D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
Fisher on new stadium (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter SkyBlue_Bear83
- Start date
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Att: 8,566
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Att: 8,566
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It's how business works. To give you an example several months ago I sold one of my business premises, it wasn't on the market but myself and my business partner were approached. The potential purchaser made it very clear we were second choice and he was negotiating for his first choice and confident of completing that deal. That made not the slightest bit of difference to our approach to negotiations, why would it? We negotiated a price we were happy to sell at, as it turned out his first choice fell through and we sold.
Look at it this way, if you want £250K for your house and someone offers you £250K you couldn't care less if they kept telling you they preferred the house down the road and wanted to buy that. You do your deal and thats it.
Some people on here think that Wasps crowds are boosted by ticket offers. Maybe ask them for tips on how to do it properly.....? ;-)
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Of course you're right, but that's kind of the point.
The RIcoh rent was high because there was a monopoly in stadium supply for Coventry City Football club.
Likewise, SISU have banked on there being a monopoly of club supply for a stadium in Coventry.
Both 'sides'of this have played the negotiating hands using basic A level EconomicsBut in that instance, the 'new stadium' only hardened from Plan B to Plan A when negotiations were at an end, according to certain parties involved.
Not unreasonable to see it as a negotiating tool, however. Yep, of course it'd have an effect on the value and yep... it did indeed have an effecton the value.
Nobody, afte all, thought the stadium management company worth buying on the terms offered.
I kind of agree with you. The rent was too high, clearly and manifestly. No debate there. So, a candid debate needed to be had with regards that. Ideally at the time of purchase - SISU used the 'or else' tactic to get shares, so why not a better rent deal?
But things go really pear-shaped when you refuse to negotiate candidly; and tell someone you're disinterested.
We all use brinkmanship in negotiations to get a better deal. For example, you tell someone their bananas are too expensive at two for £1; and you tell them you want 4 for £1; hoping you'll get three.
The problem being when you tell them you want no bananas at all, and that you're actually shopping for an ostrich and walk away down the street; deals don't generally tend to happen.
If you follow the ambition of my fruity metaphor....
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
And here's where your comparison falls over - both parties in your instance still sat down to conclude a deal. And despite the bollocks, did so.
SISU didn't
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm not trying to take it anywhere, I'm just pointing out that no bid was invited from the club along the same lines as that offered to Wasps (5.4m and 250 years).
Everything Lucas said about the "door being open" was before we came back from Northampton. Once we got back the council clearly stated they wanted to rebuild trust before talking about ownership. (Good idea, I thought!).
At exactly the same time, of course, CCC were doing a secret deal with Wasps. It's a bit awkward that, if you're trying to pretend that the council was willing to sell to the club on the same terms. By that time they'd decided to sell to Wasps, and the door was clearly closed. It likely will be for another 250 years.
The rights and wrongs of that decision are debateable - but the facts there are surely beyond dispute.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Have to agree with you on that one. The council's stance and rhetoric there appear disgusting and dishonest
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
A few posts ago you were saying that was preposterous so which is it? Surely if it could be done then SISU talking about a new stadium should not have had an impact on the stance of CCC?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
With the caveat we really are raking old ground, you could also say that if you tell a banana seller you'd like their bananas, but there are cheaper ones down the road, if the banana seller then says they won't sell to you and negotiations are at an end, you can't be surprised when the buyer does indeed toddle off down the road...
But this is indeed old ground and yep, no debate about when they should have negotited but, of course, for a quick and dirty buy with a high risk, high reward battle, it wasn't necessarily of importance to SISU then. So yep, no debate.
Although I'd still like some flesh on the bones about the attempts Robinson's board made to reduce the rent, that were rebuffed. This idea is not a new one...
Anyway, again, we are where we are. We can't wind back the clock. There are still two parties who have a duty towards the football club, and have the ability to mprove the football club for the better (disingenuous to suggest a council shouldn't look after one of its most effective battering rams in terms of awareness of place, one of the most useful tools as a social unifier, one of the easiest ways to identity with a culture, and one of the easiest ways of control).
And still we have dancing around one another. Suppose SISU went tomorrow, some other owner should be looking seriously at a new ground so, why on earth aren't CCC calling SISU's bluff and helping them find a site? Why aren't we closing off avenues to the current owners while opening up new ones to potential future owners? Why, meanwhile, does it take the club years and years to even hint at a site for a ground, let alone do anything about it?
