Wasps took advantage of a vulnerable situation- that is what businesses do. Cannot blame a business for acting in it's own interests. Except, of course, SISU because they took over a club with a loyal fan base and by acting in what they thought was in their interests, managed to screw the whole thing up. What businesses shouldn't do is put themselves in a vulnerable position. The fault in this case lies squarely by SISU.
Letters from Mark Robins (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluebeduff
- Start date
Wasps took advantage of a vulnerable situation- that is what businesses do. Cannot blame a business for acting in it's own interests. Except, of course, SISU because they took over a club with a loyal fan base and by acting in what they thought was in their interests, managed to screw the whole thing up. What businesses shouldn't do is put themselves in a vulnerable position. The fault in this case lies squarely by SISU.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If he's so clued up he'd know full well the offer would be rejected out of hand by the clubs owners - so why offer it in the first place?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't have even looked at the place without the lease extension - something which will always raise the value.
Yes, they were in the driving seat and able to do that. SISU were in the driving seat when they were collecting people's shares at the takeover. Joy later wanted to play hardball with the bank to get the loan reduced. The time for SISU to play hard ball and get what Wasps got was at the beginning- before they signed the takeover contract. I am surprised they didn't.
My thought is that he is indirectly acknowledging it is worth 10 million by suggesting the add ons to bring it to that amount. If he had said 10 million cash, Joy would have said 20 - guess - and they may have gone for 15 ( something like that ). By starting low and hinting at a possible 10 he is suggesting that the haggling is about how much is cash up to the 10 million. Pure conjecture on my part, but I think his bid is reasoned and not just a figure.
Can't remember. All this will no doubt come out at the JR.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't think the consortium has anything like £10 million
No, nor do I, but as you have said, if CCFC debt was bought out and preference shares were withdrawn/ counted as worthless through creation of a new holding company, then the company would have more assets than liabilities plus the brand. Someone would lend something against the - in this case - net assets. Additional security could be personal guarantees of the members of the consortium. But they would have to have some millions towards the purchase - and working capital which people seem to forget...
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Sounds like it was written by Fisher
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
not the majority, they are just walking away. Again, this is the vocal minority
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
So, SISU can't fuck a fan base over, but Wasps can?
If you're going to defend Wasps by saying 'they're just a business', then surely you can't blame SISU for acting in their business interests...
You should change your 'Refugees Welcome' banner to a 'Wasps Welcome' one instead!
Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue
Well-Known Member
This thread is full of Wasps apologists....but I really think SISU have had their opportunities since coming in to buy the Ricoh but never put their money where their mouth is. That's not to say that Wasps aren't conniving, selfish, Tory pricks, who make it abundantly clear they don't have a lot of time for us.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
If SISU had acted properly in their own interests- making CCFC a valuable asset to sell on at a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. They have acted like tossers from day one in a way that they thought was in their own interests, but they ended up with a disaster through their own incompetence. If CCFC were now in the Ricoh with SISU as owners and playing in the premiere league, (as Wasps are in Rugby ), would you need to call me a SISU apologist? No, because that is what businesses are supposed to do - create value. Just because ours hasn't done that, doesn't make me an apologist for those who have added value. It is just a fact that Wasps are in the position we should have been in - SISU's fault not Wasps.
As regards my banner, it reads: 'Hoffman Welcome' at the moment.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Extending the lease would still mean it would be distressed eventually, if it didn't have its anchor tennant. It would need to find a new tennant. Plus the charity were always saying they wanted out.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes he did there was a plan in place which he agreed with which they deviated away from and then he left.
Nick
Administrator
Extending the lease would have taken off a lot of pressure wouldn't it?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Never been to a Wasps game in my life and have no intention to. I think franchising is wrong and despite the fact it doesn't seem to be such a no no in Rugby as it is in football Indont understand why the RFC have not banned it
A lot of Cov fans are going to watch CRFC instead and a most are doing neither. What does that make them?
As you said back at the start of your post SISU are the primary cause of this stituation. Non of this was possible if they negotiated in a different manner. Yes Wasps have taken full advantage and no, moving clubs should not be allowed. It is bizzare that their governing body allows it.
The Council had two choices let ACL go bust or sell up. They choose the second one. My sky blue tinted glasses does not mean I am not capable of understanding why they did that.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I am not so sure as the person who wrote this has an understanding of the potential of the fan base
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It would not have solved the issue of getting Higgs some money. Allowing Higgs to leave.
It would not have solved the problem of finding a replacement anchor tennant which many on here were keen to point out was not possible.
Also ACL would continue to be distressed.
It also may have made finding an alternative impossible.
Don't forget we were building our own stadium at the time and were not negotiating or coming back under any circumstances.
It would not have solved the problem of finding a replacement anchor tennant which many on here were keen to point out was not possible.
Also ACL would continue to be distressed.
It also may have made finding an alternative impossible.
Don't forget we were building our own stadium at the time and were not negotiating or coming back under any circumstances.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
When Higgs sold their share there was an anchor tenant wasn't there?
Nick
Administrator
No, a longer lease to ACL would mean it would relieve a bit of pressure. That would then mean they weren't reliant on the anchor tenant to pay all of their bills with huge rent, which means it's more attractive to an anchor tenant.
If they had also given it a longer lease pre-sale it means it would be worth a lot more as an asset for Higgs.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's under nonsense to suggest that ACL would not have been better with a long lease from the outset. It would have increased valuation, length of borrowing terms and one would assume a sensible payment and revenue deal for the club.
To blame sisu for the charities failings is just absurd - if the club had gone into administration at the time the lease would have had to have been renegotiated and another buyer could easily have forced ACL under - that's what would have happened if Richardson and wasps were around in 2007
To blame sisu for the charities failings is just absurd - if the club had gone into administration at the time the lease would have had to have been renegotiated and another buyer could easily have forced ACL under - that's what would have happened if Richardson and wasps were around in 2007
Yes, but in all these points it was the parties that signed and agreed to the short lease and high rents that caused the problems, including SISU not questioning these things before taking on all liabilities. It shows amazing naivety by all parties.
Nick
Administrator
It also shows a valid way to resolve the issues easily?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The council wanted ACL on a short lease. The club had to sign to whatever it was offered as to an extent did Higgs.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Yes, the circumstances being CCFC had fucked up completely and the council had got too involved... a mess then as now...
Nick
Administrator
No. If it had, it would have been signed just "Robins"
Good job it wasn't Andy Thorn, it would have had "y" just put on the end of every name.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Now this is all very confusing.
Grendel used to say ACL will find no other anchor tenant. They have to sell to SISU there is no other option, it is a white elephant. He also used to say that SISU should continue to distress ACL as much as possible.
Never back in those days did Grendel suggest ACL extend their lease.
The judge says SISU were distressing ACL so they were in no hurry to do any deal.
ACL were heading towards going under.
ACL did the impossible and found an alternative buyer.
Yet we are now saying that if ACL extended the lease. The value of the business would have gone up.
Yet they would have still had no anchor tenant, they would have still been trouble but just at a slower pace. They would then have been a. less attractive proposition to the impossible (an alternative buyer).
Sorry folks all that would have done would have frightened off Wasps and delay the inevitable of SISU picking ACL from admin or buying it for next to nothing.
I know as a Cov fan there is a chance that may have worked out better for us depending on what SISU did. However you would have to be looking at it massively through skyblues glasses to not understand why the Council did what they did.
Grendel used to say ACL will find no other anchor tenant. They have to sell to SISU there is no other option, it is a white elephant. He also used to say that SISU should continue to distress ACL as much as possible.
Never back in those days did Grendel suggest ACL extend their lease.
The judge says SISU were distressing ACL so they were in no hurry to do any deal.
ACL were heading towards going under.
ACL did the impossible and found an alternative buyer.
Yet we are now saying that if ACL extended the lease. The value of the business would have gone up.
Yet they would have still had no anchor tenant, they would have still been trouble but just at a slower pace. They would then have been a. less attractive proposition to the impossible (an alternative buyer).
Sorry folks all that would have done would have frightened off Wasps and delay the inevitable of SISU picking ACL from admin or buying it for next to nothing.
I know as a Cov fan there is a chance that may have worked out better for us depending on what SISU did. However you would have to be looking at it massively through skyblues glasses to not understand why the Council did what they did.
Adge
Well-Known Member
Well at least it wasn't in the dirt box!:facepalm: