Butts Park ruled out (4 Viewers)

[Captain Dart]

Why was the football club not offered a similar deal to a club from London? If it had been a football team moving into the city would you feel the same way?

It was up to the club to negotiate the deal, why do you (and others) constantly imply it was up to ACL/CCC/Higgs to make an offer to CCFC, previous attempts failed miserably.
Besides which you very well know most deals of this magnitude include would a non disclosure agreement between the negotiating parties.

 

---

[oucho]

So if say Belfast invited to sisu to move there and the FL sanctioned it and they start getting crowds of 20,000 plus you’d be getting the champagne out again.

After all there is clearly in your eyes nothing morally wrong with that.

Not sure i understand that analogy.....but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh. It was the only realistic solution to keep the Ricoh out of Sisu's hands which, after they reneged on the lease, was exactly what they deserved.

 

[Grendel]

The club wasn't bankrupted by the Ricoh deal. With a rent if just over £1m a year, club was making losses of over £6m a year. The rent deal was fair and reasonable. Sisu tore up a valid lease and the deserve all the consequences they get for that unforgivable act.

The rent deal was not fair and reasonable.

It was not based on any averages at all - or was based on paying a mortgage so the council could play business games.

Fair and reasonable implies a similar rent to competitors

Here are some examples of competitors at the time

Swansea - nil
Hull -£54,000
Ipswich - £115,000
Forest - I believe similar to Ipswich

At the time these were all council owned grounds

Despite having one of the highest average crowds we had the lowest revenues. We weren’t allowed even access to train on it.

So how do you calculate it to be fair and reasonable?

 

[skybluetony176]

Two the council WANTED them here - Gidney introduced Ranson as the preferred bidder

Why do you continue with this nonsense? I’ve supplied two links to direct quotes now dismissing your false claim, one from Ranson and one from then council leader Ken Taylor which completely dismiss your rewriting of history. Sisu did want a share in ACL and no they weren’t the preferred bidder. If you read the article and quotes it actually reads that from the councils point of view there wasn’t a preferred bidder. In fact they seemed very dismissal of every bid from Manhattan to SISU to Shapiro to Robinson’s consortium that never was. You’d also have to say with hindsight they were right. All were a shower of shit chancers.

 

[skybluetony176]

None of that is ccfc bias - it’s just bullshit.

Corrected that for you.

 

[chiefdave]

The rent deal was not fair and reasonable.

Just think if we'd seen out the contract and taken up the offer to buy access to matchday only revenue we'd have paid out £74m to take us up to 2055. Wasps paid £7m and have it until 2255. How anyone can claim that is fair or the football club got similar treatment to Wasps is beyond me.

but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh.

Jesus christ, so you were perfectly happy with us going to Sixfields and would have no problem if SISU moved us away permanently I assume.

 

[oucho]

The rent deal was not fair and reasonable.

It was not based on any averages at all - or was based on paying a mortgage so the council could play business games.

Fair and reasonable implies a similar rent to competitors

Here are some examples of competitors at the time

Swansea - nil
Hull -£54,000
Ipswich - £115,000
Forest - I believe similar to Ipswich

At the time these were all council owned grounds

Despite having one of the highest average crowds we had the lowest revenues. We weren’t allowed even access to train on it.

So how do you calculate it to be fair and reasonable?

Competitors rent is irrelevant. The rent had to take account of what it cost the council to finish the Ricoh. The payback period was more than reasonable on that basis, as is shown by the fact no private investor would touch it with a bargepole. We would never have got better terms elsewhere. Tearing up the lease was a despicable act of bad faith. Thete was no justification for doing so, no matter how much you try to excuse it.

 

[oucho]

Jesus christ, so you were perfectly happy with us going to Sixfields and would have no problem if SISU moved us away permanently I assume.[/QUOTE]

No, that was Sisu's fault. We weren't kicked out of the Ricoh, we brought it all on ourselves by trying to vankrupt ACL

 

[Nick]

Not sure i understand that analogy.....but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh. It was the only realistic solution to keep the Ricoh out of Sisu's hands which, after they reneged on the lease, was exactly what they deserved.

This is the sort of weird shit that trips you up. Will await your view if we ever get moved.

Go on about you having no links and priorities yet being the only one to go on about cracking open bubbly about a court case.

It's strange you have such strong feelings for a city you keep saying you have no links to?

 

[chiefdave]

Competitors rent is irrelevant. The rent had to take account of what it cost the council to finish the Ricoh.

A) that's complete crap, the rent should be set at a fair level not some arbitrary figure dreamt up by the council.
B) how does the amount payable in rent over the term of the contract compare to the amount put in to the project by CCC?

 

[oucho]

This is the sort of weird shit that trips you up. Will await your view if we ever get moved.

Go on about you having no links and priorities yet being the only one to go on about cracking open bubbly about a court case.

It's strange you have such strong feelings for a city you keep saying you have no links to?

I have strong feelings about right and wrong, that's all. Just because i am Cov fan doesn't mean i don't want to see Sisu get their just desserts from the actions they have taken.

 

[oucho]

A) that's complete crap, the rent should be set at a fair level not some arbitrary figure dreamt up by the council.
B) how does the amount payable in rent over the term of the contract compare to the amount put in to the project by CCC?

The rent WAS set at a fair level. With the mortgage interest and other charges to take into account over the payback period, the rent was commercially reasonable.

To be honest, it seems like you're tryong to imply the breaking the lease, which kicled off the whole thing, was justifiable. It wasn't.

 

[Nick]

I have strong feelings about right and wrong, that's all. Just because i am Cov fan doesn't mean i don't want to see Sisu get their just desserts from the actions they have taken.

So you celebrate all court cases then? There must be lots of bubbly opened.

 

[Nick]

The rent WAS set at a fair level. With the mortgage interest and other charges to take into account over the payback period, the rent was commercially reasonable.

To be honest, it seems like you're tryong to imply the breaking the lease, which kicled off the whole thing, was justifiable. It wasn't.

That's like saying payday loans to a single mum with no other option is fair.

The rent clearly wasn't commercially reasonable, hence it was probably up there with the most expensive in the country in all the leagues for what we got.

Why not extend the lease and take pressure off acl and rent lower?

 

[Grendel]

The rent WAS set at a fair level. With the mortgage interest and other charges to take into account over the payback period, the rent was commercially reasonable.

To be honest, it seems like you're tryong to imply the breaking the lease, which kicled off the whole thing, was justifiable. It wasn't.

Reasonable to what?

You stated to pay the council back. You are aware that the council cost was £10 million? The charge against ACL was not risk exposure st all to the council so I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

The other point of course is ACL struggled to have real value due to a crippling low lease set by your chums at the council which meant the loan funding was higher due to risk exposure.

Was that not the councils fault?

 

[dongonzalos]

Do people still think it was about the rent level?

 

[Grendel]

Do people still think it was about the rent level?

Why we had to sell to sisu (which is what ACL we’re pushing for) - 100% yes

 

[dongonzalos]

A long term rent deal was never going to be agreed upon abd still won’t be any time soon.
Only short term deals at a level that would put financial pressure on a ACL.
Or even better we move out abd pay not rent at all to ACL.
That was what was happening. Getting a better rent deal was not the agenda.

 

[Grendel]

A long term rent deal was never going to be agreed upon abd still won’t be any time soon.
Only short term deals at a level that would put financial pressure on a ACL.
Or even better we move out abd pay not rent at all to ACL.
That was what was happening. Getting a better rent deal was not the agenda.

You’ve totally ignored my point and fact that ACL wanted sisu here as sisu only wanted to be here for a short term period.

 

[dongonzalos]

You’ve totally ignored my point and fact that ACL wanted sisu here as sisu only wanted to be here for a short term period.

You are totally ignoring the point that the rent strike and breaking the lease was never truely about the rent level.

 

[skybluetony176]

You’ve totally ignored my point and fact that ACL wanted sisu here as sisu only wanted to be here for a short term period.

It’s bullshit. Try reading the links I’ve provided. The more you repeat this nonsense the more ridiculous you look and the less you can be taken seriously.

 

[Grendel]

You are totally ignoring the point that the rent strike and breaking the lease was never truely about the rent level.

That’s not the discussion though is it and in truth if it was a normal commercial organisation that wanted the club for the long term that would be the discussion as it made the club worthless compared to other more suitable buyers.

 

[torchomatic]

but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh.

Jesus, the hypocrisy on here is literally breathtaking.

 

[Liquid Gold]

No, that was Sisu's fault. We weren't kicked out of the Ricoh, we brought it all on ourselves by trying to vankrupt ACL

Wasps weren't forced from Wycombe. You talk about having a strong sense of right and wrong but to oppose one club being moved from it's home and support another is staggering hypocrisy.

 

[bawtryneal]

It is irrelevant whether the rent was "fair" or not. CCFC signed the agreed terms and should have negotiated an escape clause or relegation clause or whatever at the beginning of the deal.
It should have included car parking, pie money etc etc
Blame who you like, McGinnty, Ranson etc but SISU should have done proper due diligence when they bought CCFC
Whatever it is in life, don't agree or sign something if you cannot afford to pay it back.
To compare the deal to a "pay day loan" is nonsense.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Your house is up for sale(At least the lease is) interested party says I tried it out and left and won't be coming back, so you sell to someone else. The first interested party moans like f**k.... What do you say?.. Oh yes!...F**k off, you didn't want it!

 

[Grendel]

It is irrelevant whether the rent was "fair" or not. CCFC signed the agreed terms and should have negotiated an escape clause or relegation clause or whatever at the beginning of the deal.
It should have included car parking, pie money etc etc
Blame who you like, McGinnty, Ranson etc but SISU should have done proper due diligence when they bought CCFC
Whatever it is in life, don't agree or sign something if you cannot afford to pay it back.
To compare the deal to a "pay day loan" is nonsense.

If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.

Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.

Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.

Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.

Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.

There's a word for this, what is it now?.......

 

[Grendel]

There's a word for this, what is it now?.......

It’s called insolvency where outgoings exceed incomings.

 

[skybluetony176]

If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.

Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.

Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.

You talk so much shit.

So if councils are not expected to recoup every penny what’s JR2 about?

Again. The council leader described SISU’s offer as derisory (link already provided). You do know what derisory means don’t you? I’ll give you a clue. It doesn’t mean preferred or to apply pressure.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

It’s called insolvency where outgoings exceed incomings.

I prefer to call it "A Trump out"..... Knowingly taking on a contract with no intention of paying up. Which is what Donald Trump did to small businesses by declaring the "Arm of his business" bankrupt... Sound familiar?
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

 

[bawtryneal]

If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.

Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.

Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.

All your comment above is completely irrelavant.
CCFC agreed a deal with the council. I might agree that the arrangement was onerous but that is not the point.
CCFC accepted the deal and should have honoured it or negotiated a different deal.
Of course, SISU plan was to distress ACL and didn't plan on Wasps being in the background.