stupot07
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact details.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact details.£400k for three years, and then to be renegotiated, according to the judge in the JR.
JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: The suggestion here was
7 a three-year -- not quite holiday, but a three-year
8 reduction in the rent to £400,000, because it didn't
9 reduce the contractual requirement of £1.3 million
10 thereafter.
11 MR THOMPSON: Well, my Lord, the penultimate bulletsays:
12 "An annual rent of £400,000 divided into 12 equal
13 amounts and paid monthly in advance on the first dayof
14 each month. The rent will be subject to RPI, league
15 promotion and match day attendance triggers, the
16 structures of which to be agreed."
17 MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: The bottom bullet point on
18 page 1075?
19 MR THOMPSON: Yes. So it's subject to review.
20 MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: No, no. What it says is:
21 "Any rent agreement will be supplementary to the
22 original and will commence on 1 January 2013, with
23 a duration of three years, to be reviewed thereafterby
24 the parties. For the avoidance of doubt, the original
25 agreement will remain in place."
1 MR THOMPSON: Yes.
2 MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: That's clear.
3 MR THOMPSON: Well, it's sort of clear, except it's not
4 entirely clear what would happen after three years.
5 MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: The original agreement willremain
6 in place, obviously, subject to renegotiation, again.
Not really. The club would have been in a massively weak negotiating position and what would have stopped ACL being sold to wasps anyway especially as Richardson was discussing with the council buying it at the time this offer was drawn up.
we could have spent 3 years highlighting that fact, explaining the situation to fans to get them on board with the owners position rather than against it.
If the reduction in rent was being classed as part of the original agreement, which it looks like it was, then we may well have still had the first option to buy Higgs share. I think that would have been enough to put Wasps off.
No weaker position that the original position we were in when £400k was agreed, probably a stronger position, as it's clear to everyone there's no money available, and we could have spent 3 years highlighting that fact, explaining the situation to fans to get them on board with the owners position rather than against it.
Firstly, do you think we're capable of doing that?
Secondly, do you think that that would have been an easy sell, even if we *were* capable?
In a way, perversely, because the club's been battered about, there's a case to make that the simple fact we're back in the city could mean fans are more accepting of positions (such as no cash, break even etc.) then they would have been before we moved. Now we're relieved just to have a club, so it cuts what we hope for and expect!
Thirdly (genuine question!) wasn't our option for the Higgs share coming to the end of its existence anyway? Tied into that is the fact nobody ever thought it worth purchasing at formula price, so it would always have been there just to put off carpet-baggers. Not an unreasonable position to have, of course, but safe to say I doubt (m)any thought that particular piece of it all was needed (beyond, maybe, CRFC getting investment and taking the ground on, or it being turned into a massive ten pin bowling alley!)
1/2. Yes I do, I don't believe that anyone thinks the rent was fair and affordable, but the way SISU has gone about things is not what most people think is acceptable. They could have been open with people, all the information about rent comparisons, limited access to revenues etc, it's all correct, but because they have tried to be 'hard nosed' about things, they have lost the support, and people want them to get their just desserts.
3. Don't know about it coming to an end, haven't heard there was a time limit. The formula price was the maximum, not the minimum, Higgs had agreed to sell at below formula in the failed bid.
The option for the Higgs share was going and there was a small matter of a veto so I disagree.
Your first point doesn't really answer the question, which wasn't *should* we be capable of doing that, but *are* we? I'd suggest the club is thoroughly incapable of communicating a message...
As for point 3, it's worth noting that nobody wanted the lease as set out.
I assume that the 'decent journalist' you refer to is Les (It's the Butts, you read it here exclusive.... Oh, I've been sold a pup) Reid?
Oddly hardly anyone asks me about the Ricoh at work. Odd that many rugby fans ask you and even odder it fits into your argument.
As for passion and tribalism how many passionate supporters of a football club would start a thread saying they were proud of the council?
Why? Everytime ALL the details (not just the argument for appeal) sits in front of judges whether that be one on his own or a panel of 3 it falls on it's arse.
I struggle to see how anyone can't accept the judgements.
1) dogma prevails over reason
2) subjectivity over objectivity
3) stupidity over the Law
One or combo of the above...
Oh look another one appears.
Astute,
I agree. Also, I don't think they had the money to pay what Wasps did.
Yes I can see you.
So why did CCC keep trying to negotiate with SISU if they were not going to let them have the arena?
There was some on here thinking it was great that SISU were taking the piss while trying to devalue the arena so they could get it on the cheap. Many of us could see it was going to end badly. But no. It was a white elephant without CCFC. Nothing could go wrong.....could it......
CCFC has been used as a pawn to try and make faceless investors money. So have our supporters. The problem is that SISU have failed at everything they have tried. They are used to battering others into submission with massive legal fees. This time they took on someone much bigger than themselves. But some still try to put all the blame on CCC and say it was the only chance of our club owning the arena. Not taking the piss or trying to negotiate and keeping to what was agreed would have been much better than what has happened. But it would have cost money they didn't want to pay. Just like Fisher said they wouldn't have paid what Wasps did.
Yes I can see you.
So why did CCC keep trying to negotiate with SISU if they were not going to let them have the arena?
There was some on here thinking it was great that SISU were taking the piss while trying to devalue the arena so they could get it on the cheap. Many of us could see it was going to end badly. But no. It was a white elephant without CCFC. Nothing could go wrong.....could it......
CCFC has been used as a pawn to try and make faceless investors money. So have our supporters. The problem is that SISU have failed at everything they have tried. They are used to battering others into submission with massive legal fees. This time they took on someone much bigger than themselves. But some still try to put all the blame on CCC and say it was the only chance of our club owning the arena. Not taking the piss or trying to negotiate and keeping to what was agreed would have been much better than what has happened. But it would have cost money they didn't want to pay. Just like Fisher said they wouldn't have paid what Wasps did.
I often wonder if things like paying solicitors come out of some sort of management fees that SISU might charge their investors for managing the investment whereas if they want to purchase something like the Ricoh they have to sell that to investors to part with their cash to make said investment. Have they tried and failed to raise the capital leaving litigation the only choice they had in pursuit of the Ricoh? It's a theory anyway.
Great post.
Yes funny how all those that thought the stadium was a White Elephant with no soul and worth fuck all are now the ones shouting and crying the loudest about us not owning it.
our new ground is due to be ready in a couple of months so no need to worry about paying rent any more.
our new ground is due to be ready in a couple of months so no need to worry about paying rent any more.
No...clear enough?so to confirm, you would be happy if our new "club owned" stadium was in Watford ?
Great post.
Yes funny how all those that thought the stadium was a White Elephant with no soul and worth fuck all are now the ones shouting and crying the loudest about us not owning it.
You'd like to think everyone would be shouting and crying about us not owning it.
I don't think it is the same gang.SISU investors - are they the same ones still or did the originals take a haircut and the ownership lies at a much discounted value elsewhere?
Didn't they lose more by not selling to us?and a charity lost a load of dosh.
Yep was going to mention thatI don't think it is the same gang.
* Found super neat function in new forum SW, select the part of the post you want to reply to and a little 'Reply' tool comes up, hit it and the reply is created with just the relevant bit & not all the rest of baggage. So cool, like it++
No we offered them 2 million because of their charity status for something we stated was worth nothing.Didn't they lose more by not selling to us?
It wasn't just about the cash in hand though. It wasn't just about £2.77m. Council's and charities can take in to account their assessment of social economic benefits. So in theory SISU could have offered 3m and the CCC assessment could still have been Wasps was a better deal because of the other things it would bring
It wasn't just about the cash in hand though. It wasn't just about £2.77m. Council's and charities can take in to account their assessment of social economic benefits. So in theory SISU could have offered 3m and the CCC assessment could still have been Wasps was a better deal because of the other things it would bring
To be fair they are.
It's just some wish we negotiated professionally.
Others wish the plan to devalue it worked and the council rolled over and a charity lost a load of dosh.
However everybody is pissed off the football club don't own ACL and Wasps do, to be fair.
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?