Meet Wasps Tonight And Ask Your Questions (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter ashbyjan
- Start date
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
That's assuming the naming rights will be paid in one go, I imagine (I could be wrong) it would be paid in instalments and just get consumed into operating costs. Wasps may give us lowish rent deal, but they won't be given us access to matchday and additional revenues unless we pay for it. And we will have to pay more for all of that in 5-6 years than they paid for the Higgs share.
If sisu buy the land and show us some tangible evidence that the new stadium is going to happen, we must now be open minded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
We all know a new stadium wont happen, there are no ifs or buts. That's the problem.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Lets say that the stadium will become more high profile. Wasps on TV. Us also in place. Maybe 1m a year naming rights over 10 years? On condition that both clubs stay in place? That would be the lease paid for in 5 1/2 years
But they would need us to stay. The idea of negotiations would be to get matchday income. Wasps need CCFC. But as it looks CCFC needs Wasps even more. All we can do is guess and also hope that SISU don't start their silly games again. Most of us have been open minded about a new stadium. But this does not mean that miles away and in the middle of nowhere would be good enough. And yes we do need to see some sort of proof before believing a word of it.
In this case it stands for "No-one Dares Answer" !!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the whole point of an NDA?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Already answered in quite a but if detail. You are dodging the facts I have already posted. Inviting the club to bid.
Giving the club a deadline
Then moving on.
Please show me where the council have said coming back is about building trust before SISU get ownership (freehold)
The council have always said the freehold is not an option.
I have shown you the facts
You are the one dodging
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Lets say that the stadium will become more high profile. Wasps on TV. Us also in place. Maybe 1m a year naming rights over 10 years? On condition that both clubs stay in place? That would be the lease paid for in 5 1/2 years
Most of us have been open minded about a new stadium. But this does not mean that miles away and in the middle of nowhere would be good enough. And yes we do need to see some sort of proof before believing a word of it.
I doubt a sponsor would be that bothered about keeping a league one club at the stadium, there's very little exposure in the media, rarely on tv and when they are the viewership is v small.
I would only find a long term rent deal acceptable if it was cheap rent, access to all matchday revenues at little cost (we've paid ACL far too much to date anyway), the sky blue seats remain, that theres a clear road map and agreement that the club can buy back 50% shares after 5-10 years and there's a breakout clause if things don't work out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'd have thought we're worth about an extra 100k a year.
a long term, cheap rent deal with access to all matchday revenues and an agreement to work together with the current owners is the absolute best scenario we can hope for realistically at least under sisu. Why would you add a condition to getting that, when there is a 100% guarantee you aren't going to get that condition and that condition is completely unreasonable. Thats a sisu tactic and is one of the reasons we don't currently own the Ricoh.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I doubt a sponsor would be that bothered about keeping a league one club at the stadium, there's very little exposure in the media, rarely on tv and when they are the viewership is v small.
I would only find a long term rent deal acceptable if it was cheap rent, access to all matchday revenues at little cost (we've paid ACL far too much to date anyway), the sky blue seats remain, that theres a clear road map and agreement that the club can buy back 50% shares after 5-10 years and there's a breakout clause if things don't work out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You best hope for that then. The suggested alternative is not viable
stupot07
Well-Known Member
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Astute
Well-Known Member
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
100k a year whilst we are in Division 3. A fair bit more if and when we get promoted. 150k rent? It soon adds up to the value of them having our club at the Ricoh. A good reason to come to a compromise.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Oh good we're back here. No one owes us anything, we don't need to own anything, no one cares if Sisu have something to sell. We need to stop acting like petulant children and get back to building relationships in the community. Luckily for us a professional sports team has moved in recently, they seem to be doing OK at this stuff. Maybe we can ask for some advice?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Talk sport talking up wasps. First match.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Who said they owed us anything? I said we should ask for it. Personally, I would rather build a new stadium than be a long term tenant with no hope of owning a stake in the stadium. Served us well so far hasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It is during negotiations but they are not so usually tight for post event. Especially on public matters such as - have they actually paid?
