BPA Update (12 Viewers)

SkyblueBazza · Jun 19, 2016

I'm afraid that accepting anything offered by Wasps or anyone else IS becoming our only option.
Had the legal fees been invested in the club rather than the courts, & our owners been more willing to negotiate than bully - we may have been in a different situation now.
It looks as if Wasps have come in & through working with & negotiating more effectively with other parties...they have already achieved exactly what our owners were aiming to do in the first place!
Whether long term this works well for any of the interested parties remains to be seen. It certainly won't work well for our owners as everyone else is calling the shots. Long term that might be good for CCFC.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Yeah but aside from that how is he lying

Exactly!

I don't mind people saying that in their opinion they believe something.

CCFC did it in exactly the correct fashion saying yesterday that he thought some my posts came across like I only want to stay at the Ricoh.

That is fine and we can debate it and I can explain.

With Grendel he nearly always states everything as fact. He is always labeling people and always insulting people and often patronises.

So many assumptions on his part. Fine to assume something, but if someone then corrects you on that assumption and do so sincerely, then surely you should at least listen and not just ignore and keep spouting the same line.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2016

CCFC said:
Ricoh currently is not an option either, the deal is off the table as it stands.

There's two years to get it sorted yet and let's play devils advocate for a minute and assume that RFC was right all along and SISU are serious about building a new we're still going to have to get around the table with wasps because nothing is going to be ready in two years so SISU need to find a way to get back around the table and doing what the majority of fans want them to do is the easiest way to achieve that.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
Exactly!

I don't mind people saying that in their opinion they believe something.

CCFC did it in exactly the correct fashion saying yesterday that he thought some my posts came across like I only want to stay at the Ricoh.

That is fine and we can debate it and I can explain.

With Grendel he nearly always states everything as fact. He is always labeling people and always insulting people and often patronises.

So many assumptions on his part. Fine to assume something, but if someone then corrects you on that assumption and do so sincerely, then surely you should at least listen and not just ignore and keep spouting the same line.

Welcome to my world. Still waiting for a link from Sickboy for something he claimed I apparently once said when he was losing a completely different argument with me. If you can't concede the point attack the man with BS seems to be standard with certain posters.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Welcome to my world. Still waiting for a link from Sickboy for something he claimed I apparently once said when he was losing a completely different argument with me. If you can't concede the point attack the man with BS seems to be standard with certain posters.

Can't concede what point? You Otis etc. have never once demonstrated a valid reason for renting off wasps long term.

Even now you are fixating on potential capacities as if they matter.

Two facts;

Wasps don't want us

They will decide if they start negotiations again - the ball is in their court.

As for facts didn't youse some silly statement about Rotherham not being able to afford a player on 8,000 a week.

As for laughing at moving away and playing in tiny grounds for a few years if that's a recipe for failure then I guess Brighton fans are in turmoil at the state if their club.

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

CCFC said:
Ricoh currently is not an option either, the deal is off the table as it stands.

It is an option now, we are there.

When I personally talk about us only having the Ricoh I am talking about here and now, not in terms of the future.

Kingokings204 · Jun 19, 2016

Yes we are there now and the Ricoh is already built and in Cov. It's obvious we need to stay there even if it's on another 4 year deal say whilst we build or whatever.

Didn't I read last week we were talking a 20-25 year deal with wasps before negotiations halted by wasps? If true then what's does that mean.

What I don't get it surely if sisu drop legal action and we do agree this 20 year deal then surely we can all concentrate on football side of the business and no lingering action. It's a win win in my eyes. We can all finally move on.

Grendel, you just said it's a fact wasps don't want us at the Ricoh. It's your opinion fine but it certainly isn't a fact. I happen to think they would want us there. A paying customer and secured for 20 years. Don't really see why they wouldn't want that.

torchomatic · Jun 19, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Grendel, you just said it's a fact wasps don't want us at the Ricoh. It's your opinion fine but it certainly isn't a fact. I happen to think they would want us there. A paying customer and secured for 20 years. Don't really see why they wouldn't want that.

