed on day one as I said.
If we rely want to play this game we can but I'd probably wager that you'll come off worse.
100% de agreed by the council. All decided by them. Done the minute it was announced.
How do you reconcile Anne Lucas and her statement regarding the Higgs share with what you now know?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Has that happened yet?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Let's present a hypothetical scenario;
Two businesses jointly own a company. One makes all the decisions and the other supports.
One wants out as the finances are looking bleak and wants to sell at considerably below the other ones purchase price.
The arrangement is the sale has to be approved by both sides. The other side would like its return in full.
The main decision maker wants out and suggests in a year the value will be even less and in 4 years its non existent and the loan will not be paid. We are pulling the uh on all marketing and strategy development. Sign here.
This is a fictitious hypothetic statement as to how things may evolve in an organisation which I have no knowledge of.
Grow up.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They are revenues that would only be taken because the football team are there.
It would pay Wasps to let CCFC have these as if they moved away they would be lost anyway.
Wasps would need to decide whether CCFC would really be moving, or more than likely go bust, to give these away.
They need to get the balance right as there is less risk for them with both clubs being at the Ricoh.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Sorry, is there a question in there somewhere, or anything to back up you thinking I don't know when I'm beat, which is where you started off?
Just seems a bit of hypothetical rambling, are you getting enough sleep?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No it wouldn't. There's no way wasps would just hand revenue over. They know full well we won't just move out, they know full well how hard it is to get planning permission and build a stadium. No wasp get that 100%, they're in pole position in any future rent negotiations.
I might try that down my local, I'll ask them if in can have free beer from now on as if they don't I might start drinking else where and they would be getting my money anyway. Given I also buy nuts, crisps and put money on the jukebox and pool table, free beer isn't asking for much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
There's the key line - selling ACL to Wasps isn't reversible, it's done. No matter what owners CCFC gets in the future, or however nice they are compared to SISU, there's no way back from that.
Wasps have been quite clear that they want 100% of the 24/7/365 income from the Ricoh, and that's what the Council and AEHC have given them, and for 250 years.
So, CCFC now either stay as tenants with extremely limited access to further revenue streams, or they build a new stadium. I find it hard to believe that anyone who understands that could possibly be happy, unless all that actually mattered to them was that SISU lose.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Wasps only have 50% so far.
Higgs do not have to sell to Wasps. Wasps can't force Higgs to sell to them. By the sound of it Wasps could stop the sale to anyone else. But they can't force a sale. Saying that Higgs do want to sell and don't trust SISU. And I don't trust SISU to put in a good enough offer. So everything does point towards a sale to Wasps.
Are we all looking forward to the next round of litigation?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They know full well we won't just move out, they know full well how hard it is to get planning permission and build a stadium.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Do we think someone from Wasps can explain this to SISU or more specifically Mr Fisher because apparently it's easy peasy.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Haven't Higgs already accepted an offer from Wasps? Think this is just going through the motions to remove any potential for SISU to drag everyone into court again.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yup, game playing all round ('twas ever thus!) SISU bid so they can say they tried, Higgs listen so they can say they listened... Wasps buy.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That does seem to be the situation. Probably won't stop SISU trying though despite the "we batter people in court" myth being blown to pieces. Oh joy.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Which side would that be Rob?
I think your final paragraph rather contradicts your first.
By the way, did you ever produce details of your 6 hour meeting with Joy? I only ask as I must have missed them. I'm interested if the deal with Wasps came up in the discussion, or the fact that someone else may bid for the Ricoh at least? Did she foresee any risk along those lines?
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
I guess we will see, not sure if I want you to be right or wrong, neither seem appealing. (not suggesting you are wrong, my question on weather its possible was legitimate, I don't know) I do think the damage done to corporate, merchandising, sponsorship revenues by the move away and it being a bit poisonous to be in bed with sisu make it harder for us and we have rent and no food and beverage income, no players to sell (other than the kids) and we have millions of pounds in interest due each year.
If we were well run I'd agree its possible, with 7k fans though, paying out canceled contracts and having decimated our revenues intentionally I think it's going to be very hard now, especially if you believe we actually have an expensive squad (which I don't for a second but seems to be the more popular belief)
James Smith
Well-Known Member
What annoys the hell out of me is why we didn't make an offer before 2012, before the Rent Boycott started. We're in this mess (partly and this is therefore not the only reason) because we didn't secure half of ACL in a timely manner. Had we have had half then it would possibly have made negotiating the rent down a bit eaiser, prevented ACL/Council from setting up IEC, meant the Council couldn't have (effectively) sold the lease for the stadium without our knowledge/permission to a rugby club from many miles away, given us just under half the seats on the ACL board, Joy could have looked at the books, greater possibility of negotiating the pie money etc. It would have made it a lot harder for Joy to distress ACL granted but then we all know how that went.
I'm sure there are many other reasons but the decision not to try and secure us our share of ACL earlier was to my mind not a good one given the benefits we could have had. The reasons that the previous (during rent boycott) negotiaitions broke down were detailled in the court case (can't wait for the next one
) and it probably doesn't help our case that we countersued the Higgs for £290k. I would hope that the Higgs haven't had that in the back of their minds/hold a grudge, and the fact that they're selling to Wasps is because we were saying until very recently that we didn't want it (and were building our own stadium).As has been said by other people on this site, the offer to CCFC ltd. is just being done to tie up any loose ends and avoid legal challenges later on. So unless Wasps indicate that they would like us as partners, we're basically relying on Joy either to negotiate a good deal with Wasps in the future, or actually build us a stadium.
It's looking as depressing off the pitch as it is on it.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
James, from what i remember at the time didn't Ranson say that mproving the squad was the priority. Purchasing a share "could wait"?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wasn't that a very quick back track? I'm sure I remember seeing him on the TV on the day of the take over sat in the stands of the Ricoh saying how important it was for club and ground to be united and that was a priority? Could be wrong. So much has been said that was either back tracked on or just never happened it's hard to keep up/remember it all.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And Delieu after Brody spoke out about the rent.
In fact up until we got relegated Sisus position was very clearly that ownership of the ground isn't important.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
He did say words to that effect and I was unimpressed to hear them. The financial foundations at our club at that time weren't very stable (or indeed sadly for X number of years before that) and whilst on the pitch success is important to the club - and us fans - building on weak foundations was dodgy to say the least. I'm not saying that it would have solved all the problems we faced, far from it, but it would have given us a better shot at dealing with them.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The cost to purchase at that time would have been huge and loan was with a private enterprise. There is no comparison to the deal on the table now.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I never said there was a comparison to the deal on the table now.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So at the time the council wanted an unrealistic price
Its true value is about the same as the club paid for Freddie Eastwood (including wages) on a dice year contract.
A premier league stadium worth the same as a Southend journeyman.
Something is wrong somewhere.
Highfield Road was not CCFC's to sell but ( allegedly) with CCC's assistance hurdles were removed. So they are complicit as far back as that
The JR is not yet over and if you think about it every thing CCC do to assist WASPS is using OUR money to assist a private company. Something they claimed they would/could not do
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What are you on about Grendel,a premier league stadium its an ugly lump of concrete in Foleshill/Holbrooks,not worth anything why would anybody want it?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No it wouldn't. There's no way wasps would just hand revenue over. They know full well we won't just move out, they know full well how hard it is to get planning permission and build a stadium. No wasp get that 100%, they're in pole position in any future rent negotiations.
I might try that down my local, I'll ask them if in can have free beer from now on as if they don't I might start drinking else where and they would be getting my money anyway. Given I also buy nuts, crisps and put money on the jukebox and pool table, free beer isn't asking for much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Think we agree. But Wasps would not want CCFC to go bust. It's a fine balance an IMHO good business.
As for your local, are you the only customer ?