Coventry Evening Telegraph. (27 Viewers)

Moff · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
Well our football club need to get off their arses and start to make a contribution.
I suspect that they are restricted by Sisu and if that's the case Sisu need to be challenged on it.

The specially invited guests at the various CCFC forums and the Anti Wasps/CCC/Higgs position of this forum rather than the Sisu challenging, lets them off the hook.

I will ask you this question again, for your thoughts as you sidestepped it yesterday... how does challenging SISU constantly on this forum change their ownership? as it didnt seem to make much difference when we went stratospheric when the move to Northampton was announced.

We can call them wankers as much as you like, but if you havent got the cash or a business plan then I suspect our keyboards will break long before their will does, and I take no satisfaction from that.

italiahorse · Mar 18, 2016

Moff said:
I will ask you this question again, for your thoughts as you sidestepped it yesterday... how does challenging SISU constantly on this forum change their ownership? as it didnt seem to make much difference when we went stratospheric when the move to Northampton was announced.

We can call them wankers as much as you like, but if you havent got the cash or a business plan then I suspect our keyboards will break long before their will does, and I take no satisfaction from that.

I'm saying challenge them on giving us a plan. We don't necessary have to get rid of them....................................................yet
Everybody went mad when we moved to Northampton. It killed our club.

We are breaking our keyboards on CCC/Wasps/Higgs so whats the difference?

Sisu need to be pushed on a plan, we need the JR out the way then we can start to rebuild relationships and our club.
Certainly when the opportunity comes up in person we should be more verbal. Not just nod our heads at their promises and then have a few drinks because he is a nice guy.

Moff · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
I'm saying challenge them on giving us a plan. We don't necessary have to get rid of them.
Everybody went mad when we moved to Northampton. It killed our club.

We are breaking our keyboards on CCC/Wasps/Higgs so whats the difference?

Sisu need to be pushed on a plan, we need the JR out the way then we can start to rebuild relationships and our club.
Certainly when the opportunity comes up in person we should be more verbal. Not just nod our heads at their promises and then have a few drinks because he is a nice guy.

In my view none of it makes a difference apart from personal views being presented on a forum, and opinions given.

I am sadly of the opinion that whovever you berate/champion or whatever on this forum, it will never change SISU's ownership until they decide to do so.

italiahorse · Mar 18, 2016

Moff said:
In my view none of it makes a difference apart from personal views being presented on a forum, and opinions given.

I am sadly of the opinion that whovever you berate/champion or whatever on this forum, it will never change SISU's ownership until they decide to do so.

Agree.

But if we don't tell them we are unhappy they will just chug along doing the same and we will be stuck at this level for many years to come.

When they read this forum even they might believe they were doing no wrong and it was all the council and Wasps fault.

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
Agree.

But if we don't tell them we are unhappy they will just chug along doing the same and we will be stuck at this level for many years to come.

When they read this forum even they might believe they were doing no wrong and it was all the council and Wasps fault.

We as fans have a limited voice. Public forums such as this are one of the few places where you can actually get your opinion into the domain, thank you Nick for providing that service.

I don't believe for one moment that the club doesn't read this forum. They may even pay attention from time to time if enough of us are singing from the same Hymn sheet and the song is sensible (rare on here but it does happen) and possible to acheive. Such a the kiosk as a club shop in the ground. How much flack did we take for that?

People should use this forum for that purpose.

Nick came up with a good one the other day about doing an OAP's day where you pick up old folks from local OAP homes and give them an afternoon out in one of the lounges with a few ex players thrown in for good measures. What a great piece of positive PR that would be for the club? Sadly it got drowned out with the usual nonsense (yes I no I'm partly to blame for that) but i did get behind it, shame a few others didn't. More chance of someone from the club looking in and noticing it and maybe just maybe if enough of us are shouting it taking some notice. But enough of us need to be shouting for there to be a chance of that happening.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Offers were invited publicly as well you know. Wasps made one SISU didn't.

italiahorse said:
It had been open to any reasonable offer for sometime.

