Appeal granted (11 Viewers)

torchomatic said:

And with the threads you tend to frequent you're fooling nobody.

Click to expand...

A) Zzzzzz. You're becoming as boring as Nick

B) Am I wrong? I think we both know I'm not.

C) Talk on plenty of other threads thank you. In fact we had a brief and pleasant conversation on the thread about where our fan base is from over the weekend did we not? When you confirmed my views on Southam having a strong sky blue following. So I'm not really sure what you're point is in the first place. Maybe you're not fooling anyone either and your purpose is just to cast aspersions at anyone who has anything negative to say about our owners.

oucho said:

Off topic - look what I saw the other day!!! View attachment 8041

Click to expand...

Did it have a bitter aftertaste?

skybluetony176 said:

A) Zzzzzz. You're becoming as boring as Nick

B) Am I wrong? I think we both know I'm not.

C) Talk on plenty of other threads thank you. In fact we had a brief and pleasant conversation on the thread about where our fan base is from over the weekend did we not? When you confirmed my views on Southam having a strong sky blue following. So I'm not really sure what you're point is in the first place. Maybe you're not fooling anyone either and your purpose is just to cast aspersions at anyone who has anything negative to say about our owners.

Click to expand...

I'm here to support Coventry City as I have for the last 45 years. Nothing I or anyone does or says will get rid of SISU, They will go when they want. They will do what they want. All the protests in the world won't make a difference. A million posts on a forum won't make a difference.

Best thing to do would be to ignore them and go and support the eleven players on a Saturday. It's the only power we have.

skybluetony176 said:

Did it have a bitter aftertaste?

Click to expand...

Haha - I was going to add "I was surprised it wasn't bitter" but thought that'd be a bit harsh......after all, it's very clearly German wheat beer.

oucho said:

Off topic - look what I saw the other day!!! View attachment 8041

Click to expand...

That spooky as I got this in my inbox this morning so as well as having a pint of Grendel slipping down your throat you can have him in your ears as well!

King of the Lesbians said:

View attachment 8042
That spooky as I got this in my inbox this morning so as well as having a pint of Grendel slipping down your throat you can have him in your ears as well!

Click to expand...

.....(shudders).....

oucho said:

Off topic - look what I saw the other day!!! View attachment 8041

Click to expand...

There is no way I'm touching that

dongonzalos said:

Actually a victory years ago Every time. A minimal payout is better than nothing. Any victory is better than absolute defeat, Wasps arriving, moving out and losing half your fan base. Your reputation for battering people in court in tatters.
Paying the other sides expenses and pretty much having every possible door closed in your face.
SISU would take absolutely any victory at all in any guise that they could attach a compensation claim to, without any doubt.
To suggest otherwise is a desperate man who has been found out to be wrong yet again and is desperately trying to cling onto something that nobody else believes.
Just for once in your life man up and say yes I got it wrong again......
The Ricoh wasn't a white Elephant that nobody else would move to.
Tim Fisher wasnt bluffing when he said we were going to move out.
We should have done a deal right back at the beginning to buy ACL and not tried to put them out of business.
There was no smoking gun.
Abd now SISU are not taking legal action hoping to lose it.

You sir are a joke the only person you may be convincing is yourself and I am not entirely sure about that

Click to expand...

If you genuinely believe they'd take a victory with a minimal payment you are even more of a clown than I have you credit for.

Their reputation is built around their present strategy - a minimal payment and victory would be far far more damaging

You also are another one that doesn't understand the term White Elephant either by the way.

torchomatic said:

I'm here to support Coventry City as I have for the last 45 years. Nothing I or anyone does or says will get rid of SISU, They will go when they want. They will do what they want. All the protests in the world won't make a difference. A million posts on a forum won't make a difference.

Best thing to do would be to ignore them and go and support the eleven players on a Saturday. It's the only power we have.

Click to expand...

So am I. That's why I speak out about the party who has done the most damage to CCFC and continue to do so. That adds up as a CCFC fan. What doesn't add up is your attitude to fans like me.

Grendel said:

If you genuinely believe they'd take a victory with a minimal payment you are even more of a clown than I have you credit for.

Their reputation is built around their present strategy - a minimal payment and victory would be far far more damaging

You also are another one that doesn't understand the term White Elephant either by the way.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is that you think that they'll have a choice of how the course runs and what the outcome will be.

