Alternatives (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

Astute said:
And why have SISU always said that all trust has been lost in CCC so any new stadium will not be in Coventry?

I have said all along that it is because if they are not serious it would be harder to hide the fact. And every comment that comes out makes it look the most likely reason.

Again though, what SISU do or don't do in this instance is largely irrelevant.

There are two downright disturbing ways in which, either consciously or unconsciously, they've shaped the discourse. Firstly, we now talk in terms of investment and return, we take as a given that anybody owning a football club looks to take money out of it.

Secondly, we decide SISU won't build any other new ground, so we immediately oppose the very concept of a new ground.

We may very well end up in the future with investors looking for a return by pumping cash into the Ricoh. But it's not the only way. Making it the only way makes us vulnerable to predators of all persuasions.

duffer · Jan 26, 2015

Steve.B50 said:
Could SISU not buy into the Ricoh?
Say offer £10m for 20%, get free rent and all match day revenue, build a relationship with the owners and even have someone on the ACL board.
Surely £10M is much less than a new stadium out of the City where the vast majority of fans will not support.
Less of a risk, they could start to show how strong the club be, maybe have an option to buy more of Stadium in future.
Rather than compete with Wasps work with them get involved in other revenues.

Probably get shouted down, just an idea.

Why would you offer £10m for 20% of something that's just been sold to Wasps in it's entirety for around £6m? Are you saying the council have undersold ACL by over £40 million here?

Tell you what Steve, how about this. You've made some contact with Wasps - why don't you ask them what they'd be willing to sell to the club, rather than throwing around random figures?

I'd love to know if they're genuinely willing to talk about selling part of ACL to the club, and it's something that the trust should be active in finding out about. Once we know how willing they are to become true partners with the club, maybe we can put some pressure on CCFC to cut a deal. Until then all of the talk of partnership is just that, talk...

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

Agree with this. I said the other day that the Trust should question Wasps as they were already in contact with the Trust but I got some sarcastic response.

duffer said:
Why would you offer £10m for 20% of something that's just been sold to Wasps in it's entirety for around £6m? Are you saying the council have undersold ACL by over £40 million here?

Tell you what Steve, how about this. You've made some contact with Wasps - why don't you ask them what they'd be willing to sell to the club, rather than throwing around random figures?

I'd love to know if they're genuinely willing to talk about selling part of ACL to the club, and it's something that the trust should be active in finding out about. Once we know how willing they are to become true partners with the club, maybe we can put some pressure on CCFC to cut a deal. Until then all of the talk of partnership is just that, talk...

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 26, 2015

duffer said:
Why would you offer £10m for 20% of something that's just been sold to Wasps in it's entirety for around £6m? Are you saying the council have undersold ACL by over £40 million here?

Tell you what Steve, how about this. You've made some contact with Wasps - why don't you ask them what they'd be willing to sell to the club, rather than throwing around random figures?

I'd love to know if they're genuinely willing to talk about selling part of ACL to the club, and it's something that the trust should be active in finding out about. Once we know how willing they are to become true partners with the club, maybe we can put some pressure on CCFC to cut a deal. Until then all of the talk of partnership is just that, talk...

Obviously the figures he's suggested are bollocks but he does have a general point, we should be trying to buy into the Ricoh and benefit from it. It's unknown if Wasps would be willing to do such a deal (unlikely imo) but Fisher pretty much ruled it completely out anyway in the meeting by saying they don't want to take on half liability of the loan or something like that. So even in Wasps were open to it at a reasonable price it doesn't sound as if the club would be interested in it anyway.

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

To be honest, I hope that we play in a stadium that just says COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB. I don't want any other clubs' logos or insignia on it. If Wasps were so open to the idea then I would have thought we could have bought it from Higgs, but Wasps,CCC, Higgs and ACL decided to stitch us up.

CCFC said:
Obviously the figures he's suggested are bollocks but he does have a general point, we should be trying to buy into the Ricoh and benefit from it. It's unknown if Wasps would be willing to do such a deal (unlikely imo) but Fisher pretty much ruled it completely out anyway in the meeting by saying they don't want to take on half liability of the loan or something like that. So even in Wasps were open to it at a reasonable price it doesn't sound as if the club would be interested in it anyway.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

torchomatic said:
To be honest, I hope that we play in a stadium that just says COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB. I don't want any other clubs' logos or insignia on it. If Wasps were so open to the idea then I would have thought we could have bought it from Higgs, but Wasps,CCC, Higgs and ACL decided to stitch us up.