Come on, stop playing dumb. You both know perfectly well ACL wasn't marketed for sale. A throwaway sentence in a statement from Lucas is not the same as properly marketing something. If 100% of ACL was available with a 250 year lease that should have been placed on the open market. If for no other reason than to achieve the best return for the taxpayer.

There are procedures and guidelines for the sale of asset which CCC have completely ignored. Even if you assume they do not apply on a technicality due to the structure of ownership it is hard to argue that the same principles are not the best route to achieving the best return for the taxpayer. Those guideline suggest obtaining valuations and having the asset properly marketed, nationally and internationally, by an expert in the field.

For all we know Wasps and CCFC might not have been the only interested parties and a much higher price could have been achieved.

skybluetony176 said:
The Tax payers money was paid back in full and the commitment to do that was part of the deal, infact they went beyond that and paid it back early. How could there have been a better deal for the Tax payer than that?

I presume when you say the council got all their money back you are referring only to the loan? As for the interest it was reported in the CT that the early repayment actually caused the taxpayer to lose money as there was no interest penalty clause in the loan agreement to cover early repayment.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
Is £27M good value for effectively owning the stadium complex ?

Given that Wasps paid less than £6m you would have to say paying £27m would represent poor value.

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
Come on, stop playing dumb. You both know perfectly well ACL wasn't marketed for sale. A throwaway sentence in a statement from Lucas is not the same as properly marketing something. If 100% of ACL was available with a 250 year lease that should have been placed on the open market. If for no other reason than to achieve the best return for the taxpayer.

There are procedures and guidelines for the sale of asset which CCC have completely ignored. Even if you assume they do not apply on a technicality due to the structure of ownership it is hard to argue that the same principles are not the best route to achieving the best return for the taxpayer. Those guideline suggest obtaining valuations and having the asset properly marketed, nationally and internationally, by an expert in the field.

For all we know Wasps and CCFC might not have been the only interested parties and a much higher price could have been achieved.

I presume when you say the council got all their money back you are referring only to the loan? As for the interest it was reported in the CT that the early repayment actually caused the taxpayer to lose money as there was no interest penalty clause in the loan agreement to cover early repayment.

I don't get your argument here Dave. Are you saying that CCC should have even done more to attract potential bidders so even more people could have done what SISU didn't? Who else do you think is out there looking for a stadium? SISU were the only show in town according to the experts on here.

Surely your concern as a CCFC fan is that CCFC or SISU didn't bid? They clearly were given the opportunity and a good while before it was very publicly opened to any serious offer.

As for the interest that's what happens when loans get paid back early. The public got all their money back and some interest which is more than what would have happened in administration, the only other viable option for ACL other than more public money being put into ACL.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
I don't get your argument here Dave. Are you saying that CCC should have even done more to attract potential bidders so even more people could have done what SISU didn't? Who else do you think is out there looking for a stadium? SISU were the only show in town according to the experts on here.

Frankly I don't care what the 'experts' on here are saying. They don't have access to the full details and don't have to account to taxpayers or deal with multimillion pound sales.

My position is straightforward. I don't believe CCC should have been lying to the tax payer regarding the status of ACL. I suspect this was deliberate deceit. Lucas claimed on CWR that she had been supplied incorrect information, that would have been by Reeves and West neither of whom have been disciplined so I don't believe that it true either.

More importantly if, as appears to be the case, ACL needed to be sold it should have been correctly marketed. Give all interested parties a chance to bid and give the taxpayer and any impacted organisations, such as CCFC or CRFC, to object to raise their objections to other bids from the likes of Wasps. This is in line with council guidelines.

Who else was looking for a stadium? I haven't a clue and that's the point really, there's no way CCC could know if anyone else was potentially interested. Of course it doesn't need to be another team. There are companies, such as AEG, who hold the leases and operate stadiums.

skybluetony176 said:
Surely your concern as a CCFC fan is that CCFC or SISU didn't bid? They clearly were given the opportunity and a good while before it was very publicly opened to any serious offer.

Of course I would have preferred us to bid and bid successfully. That is why I wanted an open bidding process. Pressure could have then been applied to make a bid with everyone bidding on the same thing.

