italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No, you miss the point.
If Wasps fail the debt goes with them and the freehold remains with CCC.
I think that's the point Italia and Mart have missed. It's OK saying "it's not a freehold" when well...a lease of 250 years...is effectively just that.
Anyone but SISU, eh?
No, you miss the point.
If Wasps fail the debt goes with them and the freehold remains with CCC.
But who has said that they preferred Wasps than SISU to have it?
I would have preferred neither to have it. CCC should have kept it until it was safe for our club to have it.
No, you miss the point.
If Wasps fail the debt goes with them and the freehold remains with CCC.
There is no evidence they asked for the freehold and not a long lease but more importantly the freehold is utterly worthless.
Wasps went for the lease - not the freehold. Wasps played soft ball. SISU played hard ball.
But surely, they aren't going to fail as they are the richest rugby club in the world and a wonderfully managed business...so...they have in effect a 250 year freehold, don't they?
Who in their right mind would allow Sisu to have a foothold in the Arena ?
An unscrupulous hedge fund that used 'our' football team in an attempt to get the Ricoh freehold.
If CCFC had 'any' different owner we would be established at the Ricoh now.
Unscrupulous hedge fund, is that Wasps or SISU? No great difference.
No one knows if SISU had got the ground whether they would have kept it, or sold it with the club. I think the latter but we will never know as anyone but SISU. Thats worked out well for CCFC.
So Seppalla never said she wanted the freehold unencumbered ?
Did it come out of the ethics meeting that SISU were happy with a 125 year lease and didn't insist on the freehold?
There is a letter to Lucas stating the offer in 2012 was for a 125 year lease which to my knowledge has never been challenged as inaccurate.
So what you're saying is then that SISU had no reason not to make a bid after being publicly invited to do so and the council leader went all the way to London to hear it. Why didn't they make a bid then? The ethics meeting as you point out shows that there was a basis for a deal that both parties were willing to work with so why no bid? Are we to believe that SISU couldn't raise the investment? Can there be another reason?
There is a letter to Lucas stating the offer in 2012 was for a 125 year lease which to my knowledge has never been challenged as inaccurate.
If Wasps fail the debt goes with them and the freehold remains with CCC.
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.
If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event.
CCC could not take the risk.
A big risk if you based it on their previous dealings with Sisu.
Sisu miscalculated big time and people need to accept that.
So, you finally admit the Council screwed a club established in the city for 130 years for a franchise because they didn't like SISU? They couldn't have waited a bit longer for a change of ownership? They were forced to give that Franchise a 250 lease, were they? SISU asked for half of that and were turned down.
So what you're saying is then that SISU had no reason not to make a bid
When were SISU turned down?
Well this is confusing. You are saying SISU werent turned down, but yet Italia says CCC wouldnt sell to SISU as too much risk, which is being turned down. So which of you two is correct?
There is a letter to Lucas stating the offer in 2012 was for a 125 year lease which to my knowledge has never been challenged as inaccurate.
Here comes the Calvary.
The only important fact is we haven't got our own stadium and there is no sign of us getting one in the near future.
you can rake the ashes as much as you like...it changes nothing.
“Joy’s door is open to Ann for further discussions. But we would have to be clear this time that it would be a discussion about stadium ownership.”
No what I'm saying is that people keep parroting the unencumbered line when there is evidence to suggest that was not a requirement.
Well this is confusing. You are saying SISU werent turned down, but yet Italia says CCC wouldnt sell to SISU as too much risk, which is being turned down. So which of you two is correct?
Well this is confusing. You are saying SISU werent turned down, but yet Italia says CCC wouldnt sell to SISU as too much risk, which is being turned down. So which of you two is correct?
Both sides do:
"I don't think we will be able to help while there is a hedge fund involved.
They won't sell even though there has been interest, because no one will pay the money they want to offset their losses. That's their own fault, there is no sympathy from local people. We won't consider selling our shares to Sisu. If we had a company we thought would take it forward we might."
I wasn't talking about the unencumbered freehold. I was asking about a leasehold and the lack of a bid for one despite SISU willing to apparently take one. So why no bid? She had the council leader in front of her in her own office and didn't make a bid. Why not? As you've pointed out yourself there was the basis for a deal but they never ever tabled a bid. Why not?
I think everyone knows the first point. Its just some people like to rake some dont. Some rake one way. Some another.
You would have to be privvy to the conversation that took place to know that. I would suspect that, as with many things, before a formal bid is tabled an informal agreement would be made.
If the meeting went something like:
Joy "We'll give you £3m for your 50% but we want the lease extended to 125 years"
Anne "No chance, we aren't selling to you"
why would that then be followed up with a formal bid? The lack of a bid can just as easily be taken as evidence that SISU knew there was no chance of a purchase as it can to form part of any other narrative.
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?