Club aims to raise £35m from bond (16 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · May 7, 2015

Moff said:
So you really believe a ground will be built in the Rugby area do you?

I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. What I do know is that building a ground outside of Coventry is very distance sensitive and if sisu (now is a good time to remember their track record on this) get it wrong it could be the final nail in the coffin for CCFC.

So if they are serious about building a ground and they give even the tiniest rats ass about CCFC they will be engaging with CCC in an attempt to either build in Coventry or assist with infrastructure to enable them to build somewhere like just the other side of the A46. I can't see how either is going to be possible if sisu and their shareholders won't talk to CCC. So either they get on with doing the right thing by the club or move on and sooner rather than later.

mattylad · May 7, 2015

Nick said:
Have a look through all of his posts, he talks in riddles and clues which is probably why when he said that it went a bit over your head. Nothing wrong with questioning him on it, if people choose to talk in riddles all the time and they leave things hanging then people will think things won't they?

Although I do agree, I am tempted to ban / mute people who are just on here for the Wasps stuff, especially if they are actually involved with the club. Like I said, if they want to use it as a PR tool then they should pay like they do everywhere else and a local charity is ideal.

In the Know strikes again!!!! Conspiracy theory over load spotted!!!!

Grendel · May 7, 2015

Noggin said:
Fine

Now I'm done. A waste of 2 mins of my life sure.

So as I said I never once implied that the bonds were bought by the council.

Moff · May 7, 2015

Noggin said:
of course it was completely childish and intentionally so, it was in response to him saying the council were in my bed, the childish response was the sensible one.

As per usual you only comment on me and not on Grendel.

He had made a false post, been called out on it and instead of responding to that acknowledging his "mistake" (actually a lie of course, Nicks was a mistake) he just said something childish, any reasonable discussion was clearly done and so I responded in kind.

Please do let me know of the other vast amount of threads I have commented on on which you and Grendel have been having a dispute? as there are obviosuly loads..'as per usual' :facepalm:

Grendel made a lame joke you made a shit one whichever way you want to dress it. I just felt like pointing it out.

torchomatic · May 7, 2015

Can't see the point really. They are still in debt, aren't they? They just owe more money to more people.

hutch1972 · May 7, 2015

torchomatic said:
Can't see the point really. They are still in debt, aren't they? They just owe more money to more people.

But they are still being touted as the no1 richest rugby club.
I would look at it as nothing more than a consolidation loan rather than the investment opportunity they have dressed it up as.
With the short space of time that this was open , did anybody seriously look at any financial aspects of it or did they plough 35 mill in to what could be a bottomless pit ?

duffer · May 7, 2015

torchomatic said:
Can't see the point really. They are still in debt, aren't they? They just owe more money to more people.

I guess the point is that the owner is off the hook for at least ten million pounds - and it gives them a bit of a lift short term. It also takes away the risk that the Council are forced to pull the plug on the ACL loan as the result of SISU's court battle.

From that point of view the owner has played a blinder here.

I don't think it makes Wasps a much safer bet long term though, they've now got a huge debt to service, alongside a rising salary cap, substantially funded by a television deal that is yet to show it's sustainable in the long term (rough viewing figures for Prem Rugby in the low hundreds of thousands per game, for Prem football, into the millions).

It's very exciting for Wasps, but I can see plenty of risks in their business model. I wonder if SISU might consider a bond issue to fund CCFC and/or a new stadium on the back of this!

duffer · May 7, 2015

hutch1972 said:
But they are still being touted as the no1 richest rugby club.
I would look at it as nothing more than a consolidation loan rather than the investment opportunity they have dressed it up as.
With the short space of time that this was open , did anybody seriously look at any financial aspects of it or did they plough 35 mill in to what could be a bottomless pit ?

Yep - as someone else has said, if you lent me £35m I could claim to be the richest man on the forum (apart from Torchy and Grendel, obviously).

However, I don't think it would really be true. And Torchy's old money anyway - all inherited and completely loaded, but still wears a scruffy jacket and the windows in the east wing leak terribly etc...

stupot07 · May 7, 2015

So if they're using ACL as security, they're saying that ACL is worth at least £35m.......that poor children's charity got completely ripped off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Noggin · May 7, 2015

stupot07 said:
So if they're using ACL as security, they're saying that ACL is worth at least £35m.......that poor children's charity got completely ripped off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

21 mill as the value of ACL will go up with the paying off of the 14mill loan, it's also secured against both wasps and ACL but yes the prospectus values the Ricoh at 40m or so.

