skybluefred
New Member
It's a 250 year lease on the Ricoh so freehold doesn't really matter. Further more the CCC are expecting the adjacent land to be developed by the
Ricoh's owners.
Yes. And?
It is interesting that Anne Lucas was quite open on Sky TV about CCFC having an option to buy the Higgs share, why would she do that if it were not possible? Pointing it out as she did would piss off Wasps you would have thought, and surely she would want to avoid that. So why say it?
Because it is possible and she wants it happen?
Because it is possible and was part of the plan all along?
Because she doesn't understand that its not possible?
Because she knows its not possible and is giving SISU the finger?
Any other suggestions?
Well firstly there appears to be a legal obligation.
Secondly for the large percentage of the population who are board of the saga, it will lodge with them oh well they had the opportunity to buy it (and let's not pretend they haven't had the opportunity and blew it).
Thirdly it probably is flipping the finger at SISU also. But people flip the finger on here all the time given the opportunity.
Shouldn't people be thinking that Sisu offered pretty much what Wasps have offered, except for only 50% of the Ricoh with a much shorter lease, yet it was turned down and now been offered to a Rugby Club from miles away?
All the talk of wasted money on court cases etc would be moot as they wouldn't have happened if the original offer by Sisu had been accepted.
It never became an offer though. The reason being I have been told is SISU kept shifting the goal posts in negotiations. Then both sides lost confidence in each other and it became a mess. The fact that the Wasps deal is very similar to the SISU one shows the deal was there and could have been carried over the line. If only Joy had accepted a long lease. Also redevelopment of the area was always key and there was a comment along the lines of "SISU never showed a clear plan". It may not be exact but it undermined people's confidence about their motives, what they intended to do.
When looking for the truth I look for consistencies. One thing consistent with SISU is they never have a clear plan.
I'm with you on a lot of this Hobo. In actuality, the road-map proposal Fisher put forward way back when was a really clever, credible proposal imho. It wasn't far off the Wasps deal at all. The problem was that it didn't seem to be negotiated in good faith. It started with a threat to pull out, and then SISU went behind everyone's back to the bank, and then they wanted buy-now, pay-later on Higgs and so on. In my opinion this is where the relationship between all of the parties fractured.
I understand entirely why people say it's SISU's fault - it is. But there still wasn't any need for the Council to do this, imho.
She's also flippin the bird at ccfc.It is interesting that Anne Lucas was quite open on Sky TV about CCFC having an option to buy the Higgs share, why would she do that if it were not possible? Pointing it out as she did would piss off Wasps you would have thought, and surely she would want to avoid that. So why say it?
Because it is possible and she wants it happen?
Because it is possible and was part of the plan all along?
Because she doesn't understand that its not possible?
Because she knows its not possible and is giving SISU the finger?
Any other suggestions?
It is interesting that Anne Lucas was quite open on Sky TV about CCFC having an option to buy the Higgs share, why would she do that if it were not possible? Pointing it out as she did would piss off Wasps you would have thought, and surely she would want to avoid that. So why say it?
Because it is possible and she wants it happen?
Because it is possible and was part of the plan all along?
Because she doesn't understand that its not possible?
Because she knows its not possible and is giving SISU the finger?
Any other suggestions?
If you keep looking backwards you don't progress I know that much.
I heard that even if SISU wanted to buy the 50%, the council could veto it (which they surely would) ?
only way they can have that now is if the freeholder has some right of veto and I do not think that exists. CCC no longer own the shores nor do they have directors on the ACL board.
The CET are claiming the council have the right to veto and that right will transfer to wasps when the councils shares of ACL are officially sold to Wasps
Can higgs veto the selling of the shares to wasps?
We've been well and truly shafted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
If AEHC has received an offer from Wasps that find acceptable (which is why they have to notify CCFC Ltd ) why would they veto it?
They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I heard on the radio on the way home something about the club now wanting a five year deal or did I not here it properly/ Anybody shed any light?
but the Wasps CEO confirmed on CWR this morning that they now own the Councils share. I think the transfer has taken place already
That's a good point, now that you have mentioned it, couldn't wasps just put in a derisory offer to the Higgs like say £1 and then just keep blocking any other attempted sale of the higgs shares?They wouldn't. I meant if ccfc put in a slightly higher bid (I'm only talking hypothetically, they won't obviously) and Higgs accept that, but wasps veto. Would higgs be obliged to accept their slightly lower bid or allow them to up it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Remind who is the liquidator in all this?
If so then the right to veto now lies with Wasps then?
So all this, the balls in SISU's court is nonsense in reality.
I'm sure OSB will correct me if wrong but surely the right to veto was the councils because they are the council and need to protect public assets? Surely it would be very wrong if that veto were transferable to a private business?
Both Higgs and the Council could veto any deal the other made
And tbf... why wouldn't they have that right? Who wants to see half the business you're involved in sold to Ted Bundy?
But is that standard business practice?
Both Higgs and the Council could veto any deal the other made.
And tbf... why wouldn't they have that right? Who wants to see half the business you're involved in sold to Ted Bundy?
In a 50/50 partnership why not. Even in imbalanced ones there probably would be.But is that standard business practice?
It was minuted in the last Stadium Forum meeting.
Shouldn't people be thinking that Sisu offered pretty much what Wasps have offered, except for only 50% of the Ricoh with a much shorter lease, yet it was turned down and now been offered to a Rugby Club from miles away?
All the talk of wasted money on court cases etc would be moot as they wouldn't have happened if the original offer by Sisu had been accepted.
Except for the small business of the outstanding rent owed by Sisu/our club at the time the £2m offer was made. If Sisu had offered the £5m in one lump rather than installments we might not be in this position either.
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?