Not sure what you were trying to prove roboCCFC90. That article has been used so many times and discredited that it is now of no value at all. I refer you to later, more complete statements which again stated that SISU would only return to the RICOH as owners (No problem there) but with the conditionality that the freehold was unfettered. Its that last bit which is wholly unreasonable. They (and I guess you by your assertion) want the CCC to renege on established contracts with legitimate businesses, take the financial hit from the damages that would be accrued and then sell the cleared freehold it to SISU for peanuts. Can you please explain to me and everyone else how on earth that should be considered as either legitimate or ethical?
Yes he did MMM but I never said otherwise.
I can't blame them for talking to other parties, but how would you know that he was interested in just a share of the Arena? Were you privvy to this information, because there has never been an article that has established it was share. The added publicity of the PH4 wanting the Club and the Ricoh would have gone against Sisu, indirectly it may seem but Sisu would have seen that as a forced act of a new investor.
As I have stated on many previous statements on this forum Sisu's stadium priorities are to obtain the Ricoh, this is sensible and I agree they'd have to go about this in the correct manner and pay the market cost for it.
Whether you believe the new stadium is up to you Rusty, do I believe it? I am not sure, but do I believe they'd do it instead of going back to the Ricoh under a tenancy agreement? 100%.
This whole situation is not clear but one thing that is clear and has been stated is that Sisu will not return to the Ricoh under a tennancy agreement, for people who continue to ask "Why?" it will not happen, let it go.
I didn't know they wanted to purchase the Ricoh, when did they put their offer in? Why do they want the Ricoh when they are already starting to build a new ground, they're even deciding on what colour the seats are going to be so it must be fairly advanced, we've even seen a picture of ground (or plans as they like to call them).
As I have stated on many previous statements on this forum Sisu's stadium priorities are to obtain the Ricoh, this is sensible and I agree they'd have to go about this in the correct manner and pay the market cost for it.
Whether you believe the new stadium is up to you Rusty, do I believe it? I am not sure, but do I believe they'd do it instead of going back to the Ricoh under a tenancy agreement? 100%.
This whole situation is not clear but one thing that is clear and has been stated is that Sisu will not return to the Ricoh under a tennancy agreement, for people who continue to ask "Why?" it will not happen, let it go.
Do you think CCFC will return to the Ricoh under a rental agreement?
He could be interested in anything he wanted; but he would be unable to link ground ownership with club ownership as they're not connected - are they? He can't buy the Ricoh from CCC and by default get CCFC as they're owned by different parties; in the same way, buying CCFC from SISU (or the administrator) wouldn't grace him ownership of the Ricoh.
As long as the are paying their bills, and staying out of administration; no change of ownership, or investor could be 'foisted' upon SISU, could it; and CCC would be powerless to influence any such move?!? It's frankly farcical to suggest otherwise
You asked my why continue with the JR, I don't believe it is down to distressing ACL and I gave you my opinion on Sisu's reason for the persistance of the JR, I appreciate it's not perhaps what you wanted to hear nontheless I think this is more likely then trying to distress ACL 'dear chap'.
So you think it's not clear, but don't understand why it's hard to grasp.
When do you think they will go about it in the correct manner?
I am sure about the new stadium, it isn't going to happen. It won't generate any money for them, the interest costs on financing the build would be £1m at least, they could rent a ground cheaper than that I think. How will a new stadium generate any return for their investors.
I agree that PH4 can't obtain CCFC by default, but would of they been able to had he PH4 had the Ricoh under the Admin Saga??
Sorry whom should they put that offer into? Has that been made clear, Ann Lucas has been stating "I will get the best deal for the Taxpayers of Coventry" yet apparently it's not even CCC that Sisu need to be talking too! God give me strength! I assume your first part of your post is sarcasm, but Labo did state reently that the Ricoh remains priority (orwords to that effect)
But you're taking a view so myopic it's frankly astonishing.
The JV claims three of four points; I recall. One pertains to 'state aid', but SISU haven't tried to take Sixfield's owners to court for the £12m-worth of state aid gifted from Northampton council for redevelopment of their current home, have they? There's a claim that CCC may have 'overpaid' in buying ACL's bank debt for £14 million. But if they've 'moved on', what interest would they honestly have in whether their ex-landlord's borrowing was agreed at the correct level or not? And of course, there's there issue of 'foisted' ownership; which I've addressed above.
Do you really and honestly think one, or a collection of the above are their primary interest in pursuing the JV at their cost; or do you not think there's a slither of an ambition that proving the loan to be illegal and forcing it's roll-back, and the resultant turmoil that may cause ACL's finances might be the true ambition?
CET said:He [Fisher] added it did not exclude the possibility of Sisu buying a long leasehold, not the 50-year lease currently held by Arena Coventry Limited.
But he said the council would first have to negotiate with 50per cent ACL stakeholder, the Alan Edward Higgs Charity, who the club would no longer deal with.
I agree that PH4 can't obtain CCFC by default, but would of they been able to had he PH4 had the Ricoh under the Admin Saga?? Possibly so, a better offer on the table then what Sisu had.
It Sisu's eyes it's another public move to the contrary..
You're going to have to explain that one again; as it makes to sense to me whasoever. What are you saying?
Oh dear chap really? What in away state of form does that have to do with CCFC, Sisu or CCC?? :facepalm:
Oh dear chap really? What in away state of form does that have to do with CCFC, Sisu or CCC?? :facepalm:
Let's say PH4 had obtained the Ricoh before the Admin saga began.
So when it comes to making a serious offer during the Admin saga we had, one bloke who owned nothing (PH4), One company that owned the Club and no ground (Sisu), if PH4 had owned the Ricoh during those negotiations I think things would have been seriously interesting..
Let's say PH4 had obtained the Ricoh before the Admin saga began.
So when it comes to making a serious offer during the Admin saga we had, one bloke who owned nothing (PH4), One company that owned the Club and no ground (Sisu), if PH4 had owned the Ricoh during those negotiations I think things would have been seriously interesting..
Feck me, you're on form today. SISU has one landlord in receipt of 'state aid'. It persues a judicial review at it's own cost. It then moves to another ground, owned by another landlord in receipt of the same 'state aid', yet doesn't pursue a judicial review. Why one and not the other?
Stop being so obtuse. You know the reason.
The first question is what if SISU are successful at the JR?
There are a lot of entrenched positions. What needs to happen is for both sides to reconsider what they have said before, what looks more feasible now and move the process in the right direction which in all honesty has to be the ownership of the Ricoh Arena for the football club. Any owner of the football club would require the same.
The first question is what if SISU are successful at the JR?
shmmeee said:Why is the "right" direction the ground being owned by the club (owners) and not revenue streams?
Paxman II said:Oh I get that, but our owners have made it quite clear they want to own the ground.
shmmeee said:I still don't see how that's an argument. CCC have said they don't sell freeholds. If both of these positions are true what are Sisu still talking about the Ricoh?
Paxman said:We'll have to agree to disagree
shmmeee said:Yes. Yes we will.
Mind if I save time and type both of our posts out here:
If you have something to back that up John I'd be interested in seeing it.
The fact it's even going to full JR is mad, especially after you said it had zero chance.
Appreciate that it's one sided, but I note that it's never really been denied, and the recent actions of SISU (threatening to sue the trust, counter-claiming against Higgs, and the JR, all tend to suggest a clear strategy).
Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.
As I have stated on many previous statements on this forum Sisu's stadium priorities are to obtain the Ricoh, this is sensible and I agree they'd have to go about this in the correct manner and pay the market cost for it.
Whether you believe the new stadium is up to you Rusty, do I believe it? I am not sure, but do I believe they'd do it instead of going back to the Ricoh under a tenancy agreement? 100%.
This whole situation is not clear but one thing that is clear and has been stated is that Sisu will not return to the Ricoh under a tennancy agreement, for people who continue to ask "Why?" it will not happen, let it go.
Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been
denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.
One side has moved on has it Duffer then that side would explain this action as appropiate when moving on?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sue-northampton-town-5074046
I agree it doesn't make financial sense to be at Sixfields, but what Sisu are effectively saying is they'd rather spend £25M+ to build their own ground rather then rent a Football Ground owned by ACL/CCC/AHT and that's fair enough baring in mind that ground is Coventry, we all know that Sisu would rather purchase the Ricoh, but has that been easy? Has it heck..
Happens a lot this, doesn't it? The old "so and so said this or that and it hasn't been denied so it must be true" line gets used a lot around these parts and I've even used it myself when the Club have said something about ACL/CCC, which hasn't been denied. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't make it a lie either, I guess we'll just have to put two and two together and come up with a suitable number ourselves.
The move would make financial sense even if the club wanted to build their own ground for £25m. They'd make more money whilst they're at the Ricoh planning and building a new stadium, than being in Northampton doing it.
So, let's keep it simple. Explain why SISU won't do this?
Feck me, you're on form today. SISU has one landlord in receipt of 'state aid'. It persues a judicial review at it's own cost. It then moves to another ground, owned by another landlord in receipt of the same 'state aid', yet doesn't pursue a judicial review. Why one and not the other?
Except he wasn't on the scene. Haskell wasn't even a figure until March last year. A full 3 months after ACL had a court order for the rent to be paid.
The "admin sage" started the day Sisu made it clear publically they are willing to liquidate the club and privately when they decided to stop paying the rent.
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?