An Importent point that does not get spoken enough about (1 Viewer)

[covboy1987]

The stadium was built for Coventry City fans - The people of Coventry (taxpayers) paid for this stadium -
It is my understanding that the council still own the stadium and leased it on a long lease to wasps - Therefore the council need to answer some serious questions, the main one being that terms of leasing the stadium out to anyone then main factor would be that whoever took the stadium - the football club must have a right to play there at all times as that is what the majority of taxpayers would have agreed and certainly would have insisted upon

 

---

[SkyBlueDom26]

Ann Lucas should be mainly held responsible on the councils side, traitor

 

[rob9872]

CCC only own the freehold not the stadium itself.

 

[matesx]

i cant remember who owns the stadium anymore

all a blur

 

[Nick]

There was the condition that both Wasps and CCC have contradicted about.

Strangely there's a massive silence about it.

 

[covboy1987]

CCC only own the freehold not the stadium itself.

The owners of the bricks and mortar are still owned by CCC

 

[oldskyblue58]

I can understand that point of view certainly especially after todays news

However
I think you will find very little of CCC funds went in to the build as such so the council tax payers didnt actually pay for it. Most of the money came from the sale of land to Tesco and various grants not to mention £21m from ACL

Yes they do own the freehold but they have given a 250 year lease over it which means so long as the lease terms are complied with then they can try to influence but can not dictate

There is as far as i understand no clause guaranteeing CCFC the right to play there and it can not be imposed after the fact unless Wasps agree. At the time Wasps came in OEG/SISU/Fisher etc made it quite clear they didnt want to stay long term, you couldnt have a business keeping an option open forever for a business that didnt want to stay. They have of course changed their minds apparently. There were statements given in the press and a council meeting, that legally are probably not binding, most likely not in the lease and are not specific

Are the majority of tax payers "invested" in the well being of CCFC and its right to play at the Ricoh ........... i suspect not. Would they have agreed on it or insisted on it i doubt it , most couldnt care less. One off good time crowds or cup celebrations are not really an indication of huge support but of people jumping on the band wagon then jumping straight back off

 

[Nick]

I can understand that point of view certainly especially after todays news

However
I think you will find very little of CCC funds went in to the build as such so the council tax payers didnt actually pay for it. Most of the money came from the sale of land to Tesco and various grants not to mention £21m from ACL

Yes they do own the freehold but they have given a 250 year lease over it which means so long as the lease terms are complied with then they can try to influence but can not dictate

There is as far as i understand no clause guaranteeing CCFC the right to play there and it can not be imposed after the fact unless Wasps agree. At the time Wasps came in OEG/SISU/Fisher etc made it quite clear they didnt want to stay long term, you couldnt have a business keeping an option open forever for a business that didnt want to stay. They have of course changed their minds apparently

Are the majority of tax payers "invested" in the well being of CCFC and its right to play at the Ricoh ........... i suspect not. Would they have agreed on it or insisted on it i doubt it , most couldnt care less. One off good time crowds or cup celebrations are not really an indication of huge support but of people jumping on the band wagon then jumping straight back off

If there is no condition, why would both Wasps and the Council mention it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Now because Boddy & Fisher are relying on it ? Then because trying to soften their image for a controversial deal?

It was given i believe to put a positive spin on the wasps deal. It would be interesting to see what was actually said in the council chamber but thats never going to happen no minutes were taken.

 

[rob9872]

The owners of the bricks and mortar are still owned by CCC

Errr no they're not.

 

[Nick]

Now because Boddy & Fisher are relying on it ? Then because trying to soften their image for a controversial deal?

It was given i believe to put a positive spin on the wasps deal. It would be interesting to see what was actually said in the council chamber but thats never going to happen no minutes were taken.

Even if it was complete made up nonsense, why isn't anybody pressuring them on it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

good question

 

[oldskyblue58]

who does own the stadium then ?

 

[rob9872]

who does own the stadium then ?

My understanding is that Wasps own the stadium and the leasehold on it. CCC own the freehold.

 

[chiefdave]

There is as far as i understand no clause guaranteeing CCFC the right to play there and it can not be imposed after the fact unless Wasps agree. At the time Wasps came in OEG/SISU/Fisher etc made it quite clear they didnt want to stay long term, you couldnt have a business keeping an option open forever for a business that didnt want to stay. They have of course changed their minds apparently. There were statements given in the press and a council meeting, that legally are probably not binding, most likely not in the lease and are not specific

I think this is letting the council off incredibly easy. They stated publically and clearly the sale to Wasps would not proceed if it was a risk to CCFC or CRFC. That should have been enforced in the lease and if it wasn't that should have been made clear.

