Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The business case was permanent relocation of the team a long distance away from its traditional fanbase. If that's what it took for CCFC the business to survive, would you support it?
Wasps Sub Forum (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
The business case was permanent relocation of the team a long distance away from its traditional fanbase. If that's what it took for CCFC the business to survive, would you support it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No the real issue is they were offers the whole ground for less than the club were told to pay for half and for sixfold the lease.
Oh and only because of the strategy employed by the clubs owners.
Still sisu out eh?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Having better PR than SISU. Also, a 28k crowd inflated by free tickets for the grand opening, just 1,000 more than CCFC's with no freebies, crap marketing and much less notice.
Congrats Wasps, handing everyone a yellow and black flag must've been worth it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Or you could say they were sold the ground for less than we paid in rent over the first 5 seasons we played there.
Or you could say they've been gifted it for nothing as it is likely in the very near future they will receive more for the renewal of stadium naming rights than they have paid.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Welcome to my world. Your onto a loser with the majority.
you are right. Shows that SISU followed the wrong tactic. They still are. Relationships play a big role in business. Acting like tossers, as SISU did - even if you think you are right - screws everything up.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No they were totally right other than they assumed the council would always value local community sport
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But that doesn't give CCC a green light to screw the club over. The club and SISU are not the same thing, long after SISU have gone the actions of CCC will still be having a negative impact on the club.
A key point of Fishers was the claim he kept making that ACL were reliant on CCFC and not performing well. Given the desperation from CCC to sell and the knockdown price they have sold out it seems, despite all their claims Fisher was wrong, that he may have for once been right.
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
Most definitely get the SISU owl arses out of our City
Totally right..... So even more tragic for us, and stupid from SISU.
which adds to the tragedy.....
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Wrong, there wasn't loads of Wasps supporters. 90% of people today hadn't been to a Wasps match within the last 5 years which is a fact.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Sorry Dave but which way round do you want it?
If Mr Fisher was right then the council had to sell to Wasps.
If Mr Fisher was wrong in your opinion the Council did not have to sell and shafted the club.
TBF whichever you go for the club was asked to bid, was given a deadline. During which they were adamant they were moving on. They still are, even when they did bid at the last minute they were still adamant they were moving on even if they win the bid.
If the club had bid when they were given the deadline back in January. If the council rejected it and did not negotiate with them. Negotiating soley with Wasps. I would agree with your point. However they were adamant it was moving unless it got something that was not available. If you want to blame anyone for shafting the club you don't need to look too far...........
As soon as possible. The ground share is an interim measure only while our new home is being erected, plans will go in front of the League at the start of June.
The club has a vision and plans to play in the Coventry area at a new stadium. A stadium which ensures the club can take all the revenues and reinvest it back into the team.
Further to the end of the discussions, the club has now moved on and is making its plans to play in its wholly-owned stadium where we will own all the revenues we generate. In effect, we will become a normal football club.
The club comes first. As such, we have moved on. We are entirely focused on the new stadium build. The plans will be developed in full consultation with the fans.
Please be absolutely clear, there has never been any intention to leave Coventry in the long term – just temporarily while the new stadium is constructed in the immediate vicinity of Coventry. This should take less than three years.
We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have.
We have started the process of procuring land so that we can shift the new stadium build forward at a pace. We retained specialists some months ago to advise us on where to build a new stadium for the club in the immediate Coventry area. We are not leaving Coventry in the long term.
But Fisher said: “People have to understand we do not posture, we do not threaten, because that is not how you do business, you only do business in good faith. Always.
“We have started the process of procuring land so that we can shift the new stadium build forward at a pace. The stadium will be in the Coventry area in accordance with Football League rules.
ACL claims the Ricoh Arena door remains open for Coventry City and they have not been kicked out.
May 2013
And he insists the club are well into the process after employing CBRE commercial property specialist who have identified a number of sites outside the city boundary and have made a bid for one.
June 2013
A major part of Fisher’s role will be driving forward the club’s plan to own its own stadium. He said: “These board changes had been previously discussed, agreed and decided upon long before the short-term deal that saw us move back to the Ricoh Arena.
“We wanted to get the interim deal completed before we made any announcement around our own changes at boardroom level and we believe the time is now right to make the announcement. It’s still very much the club’s focus and intention to own its own ground in order to access the revenues that come with it.”
Sept 2014
Even when finally bidding for 50%.....
“It’s a complex situation having 50/50 but it’s not to say we can’t work it out. We would like to secure our position for as long as it takes to build a new stadium. We don’t want to jeopardise the club's financial position, when we’ve worked so hard to get to a position where it’s cash flow positive for the first time in many years.
Oct 2014
All of that throughout this......
So it is a very simple question for Cllr Lucas: is she prepared to discuss a freehold sale of the Ricoh? If so, we will sit down and talk. If not, we will build a new stadium on the outskirts of Coventry. We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.
Oct 2013
Response
It is public knowledge I have written to Joy Seppala, inviting her to meet with me. She has not done so. She has given a personal interview to the Coventry Telegraph about this issue but she has been unprepared to meet with me. My offer to meet with her remains open. If she wishes to meet with me then she should contact my office to make arrangements to do so. I am prepared to meet with her privately if she is prepared to enter into a constructive, meaningful and mature discussion about the Ricoh Arena. I am not prepared to enter into an adversarial or confrontational discussion which would achieve nothing. Time is running out. If Joy Seppala is serious about wanting to discuss a possible deal, then we need to talk soon. This is something else I agree with the football club about. There will be a point, in the very near future, where we will be overtaken by events. My statement to Full Council on Tuesday 22 October confirms that all options are available for discussion. I am prepared to discuss, subject to contract, and without prejudice to the on-going court case, the issue of stadium ownership with Joy Seppala just as I have been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other interested third parties in the past. The difference is they came to meet with me, whereas I have yet to meet with Joy Seppala. If Joy Seppala does not wish to meet with me at the Council House, then I am prepared to meet with her at another mutually agreed neutral venue. But I remind everyone, it takes two to tango!
So for one last time, I say, quite clearly, that I am prepared to meet with Joy Seppala and to have a discussion with her without prejudice and subject to contract in relation to all and any issues in relation to the Ricoh Arena, the land around it, and Coventry City Football Club.
But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena."
Oct 2013
Councillor Ann Lucas said the council would listen to "reasonable and sensible offers" for the freehold but stressed the site would not be sold "unencumbered".
She also said it is time to consider a future for the Ricoh without a football team.
Coventry City FC declined to comment.
Jan 2014
Last edited:
ajsccfc
Well-Known Member
This is an absolutely mad response to 'my friend said it wasn't very loud at a rugby game'.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I've said before there's 2 options here:
1) CCC weren't being truthful about the current and future state of ACL (i.e.: Fisher was right) - in that scenario CCC have questions to answer as they have been deceptive.
2) CCC were being truthful about the current and future state of ACL (i.e.: Fisher was right) - in that scenario CCC have questions to answer as they have sold ACL at a very low price.
There was never a deadline to bid. CCC stated they would 'move on' in January but that doesn't selling the stadium. At no point did they say the stadium is on the market and we are inviting offers, if anything by repeatedly saying they had no need to sell they implied the opposite.
Seems to me when it suits peoples agenda Tim Fishers word is suddenly gospel to everyone, yet the rest of the time we're told he never tells the truth!
One simple question for CCC to answer. Did they offer the sale of a 250 year lease to SISU for under £6m. It's a very simple question that just requires a yes or no to answer and wouldn't breach any confidentiality. If the answer to the question is no then CCC are very much to blame for the club ending up with little chance of owning it's own stadium within the city.
Yes SISU have made the worst decision possible at every turn in this whole saga but that in no way justifies what CCC have done.[/QUOTE]
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
[/QUOTE]
She said she would talk to anyone about ownership. She invited sensible and reasonable offers. She said she had been talking to others.
She said Joy had better meet her quick as the clock is ticking and events are going to overtake us.
She gave a deadline of January.
Do you think that meant in January they Council were going to start the ball rolling in something else but SISU could still come and talk at any point. Or do you think it was exactly as she said come and see me get your bid in otherwise it is going to be TOO late.
Please re read the above and tell me how many chances did the club need.
The question you should be asking is when the council said the freehold effectively is for sale but not uncumbered did SISU bid?
For some reason Wasps managed to bid. SISU didn't
I would accept your point if they both did and in they were similar bids and the council choose Wasps, however they didn't.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Once again one simple question for CCC to answer. Did they offer the sale of a 250 year lease to SISU for under £6m. Forget what Fisher said or didn't say, forget what Lucas said or didn't say. If they did not inform the club that a 250 year lease could be purchased for under £6m they are in the wrong.
Seems to me there are a number of people here who are failing to question CCCs actions as they are blinded by their hatred of SISU. You don't have to think SISU are in the right to demand answers from CCC.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
If they say to you that Wasps came to them. Put in an offer in which kick started Negotiation between the two of them. For an encumbered freehold. ( whilst SISU said un encumbered freehold or nothing. )
Then Wasps said if we get a deal agreed here that is it, no messing around you start offering it out trying to create a bidding war then we are out. ( just my assumption as it is what I would say if I was wasps.)
Then the deal is signed the talks would have been covered by Non Disclosure legalities.
I take it you saying the council should have in good faith agreed that deal with Wasps then said to SISU. Here is the deal we have agreed would you care to match it?
Do you genuinely believe that that us realistic?
Also with everything that has occurred in the past could they risk losing Wasps and then trusting SISU to do the deal?
Why in your book is it all down to the Council to do all the chasing after SISU ( who don't forget are suing them!)
Surely surely you can see that SISU were asked to bid they were given a deadline.
They said not interested we are building a new stadium.
Sorry but it can't be any clearer.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Yes exactly that. CCC are not a private company, this is not like BT buying EE or a similar deal. CCC's primary concern should be the city of Coventry and the requirements of it's population. We have a football team and a rugby team that have both been based in the city for well over 100 years and both bear the name of the city who had zero consolation on franchising in a PL rugby side and selling them a £120m stadium for under £6m. At the absolute minimum there should have been a full consultation period so they population of the city and key organisations could give their input.
Of course. People have huge fall outs all the time but still have to talk to and do business with each other. I've done work for plenty of companies who have played the 'we're never working with company abc again' only to then work with them at a later date. Its what grown ups do. They don't give away their assets to the first person that comes along at a discount price just to spite the person they've fallen out with.
From the moment there was any contact with Wasps it should have been made clear that any deal would be subject to a full consultation period and others organisations would have an opportunity to bid. After all CCC kept telling us ACL was doing well and there was no need to sell so worse case scenario they retain an asset that is performing well who's value will only increase. This deal only makes sense if CCC were desperate to sell, the only reason for that would be risk and that means CCC have been lying both to SISU and the population of the city.
SISU are a hedge fund, their primary concern is making money for their investors and themselves. CCC are a public body and their primary concern should be the city of Coventry and the requirements of it's population. They should be the 'better man' and rise above the actions of SISU and do what is right for the city.
At no point were they asked to bid and at no point did CCC say they were putting the Ricoh up for sale. They said they would listen to anyone who came along. How many people realistically expected people to be beating down the door to buy and empty stadium? That to me is being deceptive, looking back it seems they have been working on this deal for a long time and their statements have been carefully worded so they can try and absolve themselves of blame. How difficult would it have been to word a statement saying something like 'we have other interested parties, if we don't reach agreement by January we will invite them to bid' or 'if we don't reach agreement by January we will put ACL on the market and actively seek a buyer'. They did nothing of the sort.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I you read all of the press releases by the two and do not come to the conclusion that SISU should have come to the council by January and declared that they wanted negotiations. Then I am not really sure what else I can say.
It is all there in black and white.
It is all there in black and white.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Where in black and white does it make any mention of needing to sell or putting ACL up for sale? It's just not there. Even if it was there for something such as moving in a rugby team from London I would expect a local council to consult with those it will impact on such as CCFC, CRFC and the local population.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are on the wind up as that does not seem your style.
In October 2013 Anne Lucas says she has contacted Joy Sepalla asking her to come and talk to here about stadium ownership. She even uses the term to discuss a 'deal'
Please re-read the posts. She says she can't understand why Joy has not met her and again pleads for her to meet her.
She also points out that she has spoke to others previously who have expressed an interest. That is how the business is done if you are interested come and meet her to discuss it.
She also states that come the turn of the year (January) if she has not heard anything she will do the best deal for the people of Coventry.
She is up for all options including the Freehold however it will not be uncumbered. That is not an option.
Then came January and no offer by SISU
The position of Ms Seppala on behalf of the Club that they will only come back to the Ricoh Arena as complete and unfettered owners and in the meantime they will accelerate plans to build a new home outside Coventry - is equally clear. Repeating these respective positions does not strengthen the case, nor does it provide a solution.
Now this Council must and will move on. We do not have time to waste and must not have unnecessary distractions from the priorities ahead of us all.
I will continue to hope for a solution to this sorry saga - but I will not allow it to dominate and distract any longer.
Enough is enough - we move on and lead our city to a strong, prosperous future - preferably with the Sky Blues at the Ricoh Arena playing an integral part in our success - but if necessary without them.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha ha -- self deprecating irony.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I've re-read it and nowhere can I see where it says they need to sell or putting ACL up for sale. I do however recall lots of comments about not needing to sell and ACL being a business that is performing fantastically well. So we come back to the same point, did CCC offer SISU a 250 year lease for under £6m. Show me where they have said they have.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The bit where she said lets discuss a deal about stadium ownership. What is it exactly you think she was referring to?
What do you think the bit about talking to others who have expressed an interest was about.
By setting a deadline. What did you think she was planning that would potentially mean a future without the football club after this deadline?
If it was just keep running ACL as it is, in case SISU ever change their mind. Then there would be absolutely no point setting a deadline?
If you wanted her to agree a deal with Wasps under commercial confidentiality then go to SISU and say here is the deal I have agreed with Wasps can you match it. Do you really think that would have happened?
Even someone from ACL around that OCT said it is up to SISU now to come in with their best offer.
I have to say I am gobsmacked you read all those press releases and don't concluded that if SISU wanted what Wasps have just done then they should have submitted a bid.
Do you really think saying we are building a new stadium was the way to get the deal done?
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why won't you answer his fucking question?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Probably the most comprehensive 5-6 points to Dave's point I could possibly give.
Thanks though for your forever useful and poignant contribution.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You seem to have forgotten to answer the question so here it is again for you:
Frankly I couldn't care less what BS Fisher came out with or what spin Lucas, or anyone else at CCC or Higgs came out with. The question above is the one I want answer, it's a very simple question that should be answerable with either a yes or a no and would not breach any commercial confidentiality. If the answer is no then, irrespective of any actions SISU have taken or anything any party has said or done in the past, the council and Higgs have acted in a absolutely disgraceful manner in my opinion and have damaged the club for decades to come, if not permanently.
Frankly I couldn't care less what BS Fisher came out with or what spin Lucas, or anyone else at CCC or Higgs came out with. The question above is the one I want answer, it's a very simple question that should be answerable with either a yes or a no and would not breach any commercial confidentiality. If the answer is no then, irrespective of any actions SISU have taken or anything any party has said or done in the past, the council and Higgs have acted in a absolutely disgraceful manner in my opinion and have damaged the club for decades to come, if not permanently.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Dave if you don't think all of what I posted doesn't address that question then I completely wasted my time.
I think if SISU had like wasps when asked came and put a bid in then eventually they would have got that deal. Knowing SISU they possibly would have some how got a better deal.
They never bid they ignored the deadline so no I don't think they negotiated a price like wasps did because they never came to the table. I can't be any clearer than that, If SISU bid when asked then yes they would have done. They didn't so of course they never negotiated that price.
I also genuinely believe that they would not have done the deal wasps did either ( just my opinion) I think they would have felt they could get it all much much cheaper which is why they never came to the table. Of course they did not believe the comments about other potential buyers at that point.
Once the terms of the deal are getting agreed with Wasps there is no way they would have allowed to council to pop over to SISU and say do you fancy matching this? Would you if you were wasps. You would say to the council I am interested but sign this tell no one. If you speak out the deal is off. (and I think the council would have accepted that)
A bit like when Orange Ken didn't get the promise to stay on as Chairman on a previous deal. It got leaked to the press and then the deal was off.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Side swerve and diversion and as usual no answer.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Thanks again G man. Very worthwhile input
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Clearly you have wasted your time as you have in no way answered that question. To be fair you can't, only CCC and Higgs can and they won't answer, to meet that indicates they didn't offer SISU a similar deal.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Ok now can you answer my questions
1) what do you think Anne Lucas meant when she said words to the effect of. I have contacted Joy Sepella asking her to contact me regarding doing a deal regarding stadium ownership?
2) what do you think she meant by this needs to happen by the turn of the year or we will move on and look at other options including the possibility of not having a football club at the Ricoh. The clock is ticking.
3) what do you think she meant by Joy needs to meet me if a deal is to be done that's what other people who have expressed an interest have done
4) A deal can be done for the freehold but not unencumbered
5) Do you think SISU expressed an interest in the doing the deal encumbered? Do you think that once they did the council negotiated with them but offered a deal to Wasps that they didn't offer to SISU? If so I see your point if not I don't think you have a point.
6) If SISU just ignored the deadline and never expressed an interest. do you think the council whilst negotiating with Wasps were allowed to tell SISU about the deal that was getting agreed?
7) Do you genuinely think SISU would have done this deal?
He said that made the decision to takeover Ricoh firm ACL an easy one - even if it did equate to roughly £20million after he paid ACL’s partners £2.77m each for their shares and took over a £14.4m loan from Coventry City Council.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-owner-reveals-motives-ricoh-8331444
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
1) what do you think Anne Lucas meant when she said words to the effect of. I have contacted Joy Sepella asking her to contact me regarding doing a deal regarding stadium ownership?
I think she meant I she had contacted Joy Sepella asking Joy to contact Ann regarding doing a deal regarding stadium ownership.
2) what do you think she meant by this needs to happen by the turn of the year or we will move on and look at other options including the possibility of not having a football club at the Ricoh. The clock is ticking.
I think she meant, as she explained further on CWR, that resolving the issue with SISU was taking up a lot of council time and if an agreement hadn't been reached by January they would move on and leave ACL to get on with running ACL and CCC to get on with running CCC.
3) what do you think she meant by Joy needs to meet me if a deal is to be done that's what other people who have expressed an interest have done
I think she mean Joy needs to meet her if a deal is to be done, after all she met with people such as PK4. Of course this comment may have been made in response to the suggestion from SISU that Ann wouldn't meet to discuss a deal.
4) A deal can be done for the freehold but not unencumbered
I think she meant A deal can be done for the freehold but not unencumbered freehold. Of course as we know the freehold is of little value without being unencumbered or being held alongside ownership of ACL. I didn't see any mention there of extending ACLs lease to 250 years which in effect makes ACL the leaseholder.
5) Do you think SISU expressed an interest in the doing the deal encumbered? Do you think that once they did the council negotiated with them but offered a deal to Wasps that they didn't offer to SISU? If so I see your point if not I don't think you have a point.
Yes I do think they expressed an interest in doing that deal. I don't believe the deal offered to Wasps was ever offer to SISU and this is the key point. I also don't believe SISU were told Wasps had made a bid and invited to match or better it. For me those are they key points. I don't care who said what to who when, simply did SISU get a chance to match the offer made by Wasps.
6) If SISU just ignored the deadline and never expressed an interest. do you think the council whilst negotiating with Wasps were allowed to tell SISU about the deal that was getting agreed?
But it wasn't a deadline in that way. It was a if it's not done by then we'll move on and if anyone happens to come along we'll listen to them. It was certainly not buy it by January or we're selling it to someone else. I don't think the council should have entered any negotiations with the requirement that they could not inform CCFC, CRFC and the people of Coventry to allow for a full consultation. If they did agree to such I would expect Wasps to have paid a large amount for that exclusivity, I have seen no reports of any payment other than the £5.4m for ACL.
7) Do you genuinely think SISU would have done this deal?
I think if the council had said to SISU we have agreed a deal with Wasps to purchase ACL with a lease extension to 250 years for £5.4m will you match it they would have done so. If they were given that chance and chose not to then it's a whole different scenario and I would be furious with them but I don't believe they were given that chance.
I think she meant I she had contacted Joy Sepella asking Joy to contact Ann regarding doing a deal regarding stadium ownership.
2) what do you think she meant by this needs to happen by the turn of the year or we will move on and look at other options including the possibility of not having a football club at the Ricoh. The clock is ticking.
I think she meant, as she explained further on CWR, that resolving the issue with SISU was taking up a lot of council time and if an agreement hadn't been reached by January they would move on and leave ACL to get on with running ACL and CCC to get on with running CCC.
3) what do you think she meant by Joy needs to meet me if a deal is to be done that's what other people who have expressed an interest have done
I think she mean Joy needs to meet her if a deal is to be done, after all she met with people such as PK4. Of course this comment may have been made in response to the suggestion from SISU that Ann wouldn't meet to discuss a deal.
4) A deal can be done for the freehold but not unencumbered
I think she meant A deal can be done for the freehold but not unencumbered freehold. Of course as we know the freehold is of little value without being unencumbered or being held alongside ownership of ACL. I didn't see any mention there of extending ACLs lease to 250 years which in effect makes ACL the leaseholder.
5) Do you think SISU expressed an interest in the doing the deal encumbered? Do you think that once they did the council negotiated with them but offered a deal to Wasps that they didn't offer to SISU? If so I see your point if not I don't think you have a point.
Yes I do think they expressed an interest in doing that deal. I don't believe the deal offered to Wasps was ever offer to SISU and this is the key point. I also don't believe SISU were told Wasps had made a bid and invited to match or better it. For me those are they key points. I don't care who said what to who when, simply did SISU get a chance to match the offer made by Wasps.
6) If SISU just ignored the deadline and never expressed an interest. do you think the council whilst negotiating with Wasps were allowed to tell SISU about the deal that was getting agreed?
But it wasn't a deadline in that way. It was a if it's not done by then we'll move on and if anyone happens to come along we'll listen to them. It was certainly not buy it by January or we're selling it to someone else. I don't think the council should have entered any negotiations with the requirement that they could not inform CCFC, CRFC and the people of Coventry to allow for a full consultation. If they did agree to such I would expect Wasps to have paid a large amount for that exclusivity, I have seen no reports of any payment other than the £5.4m for ACL.
7) Do you genuinely think SISU would have done this deal?
I think if the council had said to SISU we have agreed a deal with Wasps to purchase ACL with a lease extension to 250 years for £5.4m will you match it they would have done so. If they were given that chance and chose not to then it's a whole different scenario and I would be furious with them but I don't believe they were given that chance.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Sorry I said do actually think they would have done that deal.
I don't think they would have
I think the legal action and the move out if Coventry was designed to get an even lower deal.
I think if they were interested in doing that deal they would have started negotiations with the council when the deadline was set.
Yes it was a deadline the term the click is ticking was even used. It's a pointless deadline if you are just carrying in as normal past it.