Rob S
Well-Known Member
There's parallel conversation going on in the original Vote Them Out campaign launch thread so here's part of a reply I gave there which might add some more info.
An important point that I will stress: We have not selected candidates yet and we have not formulated a manifesto yet so you are jumping the gun as to our positions for the elections. Part of the reason for putting the call out now is to help formulate that and the debates here and elsewhere will aid that. People being asked for their views on policy before an election? Whatever next! ;-)
There's probably another important point here about the fact that we are calling current councillors and executives to account – and in doing so, seeing if the ones who want to break the silence will – rather than being 'anti-council'. This is not a protest against the institution itself. Just as the councillors should be properly overseeing the executives, so should the people oversee the councillors and call for change if they aren't doing a good enough job.
So which Candidates are FOR giving away the Ricoh to SISU and which ones are AGAINST ?
Do you value it without a football club or with it?
The 2 values would be significantly different.
Sisu plan is to get it at the lower value and increase it's value by bringing back the football team.
Sisu will gain millions at the expense of the council loosing millions. Is this Right or wrong ?
CCFC will pick up the bill for Sisu !!!
We've seen from recent disclosures that the Higgs' share of ACL could have been sold, which would have prevented all this subsequent mess, except that there was an impasse over the value (Higgs wanted £5.5m, Sisu offered £2m after due diligence) and the Council were going to veto the sale anyway.
I think Deering said SISU didn't complete due diligence. The £2m was the charitable donation, they valued the Higgs share at zero.
Rob - have you had any confirmation from any proposed buyer that they want to buy the Ricoh and/or ACL?
C'mon Rob, I'm still waiting for an answer from you!
Considering how sisu have (mis)managed the football club, why should they be entrusted with the stadium? Just so they can "recoup some of the £millions and move on"?
And what happens to the stadium when sisu eventually go?
Sisu etc. are convinced that there is no deal to be done with ACL / CCC following what has gone on over the past 18 months so have to build a new stadium... but … would never turn down an option for a Ricoh deal if one arises before things are too far advanced with the new place.
Sorry! Trying to keep up with the match commentary, four threads here, various other matches around the country and agreed Saturday chores for my wife. On top of campaign duties.
I'd draw a line between the Ranson/Dulieu/Onye Igwe era and the current one. If we had Waggott, Pressley & co. at the Ricoh we'd be very well set up at the Ricoh.
And recent disclosures have shown that ACL / CCC are hardly geniuses at stadium management (e.g. losing your key tenant in a botched takeover bid, having to pay full wack to take over a mortgage, etc.).
Part of the original Higgs share takeover included bringing in AEG to manage the stadium which would be a smart move.
That would depend on the deal negotiated for the Ricoh. No new owner will or would touch the club without the stadium attached in a meaningful way so if they want out, they'd need to offer a decent package.
All that said, the key thing is to have realised that all parties have got us into this mess and it will take all parties to get us out. Blaming one side gets us another 3 years on our Sixfields sentence.
So you've been talking to SISU have you. Otherwise how would you know what their reaction would be.
As did a PwC report according to the court
However, there will come a time when we are too far down the new stadium route to make a difference and that's when we will have to pull the plug on our campaign.
So you've been talking to SISU have you. Otherwise how would you know what their reaction would be.
The PwC report said that IF certain events occurred then there would be HIGH RISK of the value being nil. That is not the same as it having a nil value.
And as Deering said SISU were still prepared to pay £5.5m despite their view of the valuation being nil.
If the real value was nil I'd have paid over the odds and bought the shares myself for £5, and I would have been prepared to show proof of funds.
When do you think they will make a start on the new stadium route?
It was £2m after due dil. Apparently cash flow and the Compass contracts were major problems. (I haven't seen anything in writing but have head that Compass get a guaranteed income. If that is true it is completely nuts.) Don't forget that they were going to be paying off the mortgage leaving ACL debt-free too.
Well, they already have. I know there's been a lot of 'show us the plans' but I can see that a lot of prelim. work has been done and there really are two sites in play.
Deering said they didn't finish due diligence, are you saying they did? Where have you heard about the Compass deal from? So you know where the sites are then?
Starting to panic? He's a lot more effective than the kcic bunch isn't he?
It was £2m after due dil. Apparently cash flow and the Compass contracts were major problems. (I haven't seen anything in writing but have head that Compass get a guaranteed income. If that is true it is completely nuts.) Don't forget that they were going to be paying off the mortgage leaving ACL debt-free too.
Well, they already have. I know there's been a lot of 'show us the plans' but I can see that a lot of prelim. work has been done and there really are two sites in play.
I ask again, what harm does this approach do? If you don't agree with it that's fine but many of these criticisms seem a bit off. Didn't David Davis successfully stand on a one-issue basis? And that bloke with the white suit? It does no harm to challenge all the parties as far as I can see. Best of luck Rob.
Excellent, I just wish they'd hurry up about it.
I suppose it keeps the fans arguing amongst themselves rather than keeping constant pressure on SISU.
Rob is campaigning for SISU to pay a fair price for the Ricoh and/or ACL, I'm not sure which. The Council can't sell ACL on their own, the freehold isn't worth anything to the club as it doesn't generate revenue. If SISU were prepared to pay a fair price then it wouldn't need a campaign. So it seems confusing to me.
But what harm does it do?
But what harm does it do?
Rob S is trying to have a sensible discussion. He is one mother most sensible and astute people we have had on here and who recognises what has to be done.
If you can't engage in a sensible way why not just leave the stupid comments eh?
.... and this is your contribution ?
Rob S said in post #80:
"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too".
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too. Bit like a 50p piece
Anyhow, the 'Sisu view' is that the new stadium is the way to go because they don't see how a deal can be done with the Council the way things are as they are only offering a rental deal (i.e. less than was in negotiation in 2012) and they need something more substantial to work with.
From that we're making the assumption that if things changed then maybe there's an opening and that's where we see a chance to have an effect. However, there will come a time when we are too far down the new stadium route to make a difference and that's when we will have to pull the plug on our campaign.
I know there's been a lot of 'show us the plans' but I can see that a lot of prelim. work has been done and there really are two sites in play.
Rob mate, there's a lot of (understandable) suspicion here. I'd advise letting the fans know the details before going onto Central News to be perfectly honest.
The problem all sides have had here is not keeping fans informed and not being transparent. If you have knowledge others don't or if you refuse to answer certain questions it won't help your point.
I'd suggest a clear manifesto and openness about your current contact with the club at the very least if you're asking people to vote you in as their representative, otherwise it looks (like everything else you've done TBH) like another partisan, secretive campaign, rather than an honest attempt at engagement and resolution.
Say what you want about the other fans groups, but they've all stated their aims clearly and canvassed opinion on their actions. I'm not saying not doing that means anything, but you can understand people's concerns.
Have you seen something the rest of us haven't (and if so how have you had access to it?) as from what I've seen there is zero evidence of any work being done and the two sites actually existing. We were told last year we were down to two sites and HOT had been agreed and nothing has moved forward. A year in and all we've got is a picture of a ground Brentford rejected as unambitious with the seat colour changed to blue!
Really? Ok then from your perception describe the mission statement for the sky blues trust and kcic - their 3 most important objectives and the strategy deployed to successfully achieve these objectives.
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?