Their self appointed reputation is not built around what they're doing now. They haven't battered anyone in court. Just the opposite in fact.

If you don't realise that you don't understand what the term clown means.

Grendel said:

If you genuinely believe they'd take a victory with a minimal payment you are even more of a clown than I have you credit for.

Their reputation is built around their present strategy - a minimal payment and victory would be far far more damaging

You also are another one that doesn't understand the term White Elephant either by the way.

Click to expand...

White elephant = another time Grendel got it wrong and can't admit it. You also said nobody else would buy ACL the Ricoh will be left empty. Try deflect to the precise definition of white elephant instead all you like.
You keep getting it wrong and as usual can't admit it. It's laughable

dongonzalos said:

White elephant = another time Grendel got it wrong and can't admit it. You also said nobody else would buy ACL the Ricoh will be left empty. Try deflect to the precise definition of white elephant instead all you like.
You keep getting it wrong and as usual can't admit it. It's laughable

Click to expand...

What's the meaning then? Tell me.

Grendel said:

What's the meaning then? Tell me.

Click to expand...

You say the words 'I got it wrong again' first.
Then I will play your deflect off topic gabe where you focus on the term white elephant and not what you said. (That you got wrong)

torchomatic said:

And with the threads you tend to frequent you're fooling nobody.

Click to expand...

Well that's a shit arguement.....

Grendel said:

If you genuinely believe they'd take a victory with a minimal payment you are even more of a clown than I have you credit for.

Their reputation is built around their present strategy - a minimal payment and victory would be far far more damaging

You also are another one that doesn't understand the term White Elephant either by the way.

Click to expand...

Ah white Elelephant when have I heard that before?

dongonzalos said:

You say the words 'I got it wrong again' first.
Then I will play your deflect off topic gabe where you focus on the term white elephant and not what you said. (That you got wrong)

Click to expand...

I'm not wrong though am I? Unlike you I didn't say that;

- the Ricoh on its previous lease was worth £60 million - it was worth nothing
- the Higgs share was worth £10 million - it was worth nothing
- Higgs would be reported to the charity commission for selling below £6.7 million

The Higgs share was utterly worthless - even you can't slide away from that one.

The management company was worthless on its restricted lease - utterly worthless. The strange thing is you keep defending the dear old council yet they made them sell before the lease extension so I assume depriving them of £22 million.

The loan against the stadium made it a white elephant from day one and it terms of commercial viability it still is. It's got £35 million bunged against it now in case you haven't noticed.

this thread cant be far off heading into the graveyard "ricoh row / politics / sisu section" forum can it ?

Ironically, if Nick moved all of this stuff to the section he kindly set up to accommodate it, the PR campaign by specific accounts on here wouldn't be noticed and we would be back to having a go at players who have played 6 times for us

Grendel said:

I'm not wrong though am I? Unlike you I didn't say that;

- the Ricoh on its previous lease was worth £60 million - it was worth nothing
- the Higgs share was worth £10 million - it was worth nothing
- Higgs would be reported to the charity commission for selling below £6.7 million

The Higgs share was utterly worthless - even you can't slide away from that one.

The management company was worthless on its restricted lease - utterly worthless. The strange thing is you keep defending the dear old council yet they made them sell before the lease extension so I assume depriving them of £22 million.

The loan against the stadium made it a white elephant from day one and it terms of commercial viability it still is. It's got £35 million bunged against it now in case you haven't noticed.

Click to expand...

£35M.
Leicester are looking at spending £25M just to add an extra 10,000 seats.
You expect the whole ground for a fraction of that.

Shame our owners never had the forward thinking thier owners have.

Oh well maybe in a parallel universe they get something right.

Sky Blue Kid said:

View attachment 8035 Watch out guys.... Grendel and Fernandopartridge have joined the Grammar police!

Click to expand...

The real Grammar Police.

Grendel said:

I'm not wrong though am I? Unlike you I didn't say that;

- the Ricoh on its previous lease was worth £60 million - it was worth nothing
- the Higgs share was worth £10 million - it was worth nothing
- Higgs would be reported to the charity commission for selling below £6.7 million

The Higgs share was utterly worthless - even you can't slide away from that one.

The management company was worthless on its restricted lease - utterly worthless. The strange thing is you keep defending the dear old council yet they made them sell before the lease extension so I assume depriving them of £22 million.

The loan against the stadium made it a white elephant from day one and it terms of commercial viability it still is. It's got £35 million bunged against it now in case you haven't noticed.

Click to expand...

If worthless why did Wasps and Sisu both want it so bad?
Sisu have spent millions in court because they want desperately the white elephant as you call it!

skybluetony176 said:

So am I. That's why I speak out about the party who has done the most damage to CCFC and continue to do so. That adds up as a CCFC fan. What doesn't add up is your attitude to fans like me.

Click to expand...

Because you do both support CCFC and oppose the owners it makes you a poor supporter in their eyes.
I too don't get it, so they keep saying support the lads fucking hell you hardly miss game.
oh yer sorry that is when the DIY is finished

letsallsingtogether said:

£35M.
Leicester are looking at spending £25M just to add an extra 10,000 seats.
You expect the whole ground for a fraction of that.

Shame our owners never had the forward thinking thier owners have.

Oh well maybe in a parallel universe they get something right.

Click to expand...

They don't know how lucky they are !!! :banghead:

dongonzalos said:

White elephant = another time Grendel got it wrong and can't admit it. You also said nobody else would buy ACL the Ricoh will be left empty. Try deflect to the precise definition of white elephant instead all you like.
You keep getting it wrong and as usual can't admit it. It's laughable

Click to expand...

No one else wanted it I remember that one...
Well boom Sisu also believed that ( maybe G was their advisor) and now look what we have got.

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT said:

They don't know how lucky they are !!! :banghead:

Click to expand...

Oh they do.

Grendel said:

What's the meaning then? Tell me.

Click to expand...

You didn't ask me but it is this:
A gift that is a burden, something not easily disposed of.
A thing that is useless and no longer needed, although it may have cost a lot of money

letsallsingtogether said:

Because you do both support CCFC and oppose the owners it makes you a poor supporter in their eyes.
I too don't get it, so they keep saying support the lads fucking hell you hardly miss game.
oh yer sorry that is when the DIY is finished

Click to expand...

It's all finished now but I'm going to do it all again so I have an excuse not to go still

letsallsingtogether said:

Oh they do.

Click to expand...

Yeah your right and they keep rubbing it in !!! :banghead:

Astute said:

They have to follow procedure. It has nothing to do with how much they like each other. SISU have said that they have new evidence from 'experts'. So that is enough to get the appeal to try and get JR2 on the road. If they look closely at what the 'experts' say it could end there. But if there is any doubt then JR2 will begin. Nothing to do with the judges and their personal thoughts.

But to win JR2 SISU will have to come up with evidence that is against everything known. Higgs, CCC, SISU and Wasps all valued it at about what Wasps paid. The legal teams that worked on the sale would have double checked everything.

Yes it might be valued much higher now. But now is not the question. It is when it was unused. And the football club it was built for were never going back to it. Now there are two sporting clubs using it. Nothing to do with the regard the judges have with each other.

Click to expand...

Which kinda echoes my point...in response to a posting about judges not wanting to offend each other.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Hobo said:

You didn't ask me but it is this:
A gift that is a burden, something not easily disposed of.
A thing that is useless and no longer needed, although it may have cost a lot of money

Click to expand...

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Grendel said:

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Click to expand...

£6M more than you would have taken for it. Like I keep pointing out to you the value was in the exclusive right to extend the lease. On that basis it couldn't have possibly been a white elephant because there was a ready made solution available.

Grendel said:

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Click to expand...

As others have already explained there are other factors to take into consideration.

If it was a "white elephant" in SISU's eyes they would have walked away, glad that Wasps had took it on and then cracked on building their own stadium.

Grendel said:

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Click to expand...

A long lease to use and maintain the facilities was sold not the stadium itself or the land on which it stands.

Grendel said:

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Click to expand...