As much as you can say the club had the opportunity at now point, as far as we know (and I'm sure it would have been in the CT by now), were we ever offered anything remotely similar to the deal Wasps got.

As much as SISU were playing games so were CCC. Look at when Sepalla wanted to meet with Lucas and asked it be kept private. It was all over the CT the next day. And of course CCC, being a publicly accountable body, should be held to a higher standard than a hedge fund. They should be accountable to us yet they did this deal in secret and have since refused to answer questions about it.

skybluetony176 said:
As for the interest that's what happens when loans get paid back early. The public got all their money back and some interest which is more than what would have happened in administration, the only other viable option for ACL other than more public money being put into ACL.

What gets paid back depends on the loan agreement. I just paid my mortgage back and had to pay a shedload of interest. The loan I took out for my car had the interest front loaded. Many larger commercial loans have clauses regarding early repayment.

Why was administration the only other option for ACL?

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

Are you saying AEG didn't know that CCC would listen to any serious offer?

Look at the links I put up earlier. There's quotes from a full council meeting in October 2013 where SISU were invited for talks over the Ricoh. They had ample opportunity to bid for the Ricoh before the council publicly invited bids in January 2014 IIRC. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Surely the only thing that should concern you is that SISU. didn't bid. Is there actually any proof at all that SISU at anytime attempted to enter any meaningful negotiations? If AL hadn't told us she was getting on the train we probably wouldn't even have known they'd even met. Are you suggesting that this is the reason that SISU didn't bid? If not why are you hung up on it? It's no reason not to bid as far as I can tell. Was there a confidentiality agreement broken by this or something?

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Are you saying AEG didn't know that CCC would listen to any serious offer?

Look at the links I put up earlier. There's quotes from a full council meeting in October 2013 where SISU were invited for talks over the Ricoh. They had ample opportunity to bid for the Ricoh before the council publicly invited bids in January 2014 IIRC. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Surely the only thing that should concern you is that SISU. didn't bid. Is there actually any proof at all that SISU at anytime attempted to enter any meaningful negotiations? If AL hadn't told us she was getting on the train we probably wouldn't even have known they'd even met. Are you suggesting that this is the reason that SISU didn't bid? If not why are you hung up on it? It's no reason not to bid as far as I can tell. Was there a confidentiality agreement broken by this or something?

Are you seriously suggesting that every organisation around the world is monitoring the minutes of CCC meetings on the off chance they happen to mention something about a stadium lease being available? Are you expecting them to do that for every facility around the world? Of course not. Hence if you are selling something you market it properly!

Of course I would prefer SISU to have bid. My concern is that they weren't bidding on a level playing field. CCC have refused to answer when asked if the same deal given to Wasps was offered to the club, I think there's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw from that.

I'm struggling to see how you can have such strong objections to the idea of an open and transparent sale process taking place.

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
Are you seriously suggesting that every organisation around the world is monitoring the minutes of CCC meetings on the off chance they happen to mention something about a stadium lease being available? Are you expecting them to do that for every facility around the world? Of course not. Hence if you are selling something you market it properly!

Of course I would prefer SISU to have bid. My concern is that they weren't bidding on a level playing field. CCC have refused to answer when asked if the same deal given to Wasps was offered to the club, I think there's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw from that.

I'm struggling to see how you can have such strong objections to the idea of an open and transparent sale process taking place.

Of course AEG knew.

You concern yourself then with that SISU weren't bidding on a level playing field. I'll concern myself that they weren't bidding at all.

I don't have an objection. I just recognise that chances are the outcome would have been the same, wasps would have bid and SISU wouldn't have. I'm struggling to see why a CCFC fan is more interested in why the bidding process wasn't one of the many many ways take overs happen. It seems a welcome distraction to you from the tea issue being that SISU didn't bid at all.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Of course AEG knew.

AEG was just an example. There is no way you can seriously suggest that every single potential buyer worldwide was made aware of ACL being available via a comment Lucas made in a council meeting!

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 18, 2016

Nick said:
More options if it is put onto the open market, when we were sold to SISU there were a few more options weren't there?