Grendel · May 7, 2015

Noggin said:
21 mill as the value of ACL will go up with the paying off of the 14mill loan, it's also secured against both wasps and ACL but yes the prospectus values the Ricoh at 40m or so.

Not great business for the council in the end then - no early payment penalties despite your insistence that this would be inevitable.

Noggin · May 7, 2015

Grendel said:
Not great business for the council in the end then - no early payment penalties despite your insistence that this would be inevitable.

I've always thought and said that wasps got the Ricoh cheap, its you that always said it was worthless, I didn't insist an early repayment penalty would be inevitable but of course you know that, I've always thought and said the council had a good loan deal with wasps, you are the one that thought it was terrible yet the market has shown otherwise.

Grendel · May 7, 2015

Noggin said:
I've always thought and said that wasps got the Ricoh cheap, its you that always said it was worthless, I didn't insist an early repayment penalty would be inevitable but of course you know that, I've always thought and said the council had a good loan deal with wasps, you are the one that thought it was terrible yet the market has shown otherwise.

How was it a good loan deal? Ultimately they have made nothing from it. Wasn't this a central funding loan? So are they still going to have to pay interest on it?

Your frequent inference "the market has shown otherwise" is utter nonsense. This was effectively a bridging loan free of any penalties allowing wasps to re-finance as they could never afford the initial payments.

No bank on earth would allow it - only your mates in council Hq would.

James Smith · May 7, 2015

stupot07 said:
So if they're using ACL as security, they're saying that ACL is worth at least £35m.......that poor children's charity got completely ripped off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

It also means that we should have bought their share ASAP.

Grendel · May 7, 2015

James Smith said:
It also means that we should have bought their share ASAP.

For £6 million with the council still able to sell their share? I don't think that was ever likely - do you?

skybluetony176 · May 7, 2015

Grendel said:
For £6 million with the council still able to sell their share? I don't think that was ever likely - do you?

Doesn't say much for SISU's negotiating skills does it? Perhaps it was the tactics they applied? Did they ever actually approach the council about buying their share?

James Smith · May 7, 2015

Grendel said:
For £6 million with the council still able to sell their share? I don't think that was ever likely - do you?

Ah yes but if Sisu had successfully bought the Higgs share, before pissing off the council then they could have blocked any sale of the council share couldn't they?

chiefdave · May 7, 2015

James Smith said:
Ah yes but if Sisu had successfully bought the Higgs share, before pissing off the council then they could have blocked any sale of the council share couldn't they?

The council could veto any sale of the Higgs share couldn't they?

Grendel · May 7, 2015

James Smith said:
Ah yes but if Sisu had successfully bought the Higgs share, before pissing off the council then they could have blocked any sale of the council share couldn't they?

In theory yes. However as they had the controlling influence on the board no. The £1.3 million rent and no dividend policy could never change without council say so and ultimately this is why the shares in real terms were worthless.

hutch1972 · May 7, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Doesn't say much for SISU's negotiating skills does it? Perhaps it was the tactics they applied? Did they ever actually approach the council about buying their share?

The quote "when hell freezes over " springs to mind.
For all the comments AL made about offers, the statement above shows that it would have been a pointless excercise.
My personal view is that since the Marlon King issue she has been on a crusade to make sure this club gets f..k all from the council.

skybluetony176 · May 7, 2015

hutch1972 said:
The quote "when hell freezes over " springs to mind.
For all the comments AL made about offers, the statement above shows that it would have been a pointless excercise.
My personal view is that since the Marlon King issue she has been on a crusade to make sure this club gets f..k all from the council.

Ha ha. I new that would come up as an excuse for SISU. Tell me how many years did they have to approach CCC for their share before that comment was made? Hell, as I keep hearing SISU were CCC approved bidder for CCFC. Why didn't they strike when the iron was hot?

Deleted member 5849 · May 7, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
I keep hearing SISU were CCC approved bidder for CCFC.

Not from me you don't, as they weren't.

chiefdave · May 7, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Hell, as I keep hearing SISU were CCC approved bidder for CCFC. Why didn't they strike when the iron was hot?

The version of events that I've been told is that the reason SISU were CCC's favoured bidder was that they were the only bidder not insisting on ownership of the Ricoh.

Grendel · May 7, 2015

chiefdave said:
The version of events that I've been told is that the reason SISU were CCC's favoured bidder was that they were the only bidder not insisting on ownership of the Ricoh.

Same here.

Deleted member 5849 · May 7, 2015

chiefdave said:
The version of events that I've been told is that the reason SISU were CCC's favoured bidder was that they were the only bidder not insisting on ownership of the Ricoh.

Hmmm, the main public quote is that the offer was 'derisory' from SISU.

Anyway, we're successfully letting Tony deflect us.

skybluetony176 · May 7, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Not from me you don't, as they weren't.

I'm with you on this one but posters apparently more intellectual than me keep saying otherwise.

Intheknow · May 7, 2015

Grendel said:
How was it a good loan deal? Ultimately they have made nothing from it. Wasn't this a central funding loan? So are they still going to have to pay interest on it?

Your frequent inference "the market has shown otherwise" is utter nonsense. This was effectively a bridging loan free of any penalties allowing wasps to re-finance as they could never afford the initial payments.

No bank on earth would allow it - only your mates in council Hq would.

How was it a bridging loan? The loan was in place before Wasps came on the scene. Wasps merely inherited the debt. And I think the Council made Wasps pay down £1m immediately. And what are the initial payments that couldn't be afforded?

James Smith · May 7, 2015

Grendel said:
In theory yes. However as they had the controlling influence on the board no. The £1.3 million rent and no dividend policy could never change without council say so and ultimately this is why the shares in real terms were worthless.

I thought that the board was made up of two from each of the shareholders and there was an independent (the chairperson?) who was there in case of deadlock. Can't remember who said that but I'll have a look later when I get bored of the election coverage.

oldfiver · May 8, 2015

Intheknow said:
How was it a bridging loan? The loan was in place before Wasps came on the scene. Wasps merely inherited the debt. And I think the Council made Wasps pay down £1m immediately. And what are the initial payments that couldn't be afforded?

Why do you keep saying "I think" when you are "In the know" ? Perhaps you should explain how you are "In the know" - as if we didnt know?

Nick · May 8, 2015

oldfiver said:
Why do you keep saying "I think" when you are "In the know" ? Perhaps you should explain how you are "In the know" - as if we didnt know?

Because he is trying to act not in the know as if he is like the rest of us. Failing miserably, rfc does a better job.

oldfiver · May 8, 2015

Nick said:
Because he is trying to act not in the know as if he is like the rest of us. Failing miserably, rfc does a better job.

Well the whole thing has been an "act" that has been played out over about 2 years. I think it is called a tragicomedy!

hutch1972 · May 8, 2015

chiefdave said:
The version of events that I've been told is that the reason SISU were CCC's favoured bidder was that they were the only bidder not insisting on ownership of the Ricoh.

The reason the Manhattan deal was scrapped was more than likely ccc issues.
I seem to remember Paul Fletcher talking about council officials whispering like school kids whilst trying to deal with them.
They must have been trying to do a deal with the council for months before giving up.
Nobody was getting that stadium off them while they could shaft ccfc for rent. It took the fact that ACL became a loss making millstone around their neck to finally let go.
Even then they thought they were on a winner with the interest from the franchise , but how wrong were they? Ends up the whole city gets shafted.

chiefdave · May 8, 2015

hutch1972 said:
The reason the Manhattan deal was scrapped was more than likely ccc issues.
I seem to remember Paul Fletcher talking about council officials whispering like school kids whilst trying to deal with them.

Manhattan had a meeting with the council and practically ran to the airport to get back to the states never to be seen again. There was another group, who's name I can't remember, that CCC ridiculed for wanting to develop around the ground, i recall a quote from the council that 'it's not a development project'. Laughable when they then spent years going on about additional development!

There is no doubt we've had some dubious people running our club but when every one of them has the same story of what a nightmare the council were to deal with you have to wonder if there isn't some truth to it.

For whatever reason, be it SISU or a more general reason, CCC seemed absolutely determined not to let the club have ownership of the Ricoh.

ccfcway · May 8, 2015

chiefdave said:
CCC seemed absolutely determined not to let the club have ownership of the Ricoh.

and sadly today the people of coventry have voted them back in

hutch1972 · May 8, 2015

ccfcway said:
and sadly today the people of coventry have voted them back in

In some cases a labour vote is genuine but the old saying of "my father voted labour and his father before him" still rings true in this city.
I actually drink with 2 mates who are very well paid workers mainly due to tory policies from the 90s and they still vote labour.

Club aims to raise £35m from bond (16 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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