Did Sisu appeal? (3 Viewers)

[Nick]

I am talking about Wasps of today who are trying to be the Richest club in Europe and unfortunately own ACL and all the marketing that comes with it.
Not Wasps of old.

I am surprised you think a 4th division football club. Renting it's stadium of which it has no agreement on beyond next summer.
Who have been on consecutive decline. Playing in front of crowds probably of 8k next year. Have more marketing pull than a Rugby club who are probably one of the best 2-3 in the country.
Who play at the top level in Europe and average crowds of 20k (guess)

I genuinely assumed it would just be a fact accepted by everyone that Wasps have more pull at the moment.
Clearly not

I was pointing out to compare people who sponsor Wasps as a rugby team and CCFC as a football team so it was like for like.

Both will probably have more sponsors and partners than you have listed anyway. I was just pointing out that somehow you managed to miss a massive blue image with a Nike tick on when listing CCFC's

 

---

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

We were also not moving to Northampton. That was a mere bluff.
The owners were right to not agree a deal with ACL. As the Ricoh was a white elephant no one else would want so you may as well make ACL bust and pick it up for nothing.
We should stay at Northampton till ACL go bust.
SISU will win the legal action. SISU should do the legal action it won't harm the club. SISU never wanted to win the legal
Wasps are not affected by the legal action.
The list is endless and priceless to be fair.
The only bloke on this web site who actually does seem to know something about what is going on us Italia.

That isn't a bad list and he also helps toward our best informants pension I hear.

 

[Grendel]

We were also not moving to Northampton. That was a mere bluff. .

No I never said that – can you post me a link

The owners were right to not agree a deal with ACL. As the Ricoh was a white elephant no one else would want so you may as well make ACL bust and pick it up for nothing

I was right on that. As I have previously pointed out you need to understand the original meaning of the term. Without an extended lease the value was zero which is why it had to have a 6 fold extension on price to even then only have a value of the amount we signed and paid Freddie Eastwood for the duration of his stay here. You, on the other hand, thought it was worth around £60 million on its original lease and that the club should have paid more for the Higgs share on said lease for a 50% share than Wasps paid for the lot on a lifetime lease

We should stay at Northampton till ACL go bust.

I never actually said that either but as a strategy it had merit – it was just a shame that the Council were prepared to give effectively freehold to a London sports team rather than the football team that has been here over 100 years.

SISU will win the legal action.

I certainly never said that

SISU should do the legal action it won't harm the club.

Again I never said any of that. What I said was if the legal process allows it to happen you should not use blackmail to prevent due process

SISU never wanted to win the legal

Correct they don’t – they want to use it as a means of remaining in the battleground. It may not be a strategy people can understand but it is their strategy which many on here now acknowledge.

Wasps are not affected by the legal action.

Correct they aren’t. They still want the club to commit to a long term arrangement at the ground.

The list is endless and priceless to be fair.

It clearly isn’t

The only bloke on this web site who actually does seem to know something about what is going on us Italia.

According to Italia initially the Ricoh would be more profitable if there was no sporting club at all but it was used for showjumping. Then it was the Land Rover stadium 3 years ago. Then Wasps were lining up to buy CCFC. His one fact apparently was on facebook two weeks prior though I suspect his source was closer to his nest.

 

[bawtryneal]

What was the situation when Allsop took over?

We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.

 

[Nick]

We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.

We had the Charity for 3 months I think, the cup game was against arsenal when we had a betting company if I remember. Never heard of them before or since. Before that it was city link, then they went tits up. Probably from giving us an apparent £1m for a shirt deal!

 

[Astute]

What was the situation when Allsop took over?

We swapped one crap GK for another crap GK.

 

[dongonzalos]

We had the Charity for 3 months I think, the cup game was against arsenal when we had a betting company if I remember. Never heard of them before or since. Before that it was city link, then they went tits up. Probably from giving us an apparent £1m for a shirt deal!

Bloody hell

 

[dongonzalos]

We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.

Doesn't really show us an attractive proposition

 

[Grendel]

Doesn't really show us an attractive proposition

The current shirt sponsorship is around £100,000

 

[Hobo]

What did Land Rover have to do with wasps coming here.

I don't know, but they announced their sponsorship at the time of Wasps purchase of ACL pre first game. That sort of deal doesn't happen over night.

