Nick
Administrator
No idea, I remember it used to be after the evening games years ago.
Update: Yes it is, 10pm! BBC Local Radio - Graham Torrington
Hahaha is that still going?
Seems like Wasps arnt moving and cc have no strings to pull in this battle, its more the court case they are involved in.
SISU silence I find unnerving, what are they up to? have they got something up there sleeves?
I might be putting 2+2 and getting 5 but it sounds to me like wasps have already got a plan in place with new owners if that was to happen
I can understand that Eastwood was never going to backtrack on Wasps stated position regarding negotiation a new agreement on CWR.
The potential of a 50% share in the Ricoh is a very attractive proposition for both Wasps and CCFC, as it cuts overheads and has the potential to increase revenue streams. For instance the sponsorship of the Ricoh would have far more value with CCFC as a joint owner.
However, I would not go into any joint ownership with a club owned by SISU. It'll be bound to end up in a legal dispute.
I wouldn’t settle for 50% of any sponsorship income either, the value is higher because of us.I can understand that Eastwood was never going to backtrack on Wasps stated position regarding negotiation a new agreement on CWR.
The potential of a 50% share in the Ricoh is a very attractive proposition for both Wasps and CCFC, as it cuts overheads and has the potential to increase revenue streams. For instance the sponsorship of the Ricoh would have far more value with CCFC as a joint owner.
However, I would not go into any joint ownership with a club owned by SISU. It'll be bound to end up in a legal dispute.
I wouldn’t settle for 50% of any sponsorship income either, the value is higher because of us.
Ultimately, this is a dangerous game. If it works then awesome we can move on SISU free with a foothold in the Ricoh, if not however the club dies.
You really are an unpleasant personIt's a good job you aren't negotiating anything, absolute dream to rinse.
You really are an unpleasant person
No you are right, your house, your rules. I am out.It really isn't unpleasant to point that out. Being nice is lovely and all but there is a point where there is a danger in being so naive.
No you are right, your house, your rules. I am out.
No you are right, your house, your rules. I am out.
The lack of follow up questions is so frustrating. I’m not a trained journalist but I can think of several questions off the top of my head:Eastwood said the perfect scenario would be for a joint Ricoh ownership enterprise with both clubs sharing ticketing and events income etc. Something tells me this would be the case if SISU sold the club.
Wouldn’t of thought so, that’s a Wasps group issue, not ACL.The lack of follow up questions is so frustrating. I’m not a trained journalist but I can think of several questions off the top of my head:
What valuation would be the basis for negotiations;
Would the buyer take on 50% of the bond liability;
Why now, are Wasps in financial difficulties;
Has this been discussed with any third party for example Hoff.
Why is he allowed to just drop this stuff out and not be questioned?
That makes no sense. Kicked us out doesn’t stop the legals so the risk to Wasps doesn’t decrease. In fact you could claim he was failed to act in the best interests of the business by turning a significant client away.He said: “I don’t think we are able to do that I think if we were to try and do something - as you say - from our side of the fence, that might lead me in my position to expose the Wasps group to significant potential risks.
“It’s not a question of wanting to do it I think it is a question of being able to do it. I think I would be failing in my statutory duty.”
How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.Wouldn’t of thought so, that’s a Wasps group issue, not ACL.
My concern now is, if Wasps are interested in a 50/50 enterprise, how bad are their finances? Isn’t this going to make SISU dig in?
That makes no sense. Kicked us out doesn’t stop the legals so the risk to Wasps doesn’t decrease. In fact you could claim he was failed to act in the best interests of the business by turning a significant client away.
If they default, wont their 50% lease revert to whoever is after the money? If the whole thing is worth 60 million, then won’t their half be worth 30? Is that a too simplistic view?How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.
How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.
Half the value of the lease doesn’t come close to providing enough security for the amount they owe on the bonds.If they default, wont their 50% lease revert to whoever is after the money? If the whole thing is worth 60 million, then won’t their half be worth 30? Is that a too simplistic view?
Chances are any sale of the 50% will be used towards the bond - possibly pirchaseable for 15 million?
The council would never let that happen. They will not deal with SISU. (Council having a vested interest in Wasps) They are in this to spite SISU at whatever cost and seem very happy to hide behind WASPs and are happy to use CCFC as collateral. Stems from before the Northampton move, before which they were already talking to WASPS.If I am reading this post correctly then Eastwood is saying Wasps would be open for a partner at the Ricoh. If I was our owners I would bite their hand off.
Then could the plan be to bring Coventry City into the Wasps group?Half the value of the lease doesn’t come close to providing enough security for the amount they owe on the bonds.
Even if you take the valuation from their last accounts which struck me as very high.
Can't see the advantage of combining two loss making businesses.Then could the plan be to bring Coventry City into the Wasps group?
Again, this is like Nick said, it’s a hostile takeover attempt. If it works then great, the cross invoicing will do wonders for the club.
If not then SISU are likely just to dig in
Pancakes, now that's more Trish's home ground not this horrible nasty politics stuff.
can't be that simple. From memory the leasehold is the guarantee for the bond so 50% couldn't be easily bought for 2.77m. Also there's a revaluation of the lease agreement after Wasps bought out the Higgs/CCC shares. If i was a bond holder I'd be looking at legal action if the 50% was anything less than the value of the bond debt.As it stands, isn't a 50% share of the Ricoh also taking on a 50% share of the massive debt? Would the 50% share be at the £2.77m or so they paid or would it be 50% of the new valuation?
It really isn't as simplistic as just jumping in balls deep because of a soundbyte he put out on the radio.
If wasps are in the clear on the sale then they have nothing to worry about. If signing a new agreement leaves them open to potential risks then maybe there’s something to hide
Thinking about it he’s pretty stupid to say so if they are covering up the saleI don't think it does, I think it's just bullshit so that CCFC fans go on to repeat it to defend them.
"They shouldnt do a deal because it opens them up to risks".
"Like what?"
"It's what they said on the radio"
Exactly, the risk is always there.
It's just soundclips for the radio.
Eastwood was asked about this and he stated that the ongoing court litigation super seeds any agreement that was made.Club have just put this up
NEWS: CCFC demands answers from Coventry City Council over unconditional promises made regarding "security and future" of Club in 2014
This seems like things are really getting desperate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But the litigation was ongoing when these statements were made?Eastwood was asked about this and he stated that the ongoing court litigation super seeds any agreement that was made.
Club have just put this up
NEWS: CCFC demands answers from Coventry City Council over unconditional promises made regarding "security and future" of Club in 2014
This seems like things are really getting desperate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?