Probably missed that amongst all the drivel.
Does anyone have a link?
assuming that Wasps have a 250 year lease on the whole site as has been said then they can do, subject to planning permission and CCC freeholder permission, what they like on the site. But it has always been the case that ACL could develop the site, they just didn't have the money to do it, so what has actually changed?
At the moment the Liquidator requires expressions of serious and well founded intent in salvaging CCFC Ltd and needs to express to AEHC that there is a serious intent on his behalf to take up the option to bid. Has he done and got that?. This current deadline has not been about doing the deal, but acquiring the time to put a proper deal together. No one is going to release information even if there were not NDA's in place unless there is a serious intent and funds to do it.
If Wasps do not want a deal done by CCFC/Otium/ARVO/SISU for their fellow stakeholders shares and their own deal is covered by NDA's what would they be doing right now?...................
Evening Reg!:wave:
Good chance as the bloke on the left of you might also be on your right !Afternoon CoB. Going posh tomorrow? See u there hopefully.
Could it be that the Wasps deal has incorporated an obligation to build a hotel or other development targets within a certain timeframe? If so, that will require capital and it would not be unreasonable to ask for specifics.
BTW, would it be possible to revive ccfc ltd (out of liquidation and back into trading) and what would it take?
The lease part is I suppose the tricky part?
The Liquidator is not affected by NDA's ( I think )
I repeat we do not know the full deal to WASPS which may extend beyond the CCC /ACL shares
no but ACL, AEHC, CCC & Wasps are affected by NDA's and they hold the info.
No we don't know the details of the deal and yes it might be more than the shares, there might be a development deal of some kind - there might not. But once they have the long leasehold if there was a development clause how are CCC going to force them to develop land if Wasps say they can't afford to do it?
Think we both agree however it is all speculation and the details are unlikely to come out for some time
I want closure on this.
Waiting for Wasps to fall over just drags it on and on.
Sisu need to buy into the other 50%, if they can.
But would the "development deal " be for the benefit ACL or a WASPs outpost? Is it even to develop the Ricoh site or other land nearby
Think Oldskyblue has it bang on. This is a process thing.
I cannot see WASPS entering into any agreement without there being a known outcome with due process.
SISU's incompetence is breathtaking and they have poorly served their investors by not being though and underestimation the other parties.
well they have already said that they will be developing a training ground in the area ....... that doesn't have to be at the Ricoh.
I don't think that anyone would begrudge SISU / CCC/ HIGGS/WASPS or any potential owner the right to build sporting success upon a property portfolio that delivers revenue into the club and regenerates north of the city and the local economy. That is exactly what was the plan when Brian Richardson took us from Highfield road.
If this turns out to be a property development led deal what will peoples reaction be after all the criticism at SISU for the same thing?
PWKH said it in a radio interview with Shane O Connor
I agree about a local team doing it but....
WASPS have shown quiet determination to make this happen and cut a deal. They then announced a local Coventry Sponsor, Whitley based Land Rover, they then set about addressing their own fans concerns about the relocation and given the antiquated protest at the live match against Bath it seems to have been accepted fopr what it is, the survival of the team.
I have no doubt that they will deliver on the training facility in Coventry. There is at least one lower league union side with better facilities than both Coventry City or Cov RFC so there is much scope to partner with a local team to develop an academy and training structure either as a stand alone or Joint Venture. Most of our local Rugby clubs own an area at least as big as Ryton.
I just get the impression that these guys will make it stick.
I agree about a local team doing it but....
WASPS have shown quiet determination to make this happen and cut a deal. They then announced a local Coventry Sponsor, Whitley based Land Rover, they then set about addressing their own fans concerns about the relocation and given the antiquated protest at the live match against Bath it seems to have been accepted fopr what it is, the survival of the team.
I have no doubt that they will deliver on the training facility in Coventry. There is at least one lower league union side with better facilities than both Coventry City or Cov RFC so there is much scope to partner with a local team to develop an academy and training structure either as a stand alone or Joint Venture. Most of our local Rugby clubs own an area at least as big as Ryton.
I just get the impression that these guys will make it stick.
Wouldn't we just be swapping Cayman for Malta though?
And "investors". Like those faceless people behind SISU? It's all so depressing.
Wouldn't we just be swapping Cayman for Malta though?
And "investors". Like those faceless people behind SISU? It's all so depressing.
We would. But like many have said about SISU owning the Ricoh, at least we would be owned by the same faceless people who own our ground.
Sorry Wingy the entire purchase price had to be dropped 10m just so Wasps could have the funding in place.
Wouldn't that just be the same as SISU owning the Ricoh, which many don't want to happen?
well they have already said that they will be developing a training ground in the area ....... that doesn't have to be at the Ricoh.
If this turns out to be a property development led deal what will peoples reaction be after all the criticism at SISU for the same thing?
Personally, I hope they fail. I hope people don't attend their games, I hope they go bust. I won't ever recognise them as a Coventry team.
broadstreetah, i was on side until you said "but".
I agree about a local team doing it but....
WASPS have shown quiet determination to make this happen and cut a deal. They then announced a local Coventry Sponsor, Whitley based Land Rover, they then set about addressing their own fans concerns about the relocation and given the antiquated protest at the live match against Bath it seems to have been accepted fopr what it is, the survival of the team.
I have no doubt that they will deliver on the training facility in Coventry. There is at least one lower league union side with better facilities than both Coventry City or Cov RFC so there is much scope to partner with a local team to develop an academy and training structure either as a stand alone or Joint Venture. Most of our local Rugby clubs own an area at least as big as Ryton.
I just get the impression that these guys will make it stick.
It is not as is SISU have done any good for the club, why do you cling to them?
The problem with the training academy though, that isn't just financial - the governing board (presumably the RFU) said this...
"Wasps' relocation to the Midlands is purely for matches and should not come into conflict with the Academy systems run by other professional clubs in the Midlands - champions Northampton, Premiership rivals Leicester and Championship side Worcester, who opened a new regional development centre in the city, at Broadstreet RFC, in May."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29631938
That seems to directly contradict the idea that the council and Wasps are trying to sell, that they're moving their academy and training facilities up here. Even if they had the cash, it doesn't look likely that the RFU would let it happen.
To me this is just another example of someone spinning a line, and the council buying it because it suits them.
They can't move the academy, they can build a training facility. No spin involved, two different things.
They can't move the academy, they can build a training facility. No spin involved, two different things.
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?