SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Top banter!
Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
Top banter!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Of course.
Could buy it without owning 5% too of course. Doubt that would make much difference to the freeholders if we owned 5%... plus if it were the Wasps stadium company that went pop, that we owned 5% of, we'd be losing that money too.
The big danger, of course, is that which was mooted when the SISU vultures were circling... that Wasps rugby would fail but the stadium agreement to lease from CCC would still be valid for centuries.... so any deal could turn into the Ron Noades-esque grasp on Selhurst Park.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
We will probably find that one can't exist without the other and the Ricoh needs both.
Perhaps a little bit of doubt put into Wasps, a promotion into the championship could result in a 50 50 split on ownership as a solution for all.
Perhaps a little bit of doubt put into Wasps, a promotion into the championship could result in a 50 50 split on ownership as a solution for all.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
...in which case it's rather surprising that Wasps bid for the other 50% of the stadium when they bought in, no?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They may have thought they could go alone.
10,000 on Saturday will give them doubts maybe ?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So you reckon the less fans that go to Wasps games, the more chance that CCFC will obtain ownership of their ground in some form?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's more complicated than that as I would say attendance is a small part of there income. If they have overstretched then a secure, successful and viable CCFC may be the answer. Damn ......... I forgot about Sisu ......... forget everything I said I'm ranting.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No, he refuses to get involved in a race to the bottom.
Or "We can't have it so no one should have it" attitude.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
From a commercial point of view the worst mistake (of many bad mistakes) that SISU made IMO was leaving the Ricoh for Sixfields because we lost our anchor tenant status and what control (however small that was) of the future of the Ricoh. In one failed swoop we lost our only show in town position and opened up a free market for the Ricoh. The rest as they say is history.
Getting a foothold in the future of the Ricoh may well be a wise move however small that foothold is. Problem is our owners. They have no long term plan for our club beyond a rolling two years, who in their right mind would have get involved with SISU on something like this and most telling I don't believe that they have the financial backing to buy into the Ricoh otherwise they'd have made a serious attempt to buy it when they first arrived.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that SISU bought bonds in Wasps to hedge their bets a little.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There's no doubt that less people going to see Wasps has the possibility of loosening their grip on the Ricoh but let's not forget that Wasps attendances aren't the only revenue generator for ACL.
Even if Wasps grip does loosen it still doesn't mean SISU have the ability to catch what has been dropped.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well... here's where we go back into the circles, innit
The problem comes down to both sides seeing commercial pressures ahead of social pressures. Rent unsustainable, moving a footbll club unfathomable. THe fact no compromise was made is down to two entities choosing, or being made to choose, the financial over the social. If ever there were a reason why business should not take over sport, we're it.
However, that's all done.
It's pretty clear that yep, our owners have no long term plan. However, the best way to make us appealing for whenever they do decide to leave is to have as many options open as possible. Again, learning from the Northampton saga, the problem is whenever one side can exert a vice-like grip owing to there being 'no other option', then that means one side loses, and loses badly. *Our* options can be potential sites in and around the city for potential owners to bid for, if they see fit.
When SISU came in they did have the money, but chose to spend it on the player gamble of Premiership promotion, and the TV revenues that would bring. That, obviously, didn't work. However, hindsight shows they were right, and the stadium management company as set up was deeply unattractive, as was the price asked. Nobody paid for the company at that price.
We'll see if it's viable as-is, and how Wasps constructed it. tbh... I don't know. If anybody claims to know they're crazy. The alternative way of looking at the secrecy over the deal is that nobody else would actually want to make a deal as Wasps took it, and an open bidding process would have shown how little demand for such an asset there was, so affecting any bond issue Wasps later used.
But... who knows.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
But it was a white elephant that no one else wanted so they would be begged to return?
We tried to persuade TF and Co to talk and try and buy a percentage of the Ricoh.
All we got was no one will talk to us, we offered them our services and even wanted to put it out in the public domain about what they were telling us, they declined on both counts these offers were made every time we met.
Why we're they so reluctant?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No money for the investment. They can spank a load on legal fees because that's an operating cost, raising the revenue for a fresh investment is something altogether different is the conclusion I've come to.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
The best one to come out of these meetings was Joy saying I never realised that the rent was so high, it apparently never occurred to her to find out how much the rent was for over a year.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
tbf I could actually believe that - you delegate to someone else and only take responsibility once you realise they've ballsed up.
That doesn't, incidentally, excuse her as ultimately responsibility has to fall with the owners (they choose who to delegate to after all), but she wouldn't be the first to not realise the finer detail.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
We can't have it so no sporting club from outside of Coventry should have it.
Just to clear that up. If CRFC were there I and many others I imagine wouldn't have a problem with it. I have a problem and others have a problem with another sporting club from a different city being there. You know, a bit like when we moved to Northampton? SISU didn't have to do it, but they did and they did it for financial gain. Which is why Wasps are here, for financial gain. Yet morals and principles are out the window.....
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
So let the Ricoh rot as no team in Coventry can afford to run it ?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why do you assume that we couldn't afford to run the Ricoh? Every other team in the country seems to manage.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
It's funny really because people mention other aspects of the ricoh business when recently discussing wasps attendances and how it will support them. Yet it wouldn't support the football team? Strange
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
You need to get past attendances as a guide to income.
Sisu have already told us it is too expensive, will only take the freehold and want it unencumbered with all current clients out. I sure it's not fully the case but who would take a risk with them and how do we know ?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Sisu saying it was too expensive was proven correct wasn't it? The price quoted by the council and higgs was more than it was eventually sold for. Perhaps sisu believed they could negotiate better contracts with new clients? It's all if buts and maybes. The definitive thing for me will always remain. Wasps shouldn't be here. Irrelevant of the ricoh becoming a white elephant
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The unenbumbered line also was shown to be bullshit as well. Hotel ownership changed very shortly after the franchise showed up in town.
They could have sold a lease on. The hotel is still running. Leasehold ( sub lease ) ownership changing. I don't know the details- inform me if I am wrong, but I don't see how that effects the unencumbered bit. The whole Ricoh is leasehold over 250 years. Not far off encumbered as a whole.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I am wrong but this condition was only ever publicly declared by Anne "ACL are profitable, we neet d to build bridges, let's join Birmingham with no democratic process" Lucas was it not?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
That is what we told them to do offer to buy half or all of the Ricoh let everyone know that you have done so, and then leave the ball in the CCC court.
All we got was the usual it is not worth anything and no one will talk to us.
Yet some still believe that CCFC were destined to own it.
How when you won't even bite the bullet and speak to the then owners because you felt hard done by.
Sorry but it is a very childish way to try and run a business, we all have to speak to and occasions give into parties we don't get on with.
I have even agreed with Grendel on a couple of occasions,
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Er they did offer to buy half - the offer was rejected
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Well blame the people who voted her in....
Soon she may even rule the whole Brum area, now that would be frightening.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
What was that offer?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Two million wasn't it? That was an upfront payment - or more over 10 years.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
They said it was just an donation as it was a charity but was actually worth nothing.
Come on even you must agree you can't expect people to take you seriously when you use language like that.
It doesn't take any effort to actually speak to people in a civil manner. Unfortunately Tim made his bed and we are now paying the price.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Weren't they then asked to give guarantees on the payment over 10 years? Did they ever come back with those guarantees?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That was clearly a joke made in court not during negotiations. Fact is the charity didnt really have a say in who they sold to. The veto always applied.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
A joke. I'm sure LD used air quotes and everything.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't know. Wasn't for Higgs to decide anyway. How have wasps paid for the Higgs share? Is that up front or over several years? Do you know?
Love it how you only post now when your beloved council or even more beloved wasps are challenged by CCFC fans.