You don't mention SISU in your Cast-Of-Characters with any blame?!? :facepalm:

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

I was talking about the 50% share of the stadium. Not the catalogue of other fuck-ups. They would obviously be on that list with the others. I mentioned all your favourites though.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You don't mention SISU in your Cast-Of-Characters with any blame?!? :facepalm:

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

torchomatic said:
I was talking about the 50% share of the stadium. Not the catalogue of other fuck-ups. They would obviously be on that list with the others. I mentioned all your favourites though.

I think if you take off those rose-tinted glasses, there's some culpability they can shoulder for the 50%. Not that you would wish to see any bad in your favourites

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 26, 2015

torchomatic said:
To be honest, I hope that we play in a stadium that just says COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB. I don't want any other clubs' logos or insignia on it. If Wasps were so open to the idea then I would have thought we could have bought it from Higgs, but Wasps,CCC, Higgs and ACL decided to stitch us up.

Really, so if CCFC and CRFC joined up to build a new stadium in which we would ground share you would be against it?

Putting aside my feelings for Wasps, if we could stay at the Ricoh on a suitable deal (not rent) which financially allowed us to have a realistic chance of one day returning to the premier league I'd be fully behind it. I think its unlikely Wasps would be open to it and from our point Fisher seems to have completely ruled it out anyway.

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

CRFC? No, that would be fine. Franchisers? Nope, let them sink or swim on their own. I can't see Wasps - a loss making company remember - would be happy to hand over income to a pesky football club.

CCFC said:
Really, so if CCFC and CRFC joined up to build a new stadium in which we would ground share you would be against it?

Putting aside my feelings for Wasps, if we could stay at the Ricoh on a suitable deal (not rent) which financially allowed us to have a realistic chance of one day returning to the premier league I'd be fully behind it. I think its unlikely Wasps would be open to it and from our point Fisher seems to have completely ruled it out anyway.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 26, 2015

torchomatic said:
CRFC? No, that would be fine. Franchisers? Nope, let them sink or swim on their own. I can't see Wasps - a loss making company remember - would be happy to hand over income to a pesky football club.

Ok just asking as you said you don't want any other clubs logos or insignia on it.

If there was an opportunity to stay at the Ricoh alongside Wasps which suited the club would you be for or against it?

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

CCFC said:
and from our point Fisher seems to have completely ruled it out anyway.

Again though, ultimately irrelevant.

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

For it. However, we would have to do something about the "kipping on a mates' sofa" feeling you get at the Ricoh. It ain't ours, never has been ours and never will be ours. Looking at all those hideous insects makes the feeling of attending even more soul destroying.

CCFC said:
Ok just asking as you said you don't want any other clubs logos or insignia on it.

If there was an opportunity to stay at the Ricoh alongside Wasps which suited the club would you be for or against it?

torchomatic · Jan 26, 2015

Of course they are all to blame. However, I don't think CCFC can be held responsible for the "The Club gets first refusal" fiasco. They stitched us up. Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I think if you take off those rose-tinted glasses, there's some culpability they can shoulder for the 50%. Not that you would wish to see any bad in your favourites

stupot07 · Jan 26, 2015

CCFC said:
Obviously the figures he's suggested are bollocks but he does have a general point, we should be trying to buy into the Ricoh and benefit from it. It's unknown if Wasps would be willing to do such a deal (unlikely imo) but Fisher pretty much ruled it completely out anyway in the meeting by saying they don't want to take on half liability of the loan or something like that. So even in Wasps were open to it at a reasonable price it doesn't sound as if the club would be interested in it anyway.

The thing is, if they wanted to be partners in the stadium they could have sold the 50% stake straight onto us when higgs rejected it......but as we know wasps always wanted 100% and would have vetoed anyway.

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

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jan 26, 2015

stupot07 said:
The thing is, if they wanted to be partners in the stadium they could have sold the 50% stake straight onto us when higgs rejected it......but as we know wasps always wanted 100% and would have vetoed anyway.

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

I agree but its still disheartening and angers me to hear Fisher say effectively they have no wish to own 50% of the Ricoh.

stupot07 · Jan 26, 2015

CCFC said:
I agree but its still disheartening and angers me to hear Fisher say effectively they have no wish to own 50% of the Ricoh.

Yep, I would rather they said they were but that it's il unlikely that wasps will want to sell up.

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

Astute · Jan 26, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Again though, what SISU do or don't do in this instance is largely irrelevant.

The future of our football club is at stake. How can you call something as important as this irrelevant?

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

Astute said:
The future of our football club is at stake. How can you call something as important as this irrelevant?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Astute · Jan 26, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Are you deliberately missing the point?

Are you deliberately sidestepping the point or is it only the points that you see as important that are relevant?

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

Astute said:
Are you deliberately sidestepping the point or is it only the points that you see as important that are relevant?

Nope, you just seem to have spectacularly misread the entire point of this thread.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

torchomatic said:
Of course they are all to blame. However, I don't think CCFC can be held responsible for the "The Club gets first refusal" fiasco. They stitched us up. Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree.

SISU are hugely responsible/accountable in this regard. Didn't they move the non-transferable option elsewhere within the CCFC myriad of companies? You can't move a non-transferable asset. It was declared as an asset elsewhere, in other accounts, meaning it wasn't where it should be; and therefore no 'option' existed within the company that was meant to hold it. I mean, that is what happened, isn't it? This is a clear, legal situation.

Did ACL/CCC/Wasps/Higgs move that asset?

I expect - like before when you've been asked to comment on this, you'll go all quiet; pretend it didn't exist - like the damning JR - and then come back shamelessly spouting the same line in a few days time

(Further the question of ownership of the Option agreement has been made ambiguous by the Joint Liquidators. They claim both that it is the right of the liquidators of CCFC Ltd exclusively to exercise their option to buy and also that the Option was sold to Otium in 2013 out of the Administration of CCFC Ltd . Further, the Option has been reported in the annual accounts of the Sisu company that owns Otium, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as an asset (valued at £1m). To be absolutely clear the Option was expressly stated to be non-assignable without the express consent of the Trustees, which consent has not been asked for or given. The Trustees were reluctant to enter this morass of conflicting spurious claims)

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

None of this helps us moving forward though. What we have going forward are a number of possibilities, but in among them is not an option for part of a stadium management company, at a formula price.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
None of this helps us moving forward though. What we have going forward are a number of possibilities, but in among them is not an option for part of a stadium management company, at a formula price.

Surely, there's two options old lad. Build the stadium as is claimed by Fisher, or settle down to life as a tenant with cloth cut accordingly. If the latter, I wonder if all revenues are lost; or whether any inspired by, or driven by CCFC could be subject to a 'splitting' agreement with the landlord. We are where we are though. In a crappy place, to be frank

tisza · Jan 26, 2015

has Fisher ever said the club will build and own the stadium? I've only seen statements from him that a company will own the stadium and the club would have the opportunity to "access" more revenue streams.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

tisza said:
has Fisher ever said the club will build and own the stadium? I've only seen statements from him that a company will own the stadium and the club would have the opportunity to "access" more revenue streams.

No, as far as I'm aware this issue has been raised previously; and there's no confirmation that the stadium and the football club would be under entirely common ownership. I would, however, expect that if this were the case, then it would be shouted from the rooftops. Accordingly, draw whatever (logical) conclusion from this as you wish...

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Surely, there's two options old lad. Build the stadium as is claimed by Fisher, or settle down to life as a tenant with cloth cut accordingly. If the latter, I wonder if all revenues are lost; or whether any inspired by, or driven by CCFC could be subject to a 'splitting' agreement with the landlord. We are where we are though. In a crappy place, to be frank

They're the obvious options as we stand. Not the only ones however. To bowdlerise Holmes however, there are plenty of other options which, however seemingly unlikely, are still possible.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
They're the obvious options as we stand. Not the only ones however. To bowdlerise Holmes however, there are plenty of other options which, however seemingly unlikely, are still possible.

Oh yes; like branding us The Sky Blues (is a Waspy drop the London bit of a shuffle); moving us to Nene Park and hoping the folk of Kettering/Corby/wherever buy into it? Empty stadium, access to revenues, etc.

Ouch...

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

Fortunately(?) Nene park is no longer an option:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-30732497

Good model of what to do with the Ricoh rather than sell to Wasps or CCFC mind

chiefdave · Jan 26, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Surely, there's two options old lad.

Think there's a third option which is the best way forward, possibly the only way forward if we want any chance of success in the future, but very much depends on Wasps. 50/50 ownership of the Ricoh would be ideal, or at least the best we could hope for from where we are now. Work with Wasps, shared ticketing, shop etc. Look into shared training facilities. Sure there's efficiencies that can be made if the two work together. Equal branding across the stadium and everyone, or at least as near as we'll ever get to everyone, is happy.

As you say the other options are build are own stadium which I don't think is financially viable and will leave us with huge debt for years to come or with someone else owning the stadium and us paying rent. Or we stay as tenants with little or no access to revenues consigning us to, at best, occasional seasons in the championship.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 26, 2015

chiefdave said:
Think there's a third option which is the best way forward, possibly the only way forward if we want any chance of success in the future, but very much depends on Wasps. 50/50 ownership of the Ricoh would be ideal, or at least the best we could hope for from where we are now. Work with Wasps, shared ticketing, shop etc. Look into shared training facilities. Sure there's efficiencies that can be made if the two work together. Equal branding across the stadium and everyone, or at least as near as we'll ever get to everyone, is happy.

As you say the other options are build are own stadium which I don't think is financially viable and will leave us with huge debt for years to come or with someone else owning the stadium and us paying rent. Or we stay as tenants with little or no access to revenues consigning us to, at best, occasional seasons in the championship.

I think a cooperation with Wasps like you cite above would work a treat. There's certainly lessons on marketing and the match day experience to be learned from them. However, they're not going to give up any ownership they now have. Just can't see it. From a Wasps perspective it'd be madness - unless they got into trouble; which right now couldn't be further from reality.

Unless that's SISU's only fall back now; trim costs to a minimum to mitigate losses, litigate in the hope of an unlikely windfall ad hope Wasps fail giving a window to partial or full ownership?!?

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 26, 2015

chiefdave said:
Think there's a third option which is the best way forward, possibly the only way forward if we want any chance of success in the future, but very much depends on Wasps. 50/50 ownership of the Ricoh would be ideal, or at least the best we could hope for from where we are now. Work with Wasps, shared ticketing, shop etc. Look into shared training facilities. Sure there's efficiencies that can be made if the two work together. Equal branding across the stadium and everyone, or at least as near as we'll ever get to everyone, is happy.

As you say the other options are build are own stadium which I don't think is financially viable and will leave us with huge debt for years to come or with someone else owning the stadium and us paying rent. Or we stay as tenants with little or no access to revenues consigning us to, at best, occasional seasons in the championship.

...a fourth option that sees Wasps go to the wall, and an even cheaper purchase price available for said stadium next time around...

tisza · Jan 26, 2015

i just don't see wasps wanting to work with SISU. There isn't much in SISU's history that makes it seem an attractive partner. they don't seem to have any interest in making the football club successful. they have achieved next to nothing in 7 years of running the club. they have a history of being combative and litigious.
this isn't an anti-sisu rant as such just an opinion on how they must look to outsiders.

chiefdave · Jan 26, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
However, they're not going to give up any ownership they now have. Just can't see it. From a Wasps perspective it'd be madness - unless they got into trouble; which right now couldn't be further from reality.

Agree with you. Now that it's all been handed over to them its going to be very difficult for us to get a stake even if we pay a premium for it. The only thing we could do in the short term is hope public pressure might push Wasps to sell however they have been welcomed with open arms so even that is a non starter.

Deleted member 5849 said:
...a fourth option that sees Wasps go to the wall, and an even cheaper purchase price available for said stadium next time around...

Indeed but we could be waiting years for that to happen while SISU keep running the club in the manner they are now.

Alternatives (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency