lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
A difference though to things said for public consumption and things said in private though.
Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (34 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
A difference though to things said for public consumption and things said in private though.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Stop making excuses for SISU. There was clearly a deal to be done because Wasps have clearly done one.
AL kept her word. SISU never came forward with an offer and Wasps did. Guess what happened next.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
AL wrote a note saying he'll would freeze over before selling to sisu
Keeping her word isn't her strength.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Did she? I thought someone else wrote the note?
thegameaintstraight
New Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Someone else called Anne?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
The biggest difference is, one organisation got further in seven months of determined negotiation than another organisation got in seven years of dicking around negotiation. Some people achieve things because they are just easier to deal with and probably have the money required to hand.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Read the words I've highlighted Huckerby. Sisu playing dirty but by your own admission, it was a bad rent deal.
Some seem to overlook the fact that it was the council/ACL who set the 'bad rent deal' in the first place, effectively, screwing the club.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Maybe she thought hell would freeze over before SISU had any sensible business people, so there was some consistency.
The clubs owners haven't said they made an offer, so the hypothesis that CCC wouldn't sell to SISU was seemingly and sadly never tested. Obviously SISU have made statements along the lines that they wouldn't do the deal wasps did anyway, and if they didn't make an offer when invited in Dec 13, then I guess that is the more likely situation.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure the club were originally offered a sliding scale rent deal but MM insisted on paying the same rent as we were paying at HR after we sold it. Could be wrong but I'm sure it was something along those lines.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
It just seems strange it took so long to realise it was. Perhaps they should have tried to buy sooner. Perhaps their biggest fault was negotiating something then within days going back on it and trying to drive the deal down.
As I have said previously, what they said on Tuesday was worthless by Thursday...that was before they left for Northampton.
they then took a stance of we will build our own and the Ricoh is a bad business deal.
It is amazing how many people said the Ricoh was worthless. And now sore as hell Wasps have got it.
Others always saw the potential and know Wasps will make a success of it.
SISU cocked up, now us and SISU have to move on.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The rent was too high. If it was a more reasonable figure then the club would maybe have around £5m less debt, and all would be good.:sarcasm:
Unless of course the rent was only a small part of the clubs problems, but the best lever SISU had to get some of their investors money back.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
To not accept the rent was to high makes you look foolish.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The sliding scale also had us paying a lot more than £1.2m a year on some points of the scale.
As for the rent being the same as at HR you need to read very carefully what was said about that. It was actually set as the same as the final rent at HR, negliting to mention that the final rent at HR included huge penalties for being late in moving out and therefore delaying the development. And of course whilst paying that rent the club was losing millions a year so hardly an indication it was a sustainable rent.
Yes MM did agree it but a) he was clueless and b) if he didn't we had nowhere to play.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading when he went on about fucking renting a house.
Never see it as you pay a fortune to rent a house off somebody, you're only allowed in it 20 odd days a year, though you get stung with the Council Tax for the whole place each year. They then sublet it to other people the rest of the year, making money from them, plus making money from any of your mates that visit by making them eat and drink supplied by them.
You try to get the rent reduced, but they won't initially, and still want to make your mates eat and drink their products and keep all the profits.
Eventually, after not paying rent for a bit, though still paying running costs and letting them sell your mates refreshments, they come up with a better offer, but then apply to make you bankrupt!
You can't afford the big flash place, so have to downgrade and move 35 miles away, much to your landlords disgust at such an act.
Eventually, after a year away, you both realise that you've been hurting each other, so get together and agree to come back at a much reduced rent than was on offer, even offering the possible opportunity to buy the place off them once trust built up mutually again.
A couple of weeks later they've sold the roof from under your head to somebody from 80 miles away for less than you've paid in rent.
House analogies, shit aren't they?
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
To not read my first five words makes you look foolish.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Had a customer who it turned out was a Wasps fan a few weeks ago, he spotted my Keep Coventry in Coventry wristband and asked if I was a fan. He said he'd heard a rumour around the time of the press conference that they'd approached the (two faced) council and were "very keen to get their hands on the Ricoh as soon as possible". He had been to the first game and said that he liked the stadium but not the fact that it was in Coventry. He hasn't been to a game since and doesn't agree with moving further from London. When I asked who'd given him the info he said it was a mate who was normally reliable but that it was still just a rumour. Said he knew just how we felt in Sixfields and why we were so pissed off with Sisu over that. The only way he was going to games in Coventry was if he was invited to them.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Thanks to the court case we now know the details when and why that fell apart.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Bloody depressing thought that.
When we were at Sixfields I didn't think we would go back to the Ricoh and I thought the only way back to our city was a new stadium. I fear that the only way we will ever be free of Sisu is with a new stadium and or someone with more money than sense.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
The council were hypocritical in saying that it was wrong for Sisu to be taking the club away from our supporters to Northampton and then selling to Wasps who were doing just that.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I find it amazing how certain people constantly make so much out of a note that was written whilst ignoring the fact that Fisher kept saying that they were only interested in the unencumbered freehold and wondering why CCC didn't offer SISU the same deal as Wasps had negotiated. Wasps didn't ask for the unencumbered freehold. They didn't get the unencumbered freehold offered to them. Fisher was going to keep our football club in Northampton until they got the unencumbered freehold or they built a new stadium. But it is all the fault of CCC because someone wrote a note
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I find it amazing how certain people constantly make so much out of a note that was written whilst ignoring the fact that Fisher kept saying that they were only interested in the unencumbered freehold and wondering why CCC didn't offer SISU the same deal as Wasps had negotiated. Wasps didn't ask for the unencumbered freehold. They didn't get the unencumbered freehold offered to them. Fisher was going to keep our football club in Northampton until they got the unencumbered freehold or they built a new stadium. But it is all the fault of CCC because someone wrote a note
I find it amazing how certain people can keep going on about Sisu only wanting the unencumbered freehold, when it isn't true at all.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So SISU took our club to Northampton saying that they would only come back if they owned the arena. Fisher kept going on about the unencumbered freehold. White elephants and risk to the tax payers. But none of it was true and it is all the fault of CCC?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
They shouldn't have kept saying it then.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It was a joke. Fisher the little scamp, always joking. He's the life and soul of any party.
Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
TATA and JLR will buy shortly, deal with Wasps owner being sorted.
Buy what? Stadium naming rights? New factory in Ansty? Or the Stadium? And..... How do you know?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Just looked at this again. You certainly well worded your reply.
So what else were they after on top of the unencumbered freehold?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
That's an easy one, they would be prepared to accept a restriction free lease, it doesn't seem such a thing exists though.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Do we own the Arena then or are we not back?
Bit confused, because obviously it must be one or the other then?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Exactly, SISU don't do what they say and don't make any sense.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Playing dirty? I think you need reminding of this article, you either didn't see it or FUCKING IGNORED IT.
The acting leader of Coventry City Council has not ruled out the Sky Blues owning the Ricoh Arena in the future in the future.
Weeks of secret negotiations have led to the club agreeing to return to the stadium on a temporary agreement for up to four years.
While both parties have indicated that could be extended, club officials insist they eventually need to own a stadium.
Speaking after the Telegraph broke news of the Sky Blues Ricoh Arena return, Coun Phil Townshend said time was needed for trust to be rebuilt before looking at the potential of the council agreeing a deal for ownership of the Ricoh Arena with the club.
He also refused to say whether the new agreement included a clause which gave the club preference on buying the Ricoh.
He said: “The terms of the agreement between the club and ACL are commercially confidential. I’m optimistic and looking forward to seeing the club back playing there.
“As for the future, I think we should take one day at a time and not get ahead of ourselves and use this period to rebuild trust.
“All parties concerned need to learn to open doors the door for one another as opposed to allowing it to slam in other people’s faces.
“There’s been too much personal criticism in the past. A conciliatory approach is in the best interests of all parties concerned.”
Coun Townshend also said he believed the fans had played a role in bringing the club back to Coventry.
He said: “The fans made a difference. They have shown a committed dedication to trying to get the club playing back at the Ricoh where they should play.
“They have maintained their campaign throughout and they have kept the issue in the public eye.
“They have been one of the key pressure points in bringing the people involved to the table.”
Coun Townshend also said the return of the club was good for the entire city. “It’s difficult to find words to describe how pleased I am,” he said.
“Credit must go to all those involved in negotiations which have been difficult at times.
“If the football club is successful, the Ricoh is successful and the city is successful.
“The club will be paying rent, providing jobs and will make the Ricoh a more powerful sporting location.”
The acting leader of Coventry City Council has not ruled out the Sky Blues owning the Ricoh Arena in the future in the future.
Weeks of secret negotiations have led to the club agreeing to return to the stadium on a temporary agreement for up to four years.
While both parties have indicated that could be extended, club officials insist they eventually need to own a stadium.
Speaking after the Telegraph broke news of the Sky Blues Ricoh Arena return, Coun Phil Townshend said time was needed for trust to be rebuilt before looking at the potential of the council agreeing a deal for ownership of the Ricoh Arena with the club.
He also refused to say whether the new agreement included a clause which gave the club preference on buying the Ricoh.
He said: “The terms of the agreement between the club and ACL are commercially confidential. I’m optimistic and looking forward to seeing the club back playing there.
“As for the future, I think we should take one day at a time and not get ahead of ourselves and use this period to rebuild trust.
“All parties concerned need to learn to open doors the door for one another as opposed to allowing it to slam in other people’s faces.
“There’s been too much personal criticism in the past. A conciliatory approach is in the best interests of all parties concerned.”
Coun Townshend also said he believed the fans had played a role in bringing the club back to Coventry.
He said: “The fans made a difference. They have shown a committed dedication to trying to get the club playing back at the Ricoh where they should play.
“They have maintained their campaign throughout and they have kept the issue in the public eye.
“They have been one of the key pressure points in bringing the people involved to the table.”
Coun Townshend also said the return of the club was good for the entire city. “It’s difficult to find words to describe how pleased I am,” he said.
“Credit must go to all those involved in negotiations which have been difficult at times.
“If the football club is successful, the Ricoh is successful and the city is successful.
“The club will be paying rent, providing jobs and will make the Ricoh a more powerful sporting location.”
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We all saw it. We also heard the comments from TF at around the same time say the return was short term as SISU were pressing ahead with building there own stadium, we've narrowed it down to 2 sites, blah, blah, blah. You either didn't see it or FUCKING IGNORED IT.
I guess CCC decided to take him at his word and sell to someone who did want it while the oppurtunity was there,
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And there we have it: It was all SISU. If the Council lie to the club and to the fans then it's not their fault. It's all the club that at fault. Doesn't matter that they were publically saying that we could own it while privately negotiating with another team. It's still the clubs fault.
This is what pisses me off. I would say EVERY fan blames SISU and knows what they did but only a very small percentage seem to be able to read that article and get angry about it. Truly baffling.
This is what pisses me off. I would say EVERY fan blames SISU and knows what they did but only a very small percentage seem to be able to read that article and get angry about it. Truly baffling.