Moff
Well-Known Member
I will happily counter that bet with 'not a chance'
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Because you arn't going to get it so making it a condition just means you arn't going to succeed, you've said you'd only find a long term deal acceptable with these things, you arn't going to get all those things, therefore you won't consider it acceptable and the chance of improving from our current situation is gone. This is what sisu did. Insistent on getting everything they wanted they got nothing, when they could easily have gotten something great.
Wasps won't agree to a deal that says they have to sell half a share after 5-10 years, why would they? and at what value would it be set at? The value of the Ricoh has already improved just by the fact they moved in, they of course plan to improve the value of the ricoh further over the next 5 years or so and there will be the train station. They certainly won't be willing to sell it at what they paid for it unless they fail hard.
You don't need to convince me that the club should own their own stadium or a stake in the stadium (I've always felt and wanted that) but the time has past, the club has offically blown it, They've had multiple chances, they have past. there is now no chance of it happening under the current ownership at least, we should not be trying to make it happen at the expense of all else. They have to make the best of the bad situation they have created for themselves (and us).
Who said they owed us anything? I said we should ask for it. Personally, I would rather build a new stadium than be a long term tenant with no hope of owning a stake in the stadium. Served us well so far hasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
you actually said you would only find the long term deal acceptable with that condition in place. There is of course nothing wrong with asking for it other than it being an unreasonable request and thus a bit insulting, as long as you're willing to make the deal without it.
The new stadium makes no financial sense, it's much worse financially, in the short, medium and long term to staying where we are.
has renting really served us that badly? the rent needed dealing with certainly but it was far from the reason we were struggling financially and the horrible couple of years we've just had have been completely sisus fault and not because we were renters. If they had made a decent deal for the rent around 2 years ago, we could have made a decent go of getting promoted in the last 2 years, Robins might not of left, we might have had our trip to wembley and we'd likely have been there or abouts the playoff spots both years, our attendances would be much higher, we wouldn't all hate one another and loathe sisu. Wasps wouldn't own our stadium, we certainly wouldn't be thinking about relegation and we'd still have hope.
It's nuts to look at the last couple of years and come to the conclusion it's because we don't own our own stadium, it's because our owners are selfish, amoral scumbags.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Sorry Noggin, but no one can say whether a new stadium makes financial sense in the medium or long term as no one knows how it will be financed, or seen a business plan of what it would look like.
Staying in a long term rent deal with no/little access to matchday revenue makes little sense either. You say that renting hadn't served us badly lol. We've paid c£9m rent at the Ricoh and got very little out of it, the rent and no/little access to revenues was an issue under the last board (yes, Micky Adams said it was extremely limiting), and under sisu. We know that rent only little access to revenues means our turnover in the champions if we ever get back there will be one of the lowest 3-4 in the league.
Sisu are abhorrent, they should have sorted this years ago. But the fact remains to compete and be successful we need access to all the matchday and non matchday revenues we can get. That isn't going to happen under a sub rental agreement. You can argue against that all you want, but it the exact same reason wasps have bought the Ricoh, unless you think it's bollocks?
And yes, personally for me, I need at least a glimmer of hope that the club will own part or all of a stadium (or 'leasehold'). The longer we stay at the Ricoh under a sub rental agreement with wasps the less it will feel like home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
duffer
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. You've been asked the same, simple question three times, yes or no, and you won't answer it. It's not complicated, but it's embarassing seeing you squirm around like a politician trying to dodge the question so I'll answer it for you.
Were SISU offered the same deal as Wasps, 100% of ACL, a 250-year lease, for around £5.5m?
No.
Moving on to your other point, another simple question:
On the return from Northampton, did the Council say that time was needed to rebuild trust (with SISU) before discussing ownership options? Yes or no.
Will it take three attempts before I need to answer this one for you too?
covmark
Well-Known Member
You really are pissing in the wind mate. Wasps and the council don't need to do their own PR. Half of the Ccfc fans on here will do it for them.
We can make all sorts of different assumptions to produce numbers and none of them make it look a good idea, if we can't do a back of the fag packet calculation of why it's a good idea even making the most generous assumptions then it's not a good idea. There is also absolutely no scenario where building a new stadium makes more sense than offering 10mill vs wasps 5.77mill would have done.
