CWR (3 Viewers)

[shepardo01]

Been stated that directors are talking by Boddy. Haven't necessarily heard that they get on well. If I was Boddy and I heard the crap Eastwood came out with last week about the club can come back if they drop legal action, I'd be fuming. Eastwood seems like an absolute c-unit!

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Always the possibility that the EU won’t find any fault with the sale of ACL to wasps.

Pretty sure they won’t

 

[Nick]

And that is clearly the bit all parties


Yes. I’m actually pissed off with the whole thing. I get all the indemnity issue and that SISU are doing the business thing. SISU does not shy away from tough business decisions. It is a brave step to move the club out of the city again. All of the court stuff will play out and one day the club will be back where it belongs. I hope the fans will come back in strength. The managers and players are doing their boy on the pitch. One of SISUs problems is that they keep doing the unthinkable by taking the club out of the city.

The court case will dictate their next move.

sell up or run the club to the ground?

You still aren't grasping it, are you?

 

[MalcSB]

Long term we want SISU to fuck off. But in that time the short term is return to Coventry.

But that doesn’t mean return to any terms. Apparently club pays more rent but receives a more favourable revenue source at St. Andrews.

what’s to stop Wasps offering the same deal without the indemnity clause? Surely that’s fair all around - albeit not amazing for the club

Wasps being worried that there may have been something dodgy about the sale to them, and the financial consequences that could follow is what is stopping them.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Wasps being worried that there may have been something dodgy about the sale to them, and the financial consequences that could follow is what is stopping them.

Agreed - but unfortunately nobody is willing to press this.

Would be interesting if something was found amiss how it would be reported

 

[shepardo01]

It is a brave step to move the club out of the city again.
One of SISUs problems is that they keep doing the unthinkable by taking the club out of the city

Oh dear.....
What was supposed to happen?
You said you "get the indemnity clause" stuff.... quite clearly you don't.
Only deal on the table after WASPS MOVED THE GOALPOSTS was to sign up to an indemnity clause that could possibly cost CCFC 10S OF MILLION OF POUNDS!

 

[mr_monkey]

And that is clearly the bit all parties


Yes. I’m actually pissed off with the whole thing. I get all the indemnity issue and that SISU are doing the business thing. SISU does not shy away from tough business decisions. It is a brave step to move the club out of the city again. All of the court stuff will play out and one day the club will be back where it belongs. I hope the fans will come back in strength. The managers and players are doing their boy on the pitch. One of SISUs problems is that they keep doing the unthinkable by taking the club out of the city.

The court case will dictate their next move.

sell up or run the club to the ground?

It's not just a business thing though as Dave boddy has said numerous times if the club ( not sisu as this sits with the football club side rather than the owners) agreed to the terms of the indemnity clause and the council were found to have done illegal shit then the money the club would have to pay out would bankrupt it.

Sisu are massive massive cunts for the way they have managed the club over the years and the sooner they are gone the better, but we can't sign up to things that don't benefit the club and the only choice that was availabile (other than the club going out of business) was to ground share it's as simple as that, and the blame for that is solely at wasps' door

 

[mr_monkey]

Agreed - but unfortunately nobody is willing to press this.

Would be interesting if something was found amiss how it would be reported

I hope that when wasps go out of business and we are back at the Ricoh that the club are spiteful as hell and refuse access to the telegraph and cwr as they have done nothing to help the plight other than snide, ill informed, London rugby club biased reporting on the whole situation

 

[The coventrian]

It's not just a business thing though as Dave boddy has said numerous times if the club ( not sisu as this sits with the football club side rather than the owners) agreed to the terms of the indemnity clause and the council were found to have done illegal shit then the money the club would have to pay out would bankrupt it.

Sisu are massive massive cunts for the way they have managed the club over the years and the sooner they are gone the better, but we can't sign up to things that don't benefit the club and the only choice that was availabile (other than the club going out of business) was to ground share it's as simple as that, and the blame for that is solely at wasps' door

Surely the blame is at Sisu's door for running off to the eu in the first place?
Surely after the last arse kicking in court if they'd of drawn a line in the sand and stopped it all then we'd be at the ricoh now?
Or am I missing something?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Surely the blame is at Sisu's door for running off to the eu in the first place?
Surely after the last arse kicking in court if they'd of drawn a line in the sand and stopped it all then we'd be at the ricoh now?
Or am I missing something?

Only that anyone could have reported it
That referring it is not in itself legal action
Wasps were talking with knowledge of it
They added the indemnity knowing full well the club couldn’t agree to it
Once it has been challenged it can’t be withdrawn

 

[shmmeee]

The Trust tried exactly that. They were pivotal in the failed Hoffman takeover bid. W**ps were also involved. Overton pulled out because of it. He said so in his own words. Or is it not true until w**ps publish it themselves in their own words?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

How is that a hostile takeover being planned now? Sisu just rejected the offer.

