Minority Rapport (3 Viewers)

[spider_ricoh]

OK so lets assume CCC will never do a deal with SISU. They repeatedly stated ACL was performing well and the future was bright. Why not hold on to it, use the profit generated to offset central government cuts, and when we have better owners look to sell it to them. Could it be that the council weren't telling the whole truth about how well ACL was performing? If they were telling the truth why have they sold it so cheaply to Wasps, can only be out of spite.

They had also said that it was not their long term plan to own the Ricoh - the Wasps deal represented the best offer they were going to get, once the relationship with CCFC went sour. Better to grab the Wasps deal with both hands as there was no prospect of a better one in the future.

You seem to be missing the point, I think deliberately, no matter what the actions of the current owners of the club the council should not be taking action out of spite. Irrespective of how badly our owners have behaved the actions of the council, in selling to Wasps, are for me absolutely indefensible. I suspect they know this and is why we get nothing but 'it's confidential'.

I'm not missing the point, we just disagree. You are arguing that the actions of SISU should not have changed the club's position with regard to ownership of the Ricoh. I disagree - we live in a commercial world where they wanted to sell the ground for the best price. Once SISU fucked up, Wasps was their only option. What cash-strapped local authority would say no?? I don't find anything offensive about a rugby team moving to a new city; it's not comparable with football especially as Waspas have been so nomadic.

 

---

[chiefdave]

How can you be sure there would be no better deal in the future. According to the council ACL was doing fantastically well and the projections were that it was only going to get better. That means the value of the business would increase. Or are you saying the council were lying and ACL wasn't performing well and they were desperate to get rid of it to anyone but SISU?

We do live in a commercial world but CCC is not a commercial entity, it is public, that's a big difference. By your logic you'd be happy if CCC sold of the sports centre site to a property developer on the cheap so a private investor could make a profit off it.

 

[spider_ricoh]

How can you be sure there would be no better deal in the future. According to the council ACL was doing fantastically well and the projections were that it was only going to get better. That means the value of the business would increase. Or are you saying the council were lying and ACL wasn't performing well and they were desperate to get rid of it to anyone but SISU?

We do live in a commercial world but CCC is not a commercial entity, it is public, that's a big difference. By your logic you'd be happy if CCC sold of the sports centre site to a property developer on the cheap so a private investor could make a profit off it.

You can't predict the future, that's why the safe option is to sell whilst there is still something to sell and while a buyer is prepared to pay something for it! Sorry but the Ricoh IS a commercial entity and has been operating as such from day 1. CCFC also want to run it as such.

 

[chiefdave]

You can't predict the future, that's why the safe option is to sell whilst there is still something to sell and while a buyer is prepared to pay something for it! Sorry but the Ricoh IS a commercial entity and has been operating as such from day 1. CCFC also want to run it as such.

It's very very simple, there's 2 options:

Option 1) CCC lied about the current and predicted state of ACL's business - in which case they have questions to answer.

Option 2) CCC were being truthful about the current and predicted state of ACL's business indicated they then sold the business at below value at a loss to the local taxpayer - in which case they have questions to answer.

On your criteria CCC should be having a fire sale of every asset they have just in case the value decreases in the future.

 

[spider_ricoh]

It's very very simple, there's 2 options:

Option 1) CCC lied about the current and predicted state of ACL's business - in which case they have questions to answer.

Option 2) CCC were being truthful about the current and predicted state of ACL's business indicated they then sold the business at below value at a loss to the local taxpayer - in which case they have questions to answer.

On your criteria CCC should be having a fire sale of every asset they have just in case the value decreases in the future.

On the last point, I'm not argUing that at all. Your two scenarios ignore the "third way" reality I have already posted. The sale was lower than the value offered by SISU, but this was because SISU had already driven down the market rate for ACL by distressing it. Therefore ACL was sold to Wasps at the market price. Come on, it's not hard!

From your earlier comments about the council not selling a community asset to a hedge fund (Wasps)...I presume you were also opposed to this when it was another hedge fund (backers of CCFC) who were trying to buy it from the council??

 

[chiefdave]

On the last point, I'm not argUing that at all. Your two scenarios ignore the "third way" reality I have already posted. The sale was lower than the value offered by SISU, but this was because SISU had already driven down the market rate for ACL by distressing it. Therefore ACL was sold to Wasps at the market price. Come on, it's not hard!

From your earlier comments about the council not selling a community asset to a hedge fund (Wasps)...I presume you were also opposed to this when it was another hedge fund (backers of CCFC) who were trying to buy it from the council??

But your third way is the same as option 1. ACL was not doing as well as CCC were made out, doesn't matter if that was the fault of SISU or not CCC repeatedly claimed us not being there wasn't an issue and business was fine.

On many occasions on here I suggested that the solution to the freehold requirement of SISU was a deal pretty much identical to the one Wasps were offered so again I come back got the question did CCC offer SISU the same deal. I would expect our local council to put our football club, irrespective of its owners, above a London rugby club. When I suggested that sort of deal I never imagined it would be offered at a price as low as Wasps have paid. When they sell the naming rights renewal it will most likely be for more than they have been paid - they will have effectively been given a stadium for nothing while the local taxpayer takes the loss.

 

[M&B Stand]

TAR HIM WITH FEATHERS!!!

Nice to see you're keeping your one-eyed bitter dislike of the Wasps deal!

Hurrah for the council and Higgs! They've beaten SISU are their own game. I bought the missus a couple of bottles of champagne during the JR - we had one when the verdict came in, then another when the Wasps deal went through. Couldn't be happier - even more so because it means that embittered knobs like you have lost. Shame you keep moaning about it!

You never know, a couple of years down the line the club could be out of business with nobody wanting to take over such an unattractive proposition. That'd show sisu.
Champagne corks would be popping at your house.

 

[spider_ricoh]

But your third way is the same as option 1. ACL was not doing as well as CCC were made out, doesn't matter if that was the fault of SISU or not CCC repeatedly claimed us not being there wasn't an issue and business was fine.

On many occasions on here I suggested that the solution to the freehold requirement of SISU was a deal pretty much identical to the one Wasps were offered so again I come back got the question did CCC offer SISU the same deal. I would expect our local council to put our football club, irrespective of its owners, above a London rugby club. When I suggested that sort of deal I never imagined it would be offered at a price as low as Wasps have paid. When they sell the naming rights renewal it will most likely be for more than they have been paid - they will have effectively been given a stadium for nothing while the local taxpayer takes the loss.

It's not the same at all Dave - ACL was doing fine but without CCFC as tenants in the long term, there was no guarantee that would continue. Also, the council said it was never their aim to be there for the long term. You can be profitable without having huge value because value is baed on what is likely to happen in the future, and this was highly uncertain. Uncertainty is never good for sellers.

As regards "what were SISU offered by the council?" - the process happened the other way. SISU made a bid for the 50% of ACL but attached a load of conditions. Wasps matched the price but without conditions. A chance for SISU to posture without having to come up with the cash? Go figure.

 

[spider_ricoh]

You never know, a couple of years down the line the club could be out of business with nobody wanting to take over such an unattractive proposition. That'd show sisu.
Champagne corks would be popping at your house.

Quite the opposite. I have supported all the council's actions to get rid of SISU, but it's a tragedy that it has come to this. SISU should have cleared off years ago; if that had been the case, none of this would have been necessary.

 

[stupot07]

Quite the opposite. I have supported all the council's actions to get rid of SISU, but it's a tragedy that it has come to this. SISU should have cleared off years ago; if that had been the case, none of this would have been necessary.

Sisu are still here and don't look likely to be going anywhere soon.


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

 

[spider_ricoh]

Sisu are still here and don't look likely to be going anywhere soon.

True enough .. as I say, it's a traedy because it's driven the council to sell the ground to Wasps as the only reasonable alternative to selling it to SISU. It's a bigger tragedy that they are fucking crap at running a football club. The club that I remember beating the likes of Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool at HR is now reduced to 17th in league one. Can't blame the council for that - the only people with an obligation to be safe custodian for the club and its fortunes are its owners. The sooner they F off the better.

 

[chiefdave]

It's not the same at all Dave - ACL was doing fine but without CCFC as tenants in the long term, there was no guarantee that would continue. Also, the council said it was never their aim to be there for the long term. You can be profitable without having huge value because value is baed on what is likely to happen in the future, and this was highly uncertain. Uncertainty is never good for sellers.

As regards "what were SISU offered by the council?" - the process happened the other way. SISU made a bid for the 50% of ACL but attached a load of conditions. Wasps matched the price but without conditions. A chance for SISU to posture without having to come up with the cash? Go figure.

You value a business based on it's current performance and future projections, the CCC line was consistently that this was all fantastic for ACL with or without CCFC in place. Therefore irrespective of what may or may not happen on the future if what CCC have told us is true they have sold it to Wasps at low price. If business is run the way you suggest everyone would be selling their business as quickly as possible no matter what their future projections were.

If you're talking about SISUs offer to purchase 50% of ACL after Wasps had punched 50% from CCC weren't the conditions actually things that would have cost SISU money and have benefitted the community. If the conditions were the issue why not respond with we will accept your price but not the conditions. But that is avoiding the question, did CCC offer the same deal to SISU as they did to Wasps. This is a simple question CCC should be able to answer without hiding behind confidentiality, just requires a yes or a no.

 

[edgy]

Wasps moving from Wycombe isn't ideal but I'd take that 1000 times out of 1000 to keep the Ricoh out of SISU's hands forever.

Truely bizarre.

 

[martcov]

Sisu are still here and don't look likely to be going anywhere soon.


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

sadly true. This whole stadium talk is crazy. Someone wants to build a stadium to generate a profit. You would think that they would search the country for a city with a demand for a stadium and the potential to fill it with an anchor tenant, and build the business around that. Having found the city, then a site with good transport links. Then ask about the possibility of planning permission and possible objections. Then go about assessing the land value and make an offer subject to planning permission.

SISU bought a football club, screwed it up ( further than it was ) over a period of ca 7 years. Pissed off everybody and anybody in the football club's home city. Then decided to build a stadium nearby in any place they could find land. Near to an existing stadium with optimal transport connections, a station in progress, top facilities and visibility from a motorway ( good for signage ). How can you can convince an investor that you have done a professional job in finding the perfect place to build a viable stadium?

the stadium is being built for the wrong reasons. It cannot succeed.