lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it right that the ricoh was never offered to the club or public market at the price wasps paid?
Is it right that the ricoh was never offered to the club or public market at the price wasps paid?
Is it right that the ricoh was never offered to the club or public market at the price wasps paid?
To be honest there were only two players in the market.
The problem for us was Sisu (and Grendel) thought there was only one.
Do you think there a law requiring it to be publically tendered?
I guess that CCC should say it's for sale and they have a bid from an interested party.
However, in view that no offer had been received from Sisu over several years what would happen if Wasps said that they would pull out if the offer was not accepted immediately ?
No that's not what they should do. Forget about SISU, assume we went to Northampton permanently and aren't ever coming back.
Now how does CCC achieve the best return for the taxpayer? Do they agree a secret deal incurring a loss for them and Higgs whilst surprising the local media or do they, as their own guidelines suggest, bring in an outside agent to properly market what they have for sale?
But surely the stadium needs to have a tenant to make the whole set up viable.
In that respect CCC had to choose between Sisu or Wasps.
Both had made their intentions clear, one positive, one negative.
CD where is the regulation that says the council had to offer it in a bid process on the open market?
Yes I agree it may have been better for CCFC but did CCC have to? Did CCC have to accept the CCFC bid even then. What else did Wasps offer in the deal, what other investment in cash or otherwise did they pledge? Could would CCFC/SISU match it or come up with a better deal -- we just dont know and will never know from either side.
No that's not what they should do. Forget about SISU, assume we went to Northampton permanently and aren't ever coming back.
Now how does CCC achieve the best return for the taxpayer? Do they agree a secret deal incurring a loss for them and Higgs whilst surprising the local media or do they, as their own guidelines suggest, bring in an outside agent to properly market what they have for sale?
CD where is the regulation that says the council had to offer it in a bid process on the open market?
What guidelines are these Dave?
So how exactly do CCC offer the same terms to CCFC in those circumstances without being in breach of the NDA? Also what is stopping SISU making new offers including a long lease.
There's various guidelines on the CCC website, and every other council seems to have documents very similar. The closest matches are probably disposal of assets and disposal of land both of which are very similar in that they require marketing and the seller to be able to illustrate fair market value has been achieved. As I say though I think due to the ownership structure they don't actually apply to ACL but as OSB says it illustrates a moral duty to act a certain way.
In many ways it parallels with the administration process. Pretty much everyone agreed something was not quite right but as no law breaking could be shown nothing could be done.
There may be an NDA in place but we all know that means little if someone were to have a quiet word suggesting a bid be put in by SISU on a certain basis. Of course if there was an open sales process with all interested parties invited to bid on the same thing on the same terms that wouldn't be an issue.
Anyway we seem to have got a touch sidetracked, for a change! The original point was italia asserting CCFC / SISU could have purchased the whole lot for £13m. There is little evidence to support that. There is however evidence that, for reasons unknown, long before SISU arrived on the scene CCC have not wanted to sell to the club.
Sisu wanted unencumbered freehold. No chance. Wasps take over. All contracts renegotiated. Ricoh sponsors city of culture bid. It was one rule for sisu and another for wasps. Anyone clarify why? Other than there not very good at running a football club.
Not what Fisher said.
So why didn't SISU make the offer that you say they'd have taken. #talkingBollocks
The club have said they would not have done the Wasps deal.
Regarding the observer article they didn't collude with the council to suppress news. You seem to miss that point entirely. Behaviour like that will lead to suspicions and accusations. For example if you were a convicted thief and something went missing. People would suspect. Would you not agree? Or maybe the answer is the club have said they would not have done the wasps deal.
No it's not that answer, as that answered your purely made point about SISU not getting offered what Wasps got.
The article one shows the conspiracy hype that surrounds when the CET post a positive Wasps story.
Observer do it. Not a squeak.
I guarantee certain posters would have been all over that same article if it appeared in the CET.
In many ways it parallels with the administration process. Pretty much everyone agreed something was not quite right but as no law breaking could be shown nothing could be done. most probably this
There may be an NDA in place but we all know that means little if someone were to have a quiet word suggesting a bid be put in by SISU on a certain basis. Of course if there was an open sales process with all interested parties invited to bid on the same thing on the same terms that wouldn't be an issue.
Shouldn't surprise me but a CCFC forum packed with people who dont really give a fuck about CCFC is pretty weird.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Which ever way you look at it there was fault on many sides and it is a matter of degree where we as individuals place the proportionality of that blame. Bottom line is that CCFC lost out in the process acted out between CCC and SISU and the club will never get that loss back
Ah yes, Fisher speaks the truth when it suits your argument.
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?