Personally, I should think they are desperate for us to stay there. They have a massive bond to pay back, crowds will most likely dwindle over the coming years and, after all, we are the premier sporting club in the city, despite was CCC et al might think.

Grendel is right when he says they won't give us any more income as they need all the cash they can get.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
It is an option now, we are there.

When I personally talk about us only having the Ricoh I am talking about here and now, not in terms of the future.

Yes that was agreed when we returned wasn't it, no one has been arguing we won't be at the Ricoh for the next two seasons.

When I say it isn't an option I mean when our current deal expires it isn't an option to stay there. Which at the moment it isn't as Wasps have walked away from negotiations.

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

CCFC said:
Yes that was agreed when we returned wasn't it, no one has been arguing we won't be at the Ricoh for the next two seasons.

When I say it isn't an option I mean when our current deal expires it isn't an option to stay there. Which at the moment it isn't as Wasps have walked away from negotiations.

Yeah, well we are talking about two slightly different things.

At the moment it is ground share outside the city or stay at the Ricoh in Coventry, so I will obviously choose the Ricoh.

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

Grendel said:
Can't concede what point? You Otis etc. have never once demonstrated a valid reason for renting off wasps long term.

Even now you are fixating on potential capacities as if they matter.

Two facts;

Wasps don't want us

They will decide if they start negotiations again - the ball is in their court.

As for facts didn't youse some silly statement about Rotherham not being able to afford a player on 8,000 a week.

As for laughing at moving away and playing in tiny grounds for a few years if that's a recipe for failure then I guess Brighton fans are in turmoil at the state if their club.

It is not a fact at all that Wasps don't want us. That is an assumption, which may prove to be correct, but it most certainly is not fact.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
Yeah, well we are talking about two slightly different things.

At the moment it is ground share outside the city or stay at the Ricoh in Coventry, so I will obviously choose the Ricoh.

The discussion is about 2 years time.

If it was a reality that could happen even an 18,000 stadium at the Butts would be better than a long term commitment to the Ricoh.

armybike · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
It is not a fact at all that Wasps don't want us. That is an assumption, which may prove to be correct, but it most certainly is not fact.

No, they definitely definitely definitely want us there and to demonstrate this have put negoations on hold.......oh, hang on a minute!

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

armybike said:
No, they definitely definitely definitely want us there and to demonstrate this have put negoations on hold.......oh, hang on a minute!

If they said they had ended negotiations that would be entirely different to saying we have suspended negotiations while the legal stuff is going on.

letsallsingtogether · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
If they said they had ended negotiations that would be entirely different to saying we have suspended negotiations while the legal stuff is going on.

And surely they will have been exhausted before the 2 years is up?
If they then continue with JR2 then that will surely kill us off....IMO

dongonzalos · Jun 19, 2016

Grendel do you have an answer yet for how you know, that Wasps have put forward a 10 year contact. That has no room for negotiation at all.
Also why are both Wasps and CCFC hiding that this has happened and are in fact stating the opposite?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 19, 2016

CCFC said:
Wasps have walked away from negotiations at the moment. As a club are we supposed to just do nothing and hope for a change of stance from Wasps and CCC or wait till SISU wise up with the legal action? The answer is obviously no, we have to now be taking progressive steps to secure the future of the club.

The club simply now have to get serious and press on with real plans to develop the Butts or to build a new stadium, to not do so would be negligent because as it stands there is no other option.

I agree. We should be pushing them to firm up plans. Surely we've learned over the years too that to push for one option and one option only is to push for strangulation anyway.

Forget the who's evil argument, we need to consider the consequence of starting too long at that light in the tunnel.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Grendel do you have an answer yet for how you know, that Wasos have put forward a 10 year contact. That's has no room for negotiation sat all.
Also why both Wasps and CCFC are hiding that this has happened and are in fact stating the opposite?

I clearly am not going to answer the first bit. Why don't you e-mail dave Armstrong and ask him if - when he met with chris Anderson - did he have a proposal to put to him regarding the conditions wasps would want to stay at the Ricoh? See what he says.

On the second point are CCFC hiding it? Anderson's statement contradicts armstrongs statement on that detail does it not?

In fact in the Q and A Armstrong himself gets confused. Armstrong says he isn't even aware that Anderson had 17 points of discussion and then later on food and beverage revenues claims that was one of the 17 points he could agree on.

The statement from Armstrong was very decisive. It was a rebuttal to the club and was almost a "what are you going to do about it?" remark.
It was significant and decisive.

Greggs · Jun 19, 2016

I'm just waiting for black and yellow seats....

Captain Dart · Jun 19, 2016

SkyblueBazza said:
It looks as if Wasps have come in & through working with & negotiating more effectively with other parties...they have already achieved exactly what our owners were aiming to do in the first place!

I don't think our owners objectives are very much like Wasps, I think they want an exit strategy that preserves their reputation as smart and tough negotiators. That plan is not going very well.

SkyblueBazza · Jun 19, 2016

Captain Dart said:
I don't think our owners objectives are very much like Wasps, I think they want an exit strategy that preserves their reputation as smart and tough negotiators. That plan is not going very well.

They came in with the same objectives.

They had to change them because of Wasps.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

Captain Dart · Jun 19, 2016

SkyblueBazza said:
They came in with the same objectives.

They had to change them because of Wasps.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

So do you think Wasps are looking for a profitable exit strategy?

WestEndAgro · Jun 19, 2016

On the back of last nights chat, any chance of a deal with Wasps seems impossable, again only passing on info but like many have said, SISU seem to have burnt the Ricoh bridge.

torchomatic · Jun 19, 2016

WestEndAgro said:
SISU seem to have burnt the Ricoh bridge.

Onto the Ricoh itself then next...

clint van damme · Jun 19, 2016

WestEndAgro said:
Just been chatting too a person who is good friends of a friend of Mr Millerchip, Cov rugby 100% want to ground share otherwise the future for Cov looks as bleak as ours, the guy I was chatting with has also pulled out from buying at the retirement village and is staying put due to the football club potentialy moving.
From what he was saying the biggest issue with the move appears to be parking

can you clarify the bit in bold mate, when you say he was going to buy at the retirement do you mean for himself to use or investing in it?

WestEndAgro · Jun 19, 2016

Oo

clint van damme said:
can you clarify the bit in bold mate, when you say he was going to buy at the retirement do you mean for himself to use or investing in it?

He was buying for himself, he had sold his house, but has since pulled out and is staying put.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
Yeah, well we are talking about two slightly different things.

At the moment it is ground share outside the city or stay at the Ricoh in Coventry, so I will obviously choose the Ricoh.

Ok so what you are arguing is for the next two years we should play where we have already agreed to play for the next 2 years.

dongonzalos · Jun 19, 2016

Grendel said:
I clearly am not going to answer the first bit. Why don't you e-mail dave Armstrong and ask him if - when he met with chris Anderson - did he have a proposal to put to him regarding the conditions wasps would want to stay at the Ricoh? See what he says.

On the second point are CCFC hiding it? Anderson's statement contradicts armstrongs statement on that detail does it not?

In fact in the Q and A Armstrong himself gets confused. Armstrong says he isn't even aware that Anderson had 17 points of discussion and then later on food and beverage revenues claims that was one of the 17 points he could agree on.

The statement from Armstrong was very decisive. It was a rebuttal to the club and was almost a "what are you going to do about it?" remark.
It was significant and decisive.

Read both Armstrongs and Andersons statements.

Neither say Wasps offered a take it or leave it deal.

The club at the moment are very keen to cry foul play and claim that they are the victim. I see no reason why Mr Anderson would hide from us that this has happened if had

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

CCFC said:
Ok so what you are arguing is for the next two years we should play where we have already agreed to play for the next 2 years.

I was unaware that some people were talking about in 2 years time.

The talk had been of destroying Wasps and getting out of the Ricoh asap. I took that as making the situation untenable now.

When I said the Ricoh is all we have I was talking about now, at this moment in time.

I have only been talking about the here and now and not 2 years down the line.

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

In saying that though, in 2 years time it is still going to be highly improbable we would have anywhere else to play, such as the Butts for instance.

Kingokings204 · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
In saying that though, in 2 years time it is still going to be highly improbable we would have anywhere else to play, such as the Butts for instance.

Exactly. In 2 years time so realistically it would have to be planned and decided way before 2 years so this time next year something will need to be sorted. Is that really enough time to get a new ground share or erect stands at the butts? Erected stands will look like the Solihull moors. So depressing

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Exactly. In 2 years time so realistically it would have to be planned and decided way before 2 years so this time next year something will need to be sorted. Is that really enough time to get a new ground share or erect stands at the butts? Erected stands will look like the Solihull moors. So depressing

It is.

As we have nowhere else to play as it stands, then surely it is both prudent and good business practice to at least sit round the table and talk about the future.

If we are so keen to get out then I would think it best to try and arrange a 5 year deal at the Ricoh. That would then give us time for the Butts or whatever.

In 2 years time we will still very much likely be in the same place as we are now.

Different owners to Sisu and then yep, maybe. But as has been asked dozens and dozens and dozens of times, do any of us believe Sisu will build a new stadium?

If we don't and they are not going anywhere, then ground sharing is the only option and it looks like it would be very much a long term venture and not a short term one.

How depressing is that.

Kingokings204 · Jun 19, 2016

Otis said:
It is.

As we have nowhere else to play as it stands, then surely it is both prudent and good business practice to at least sit round the table and talk about the future.

If we are so keen to get out then I would think it best to try and arrange a 5 year deal at the Ricoh. That would then give us time for the Butts or whatever.

In 2 years time we will still very much likely be in the same place as we are now.

Different owners to Sisu and then yep, maybe. But as has been asked dozens and dozens and dozens of times, do any of us believe Sisu will build a new stadium?

If we don't and they are not going anywhere, then ground sharing is the only option and it looks like it would be very much a long term venture and not a short term one.

How depressing is that.

Yeah I think ask most fans where realistically we will be playing in 2 years time and most will say the Ricoh.

I mean don't get me wrong I don't like the fact wasps own the stadium and have even put the negotiations on hold but my point is seriously what other options do we have.

Torch agreed with me (for once) wasps will be desperate to keep us at the Ricoh as they have essentially replaced the unviable loan before with an even bigger loan to their bond holders who certainly don't care about wasps rugby. They care about getting a return on their investment. We bring in more fans than they do in league fregin 1 by almost double. A 20-25 year agreement or wherever was mentioned is a big tick in wasps investors box I would of thought.

Otis · Jun 19, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Yeah I think ask most fans where realistically we will be playing in 2 years time and most will say the Ricoh.

I mean don't get me wrong I don't like the fact wasps own the stadium and have even put the negotiations on hold but my point is seriously what other options do we have.

Torch agreed with me (for once) wasps will be desperate to keep us at the Ricoh as they have essentially replaced the unviable loan before with an even bigger loan to their bond holders who certainly don't care about wasps rugby. They care about getting a return on their investment. We bring in more fans than they do in league fregin 1 by almost double. A 20-25 year agreement or wherever was mentioned is a big tick in wasps investors box I would of thought.

If we stay we need to make sure we remain higher profile than Wasps.

Playing in the Championship would be a good start to achieving that.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Yeah I think ask most fans where realistically we will be playing in 2 years time and most will say the Ricoh.

I mean don't get me wrong I don't like the fact wasps own the stadium and have even put the negotiations on hold but my point is seriously what other options do we have.

Torch agreed with me (for once) wasps will be desperate to keep us at the Ricoh as they have essentially replaced the unviable loan before with an even bigger loan to their bond holders who certainly don't care about wasps rugby. They care about getting a return on their investment. We bring in more fans than they do in league fregin 1 by almost double. A 20-25 year agreement or wherever was mentioned is a big tick in wasps investors box I would of thought.

We represent 1.4% of their annual revenue. I think investors would want far more than that if the club stays - or they will see us as an inhibitor.

BPA Update (12 Viewers)

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

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

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency