D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
Well it seems it's better than watching the game.
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
Your opening gambit is the most preposterous statement I've read in some time. A party who states 'we're not interested in your stadium as we're building anew' - that ambition wouldn't impact the negotiation to buy the stadium they're claiming they're disinterested in?!? What sort of logic is that?
I was actually wondering, given it seems quite busy on here, quite how (un)successful the ticket offer had been!
Of course you're right, but that's kind of the point.
The RIcoh rent was high because there was a monopoly in stadium supply for Coventry City Football club.
Likewise, SISU have banked on there being a monopoly of club supply for a stadium in Coventry.
Both 'sides'of this have played the negotiating hands using basic A level EconomicsBut in that instance, the 'new stadium' only hardened from Plan B to Plan A when negotiations were at an end, according to certain parties involved.
Not unreasonable to see it as a negotiating tool, however. Yep, of course it'd have an effect on the value and yep... it did indeed have an effecton the value.
Nobody, afte all, thought the stadium management company worth buying on the terms offered.
It's how business works. To give you an example several months ago I sold one of my business premises, it wasn't on the market but myself and my business partner were approached. The potential purchaser made it very clear we were second choice and he was negotiating for his first choice and confident of completing that deal. That made not the slightest bit of difference to our approach to negotiations, why would it? We negotiated a price we were happy to sell at, as it turned out his first choice fell through and we sold.
Look at it this way, if you want £250K for your house and someone offers you £250K you couldn't care less if they kept telling you they preferred the house down the road and wanted to buy that. You do your deal and thats it.
What route are you trying to take this?
Door is still open. We won't wait forever. Just a couple of comments from AL. So if it wasn't offering the chance to talk what are you going to try and make out it was?
I'm not trying to take it anywhere, I'm just pointing out that no bid was invited from the club along the same lines as that offered to Wasps (5.4m and 250 years).
Everything Lucas said about the "door being open" was before we came back from Northampton. Once we got back the council clearly stated they wanted to rebuild trust before talking about ownership. (Good idea, I thought!).
At exactly the same time, of course, CCC were doing a secret deal with Wasps. It's a bit awkward that, if you're trying to pretend that the council was willing to sell to the club on the same terms. By that time they'd decided to sell to Wasps, and the door was clearly closed. It likely will be for another 250 years.
The rights and wrongs of that decision are debateable - but the facts there are surely beyond dispute.
And here's where your comparison falls over - both parties in your instance still sat down to conclude a deal. And despite the bollocks, did so.
I kind of agree with you. The rent was too high, clearly and manifestly. No debate there. So, a candid debate needed to be had with regards that. Ideally at the time of purchase - SISU used the 'or else' tactic to get shares, so why not a better rent deal?
But things go really pear-shaped when you refuse to negotiate candidly; and tell someone you're disinterested.
We all use brinkmanship in negotiations to get a better deal. For example, you tell someone their bananas are too expensive at two for £1; and you tell them you want 4 for £1; hoping you'll get three.
The problem being when you tell them you want no bananas at all, and that you're actually shopping for an ostrich and walk away down the street; deals don't generally tend to happen.
If you follow the ambition of my fruity metaphor....
It's how business works. To give you an example several months ago I sold one of my business premises, it wasn't on the market but myself and my business partner were approached. The potential purchaser made it very clear we were second choice and he was negotiating for his first choice and confident of completing that deal. That made not the slightest bit of difference to our approach to negotiations, why would it? We negotiated a price we were happy to sell at, as it turned out his first choice fell through and we sold.
Look at it this way, if you want £250K for your house and someone offers you £250K you couldn't care less if they kept telling you they preferred the house down the road and wanted to buy that. You do your deal and thats it.
A few posts ago you were saying that was preposterous so which is it? Surely if it could be done then SISU talking about a new stadium should not have had an impact on the stance of CCC?
Everything Lucas said about the "door being open" was before we came back from Northampton. Once we got back the council clearly stated they wanted to rebuild trust before talking about ownership. (Good idea, I thought!).
At exactly the same time, of course, CCC were doing a secret deal with Wasps. It's a bit awkward that, if you're trying to pretend that the council was willing to sell to the club on the same terms. By that time they'd decided to sell to Wasps, and the door was clearly closed. It likely will be for another 250 years.
Have to agree with you on that one. The council's stance and rhetoric there appear disgusting and dishonest
If I am a CCC supporter that would make you a SISU supporter. And we know that isn't true. But hey it is good to try to put someone on the back foot that has a different or fuller view.
CCC could and should have taken a different route. But only the blind can't see why they took the route they did.
The only difference between us is that I say that I can see why CCC did it. Some ignore this fact.
Well sisu ain't gone yet and looks like they won't be any time soon, so what do ccc do with a public asset going down the swanee and with firm (Wasps) looking to buy, how long should they have waited, a few weeks ? months ? year or two ? and remember at the time we were still committed to Northampton. Yes there's fingers to be pointed all round going back to when the Ricoh was built and beyond. Our owners, if that's what sisu are had the opportunity for years to buy into the Arena and chose not to, end of.
Well sisu ain't gone yet and looks like they won't be any time soon, so what should ccc have done with a public asset going down the swanee and with firm (Wasps) looking to buy, how long should they have waited, a few weeks ? months ? year or two ? and remember at the time we were still committed to Northampton. Yes there's fingers to be pointed all round going back to when the Ricoh was built and beyond. Our owners, if that's what sisu are had the opportunity for years to buy into the Arena and chose not to, end of.
Now, call me old fashioned but I really CAN'T see why CCC did it. I know what you're saying that there was no knowing how long SISU were going to be here but I think we can all probably agree that they certainly won't be here forever. So, all CCC had to do was bide their time, keep hold of that golden community asset that is the Ricoh and then when new owners come along do a deal with them. Everyone's happy; the club and the stadium are united (rightfully so) and we don't have those pesky out-of-towners owning (essentially) the stadium which, the majority seem to agree (or at least publicly state on here) was/is wrong.
Yes I kind of think that too. They could have waited, but I suspect they wanted SISU off their backs - being sued endlessly is tiresome and, like all councils, CCC is facing massive cuts.
The key point there is you say a public asset was going down the swanee, the exact opposite of what CCC were claiming. If it was indeed the case that ACL were in difficulties and needed to be offloaded it should have been put on the market, make it known to all interested parties what terms the sale is on and everyone gets to bid on that basis.
Who knows, a competitive bidding process may have seen a bigger return for CCC and Higgs. It would also have given the likes of CRFC and any other parties who would be impacted by a sale to a particular purchaser to state their case.
I appreciate what you are saying, but a competitive bidding situation never materialised because SISU were not interested.
SISU didn't need to be interested for there to be a competitive bidding situation. For all we know there may be other parties who would have been interested in the Ricoh had it been placed on the market. Doesn't need to be a sports 'franchise' could be stadium or arena operating companies, hedge funds (a Lloyds fund has just taken over the NEC I believe).
Plus of course if it was known to be on the market there would have been huge pressure on SISU to make a bid.
To use everyone's favourite house analogy. If you wanted to sell your house you wouldn't do it in secret for a seemingly low price, you'd put it on the market and hope to attract as much interest as possible to get yourself the best price.
SISU didn't need to be interested for there to be a competitive bidding situation. For all we know there may be other parties who would have been interested in the Ricoh had it been placed on the market. Doesn't need to be a sports 'franchise' could be stadium or arena operating companies, hedge funds (a Lloyds fund has just taken over the NEC I believe).
Plus of course if it was known to be on the market there would have been huge pressure on SISU to make a bid.
To use everyone's favourite house analogy. If you wanted to sell your house you wouldn't do it in secret for a seemingly low price, you'd put it on the market and hope to attract as much interest as possible to get yourself the best price.
Now, call me old fashioned but I really CAN'T see why CCC did it. I know what you're saying that there was no knowing how long SISU were going to be here but I think we can all probably agree that they certainly won't be here forever. So, all CCC had to do was bide their time, keep hold of that golden community asset that is the Ricoh and then when new owners come along do a deal with them. Everyone's happy; the club and the stadium are united (rightfully so) and we don't have those pesky out-of-towners owning (essentially) the stadium which, the majority seem to agree (or at least publicly state on here) was/is wrong.
If that is the case why do some try to blame CCC for the state of our club?
“I’ve made it clear and it’s no secret I am prepared to talk to, and do business with, any sensible legitimate business person with any offer to make. Nothing is ruled in and I have never ruled anything out.
- Ann Lucas December 2013.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-council-leader-says-ricoh-6370106
"Council chief: We need time to rebuild trust before we discuss Ricoh Arena ownership"
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-chief-need-time-rebuild-7651892
Phil Townshend (Acting Leader, CCC). 21st August 2014.
The sale deal was already done by then, but I'd imagine they were bound by contract not to say anything. Clearly it would have been better to say nothing. The time to make a move was back in Dec 13, or before of course.
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?