Council meeting for Mark and I (11 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Esoterica

Esoterica

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
I hope Mark has him in a headlock while Pete teabags him
Click to expand...
Pete's had weeks to teabag Mark if he wants to and although he's lost a bit of weight over the last 12 months there's no way he'd manage it while in a headlock. Focus should be on the council.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Senior Vick from Alicante said:
CCC is full of people that are trying to do there best but like all public bodies 30% of the workforce swing the lead. 80% are under paid and grossly over worked, management scared to manage people out so just let it drift. Some good councilor's but certain individuals are there to further there own business portfolios. Until someone on the inside with a passion for the club takes a stand the council will just ignore it and let it drift along. But then you get what you vote for, if we're voting for anti-Semitic left wing children like Zara Sultana then we as a city will always be at the back of the queue. I know the club is not bigger than the city's public services but it's woven into the lives of most of us and that needs to be respected by the elected idiots at least, they should not be in a position to adversely influence what effects a privately owned business and it fucking stinks.
Click to expand...

Zarah Sultana isn’t a councillor. She’s an MP.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Philosorapter said:
Let's hear what they say first and go from there.


Just to clarify what was said at the sale of the Arena.


-----


Council leader Ann Lucas, said the Labour party insisted on three ‘deal-breakers’ before agreeing to back the move.


She said it must allow continued regeneration of the north east of the city, allow Coventry City FC to remain at the stadium and must not disadvantage the city’s existing rugby team - Coventry Rugby Club.


She said: “The Ricoh is a much-loved community asset that every one of us is proud of.


“No one here has ever been prepared to sell the Ricoh Arena or the leasehold unless we can be completely satisfied our original aims can be met and include a home for the football club.


“We have always had the interests of the people of Coventry, taxpayers and local residents at the heart of any decision about future ownership of the stadium or ACL.


“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club.

www.coventrytelegraph.net

Wasps' £20m Ricoh Arena takeover deal approved unanimously by CCC

Premiership rugby club have been given the green light to complete a 100 per cent takeover of the stadium
www.coventrytelegraph.net www.coventrytelegraph.net


-------

There is a collective responsibility for all council members to do what they actually said.

The four-year limit that has recently been put on this is complete bollocks.

The tacit consent that the people have given to council members to just carry on and do just what they like is probably coming to an end.

They do deserve a right of reply to recent events though first.
Click to expand...

As always the four year thing has taken on a life of its own. The four years related to the existing lease deal that was struck when we first came back. There’s a separate condition apparently on new lease deals going forward that relies on Wasps and CCFC agreeing “commercial terms”. I posted about this a while ago. It’s probably worded loose enough to be worthless, but would be good to get sight of the exact wording as both Wasps and CCFC have intimated in statements that commercial terms were agreed and the holdup is not commercial.
 
shepardo01

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Did he not mention it on CWR this morning? Assumed as he said he was on after 8am with Phil Upton and started tweeting after that it was what had been discussed on the show.
Click to expand...
I think he did. But again, who did it hit?
For maximum ccfc coverage, and to get the info out to those who maybe don't read into things a little bit, think it would be more worthwhile to get him on to a couple of phone-ins??? Dunno.... seems that when he finally starts doing some investigative journalism, it seems a little wasted that it won't go past a slot on CWR ...
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
As always the four year thing has taken on a life of its own. The four years related to the existing lease deal that was struck when we first came back. There’s a separate condition apparently on new lease deals going forward that relies on Wasps and CCFC agreeing “commercial terms”. I posted about this a while ago. It’s probably worded loose enough to be worthless, but would be good to get sight of the exact wording as both Wasps and CCFC have intimated in statements that commercial terms were agreed and the holdup is not commercial.
Click to expand...
That's the point isn't it? The four years was never mentioned until we were at Birmingham and all of a sudden the council were claiming their previous statements only applied to that initial 4 year lease. It's clearly nonsense as CRFC were mentioned alongside CCFC, "this deal would not have happened if it threatened the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club".
 
Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
As always the four year thing has taken on a life of its own. The four years related to the existing lease deal that was struck when we first came back. There’s a separate condition apparently on new lease deals going forward that relies on Wasps and CCFC agreeing “commercial terms”. I posted about this a while ago. It’s probably worded loose enough to be worthless, but would be good to get sight of the exact wording as both Wasps and CCFC have intimated in statements that commercial terms were agreed and the holdup is not commercial.
Click to expand...

There's an agreement here not necessarily made between the council and wasps but with the people of Coventry and the council that the sale of the Arena was made in everyone's, including CCFC's interests. Whether it's a legal agreement or not is beside the point.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Philosorapter said:
There's an agreement here not necessarily made between the council and wasps but with the people of Coventry and the council that the sale of the Arena was made in everyone's, including CCFC's interests. Whether it's a legal agreement or not is beside the point.
Click to expand...

I mean that sounds lovely, but what does it mean in reality? That Wasps have to accept whatever terms Sisu suggest? Is that a viable request? I’m not sure anyone could ever make such a promise. It’s got to be codified at some point.
 
Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I mean that sounds lovely, but what does it mean in reality? That Wasps have to accept whatever terms Sisu suggest? Is that a viable request? I’m not sure anyone could ever make such a promise. It’s got to be codified at some point.
Click to expand...

Well lets see what is said first.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
That's the point isn't it? The four years was never mentioned until we were at Birmingham and all of a sudden the council were claiming their previous statements only applied to that initial 4 year lease. It's clearly nonsense as CRFC were mentioned alongside CCFC, "this deal would not have happened if it threatened the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club".
Click to expand...

It doesn’t only apply to the four year lease, it applies to any subsequent lease that’s my point.

The problem is in reality what can such a clause look like? It can only exist really if it has a “commercial terms” clause in it. Which can be exploited by both sides.

The council seem to have put in the best they could in reality. But as I keep saying, no one can force two private entities to agree terms against their will.

If Wasps were asking for £10m rent then they’d probably be in breach of their lease, but they’re not. They’re asking for Sisu to stop trying to reverse the Ricoh sale. Which probably makes it outside of any clause put in.

But it would be nice to see the text of the clause. Could be an angle.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
It doesn’t only apply to the four year lease, it applies to any subsequent lease that’s my point.

The problem is in reality what can such a clause look like? It can only exist really if it has a “commercial terms” clause in it. Which can be exploited by both sides.

The council seem to have put in the best they could in reality. But as I keep saying, no one can force two private entities to agree terms against their will.

If Wasps were asking for £10m rent then they’d probably be in breach of their lease, but they’re not. They’re asking for Sisu to stop trying to reverse the Ricoh sale. Which probably makes it outside of any clause put in.

But it would be nice to see the text of the clause. Could be an angle.
Click to expand...
Next legal case set up nicely by you.
 
usskyblue

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
I hope they remembered to take..

tenor.gif
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Philosorapter said:
Just to clarify what was said at the sale of the Arena.

“Let me be clear, any deal around the future of the Ricoh Arena must not happen if it threatens the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club.

The four-year limit that has recently been put on this is complete bollocks.
Click to expand...
shmmeee said:
As always the four year thing has taken on a life of its own. The four years related to the existing lease deal that was struck when we first came back. There’s a separate condition apparently on new lease deals going forward that relies on Wasps and CCFC agreeing “commercial terms”.
Click to expand...
shmmeee said:
What?

Just read what I posted I can’t help but feel you’re arguing with something I’m not saying.
Click to expand...
If you're saying the council are correct to say that the promises made at the time of the sale only relate to the 4 year lease the club signed upon returning from Northampton why were CRFC also mentioned when they never had a lease with ACL?

The statements made by the council at the time were very clear. I can't imagine anyone seeing those statements and thinking they obviously mean ACL under Wasps ownership have to honour leases made while ACL was under council / Higgs ownership but past that can do what they like.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
What?

Do any of you lot actually read what I post or does the REEEEing start immediately upon sight of my username?
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious what is being discussed, it's like you don't know what was said at the time.
 
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If you're saying the council are correct to say that the promises made at the time of the sale only relate to the 4 year lease the club signed upon returning from Northampton why were CRFC also mentioned when they never had a lease with ACL?

The statements made by the council at the time were very clear. I can't imagine anyone seeing those statements and thinking they obviously mean ACL under Wasps ownership have to honour leases made while ACL was under council / Higgs ownership but past that can do what they like.
Click to expand...
It's politicos Dave, they'll spin it any way that suits them at a given point. Not unlike all the recent statements (not an exclusive trait of CCC). They've had years of practice, that's why they're still in a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top