For the council to essentially turn round and stick two fingers up now, even going so far as to brag how nobody pulls them up on it is not on and they should be getting far more pressure on them to explain their actions.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I know Lucas isn't popular, I am not keen. But she will only act on the advice of her senior officers, that's the Council CEO + others. It's they who you really need to look at as in some cases they have been involved in this charade for a long time.

 

[Nick]

I think this is letting the council off incredibly easy. They stated publically and clearly the sale to Wasps would not proceed if it was a risk to CCFC or CRFC. That should have been enforced in the lease and if it wasn't that should have been made clear.

For the council to essentially turn round and stick two fingers up now, even going so far as to brag how nobody pulls them up on it is not on and they should be getting far more pressure on them to explain their actions.

Which is why it is so obvious why there has been much more going on.

Again, I will let CJ correct me but I very much doubt he will.

 

[skybluepm2]

I think this is letting the council off incredibly easy. They stated publically and clearly the sale to Wasps would not proceed if it was a risk to CCFC or CRFC. That should have been enforced in the lease and if it wasn't that should have been made clear.

For the council to essentially turn round and stick two fingers up now, even going so far as to brag how nobody pulls them up on it is not on and they should be getting far more pressure on them to explain their actions.

I agree to an extent, but they certainly could/should have inserted a caveat stating that ‘if CCFC attempt to sue either us or Wasps for gazillions of pounds over the terms of the sale/freehold in future, then of course this statement regarding their safeguarding within the City is of course revoked’.

Let’s not forget that the overriding factor in all of this is that SISU have after all acted despicably throughout (and long before) the period since we returned to the Ricoh, and have been hellbent in distressing any and everyone but themselves ever since.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Dont disagree about CCC getting more pressure.

So far however i have seen nothing that makes the three "deal breakers" contractually binding on Wasps. The statement was also reported just over 2 months before SISU shifted the goal posts at least a little and started JR2. Really not about me giving CCC an easy time, I want to see something i think is enforceable. Given SISU/OEG/SBS&L/ARVO have seen all the papers in taking the JR2 on and not raised those assurances with any conviction let alone pressed them home in court.

OK so practically how are those words going to change anything if its is not contractually binding? Couldnt give a flying wotsit about the PR, what makes a difference that puts Wasps & CCC on the spot so they have to do a deal? It clearly isnt the assurances that proved to be worthless

 

[fernandopartridge]

Dont disagree about CCC getting more pressure.

So far however i have seen nothing that makes the three "deal breakers" contractually binding on Wasps. The statement was also reported three months before SISU shifted the goal posts at least a little and started JR2. Really not about me giving CCC an easy time, I want to see something i think is enforceable. Given SISU/OEG/SBS&L/ARVO have seen all the papers in takling the JR2 on and not raised those assurances with any conviction let alone in court.

OK so practically how are those words going to change anything if its is not contractually binding? Couldnt give a flying wotsit about the PR, what makes a difference that puts Wasps & CCC on the spot so they have to do a deal? It clearly isnt the assurances that proved to be worthless

It would be interesting to see the obligations attached to the application the council made for ERDF funding to build the arena in the first place, though I'd be surprised if any of these were specifically related to maintaining a home for CCFC.

 

[oldskyblue58]

It would be interesting to see the obligations attached to the application the council made for ERDF funding to build the arena in the first place, though I'd be surprised if any of these were specifically related to maintaining a home for CCFC.

Yep and i think your assumption is probably correct

 

[rob9872]

When it was originally tabled and for 'Arena 2000' I believe it had some lottery funding and some fa money as part of the 2006 World Cup bid. Did the council take the benefit of that too into the sale?

 

[skybluesam66]

so
CCFC paid for the decontamination
CCFC sourced Tesco as the partner
Coventry Council/ Higgs then financed the completion and took ownership when CCFC ran out of money
SISU then realised there was a golden opportunity, but instead of taking it they then tried to get the asset for next to nothing
Wasps sneaked in the back door , and said thank you very much - now you can all F Off

 

[rob9872]

so
CCFC paid for the decontamination
CCFC sourced Tesco as the partner
Coventry Council/ Higgs then financed the completion and took ownership when CCFC ran out of money
SISU then realised there was a golden opportunity, but instead of taking it they then tried to get the asset for next to nothing
Wasps sneaked in the back door , and said thank you very much - now you can all F Off

Other than the previous regime sold the land that Tesco etc was built on for approx. £60m and where did that go too?