 

[Astute]

I don't know, but they announced their sponsorship at the time of Wasps purchase of ACL pre first game. That sort of deal doesn't happen over night.

Neither does a multi million pound purchase of a stadium nearly a hundred miles from home.

 

[singers_pore]

Without an extended lease the value was zero

So a lease that is 50 years long has a value of zero while a lease that is 250 years long has a value of 65 million. You really are an idiot aren't you.

 

[martcov]

No I never said that – can you post me a link




I was right on that. As I have previously pointed out you need to understand the original meaning of the term. Without an extended lease the value was zero which is why it had to have a 6 fold extension on price to even then only have a value of the amount we signed and paid Freddie Eastwood for the duration of his stay here. You, on the other hand, thought it was worth around £60 million on its original lease and that the club should have paid more for the Higgs share on said lease for a 50% share than Wasps paid for the lot on a lifetime lease


Who set the value at nil? Joy. And you. Wasps and the council thought differently. There was a way of increasing the value relatively simply - for anyone other than SISU. So the value wasn't nil because of the potential.

I never actually said that either but as a strategy it had merit – it was just a shame that the Council were prepared to give effectively freehold to a London sports team rather than the football team that has been here over 100 years.

No it didn't have merit. There was no guarantee that we were "the only show in town". The strategy didn't last long when Wasps appeared on the horizon.


I certainly never said that






Again I never said any of that. What I said was if the legal process allows it to happen you should not use blackmail to prevent due process

What, like threatening continuous litigation if you don't get your own way?



Correct they don’t – they want to use it as a means of remaining in the battleground. It may not be a strategy people can understand but it is their strategy which many on here now acknowledge.

Great strategy. Prefer Wasps strategy though. Increase the value of the Ricoh and achieve sporting success.





Correct they aren’t. They still want the club to commit to a long term arrangement at the ground.

Wasps may have been affected if SISU had a case and were well prepared. At the time it could have been presumed that SISU may have known what they were doing.





It clearly isn’t


Not bad though.



According to Italia initially the Ricoh would be more profitable if there was no sporting club at all but it was used for showjumping. Then it was the Land Rover stadium 3 years ago. Then Wasps were lining up to buy CCFC. His one fact apparently was on facebook two weeks prior though I suspect his source was closer to his nest.

Yes, at least as accurate as calling it an "edifice" in a negative comment or a "white elephant"

 

[skybluetony176]

Without an extended lease the value was zero

That actually isn't true.

As OSB has explained a gazillion times owning the original lease gave you the exclusive right to buy an extended lease. You had to have the original lease to get the extended lease so to say it that the original lease had no value is just plain wrong. In many ways it was more valuable and if you look at the purchase of ACL you could argue that they did actually pay more for the initial lease than the extension. Unless you're now saying ACL wasn't worthless.

 

[Astute]

Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.

 

[Captain Dart]

Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.

What we found out was that in certain person's minds there is no distinction between a lie and a fact used to back up an argument provided the lie fits the argument.

 

[Grendel]

Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.

So without a lease extension would wasps have purchased it -- yes or no?

 

[Grendel]

So a lease that is 50 years long has a value of zero while a lease that is 250 years long has a value of 65 million. You really are an idiot aren't you.

The lease was 42 years long and the real value as you well know is nowhere near 65 million. If that were the case then the business was sold significantly under value - you sound like sisus legal team.

You also know that wasps wouldn't have contemplating buying ACL without any lease extension.

 

[Grendel]

Yes, at least as accurate as calling it an "edifice" in a negative comment or a "white elephant"

If, as you say, the value could have been achieved relatively simply (I assume you mean the lease) why was it not extended at the beginning thus increasing the Higgs valuation overnight?
Why, if it was that simple, were the club never even when relations were OK offered a purchase of the council share first and only ever the inflation Higgs formula price which under the terms of the lease was collosolly overvalued?

 

[skybluetony176]

So without a lease extension would wasps have purchased it -- yes or no?

As per usual you're putting the cart before the horse. Could Wasps have purchased the lease extension without purchasing ACL first? Yes or No?

The true cost of purchasing the 250 year lease was the cost of purchasing ACL AND the cost of the extension. You couldn't do one without the other. You're only fooling yourself if you think any different.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

If, as you say, the value could have been achieved relatively simply (I assume you mean the lease) why was it not extended at the beginning thus increasing the Higgs valuation overnight?
Why, if it was that simple, were the club never even when relations were OK offered a purchase of the council share first and only ever the inflation Higgs formula price which under the terms of the lease was collosolly overvalued?

The formula price was the maximum the club would have to pay, the club's owners agreed a lower than formula price with Higgs. As part of the same deal the Council were willing to extend the lease to 125 years for free. Sounds like a good deal to me, but alas 'mad' Joy changed her mind.

 

[Grendel]

The formula price was the maximum the club would have to pay, the club's owners agreed a lower than formula price with Higgs. As part of the same deal the Council were willing to extend the lease to 125 years for free. Sounds like a good deal to me, but alas 'mad' Joy changed her mind.

Did the council agree to sell their share?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Did the council agree to sell their share?

I'm not aware of them either agreeing to or not agreeing to, are you saying they refused? I take it you accept the other points.

 

[skybluetony176]

Did the council agree to sell their share?

Wouldn't SISU have to have been an interested purchaser for the council to agree or disagree a sale to the club.

It is well documented in the courts that SISU are interested in investing millions in speculative legal action but not interested in investing millions in a tangible asset such as The Ricoh to the benefit of the club. Hell it would have even been of benefit to SISU given how speculative said court action has proved to be. You have to have a willing purchaser equally as much as you have to have a willing seller. In that respect SISU are at least equal to whatever you like to think the council are. Given the fact that Joy had the council leader in her office willing to listen to her proposal (which never came) you'd have to (using your logic) say they're were even less willing.

 

[chiefdave]

The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.

 

[Grendel]

I'm not aware of them either agreeing to or not agreeing to, are you saying they refused? I take it you accept the other points.

They said bridges needed to built

 

[skybluetony176]

They said bridges needed to built

What about the prior 7 years? What about when Joy had the council leader in her office having travelled to London to hear her offer that was never made?

 

[skybluetony176]

The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.

Only problem with that theory is that the plain truth is ACL couldn't afford to extend the lease. Something else I think OSB has explained a gazillion times.

 

[Grendel]

The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.

Indeed and it's a question most on this forum conveniently ignore.

 

[skybluetony176]

Indeed and it's a question most on this forum conveniently ignore.

So how were ACL going to pay for the lease extension? Maybe another YB mortgage? I think we both know the answer to that one although my guess is that you will conveniently ignore the question.

 

[chiefdave]

So how were ACL going to pay for the lease extension? Maybe another YB mortgage? I think we both know the answer to that one although my guess is that you will conveniently ignore the question.

The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.

 

[skybluetony176]

The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.

There would have to be an appetite to invest from either share owner for that to happen. That was clearly not there and why would it have been. Who in their right mind would have invested in a stadium with no anchor tennant unless you had an anchor tennant to bring to the show?

So that means that the only way investment was going to happen was for ACL to be sold. Should have been to CCFC but Joy was more interested in investing in speculative legal action than a tangible asset. Queue Wasps arrival.

A millstone of a company offloaded and a sizable debt paid back. No brainer really in business terms.

 

[Grendel]

The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.

Indeed

 

[chiefdave]

Who in their right mind would have invested in a stadium with no anchor tennant unless you had an anchor tennant to bring to the show?

The lease extension was agreed at the same meeting as the sale to Wasps. They could have extended the lease at that point under CCC / Higgs ownership knowing there was an anchor tenant coming in.

 

[Grendel]

The lease extension was agreed at the same meeting as the sale to Wasps. They could have extended the lease at that point under CCC / Higgs ownership knowing there was an anchor tenant coming in.

I'm sure Rusty or Council Dart will have an explanation.

 

[Astute]

Did the council agree to sell their share?

When a serious bidder came along yes.

As you know SISU kept coming to an agreement with Higgs ant then pulling out at the last minute. Each time they came back with a lower bid. Until finally they offered nothing but a 1m donation as they were a charity.

So what serious bid did they give to CCC? Oh yes I remember now. They refused to talk. They were only interested in ACL without the loan attached. Remember that word? Unencumbered.

And some still try and blame CCC for everything.