In a 50/50 partnership why not. Even in imbalanced ones there probably would be.[/
QUOTE]
Well its been a long time since I ran a business and I was never in partnership, but it just seems wrong that wasps can inherit a right to veto which could have a big effect on other businesses and a charity.
Or worse yet SISU. Seriously, put sentiment and love of CCFC to one side who in their right mind would get into bed with SISU out of choice?
Well its been a long time since I ran a business and I was never in partnership, but it just seems wrong that wasps can inherit a right to veto which could have a big effect on other businesses and a charity.
Then if they had offered £5m would the club not been getting ripped off? Paying over the odds?
Then if they had offered £5m would the club not been getting ripped off? Paying over the odds?
I agree though, if this whole £2m thing had gone through years ago there would be none of this shite.
Will only have an effect on the charity in terms of, to not use their own veto, they were
clearly OK with the deal to have Wasps come in as co-owners with them...
Well its been a long time since I ran a business and I was never in partnership, but it just seems wrong that wasps can inherit a right to veto which could have a big effect on other businesses and a charity.
But what if they were not? They are in a position (if Wasps do indeed hold that veto) that will be unable to sell to anyone else but Wasps. Seems less than democratic to me.
Has anyone got a link to the PWKH interview?
So when we moved to Sixfields our new stadium was going to be ready in 3 years or 5 at the worst, that would be 2016/17 or 2018/19. We then move back to the Ricoh on the same schedule but just a month after moving back Fisher is already pushing it back to 2019/2020. If that was likely why not agree a 5 year deal. Total incompetence again.
But what if they were not?
Maybe we should have started negotiations before starting the rent boycott? But then would we have had a distressed ACL to attempt to buy half of at a cheaper price. The judge in the JR took a dim view of that didn't he.
Then they could have vetoed the council selling to Wasps.
ACL are clearly distressed - they have just managed to offload to another buyer.
It has certainly been sold off cheaply. If SISU hadn't pissed the shareholders off so much then this could have worked out well for the club.
You are missing the point. The Ricoh would belong to sisu not CCFC and the Club would be paying rent at whatever level sisu chose to implement.
ACL are clearly distressed - they have just managed to offload to another buyer.
ACL are clearly distressed - they have just managed to offload to another buyer.
I'm not missing any point.
You're right they could charge a massive rent, of course they would then have to pay that huge rent themselves, as they own the club.
So basically, are you saying that the council and the Higgs have sold something worth nothing for cash. Sounds like good business for them if it's true. It's a bloody great shame that we managed to annoy the council and be so dismissive of the stadium that they got to the point where they even considered talking to Wasps. It's a disgrace and slightly hypocritical that it is Wasps, but whatever they're now in the driving seat of what should have been our stadium.
As you said we've got pretty much no chance of buying the Higgs share and Joy has pretty much said good luck to Wasps I assume you'll be looking forward to watching us play in the new stadium. Which will be built sometime this century, hopefully.
You're the last person I expected to commend CCC on getting a good deal for the tax payer. From what you say they were lucky to get anything at all.
They would charge massive rent and 'loan' the money to pay it. Taking the higher interest rate they can get and saddling the club with debts that only ever existed on paper. Eventually the debts will be written off to offset a tax bill or something and then they will start again.
Of course anyone wishing to buy the club will have to pay off at least a % of the fabricated loans and then be at the mercy of sisus extortion.
Well James I seem to remember that we had this debate some time ago and I did question the viability long term of the stadium. but you assured everyone the conferences and especially weddings were more profitable that the club renting the pitch. When you say offered something you seem to conveniently forget they have offered far more back. A 180 year extension to the lease this of course has significant value. Another thing you frequently stated is that the charity could be subject to an audit from the charity commission if it sold for less than the initial amount. Hogwash as we thought . In fact if you look at the construct of the deal out together that the council blocked (see LS) it was arguably better and certainly no worse - remember we know nothing of the payment terms of the present deal and probably never will.
As for good deal for the taxpayer what does that mean. £9 per head is hardly good for 9 years into a project is it. If you are referring to discharging the loan then I would draw your attention to the fact the council said it would make a profit from that loan - something you and the many posters on here supporting the move were eager to point out.
Anne Lucas says ACL was washing its face.
Well she's washed her hands of the supporters of Coventry based sport.
Hurrah for the Great Leader
If you say so
We would be mad not to buy the shares surely? Then again this is SISU we're talking about
Higgs and the Council were mad not to accept the offer on the table from Sisu before could also be said.
Higgs and the Council were mad not to accept the offer on the table from Sisu before could also be said.
If there was an offer from SISU that they kept to I might agree with you. But each time they wanted more for less and then it was all about the freehold which CCC were not willing to let go. And still have not.
If there was an offer from SISU that they kept to I might agree with you. But each time they wanted more for less and then it was all about the freehold which CCC were not willing to let go. And still have not.
Ah you now have a new catchphrase. - they are not willing to let the freehold go. So explain from a commercial perspective a 250 year lease and a freehold.
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?