Except that isn't the case is it. The shares in ACL sold for £6m not the freehold land and property that cost £110m - two very different things. The leases give ACL rights to be there but the legal ownership of the freehold land & property is still with CCC. The council sold the two leasehold interests for a total of £22m

the origins of the expression "white elephant" can be found here White elephant - Wikipedia

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam, now Thailand, were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value. (Oxford English dictionary)


- Clearly CCC were able to dispose of some of its rights and to retain ownership. Have CCC ever wanted to dispose of the freehold?
- The stadium doesn't & didn't cost the owner CCC any maintenance. The cost of maintenance of the stadium is not what drags Wasps figures down or indeed ACL before its sale
- was it expensive to build compared to other stadia?
- is it unused? Usage of the whole site seems to be well above the levels when if first opened even before Wasps came in, and has increased further since
- does it have a value? ( all sorts of things to consider in that one) Depends if you look at what CCC value their rights over the site or what Wasps do. CCC include their ownership at £nil because of the long leases and had spent mainly grant plus ACL lease premium and Tesco land sale monies on the construction. Whilst leases are in place little value but little cost to the owner CCC. Wasps value their long lease interest at £60m largely based on the site activity. Also CCC would argue that the site has value in addition to monetary, eg social and community values etc.
- clearly at least two obvious parties were interested in acquiring some sort of interest in the stadium, we are told there were more than that over the years

Sorry G not sure I agree with your assessment of white elephant, it doesn't seem to fit the definition I have

Grendel said:

So something that cost £110 million and sold for £6 million?

Click to expand...

And is now valued at about 30m more.

It didn't cost 110m to build. A big chunk was for decontamination of the land. Because of this about half of the total costs were covered by selling some of the decontaminated land. Then amongst other things there was the infrastructure changes. None of this is a part of what the lease is for.

oldskyblue58 said:

Except that isn't the case is it. The shares in ACL sold for £6m not the freehold land and property that cost £110m - two very different things. The leases give ACL rights to be there but the legal ownership of the freehold land & property is still with CCC

the origins of the expression "white elephant" can be found here White elephant - Wikipedia

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam, now Thailand, were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value. (Oxford English dictionary)


- Clearly CCC were able to dispose of some of its rights and to retain ownership. Have CCC ever wanted to dispose of the freehold?
- The stadium doesn't & didn't cost the owner CCC any maintenance. The cost of maintenance of the stadium is not what drags Wasps figures down or indeed ACL before its sale
- was it expensive to build compared to other stadia?
- is it unused? Usage of the whole site seems to be well above the levels when if first opened even before Wasps came in, and has increased further since
- does it have a value? ( all sorts of things to consider in that one) Depends if you look at what CCC value their rights over the site or what Wasps do. CCC include their ownership at £nil because of the long leases and had spent mainly grant plus ACL lease premium and Tesco land sale monies on the construction. Whilst leases are in place little value but little cost to the owner CCC. Wasps value their long lease interest at £60m largely based on the site activity. Also CCC would argue that the site has value in addition to monetary, eg social and community values etc.
- clearly at least two obvious parties were interested in acquiring some sort of interest in the stadium, we are told there were more than that over the years

Sorry G not sure I agree with your assessment of white elephant, it doesn't seem to fit the definition I have

Click to expand...

I think you have pulled down 'G' pants there!!

oldskyblue58 said:

Except that isn't the case is it. The shares in ACL sold for £6m not the freehold land and property that cost £110m - two very different things. The leases give ACL rights to be there but the legal ownership of the freehold land & property is still with CCC. The council sold the two leasehold interests for a total of £22m

the origins of the expression "white elephant" can be found here White elephant - Wikipedia

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam, now Thailand, were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, building project, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered expensive but without use or value. (Oxford English dictionary)


- Clearly CCC were able to dispose of some of its rights and to retain ownership. Have CCC ever wanted to dispose of the freehold?
- The stadium doesn't & didn't cost the owner CCC any maintenance. The cost of maintenance of the stadium is not what drags Wasps figures down or indeed ACL before its sale
- was it expensive to build compared to other stadia?
- is it unused? Usage of the whole site seems to be well above the levels when if first opened even before Wasps came in, and has increased further since
- does it have a value? ( all sorts of things to consider in that one) Depends if you look at what CCC value their rights over the site or what Wasps do. CCC include their ownership at £nil because of the long leases and had spent mainly grant plus ACL lease premium and Tesco land sale monies on the construction. Whilst leases are in place little value but little cost to the owner CCC. Wasps value their long lease interest at £60m largely based on the site activity. Also CCC would argue that the site has value in addition to monetary, eg social and community values etc.
- clearly at least two obvious parties were interested in acquiring some sort of interest in the stadium, we are told there were more than that over the years

Sorry G not sure I agree with your assessment of white elephant, it doesn't seem to fit the definition I have

Click to expand...

Be careful OSB58, you might get the "Mickey" taken for using the (OED)