 

[Blind-Faith]

So I’ve just read that we have the option of ground sharing for up to three years.

But can someone explain in simple terms what this indemnity clause is please??

 

[shmmeee]

If no clubs agreed to a groundshare that doesn't equal playing at the Ricoh.

Would focus minds a bit though. We may not have been so quick to lodge the EU complaint (or the rent strike) if we knew we had to stay in Cov.

It’s not practical in reality. But the idea that more pressure needs to be put on clubs to stay where they are and not move teams away as part of negotiation tactics is a fair one.

 

[Somerset Sky Blue]

So I’ve just read that we have the option of ground sharing for up to three years.

But can someone explain in simple terms what this indemnity clause is please??

(I think - expect people with more knowledge to amend) related to the sale of the Ricoh to wasps at a value below market value (in reality, a subsidy from local government, which isn't allowed under EU). Basically, the council (who on behalf of Coventry taxpayers) owned the Ricoh and sold it for less than its value, so the taxpayers are out of pocket.
If the EU finds this happened, then Coventry council have to resolve this (not sure where the money goes, probably to Coventry council - not to ccfc or Sisu), but perhaps wasps have to pay more?
Again, some would hope this will distress wasps even more, causing them to go bankrupt (no guarantee), and then Coventry council would have to find a buyer of the Ricoh...which, again, some think that Sisu will buy, before presumably trying one last chance at operation premier League or selling ccfc?
The indemnity clause is that if the EU force wasps to pay more....ccfc (not Sisu) will pay the debt, potentially tens of millions.
Don't know if that helps or is accurate.

 

[Somerset Sky Blue]

Would focus minds a bit though. We may not have been so quick to lodge the EU complaint (or the rent strike) if we knew we had to stay in Cov.

It’s not practical in reality. But the idea that more pressure needs to be put on clubs to stay where they are and not move teams away as part of negotiation tactics is a fair one.

Fair points, of course, but playing devils advocate here - it's a rule that larger clubs who own grounds won't be as concerned about, whereas smaller clubs, including those coming up through the pyramid are more likely to be concerned about as they may rent from the council.
And, a council can make ground improvements and access (amongst other things), difficult for a club so removing the ability of a club to move location (as much as fans don't like it) potentially weaken a club versus local council argument (which I can't see the FA supporting) - I can't see many industries regulating themselves to weaken negotiations on a local level.
Could argue special considerations as these are sporting bodies with local links/names/heritage/fanbase, but I think the increase in professionalism/money involved/media influence probably outweighs it for most full time clubs.

 

[skyblue025]

If the EU finds that CCC did sell the Ricoh on the cheap and Wasps can't afford to pay the difference I don't think SISU would then be able to pay the asking price the EU say the Ricoh is worth as it's going to be more than Wasps paid for it. I also believe the council would rather knock it down than sell it too SISU.

 

[Astute]

Or am I missing something?

Brain cells that work?

 

[Somerset Sky Blue]

If the EU finds that CCC did sell the Ricoh on the cheap and Wasps can't afford to pay the difference I don't think SISU would then be able to pay the asking price the EU say the Ricoh is worth as it's going to be more than Wasps paid for it. I also believe the council would rather knock it down than sell it too SISU.

If wasps can't pay it, and can't issue more bonds (again OSB and others can comment better on this), I think Sisu 'could' afford it, but given they have proven unlikely to pay previous asking prices, then unlikely.
And, as you say, can't see the council wanting to sell to Sisu. But, if they have just had a legal battle about not getting the correct value and then bulldoze it (however unlikely), not sure that would go down well either!
Can't see a clear way out - as somebody said earlier, a lot of egos/burnt bridges!

 

[shmmeee]

Fair points, of course, but playing devils advocate here - it's a rule that larger clubs who own grounds won't be as concerned about, whereas smaller clubs, including those coming up through the pyramid are more likely to be concerned about as they may rent from the council.
And, a council can make ground improvements and access (amongst other things), difficult for a club so removing the ability of a club to move location (as much as fans don't like it) potentially weaken a club versus local council argument (which I can't see the FA supporting) - I can't see many industries regulating themselves to weaken negotiations on a local level.
Could argue special considerations as these are sporting bodies with local links/names/heritage/fanbase, but I think the increase in professionalism/money involved/media influence probably outweighs it for most full time clubs.

It’s the fundamental tension between football as a business and football as part of a community isn’t it? Personally I come down pretty heavily on the side of community, filthy socialist that I am.

I mean you’re right, it’s all pie in the sky because of too many grey areas and mostly the fact that the FA and EFL are useless and toothless at best and the club owners lapdog at worst.

 

[Astute]

(I think - expect people with more knowledge to amend) related to the sale of the Ricoh to wasps at a value below market value (in reality, a subsidy from local government, which isn't allowed under EU). Basically, the council (who on behalf of Coventry taxpayers) owned the Ricoh and sold it for less than its value, so the taxpayers are out of pocket.
If the EU finds this happened, then Coventry council have to resolve this (not sure where the money goes, probably to Coventry council - not to ccfc or Sisu), but perhaps wasps have to pay more?
Again, some would hope this will distress wasps even more, causing them to go bankrupt (no guarantee), and then Coventry council would have to find a buyer of the Ricoh...which, again, some think that Sisu will buy, before presumably trying one last chance at operation premier League or selling ccfc?
The indemnity clause is that if the EU force wasps to pay more....ccfc (not Sisu) will pay the debt, potentially tens of millions.
Don't know if that helps or is accurate.

Exactly.

In plain English Wasps wanted CCFC to sign legal papers to say they would pay up all costs complete if the EU found that the Ricoh was undervalued when Wasps purchased the arena. The arena is supposedly valued at about 50m. Wasps paid a fraction of this.

The money would go to CCC. It must be paid if the EU found that the arena was undervalued. Wasps would have to pay this and would still owe from the bonds outstanding. That is why they want someone else who would have to pay. Why should CCFC have to pay?

I can't see how Wasps could survive and stay at the arena. So the arena would become available. But the arena would have a certain value that is much more than SISU would like to pay. We already know that. So it might help in getting rid of the vermin that occupy what should be ours but it doesn't make it easy for us to own it.

That is where we need promotion badly.

There is a long way for this fiasco to go. But we can't make costly mistakes like signing this indemnity that Wasps insist on.

 

[shmmeee]

If wasps can't pay it, and can't issue more bonds (again OSB and others can comment better on this), I think Sisu 'could' afford it, but given they have proven unlikely to pay previous asking prices, then unlikely.
And, as you say, can't see the council wanting to sell to Sisu. But, if they have just had a legal battle about not getting the correct value and then bulldoze it (however unlikely), not sure that would go down well either!
Can't see a clear way out - as somebody said earlier, a lot of egos/burnt bridges!

What odds would you give me on Sisu winning the case, then they themselves being tied up in legal claims about state aid and harm to business for the next decade?

I mean it’s likely to be appealed whatever the result is (barring it being found no investigation is needed), so we are probably talking 2030 at best now.

 

[shmmeee]

Exactly.

In plain English Wasps wanted CCFC to sign legal papers to say they would pay up all costs complete if the EU found that the Ricoh was undervalued when Wasps purchased the arena. The arena is supposedly valued at about 50m. Wasps paid a fraction of this.

The money would go to CCC. It must be paid if the EU found that the arena was undervalued. Wasps would have to pay this and would still owe from the bonds outstanding. That is why they want someone else who would have to pay. Why should CCFC have to pay?

I can't see how Wasps could survive and stay at the arena. So the arena would become available. But the arena would have a certain value that is much more than SISU would like to pay. We already know that. So it might help in getting rid of the vermin that occupy what should be ours but it doesn't make it easy for us to own it.

That is where we need promotion badly.

There is a long way for this fiasco to go. But we can't make costly mistakes like signing this indemnity that Wasps insist on.

Just feels like this has been mutually assured destruction from day one here.

Only way out is a new ground and that seems even less likely than Joy and Eastwood swallowing their pride.

 

[Astute]

If wasps can't pay it, and can't issue more bonds (again OSB and others can comment better on this), I think Sisu 'could' afford it, but given they have proven unlikely to pay previous asking prices, then unlikely.
And, as you say, can't see the council wanting to sell to Sisu. But, if they have just had a legal battle about not getting the correct value and then bulldoze it (however unlikely), not sure that would go down well either!
Can't see a clear way out - as somebody said earlier, a lot of egos/burnt bridges!

CCC would have to find a buyer. And by law they must provide the best financial outcomes available. Pulling the arena down would be costly as well as losing a valuable asset.

They would be left with no choice but to talk to the owners of CCFC. They would have to find someone else to keep it out of the hands of SISU if they are still with us. And who else would be interested after what has happened with Wasps?

Maybe rent to start with and a deal for the next CCFC owners to purchase?

 

[shmmeee]

CCC would have to find a buyer. And by law they must provide the best financial outcomes available. Pulling the arena down would be costly as well as losing a valuable asset.

They would be left with no choice but to talk to the owners of CCFC. They would have to find someone else to keep it out of the hands of SISU if they are still with us. And who else would be interested after what has happened with Wasps?

Maybe rent to start with and a deal for the next CCFC owners to purchase?

Just thinking off my head here. Wouldn’t the sensible thing be to change the bowl to something else? Concert venue or something. Maybe split it into smaller units. Surely the actual money making part of the Ricoh is the non-football/rugby bits?

I wonder if you’d get an entertainment company to buy it and convert it for that.

 

[skyblue025]

CCC would have to find a buyer. And by law they must provide the best financial outcomes available. Pulling the arena down would be costly as well as losing a valuable asset.

They would be left with no choice but to talk to the owners of CCFC. They would have to find someone else to keep it out of the hands of SISU if they are still with us. And who else would be interested after what has happened with Wasps?

Maybe rent to start with and a deal for the next CCFC owners to purchase?

I'm sure they would talk to SISU. Then tell them the rent is 1 million a year take it or leave it. Joy says thanks but no thanks. Council sell to developers and it's gone.

 

[Astute]

Just feels like this has been mutually assured destruction from day one here.

Only way out is a new ground and that seems even less likely than Joy and Eastwood swallowing their pride.

They both wanted the arena for next to nothing. SISU proudly announced years ago that they tie everyone up with litigation. That is certainly true. There has been constant litigation since they arrived. And this is the first time that I see them as actually having a case. And for once it isn't SISU pursuing the case.

 

[Astute]

Just thinking off my head here. Wouldn’t the sensible thing be to change the bowl to something else? Concert venue or something. Maybe split it into smaller units. Surely the actual money making part of the Ricoh is the non-football/rugby bits?

I wonder if you’d get an entertainment company to buy it and convert it for that.

They would still have to sell for a lot of money and it would cost a lot of money to convert. I couldn't see it as being viable.

 

[Astute]

I'm sure they would talk to SISU. Then tell them the rent is 1 million a year take it or leave it. Joy says thanks but no thanks. Council sell to developers and it's gone.

Sell it to developers for how much?

Then the demolition wouldn't be cheap.

 

[shmmeee]

Sell it to developers for how much?

Then the demolition wouldn't be cheap.

Grant resi planning and sell the freehold and you’d make a fair bit off it. Demo wouldn’t be that much, most of it is car park or empty ground.

 

[skyblue025]

Sell it to developers for how much?

Then the demolition wouldn't be cheap.

You would get a lot of houses / flats on the site and car parks. I don't know the amount that would fit on there but I would guess more than 200 properties averaging 250k and there is 50 mil straight off the bat.

 

[CanadianCCFC]

So basically we’re fucked, not that I learned anything new reading this

 

[pastythegreat]

How is that a hostile takeover being planned now? Sisu just rejected the offer.

Because the Council and W**ps are trying to distress CCFC/SISU in to a forced sale of the club. That's clear as they BOTH have parties interested in the takeover deal. Distressing companies in to better deals is something SISU get slated for daily. But you seem to think it's ok for w**ps/CCC to do it?? Bit hypocritical dont you think??

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

You would get a lot of houses / flats on the site and car parks. I don't know the amount that would fit on there but I would guess more than 200 properties averaging 250k and there is 50 mil straight off the bat.

Try doing the numbers.

Houses are not free to build.

What is the value currently of the arena....And how much would it cost to demolish?

What value would the EU courts put on the value of the arena?

By law CCC must get the best value for anything they dispose of. When they sold it to Wasps there was nobody else interested. SISU just led them on a merry dance and kept refusing to finalise deals. So they were covered there. Fisher even said they wouldn't have paid what Wasps paid as they took the debt on. But we would now be interested if it was to be sold off cheaply for housing. So it wouldn't be able to be sold off cheaply.

Yes the homes built there could be sold for a lot of money. But there is land much cheaper and easier to build on.

 

[Astute]

So basically we’re fucked, not that I learned anything new reading this

Been fucked for years.

Our best shot is Wasps leaving and then seeing what happens. That is why we need Wasps to fail. And I have said all along I can see them failing. Might just be a bit sooner than I thought.

 

[mr_monkey]

Surely the blame is at Sisu's door for running off to the eu in the first place?
Surely after the last arse kicking in court if they'd of drawn a line in the sand and stopped it all then we'd be at the ricoh now?
Or am I missing something?

Swing and a miss.... As stated by someone earlier in the thread sisu agreed to no more legal action against wasps (and signed a legal document saying as much) it was then wasps who changed the goal posts with a clause that they fully knew the club would not agree to.

And for the last time, the EU complaint is not legal action, it is asking them to investigate if the stadium was sold undervalue, which as a council tax paying member of the Coventry public I would personally like to know if this happened