 

[Pete in Portugal]

so
CCFC paid for the decontamination
CCFC sourced Tesco as the partner
Coventry Council/ Higgs then financed the completion and took ownership when CCFC ran out of money
SISU then realised there was a golden opportunity, but instead of taking it they then tried to get the asset for next to nothing
Wasps sneaked in the back door , and said thank you very much - now you can all F Off

And SISU's response to the above is JR2 which effectively questions the legality of the sale and the paying off of the council loan to ACL.
Wasps response to being named as an interested party in JR2 is to refuse to negotiate a new stadium rental agreement with the Club
And the EFL have stated that no stadium means expulsion
Next move?

 

[Captain Dart]

And SISU's response to the above is JR2 which effectively questions the legality of the sale and the paying off of the council loan to ACL.
Wasps response to being named as an interested party in JR2 is to refuse to negotiate a new stadium rental agreement with the Club
And the EFL have stated that no stadium means expulsion
Next move?

 

[Paxman II]

One of the strangest things for me was why the council gave WASP a 250 year lease?
Did they put that out to tender and allow say SISU to bid?
The council are full of uneducated clowns who can't even decipher legal advice they are given.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

One of the strangest things for me was why the council gave WASP a 250 year lease?
Did they put that out to tender and allow say SISU to bid?
The council are full of uneducated clowns who can't even decipher legal advice they are given.

Hmmm, taking aside the ethics of it all, currently it appears CCC are winning the legal battles, which suggests they've deciphered it perfectly well.

 

[stevefloyd]

Hmmm, taking aside the ethics of it all, currently it appears CCC are winning the legal battles, which suggests they've deciphered it perfectly well.

I concur

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The stadium was built for Coventry City fans - The people of Coventry (taxpayers) paid for this stadium -
It is my understanding that the council still own the stadium and leased it on a long lease to wasps - Therefore the council need to answer some serious questions, the main one being that terms of leasing the stadium out to anyone then main factor would be that whoever took the stadium - the football club must have a right to play there at all times as that is what the majority of taxpayers would have agreed and certainly would have insisted upon

Actually the stadium was built as a multi-purpose entertainment complex for the benefit of Coventry's residents, to boost the local economy and to kickstart regeneration in North Coventry. The football club were a small part of that. It was certainly not built FOR Coventry City fans.

Coventry taxpayers DIDN't pay for this stadium - the funds were raised through loans, not taken from the tax coffers. The Coventry taxpayers may well have taken the brunt if the loans hadn't been repaid. An unfortunate truth of that is that with SISU trying to effectively get the stadium for free there was a much larger chance of that happening and Coventry taxpayers losing out due to it. The sale to Wasps helped prevent that situation, as galling as it sounds.

 

[covboy1987]

Actually the stadium was built as a multi-purpose entertainment complex for the benefit of Coventry's residents, to boost the local economy and to kickstart regeneration in North Coventry. The football club were a small part of that. It was certainly not built FOR Coventry City fans.

Coventry taxpayers DIDN't pay for this stadium - the funds were raised through loans, not taken from the tax coffers. The Coventry taxpayers may well have taken the brunt if the loans hadn't been repaid. An unfortunate truth of that is that with SISU trying to effectively get the stadium for free there was a much larger chance of that happening and Coventry taxpayers losing out due to it. The sale to Wasps helped prevent that situation, as galling as it sounds.

professor Ellis Cashmore who studied the Coventry city deal wrote
The council spent £14.4m of council taxpayers’ money building the arena. So all parties were satisfied with the arrangement:

 

[Grendel]

professor Ellis Cashmore who studied the Coventry city deal wrote
The council spent £14.4m of council taxpayers’ money building the arena. So all parties were satisfied with the arrangement:

Didn’t they get £60 million back?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Sometimes, no matter how many well worded paragraphs are put together, you can read it all and only take in two or three words.

Wasps/Council apologist.

Delete as appropriate, as sadly there is a real case of Stockholm Syndrome happening in our very own city. I really cannot get my head around it.

 

[oldskyblue58]

There is a summary of the build costs and financing on the Trust website under the timeline section.

 

[robbiekeane]

Jesus who spells important wrong