Why aren't we pushing all parties to move the club forward from where it is?It's maybe the time to drop the political ideologies from both sides because like it or not, both parties do indeed need one another, however much blustering they do.
But this is indeed old ground and yep, no debate about when they should have negotited but, of course, for a quick and dirty buy with a high risk, high reward battle, it wasn't necessarily of importance to SISU then. So yep, no debate.
Although I'd still like some flesh on the bones about the attempts Robinson's board made to reduce the rent, that were rebuffed. This idea is not a new one...
Anyway, again, we are where we are. We can't wind back the clock. There are still two parties who have a duty towards the football club, and have the ability to mprove the football club for the better (disingenuous to suggest a council shouldn't look after one of its most effective battering rams in terms of awareness of place, one of the most useful tools as a social unifier, one of the easiest ways to identity with a culture, and one of the easiest ways of control).
And still we have dancing around one another. Suppose SISU went tomorrow, some other owner should be looking seriously at a new ground so, why on earth aren't CCC calling SISU's bluff and helping them find a site? Why aren't we closing off avenues to the current owners while opening up new ones to potential future owners? Why, meanwhile, does it take the club years and years to even hint at a site for a ground, let alone do anything about it?
Why aren't we pushing all parties to move the club forward from where it is?It's maybe the time to drop the political ideologies from both sides because like it or not, both parties do indeed need one another, however much blustering they do.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
But the full analogy would have been that they were initially interested, but then told you they were not interested at all and took you to court for some related matter while telling all and sundry that they liked to "batter people in court".
If you're like me, at that point you'd probably have concluded that you wouldn't deal with them until hell froze over - and probably not even then.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I have been quite straight on this one, so don't insinuate I'm changing stance. It's ludicrous to that a party saying they're disinterested in stadium A as they're building stadium B and have moved on; won't allow that 'moving on' and lack of any negotiation to buy stadium A to 'impact negotiations in the slightest' (to buy stadium A) - which I believe was your term
It's a bit unfair to use the term 'the council' - it was probably just a few people involved - West, Mutton, Lucas and maybe one or two more.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your honesty there MMM. Let me just say, I absolutely agree that SISU handled this all incredibly poorly from the first attempt to buy into ACL through to the JR, and until the Wasps deal I can understand a lot of what the council did.
What kills me mate, what absolutely kills me, is that it's obvious to everyone here that the new stadium is hugely implausible. Surely the council could see that whatever Fisher's rhetoric, at some point over the next year or two the club would have to strike a deal with regard to ACL.
The right thing to do (imho) was exactly what the council proposed when we first got back - sit tight, build trust, watch Fisher's bananas idea unravel, and then float a negotiation based on something like the Wasps deal. Imagine the pressure on SISU in a year's time, when there's zero progress on the stadium and the Council said we're prepared to offer a very long lease and 100% of ACL for (say) £8m....
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I was out of order. Of course you not a supporter of CCC, so apologies due for that. I've got no problem with someone having a different view, but "fuller", making out that one opinion is right and one is wrong.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Now, call me old fashioned but I really CAN'T see why CCC did it. I know what you're saying that there was no knowing how long SISU were going to be here but I think we can all probably agree that they certainly won't be here forever. So, all CCC had to do was bide their time, keep hold of that golden community asset that is the Ricoh and then when new owners come along do a deal with them. Everyone's happy; the club and the stadium are united (rightfully so) and we don't have those pesky out-of-towners owning (essentially) the stadium which, the majority seem to agree (or at least publicly state on here) was/is wrong.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Well sisu ain't gone yet and looks like they won't be any time soon, so what should ccc have done with a public asset going down the swanee and with firm (Wasps) looking to buy, how long should they have waited, a few weeks ? months ? year or two ? and remember at the time we were still committed to Northampton. Yes there's fingers to be pointed all round going back to when the Ricoh was built and beyond. Our owners, if that's what sisu are had the opportunity for years to buy into the Arena and chose not to, end of.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
We were back weren't we? Ricoh and team reunited. They kept telling us that they could do quite nicely without the club if they had to but they wanted us to come home; and we did. For the sake of waiting a few more years, hell even five or six, would surely have been preferable to a franchise having ownership for 250 years?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The key point there is you say a public asset was going down the swanee, the exact opposite of what CCC were claiming. If it was indeed the case that ACL were in difficulties and needed to be offloaded it should have been put on the market, make it known to all interested parties what terms the sale is on and everyone gets to bid on that basis.
Who knows, a competitive bidding process may have seen a bigger return for CCC and Higgs. It would also have given the likes of CRFC and any other parties who would be impacted by a sale to a particular purchaser to state their case.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
This constant yawping about ccc should have done this, could have done that, might have done the other achieves little. As I see it and seemingly confirmed by our leader Tim Fisher the other day we, the football club (team) will be renting from someone should this new stadium ever happen, that tells us all we, the football club (team) would never own it's own ground and safe to assume the Ricoh. So to me it doesn't really matter now who the landlord is.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;UujO_YwaB_I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UujO_YwaB_I[/video]
Bill Glazier
Active Member
Yes I kind of think that too. They could have waited, but I suspect they wanted SISU off their backs - being sued endlessly is tiresome and, like all councils, CCC is facing massive cuts.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
It's just a shame that for the sake of a few years CCC couldn't have held their nerve. Roll on 2265.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I appreciate what you are saying, but a competitive bidding situation never materialised because SISU were not interested. They made their stance quite clear repeatedly. Despite being offered to get back round the table they declined, endorsing their intention to build their own stadium. They still maintain that is their intention and the best way forward for the club.
It is a shame everyone else can see it is not the best way forward and SISU's strategy over the Ricoh was flawed.
4waspsting
Active Member
once a c**t always a c**t
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
SISU didn't need to be interested for there to be a competitive bidding situation. For all we know there may be other parties who would have been interested in the Ricoh had it been placed on the market. Doesn't need to be a sports 'franchise' could be stadium or arena operating companies, hedge funds (a Lloyds fund has just taken over the NEC I believe).
Plus of course if it was known to be on the market there would have been huge pressure on SISU to make a bid.
To use everyone's favourite house analogy. If you wanted to sell your house you wouldn't do it in secret for a seemingly low price, you'd put it on the market and hope to attract as much interest as possible to get yourself the best price.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
but if Wasps showed intent by making an approach without it being on the market and negotiated a privacy clause that is business. My niece has just bought a house the same way, getting in before it had been put on the market. If you don't ask you don't get.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
“I’ve made it clear and it’s no secret I am prepared to talk to, and do business with, any sensible legitimate business person with any offer to make. Nothing is ruled in and I have never ruled anything out.
- Ann Lucas December 2013.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-leader-says-ricoh-6370106
Astute
Well-Known Member
So where would all the money come from for the legal bills? You know that it is my main point. There are cuts that have been made for all services. There are more cuts to come. You say that CCC should have waited a few more years. And how many have SISU been with us for now? It looks like they will stay with us until there is no way of getting money out of the situation. It looked like they wanted the arena without the outstanding loan. CCC couldn't just pay off the 14m.
So where do you say that the extra years of legal bills from the litigation SISU would have brought in their attempt to get their own way would have come from? What extra cuts should have been made? Yes a judge can award costs. But they rarely award all costs and there is no guarantee of getting costs awarded either. And this is what I meant as looking at the fuller picture. Not what is best for CCFC but the tax payer in general.
I wish that they had kept the arena for us. We are in the shit nearly as much as when HR was sold without the funds for a replacement. Or maybe more as nobody else will help us now. But why should tax payers money be used to help a hedge fund?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
People blame CCC for being liars over the state of ACL's finances and then misleading the public over the chances of the club getting a stake in ACL. They also blame CCC for deciding that moving clubs out of their traditional base is no longer a moral outrage and that hedge funds aren't so bad if they're based in Malta rather than the Cayman Islands.
These same people will also see that SISU succeeded in distressing ACL and devaluing it but did not account for Derek Richardson showing less regard for Wasps fans than Seppalla did for City fans.
duffer
Well-Known Member
"Council chief: We need time to rebuild trust before we discuss Ricoh Arena ownership"
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-chief-need-time-rebuild-7651892
Phil Townshend (Acting Leader, CCC). 21st August 2014.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The sale deal was already done by then, but I'd imagine they were bound by contract not to say anything. Clearly it would have been better to say nothing. The time to make a move was back in Dec 13, or before of course.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'd certainly agree that SISU should've moved far, far earlier to get the stadium. The best deal, imho, was the one proposed in Fisher's roadmap (as quoted in the JR at length). That would've got the club what they needed, and cleared the bloody mortgage (which is now hanging over the taxpayer, in effect).
As for Townshend - I think that's an outrage personally. I'm not anti-council, though you may not believe it, but for a Councillor to tell such a flat out lie just beggars belief for me.