SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Top banter!
Always good to put a face to a shirt !!
If if they fail in the future and club own part of the stadium we could bid to take it over. I used to own 5% of my company 15 years ago, I now own it outright due to poor management.
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.
...in which case it's rather surprising that Wasps bid for the other 50% of the stadium when they bought in, no?
They may have thought they could go alone.
10,000 on Saturday will give them doubts maybe ?
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?
Italia get shown up for the hypocrite he is....yet again.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.....
So let the Ricoh rot as no team in Coventry can afford to run it ?
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
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
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.
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.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
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,
Well blame the people who voted her in....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?
What was that offer?Er they did offer to buy half - the offer was rejected
What was that offer?
They said it was just an donation as it was a charity but was actually worth nothing.Two million wasn't it? That was an upfront payment - or more over 10 years.
Two million wasn't it? That was an upfront payment - or more over 10 years.
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.
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.
Weren't they then asked to give guarantees on the payment over 10 years? Did they ever come back with those guarantees?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?