When we were sold to SISU, SISU preferred no admin as it reduced the competition so meant we were cheaper.

Same principle as the Ricoh sale to Wasps.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
When we were sold to SISU, SISU preferred no admin as it reduced the competition so meant we were cheaper.

Same principle as the Ricoh sale to Wasps.

Not really. When the club was sold KMPG were bought in to market the club to the maximum number of potential bidders. If you recall SISU weren't the only interested party.

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
AEG was just an example. There is no way you can seriously suggest that every single potential buyer worldwide was made aware of ACL being available via a comment Lucas made in a council meeting!

Aside from the fact she didn't just say it in a council meeting. How many companies out there would be interested? Is it even viable without a permanent sports team in place? Surely in reality it's only viable to a sports team with a fixture list to fulfill? Would ACL have needed to sell otherwise? What is the standard for Councils selling sports venues? How many people bidded for Hulls stadium for instance?

The first reason we don't own the Ricoh is because we never bid, that also makes it the last reason. It fails at the first hurdle. You're clearly loving the distraction from that because in your mind it let's SISU of the hook.

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
Not really. When the club was sold KMPG were bought in to market the club to the maximum number of potential bidders. If you recall SISU weren't the only interested party.

SISU *were* the only interested party by the time it came to the formal process.

The clock was ticking...

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
SISU *were* the only interested party by the time it came to the formal process.

The point being made is that there should have been a proper sales process from ACL. You say its the same as when SISU purchased CCFC however CCFC went through exactly the process it is being suggested CCC should have.

Hence why KMPG came in - they were the experts and ensured the club was marketed to all potential buyers. The fact that other interested parties walked away after speaking to CCC and finding stadium ownership was off the table is not the fault of the sales process.

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
The point being made is that there should have been a proper sales process from ACL. You say its the same as when SISU purchased CCFC however CCFC went through exactly the process it is being suggested CCC should have.

It is the same though. SISU manipulated their cards to ensure they were the only bidder, they called the shots, it was on their terms.

It was *not* a fair and straight fight.

By the time it came to actual purchasing, rather than polite enquiries, there was only one option... the same as wrt the Ricoh sale.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Aside from the fact she didn't just say it in a council meeting. How many companies out there would be interested?

The very simple fact is you can't possibly know who would or wouldn't have been interested as it wasn't marketed - that's the whole point! For example who knew Lloyds were interested in purchasing the NEC before it was properly marketed.

You deride people for saying we were the only show in town when it came to the Ricoh but now you're doing exactly the same thing.

skybluetony176 said:
What is the standard for Councils selling sports venues? How many people bidded for Hulls stadium for instance?

The standard is for an external valuation to be done and then an external agency to come in to carry out the marketing and appraise the bids. Dependent on the facility that marketing is undertaken on a local, national or international level.

Hull is something of an exception as the money came from the sale of KC Communications.

skybluetony176 said:
The first reason we don't own the Ricoh is because we never bid, that also makes it the last reason. It fails at the first hurdle. You're clearly loving the distraction from that because in your mind it let's SISU of the hook.

Actually its CCC who let SISU off the hook. Had an open sale process taken place there would have been huge pressure on SISU to put in a bid. By not going through the process they have given SISU the perfect excuse.

chiefdave · Mar 18, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
It is the same though. SISU manipulated their cards to ensure they were the only bidder, they called the shots, it was on their terms.

It was *not* a fair and straight fight.

By the time it came to actual purchasing, rather than polite enquiries, there was only one option... the same as wrt the Ricoh sale.

But the point is the club was properly marketed and any interested party was able to bid on the same basis. The fact that some of the interested parties dropped out as they couldn't work with CCC is nothing at all to do with the sales process.

Compare that to the sale of ACL. That was done in secret. In fact more than that the council actively suppressed local media reporting on it.

skybluetony176 · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
The very simple fact is you can't possibly know who would or wouldn't have been interested as it wasn't marketed - that's the whole point! For example who knew Lloyds were interested in purchasing the NEC before it was properly marketed.

You deride people for saying we were the only show in town when it came to the Ricoh but now you're doing exactly the same thing.

The standard is for an external valuation to be done and then an external agency to come in to carry out the marketing and appraise the bids. Dependent on the facility that marketing is undertaken on a local, national or international level.

Hull is something of an exception as the money came from the sale of KC Communications.

Actually its CCC who let SISU off the hook. Had an open sale process taken place there would have been huge pressure on SISU to put in a bid. By not going through the process they have given SISU the perfect excuse.

KC is where the money come to build it. IIRC KC was also council owned so it's not really an exception at all.

SISU weren't let of the hook they invited them to talks about ownership on at least two occasions that we know of the first being October 2013 the second being January 2014. If SISU were serious why weren't they knocking on AL's door in the October? Did they even acknowledge the invite? When they did finally get together after the second offer an offer that also confirmed that they'd listen to any other bids it was AL who had to do the chasing and go to London. Never mind taking a horse to water this was a case of taking the water to the horse.

If they'd just made a bid or even opened the way for meaningful discussions leading to a bid I'd be right there with you Dave. Nothing stopped them doing this nothing. And what you're saying should have happened wouldn't have changed jack if anything it might of meant even more people doing what SISU didn't. The outcome would have been the same and I really can't think of another sports team who would have been interested apart from wasps and a permanent base for a team and the security that brings was always the real value of the Ricoh so wasps in all likelihood wouldn't have been outbid anyway.

It should have resulted in a fight between wasps and ccfc. I would say SISU threw the towel before the first bell was rang but the truth is SISU didn't even turn up for the weigh in.

What have SISU ever done for you or any other ccfc fan to give them the luxury of us letting them of that hook? Nothing. So why do you and a few others continually do just that? It truly baffles me.

King of the Lesbians · Mar 18, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Nick came up with a good one the other day about doing an OAP's day where you pick up old folks from local OAP homes and give them an afternoon out in one of the lounges with a few ex players thrown in for good measures.

That's a really good idea so fair play to Nick.
What time is he picking me up?

italiahorse · Mar 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
Given that Wasps paid less than £6m you would have to say paying £27m would represent poor value.

Okay for those playing thick. £13M plus taking on a £14M loan.

Is that worth paying for a stadium ?

For those really struggling Wasps £5.5M plus a £14M loan.

In retrospect should we have paid the £13M ?

stupot07 · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
Okay for those playing thick. £13M plus taking on a £14M loan.

Is that worth paying for a stadium ?

For those really struggling Wasps £5.5M plus a £14M loan.

In retrospect should we have paid the £13M ?

They didn't pay £13m, they paid £6.5m (£2.75m to each higgs and CCC, £1m for the extension) for the whole lot including the 200+ years extension.

And wasps never took on the loan, the loan was always ACL's, they just bought a company that had an existing loan in place. OSB has exolained this numerous times.

The councils share was never up for sal back in the day and the loan status and terms were different back then.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

italiahorse · Mar 18, 2016

stupot07 said:
They didn't pay £13m, they paid £6.5m (£2.75m to each higgs and CCC, £1m for the extension) for the whole lot including the 200+ years extension.

And wasps never took on the loan, the loan was always ACL's, they just bought a company that had an existing loan in place. OSB has exolained this numerous times.

The councils share was never up for sal back in the day and the loan status and terms were different back then.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

This is getting difficult.

If CCFC paid £13M for ACL would it be better than building a new stadium ?
...... because they could have done.

Jack Griffin · Mar 18, 2016

stupot07 said:
They didn't pay £13m, they paid £6.5m (£2.75m to each higgs and CCC, £1m for the extension) for the whole lot including the 200+ years extension.

And wasps never took on the loan, the loan was always ACL's, they just bought a company that had an existing loan in place. OSB has exolained this numerous times.

The councils share was never up for sal back in the day and the loan status and terms were different back then.

This article says initially the loan term was revised from 41 to 20 years, with a £1M down payment.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/details-wasps-ricoh-arena-deal-8585198

The loan was paid off after Wasps raised money on their bond issue, part of the motivation behind that move may have been the ongoing SISU litigation, but this article states that they had a clause in their contract to enable them to pay off the loan at any time. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-hope-pay-144m-9034140

stupot07 · Mar 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
This is getting difficult.

If CCFC paid £13M for ACL would it be better than building a new stadium ?
...... because they could have done.

When was the councils share ever for sale before wasps came along?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

stupot07 · Mar 18, 2016

Jack Griffin said:
This article says initially the loan term was revised from 41 to 20 years, with a £1M down payment.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/details-wasps-ricoh-arena-deal-8585198

The loan was paid off after Wasps raised money on their bond issue, part of the motivation behind that move may have been the ongoing SISU litigation, but this article states that they had a clause in their contract to enable them to pay off the loan at any time. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-hope-pay-144m-9034140

Itailia means before wasps came along and before the counci bailed them out with the loan, when were could have bought higgs share for the formula price, the old loan was still in place and required us to pay £1.2m pa rent to cover the loan.

Re: wasps, yes we know they paid the loan back with the bonds. They didn't personally pay it, and ACL is still the security for the borrowed money, I.e. acl owe the money not wasps. Even OSB has been quite firm that wasps didn't pay £6.5m plus £14m for ACL - the loan was ACLs and they have paid it back by borrowing the bonds.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

SkyblueBazza · Mar 18, 2016

This whole thing is so tedious.

We're becoming like those Sunderland fans many like to mock on here because the grapes are still sour.

It's happened. Get over it.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

SkyBlueZack · Mar 19, 2016

italiahorse said:
This is getting difficult.

If CCFC paid £13M for ACL would it be better than building a new stadium ?
...... because they could have done.

Still not answered my point why we should pay 4 times as much as a club from London have you Italia?

I'm waiting.......

SkyBlueZack · Mar 19, 2016

27 million?

Are you for real?

It was sold for 5.5 million and 1 million for lease extension. Yet you and others consistently ignore that ACL was never offered to CCFC or the public market at that price. The stadium was built for the club yet they were being quoted over 4 times as much as a club from London. The only rationale and reasoning you and other have is because it's SISU and what they do. Yeah you're right SISU are shit owners, some of the worst. But the club, it's community and fans are bigger than SISU, they matter more. How can you charge your local team 4 times as much?

This one. Just to save you going back through.

italiahorse · Mar 19, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
27 million?

Are you for real?

It was sold for 5.5 million and 1 million for lease extension. Yet you and others consistently ignore that ACL was never offered to CCFC or the public market at that price. The stadium was built for the club yet they were being quoted over 4 times as much as a club from London. The only rationale and reasoning you and other have is because it's SISU and what they do. Yeah you're right SISU are shit owners, some of the worst. But the club, it's community and fans are bigger than SISU, they matter more. How can you charge your local team 4 times as much?

This one. Just to save you going back through.

It was sold at the knock down price because Sisu knocked it down to that price. CCC were never going to go along with loosing that.

Regardless of that, would we have been better taking the agreed price of £13M and the £14M debt (Admittedly pre Sisu) than build a new stadium ?

chiefdave · Mar 19, 2016

italiahorse said:
It was sold at the knock down price because Sisu knocked it down to that price. CCC were never going to go along with loosing that.

So your opinion is that CCFC shouldn't have been given the opportunity to purchase at the same price and terms under which Wasps purchased?

italiahorse said:
Regardless of that, would we have been better taking the agreed price of £13M and the £14M debt (Admittedly pre Sisu) than build a new stadium ?

Well that all depends on how a new stadium is financed doesn't it. For example with the Ricoh the council only put in £10m, that would make a purchase on the suggest terms a poor deal. However the complex as a whole cost over £100m so if you're comparing against a stadium totally funded by CCFC then it looks like a good deal.

Sick Boy · Mar 19, 2016

SkyblueBazza said:
This whole thing is so tedious.

We're becoming like those Sunderland fans many like to mock on here because the grapes are still sour.

It's happened. Get over it.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

At least we know that you would nice and passive should ccfc ever move.

Coventry Evening Telegraph. (27 Viewers)

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

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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency