Grendel
Well-Known Member
The offering was not because they were a charity status.
No we offered them 2 million because of their charity status for something we stated was worth nothing.
Wasps gave them 2.77 million.
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
So what ? I would think the details of the ccfc bid were available to them prior to them being made public wouldn't youExcept in an interview with cwr PWKH said they'd be selling to wasps - before details of the revised CCFC bid was even made public.
The offering was not because they were a charity status.
So what ? I would think the details of the ccfc bid were available to them prior to them being made public wouldn't you
They were after a stadium of their own so would guess that it was 100% or nothing.Wasps were here for 100% from the start. Weren't they?
Intheknow also said thatOh come on you know as well as I do that the deal to purchase was for 100% of ACL - wasps wouldn't have considered buying 50%. The deal was done and the antics afterwards were just paid circus act as I assume some lawyer said to follow procedure do this. They were selling to wasps regardless.
Are you accusing SISU of lying?
A quick question for you.Oh come on you know as well as I do that the deal to purchase was for 100% of ACL - wasps wouldn't have considered buying 50%. The deal was done and the antics afterwards were just paid circus act as I assume some lawyer said to follow procedure do this. They were selling to wasps regardless.
Oh come on you know as well as I do that the deal to purchase was for 100% of ACL - wasps wouldn't have considered buying 50%. The deal was done and the antics afterwards were just paid circus act as I assume some lawyer said to follow procedure do this. They were selling to wasps regardless.
Throwaway line?The £2 million was an offer to purchase. I hardly think the revenue would have considered it a legitimate charitable donation do you?
It was a throwaway line - the point though was valid. The half share was worthless - wasps wouldn't have paid a dime for it - that's why they secured the council share first.
A quick question for you.
If you owned something that you had no use for and was costing you time and money would you look at getting rid of it?
If so if someone kept taking the piss out of you and was costing you even more time and money would you look for another buyer?
Must have done according to SISU as they would never have done the deal Wasps didThrowaway line?
So if one share is worthless so is the other. So are you trying to say that Wasps paid millions too much?
Throwaway line?
So if one share is worthless so is the other. So are you trying to say that Wasps paid millions too much?
Must have done according to SISU as they would never have done the deal Wasps did
Even though hadn't the business doubled in value just by having a bit of security and a pet many anchor tenant not playing games.
How much is ACL valued at these days?
and SISU said get on with it we wont interfere in the CCC sale then put in a bid for the charity shares that came across as just being able to say "well we tried"
What I said was that PWKH probably had the details of the CCFC bid well before the CCFC bid went public
Of course the deal had been negotiated didn't say it hadn't. The judges said that the deal between AEHC & SISU had previously broken down irretrievably nothing I can see that would have improved that since, in fact the various actions only damaged any potential for a deal. But then SISU only had nearly 6 years by 2014 to get the club sorted and a deal done they were not blameless in that failing to happen
So you say that they use throwaway lines when giving evidence in court. Seriously?Is that a serious post?
they were not blameless in that failing to happen
I'm not saying sisu are blameless but let's not kid ourselves. The council made the sale and Higgs would have to take their lead.
The Higgs association to the club has in my view been significantly weakened since the demise of Derek Higgs anyway. The current occupant of the role showed far less interest in the club.
If the charity had a significant interest in the club and the council had a similar outlook it's not inconceivable they could have held firm forced the club to stay at Northampton and then offered fan all or nothing deal of £5.7 million.
They weren't selling to Wasps when they were selling to SISU which is what I am talking about.
When SISU offered 2 million fur something worth nothing because Higgs are a charity.
The silly games back then cost us dear.
I'm not saying sisu are blameless but let's not kid ourselves. The council made the sale and Higgs would have to take their lead.
The Higgs association to the club has in my view been significantly weakened since the demise of Derek Higgs anyway. The current occupant of the role showed far less interest in the club.
If the charity had a significant interest in the club and the council had a similar outlook it's not inconceivable they could have held firm forced the club to stay at Northampton and then offered fan all or nothing deal of £5.7 million.
So you say that they use throwaway lines when giving evidence in court. Seriously?
Both shares had the same value. Full ownership could only be obtained with both shares. The same amount was paid for both shares.
The biggest damage done to the Charity interest in CCFC was the abrasive day to day relationship they had with SISU in my opinion. In the end whether CCC had structured the deal with Wasps or not the Trustees just wanted out and away from the grief it was causing
The biggest damage done to the Charity interest in CCFC was the abrasive day to day relationship they had with SISU in my opinion. In the end whether CCC had structured the deal with Wasps or not the Trustees just wanted out and away from the grief it was causing
With a big loan in place that SISU wouldn't take on.
A lot of this discussion would not be taking place if CCFC had been offered the same deal as Wasps. In addition if they had been and they still declined - fans would be far more united on this matter and CCC wouldn't be getting anywhere near the amount of animosity they do.
They were not - and this was a conscious choice made by CCC.
Yes by the end they did. However they did at one point say that fisher and co were good people to deal with. The latest incumbent does in my opinion view the club and the sport in general very differently to the predecessor.
So they took over ACL but not the debt? If what you are saying is true why did they pay the loan off?The loan wasn't taken on by wasps at the point of purchase. Are you saying they was a pre condition of the actual purchase?
Which is of course bollocks.
If SISU had have entered into negotiations with CCC they to would have had a confidentiality agreement. It's standard. The problem is that SISU didn't enter into negotiations despite being publicly invited to do so. You can't really blame anyone else but SISU for that. Why people keep trying is unbelievable to me.
As you know SISU refused to negotiate. SISU also wouldn't take on the loan. But some like to ignore these points.I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?
Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?
You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.
You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.
As you know SISU refused to negotiate. SISU also wouldn't take on the loan. But some like to ignore these points.
I think if they had been offered the deal that Wasps got they would have snapped it up.. it was a deal of the century.
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?