We absolutely should be negotiating/paying for match day revenues if we don't get them already. but I'm afraid that a rental deal does make the most sense now. It might not be a great option but it's the best option of the bad ones we have available to us.
yes paying that much rent instead of buying the shares is batshit crazy. No question. The rent was too high and needed addressing no question, they needed to buy back the matchday revenues they sold (assuming it made financial sence) but our problems aren't due to renting. Revenue is near irrelevant, it's a complete distraction, the constant talk about revenue is bollocks. actual money is what is relevant and not having the match day revenues is costing us a couple of hundred k a season perhaps, that sucks, thats something you want to change, of course it is. But its not the reason for our problems, and it's not something worth spending tens of millions to fix (not that there is any chance they would)
we need all the money we can get sure, but everything they have done and continue to do is lowering revenue. We need to take the best option available to us and unfortunately (and I don't like it either, I want to own our own stadium) it's negotiate a long term rent deal ideally with match day revenues.
I need that hope too but it's gone, there is no point deluding ourselves especially if that leads to making even more stupid decisions.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Who said they owed us anything? I said we should ask for it. Personally, I would rather build a new stadium than be a long term tenant with no hope of owning a stake in the stadium. Served us well so far hasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Just a few questions.
- Who do you think will own any new stadium ?
- Do you think CCFC will be a tenant at that stadium ?
- If it has retail units around the stadium who do you think will get the income from those shops etc ?
- What facilities do you expect will be provided at the new stadium that will generate non football related incomes ?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Can I ask you the same questions in the context of someone else taking over CCFC tomorrow?
Moff
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.
Great post Duffer, and greatly appreciated. Its nice to read something of sense and clarity.
The fact that wasps directly own acl suggests this argument is flawed.
The deal must have been in the works for many many months. It's complex, complicated and takes time.
So they were not 'secretly doing a deal' - they were 'secretly finalizing a deal'.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.
The only way forward now is building our own ground, but can anyone really see the clowns that own us doing that. I can't
It seems to me that we're just going to bumble along between leagues 1 and 2, extremely sad tbh.
I believe ACL is still a separate company now owned by the same who owns Wasps.
That would be the exact same construction with ccfc and either ACL or New Stadium.
Two companies in the same group both owned by the same owner whether that owner is a person, a company or a consortium
Mmm Indeed, I don't think it was any coincidence when Wasps dropped the 'London' from their name as far back as 30th June !?
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.
The only way forward now is building our own ground, but can anyone really see the clowns that own us doing that. I can't
It seems to me that we're just going to bumble along between leagues 1 and 2, extremely sad tbh.
I can see your point apart from the fact that Fisher et al were still spouting bollox about stadium La La Land right to the death as it were !? SISU made it easy for the Council, they just kept passing them the bullets !
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This 250 year lease.......
I do not understand why the CCC only offered it for the first time now, and to cap that offered it to Wasps. Yes you can question why wasn't it offered to CCFC certainly. But even more fundamental is why didn't ACL have such a lease in the first place ? They paid 21m for just under 50 years...... Wasps get 250 years for a suggested £1m..... doesn't make sense
The consequence for ACL of such a long lease would have meant asset value and stability, the ability for ACL to raise its own finance, no need for CCC loans, ACL sale price better, the likelihood that investors would have been interested from the start in either joint or 100% ownership, proper and meaningful interest from CCFC etc.........
As bad as SISU have been for CCFC I cant help thinking that CCC were just as much hinderance for ACL. Result of those two parties actions being - the complete disaster we have witnessed
I do not understand why the CCC only offered it for the first time now, and to cap that offered it to Wasps. Yes you can question why wasn't it offered to CCFC certainly. But even more fundamental is why didn't ACL have such a lease in the first place ? They paid 21m for just under 50 years...... Wasps get 250 years for a suggested £1m..... doesn't make sense
The consequence for ACL of such a long lease would have meant asset value and stability, the ability for ACL to raise its own finance, no need for CCC loans, ACL sale price better, the likelihood that investors would have been interested from the start in either joint or 100% ownership, proper and meaningful interest from CCFC etc.........
As bad as SISU have been for CCFC I cant help thinking that CCC were just as much hinderance for ACL. Result of those two parties actions being - the complete disaster we have witnessed
Last edited: