Meet Wasps Tonight And Ask Your Questions (2 Viewers)

torchomatic · Dec 2, 2014

I said the same earlier on another thread. If ACL was making a profit and "the Coventry Council Tax payer" wasn't suffering then there was no rush to franchise the place to an out-of-town outfit. There's no excuse for it. If CC couldn't deal with SISU then either a) call their bluff and let them build their own stadium or b) wait until SISU stop becoming owners of the Club. That way they could deal with the new owners of the CITY'S football club and not give a multi-generation lease to a team with absolutely no allegiance to the City or even the area.

covmark said:
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.

The only way forward now is building our own ground, but can anyone really see the clowns that own us doing that. I can't
It seems to me that we're just going to bumble along between leagues 1 and 2, extremely sad tbh.

Godiva · Dec 2, 2014

covmark said:
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.

Both CCC and Higgs lost money on the sale.
So I suggest ACL was neither profitable or cash-flow positive.

That explains the urge/need to sell, but it doesn't explain why the club wasn't offered ACL on the same terms as Wasps. Especially as those terms were greatly reduced compared to the terms they tried to negotiate back in 2012.

Raggs · Dec 2, 2014

Godiva said:
I believe ACL is still a separate company now owned by the same who owns Wasps.
That would be the exact same construction with ccfc and either ACL or New Stadium.
Two companies in the same group both owned by the same owner whether that owner is a person, a company or a consortium

London Wasps Holdings (Wasps) owns the ACL.

Kingokings204 · Dec 2, 2014

covmark said:
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.

The only way forward now is building our own ground, but can anyone really see the clowns that own us doing that. I can't
It seems to me that we're just going to bumble along between leagues 1 and 2, extremely sad tbh.

Just because we don't own the ricoh doesn't mean we cant get promoted and just because we would own the ricoh doesn't mean we will be promoted. Many teams in this league rent from what ive been told and ive seen very poor teams in the top half of the table challenging. Notts County and Oldham and Rochdale all poor teams but are challenging although this may come back to the SP debate. Point is many crap teams get promoted somehow someway. I look to Yeovil and Bournemouth 2 years ago.

As for the Ricoh we missed out in my opinion to our owners and just like we did if and when wasps struggle then they will start selling off ACL to raise capital just like we did and this could take anywhere between 2-5 years if they struggle. As for the new stadium I couldn't agree more with the comment earlier from Noggin and we should of doubled our bid to 11m for the whole lot and then put real pressure on ccc. Even at 11m it would of made a lot more sense paying double what wasps paid for a stadium already built probably double the size and where we know in Coventry with easy transport links to motorways, canals and a new train station which we now know was for wasps not to mention the tesco and other shops for passing trade. The point is clear to see. The fact is sisu didn't want to part with a penny more than they wanted and messed around with legal battles and arrogance believing they were the only party in town. Any other owners and we would own ACL now so blame the council all you or anyone wants to and im not stupid I understand why but sisu were and remain the problem.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
This 250 year lease.......

I do not understand why the CCC only offered it for the first time now, and to cap that offered it to Wasps. Yes you can question why wasn't it offered to CCFC certainly. But even more fundamental is why didn't ACL have such a lease in the first place ? They paid 21m for just under 50 years...... Wasps get 250 years for a suggested £1m..... doesn't make sense

The consequence for ACL of such a long lease would have meant asset value and stability, the ability for ACL to raise its own finance, no need for CCC loans, ACL sale price better, the likelihood that investors would have been interested from the start in either joint or 100% ownership, proper and meaningful interest from CCFC etc.........

As bad as SISU have been for CCFC I cant help thinking that CCC were just as much hinderance for ACL. Result of those two parties actions being - the complete disaster we have witnessed

would go further, surely the stakeholders in ACL needed to add value so when the council did their loan why didn't they extend the lease at the same time?

So many options and opportunities missed by both sides it beggars belief if you didn't know what had actually happened.

mattylad · Dec 2, 2014

Godiva said:
Both CCC and Higgs lost money on the sale.
So I suggest ACL was neither profitable or cash-flow positive.

That explains the urge/need to sell, but it doesn't explain why the club wasn't offered ACL on the same terms as Wasps. Especially as those terms were greatly reduced compared to the terms they tried to negotiate back in 2012.

ermmmmmmm maybe it was because our stupid owners were too busy bleating on about building its own ground and stating that they only wanted the unencumbered freehold.

Ashdown · Dec 2, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
Just because we don't own the ricoh doesn't mean we cant get promoted and just because we would own the ricoh doesn't mean we will be promoted. Many teams in this league rent from what ive been told and ive seen very poor teams in the top half of the table challenging. Notts County and Oldham and Rochdale all poor teams but are challenging although this may come back to the SP debate. Point is many crap teams get promoted somehow someway. I look to Yeovil and Bournemouth 2 years ago.

As for the Ricoh we missed out in my opinion to our owners and just like we did if and when wasps struggle then they will start selling off ACL to raise capital just like we did and this could take anywhere between 2-5 years if they struggle. As for the new stadium I couldn't agree more with the comment earlier from Noggin and we should of doubled our bid to 11m for the whole lot and then put real pressure on ccc. Even at 11m it would of made a lot more sense paying double what wasps paid for a stadium already built probably double the size and where we know in Coventry with easy transport links to motorways, canals and a new train station which we now know was for wasps not to mention the tesco and other shops for passing trade. The point is clear to see. The fact is sisu didn't want to part with a penny more than they wanted and messed around with legal battles and arrogance believing they were the only party in town. Any other owners and we would own ACL now so blame the council all you or anyone wants to and im not stupid I understand why but sisu were and remain the problem.

Yes as angry as I am with CCC for their blatant limp excuses for what they have done, it's hard to look much further than the hedge fund for pretty much all our recent demise ! They really thought they could batter everyone in court and get the whole shebang for next to nothing, despicable types too typical of the modern world. If it wasn't actually Coventry City who were the biggest losers in all this I'd be applauding the council for fucking them off, but the club is floating rudderless ever nearer the drop into oblivion.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

Another thought for you .......

plenty of comments about SISU dumping costs on to CCFC............ I wonder if CCC have managed to do similar but to ACL........ in which case estimates and conjecture about ACL profitability etc could be wide of the mark going forward

Godiva · Dec 2, 2014

Raggs said:
London Wasps Holdings (Wasps) owns the ACL.

And before all the mess SBS&L owned CCFC Holdings (the football club) who owned CCFC ltd (the lease holder and 'would be' ACL).
It is common to separate operation and property - 'opco' and 'propco'.
It doesn't mean the owner is trying to steal or asset-strip or anything other sinister. It's just the way it's done.

Kingokings204 · Dec 2, 2014

Ashdown said:
Yes as angry as I am with CCC for their blatant limp excuses for what they have done, it's hard to look much further than the hedge fund for pretty much all our recent demise ! They really thought they could batter everyone in court and get the whole shebang for next to nothing, despicable types too typical of the modern world. If it wasn't actually Coventry City who were the biggest losers in all this I'd be applauding the council for fucking them off, but the club is floating rudderless ever nearer the drop into oblivion.

And that's the point isn't it Ashdown, I am too very angry at ccc for numerous things but most obviously selling to a London based rugby club and my club ccfc loses out. A relegation to league 2 is inevitable imo and then where are we? Unfortunately for all us city fans we are owned by the wrong people who want nothing to do with us/football and until this changes then nothing else matters as the misery will continue.

I see 2 ways currently out of the big hole we are in and that's get lucky with a promotion within the next few years or a multi millionaire comes in and saves the day. I'm not holding my breath.

Godiva · Dec 2, 2014

Ashdown said:
Yes as angry as I am with CCC for their blatant limp excuses for what they have done, it's hard to look much further than the hedge fund for pretty much all our recent demise ! They really thought they could batter everyone in court and get the whole shebang for next to nothing, despicable types too typical of the modern world. If it wasn't actually Coventry City who were the biggest losers in all this I'd be applauding the council for fucking them off, but the club is floating rudderless ever nearer the drop into oblivion.

You're not far off a 'like' from me (it's on my bucket list - must give Ashdown a 'like'), but the sentence I have put in bold require some afterthought. The original offer would see Higgs getting £5m - that is almost double what they received from Wasps. So 'next to nothing' is not quite accurate. In the original deal sisu wanted Yorkshire Bank to pay for the party - In the Wasps deal it was CCC and Higgs (the poor childrens charity you know) who paid.

Astute · Dec 2, 2014

torchomatic said:
I said the same earlier on another thread. If ACL was making a profit and "the Coventry Council Tax payer" wasn't suffering then there was no rush to franchise the place to an out-of-town outfit. There's no excuse for it. If CC couldn't deal with SISU then either a) call their bluff and let them build their own stadium or b) wait until SISU stop becoming owners of the Club. That way they could deal with the new owners of the CITY'S football club and not give a multi-generation lease to a team with absolutely no allegiance to the City or even the area.

Spot on.....but we need to consider the shit that kept coming out of Fishers mouth. New stadium.....never moving back....3 to 5 years in Northampton.....batter people in court..... And who would like to take a guess on when the litigation would have stopped or when they would have moved our club back if Wasps didn't take the arena over.

Godiva · Dec 2, 2014

Astute said:
Spot on.....but we need to consider the shit that kept coming out of Fishers mouth. New stadium.....never moving back....3 to 5 years in Northampton.....batter people in court..... And who would like to take a guess on when the litigation would have stopped or when they would have moved our club back if Wasps didn't take the arena over.

Hm - I think the easiest and most efficient way to close Fisher mouth would have been to offer ACL to the club on the same terms as Wasps got.

Ashdown · Dec 2, 2014

Godiva said:
You're not far off a 'like' from me (it's on my bucket list - must give Ashdown a 'like'), but the sentence I have put in bold require some afterthought. The original offer would see Higgs getting £5m - that is almost double what they received from Wasps. So 'next to nothing' is not quite accurate. In the original deal sisu wanted Yorkshire Bank to pay for the party - In the Wasps deal it was CCC and Higgs (the poor childrens charity you know) who paid.

Behave you !! What I actually meant by 'Next to Nothing' was referring to the undoubted compensation demands they would have imposed if they had actually won the legal case, which with costs also paid would have been a steal ?!

Astute · Dec 2, 2014

Godiva said:
You're not far off a 'like' from me (it's on my bucket list - must give Ashdown a 'like'), but the sentence I have put in bold require some afterthought. The original offer would see Higgs getting £5m - that is almost double what they received from Wasps. So 'next to nothing' is not quite accurate. In the original deal sisu wanted Yorkshire Bank to pay for the party - In the Wasps deal it was CCC and Higgs (the poor childrens charity you know) who paid.

They offered 5.5m but wanted to pay over 10 years with no proof of funds. Then they reduced it to 2m, but only because Higgs are a charity, and no negotiations were done. And SISU did want to buy the mortgage for next to nothing, but there is no proof that the YB would have agreed to their offer even if they had the right to make such an offer which they didn't.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

I wouldn't hang anything on that original offer though Godiva. AEHC could not get the security they required from it and other than a throw away remark/offer at a breakfast meeting of £2m that was flatly rejected both sides walked away from any deal. Yorkshire bank were not prepared to settle at figures suggested by SISU and in any case SISU couldn't by that time get their hands on the AEHC shares either. So the worth of any SISU deal suggested was what exactly?

I still think the "deal" was a way to get sight of the financials and had to be put at a level sufficient to tempt. SISU had convinced themselves they were the only game in town, and we all know how that went.

I am only surmising but I wonder if the charity were left with no option but to sell because of actions taken/agreed by CCC. Effectively those actions set the price for AEHC whether they liked it or not.

covmark · Dec 2, 2014

Astute said:
Spot on.....but we need to consider the shit that kept coming out of Fishers mouth. New stadium.....never moving back....3 to 5 years in Northampton.....batter people in court..... And who would like to take a guess on when the litigation would have stopped or when they would have moved our club back if Wasps didn't take the arena over.

It's a fair point WRT Fisher, the guy is a bumbling idiot and how he's still employed is beyond me, but like Godiva says would Sisu have turned their back on the same deal that was offered to Wasps. I find it hard to believe they would, no matter what crap came out of Fishers mouth.

Brighton Sky Blue · Dec 2, 2014

covmark said:
It's a fair point WRT Fisher, the guy is a bumbling idiot and how he's still employed is beyond me, but like Godiva says would Sisu have turned their back on the same deal that was offered to Wasps. I find it hard to believe they would, no matter what crap came out of Fishers mouth.

Getting ACL as cheap as possible was SISU's target for some time, hard to imagine them rejecting their end goal if it were offered.

Godiva · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
I wouldn't hang anything on that original offer though Godiva. AEHC could not get the security they required from it and other than a throw away remark/offer at a breakfast meeting of £2m that was flatly rejected both sides walked away from any deal. Yorkshire bank were not prepared to settle at figures suggested by SISU and in any case SISU couldn't by that time get their hands on the AEHC shares either. So the worth of any SISU deal suggested was what exactly?

I still think the "deal" was a way to get sight of the financials and had to be put at a level sufficient to tempt. SISU had convinced themselves they were the only game in town, and we all know how that went.

I am only surmising but I wonder if the charity were left with no option but to sell because of actions taken/agreed by CCC. Effectively those actions set the price for AEHC whether they liked it or not.

It's very very complicated, but in the beginning the club was merely looking for a rent reduction - which was rejected. That was probably the starting point. ACL didn't have financial room to accept a rent reduction - and as you said yourself that could have been very different if ACL had a 250 yr lease from the beginning (or was offered it back in 2011).

In the road-map deal Higgs were offered £5.5m and some claim Higgs couldn't get security. The JR revealed they were offered a maximum 10 yr repayment with security in ACL assets. (That would require CCC to accept the deal and co-sign the security).
The £2m offer was never a serious thought-through offer - as you say 'remarks at a breakfast meeting'. If Higgs had said 'no, we want £3m' would that have changed anything? Nobody knows.

Your last sentence I agree with. It's highly plausible that CCC shafted Higgs by forcing the deal through. Just as I think it's highly plausible that it was CCC who abandoned the road-map and capsized the original negotiations.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

Didn't the problems with the rent start in April 2012 and relegation? You see I do not think they were "merely" looking for a rent reduction - once Fisher & Seppala were fully engaged in project Coventry it was never about the revenues. It simply is not what a hedge fund is about, capital return is. One of the major keys to what was going on was the registration of ARVO Master fund on 20/03/12 which had taken a charge over all assets of the club dated 19/03 all done before any rent strike. At that point forward it had nothing to do with revenue costs. The assets had effectively been stripped out and within the SBS&L all assets became separated from CCFC Ltd. That all of course took time to plan and organise - whilst no one was aware of it.

It wasn't "some claim Higgs couldn't get security" the court case made it quite clear that the Charity had requested from SISU details of acceptable security (that's acceptable to AEHC) none was offered. It was that specific item that led the Trustees to say the deal was not acceptable and that they were open to new offers from others after the expiry of exclusivity. What you suggest above could easily be seen as a scheme that's sees ACL buying its own shares and left CCC helping to finance it.

Doesn't mater that they didn't say we want 3m to be honest - as you say no one knows but it is also pointless conjecture. In the charities position having been offered 5.5m before why would they set the sales price? They were inviting offers. There is no point throwing in conjecture or might have beens - it is all done - we can only deal with the facts and timelines we know to have been proven or that have 3rd party corroboration surely?

Without the AEHC shares though what use was the road map? The Council position wasn't tested until December and by that time the AEHC deal was long gone.

Brighton Sky Blue · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Didn't the problems with the rent start in April 2012 and relegation? You see I do not think they were "merely" looking for a rent reduction - once Fisher & Seppala were fully engaged in project Coventry it was never about the revenues. It simply is not what a hedge fund is about, capital return is. One of the major keys to what was going on was the registration of ARVO Master fund on 20/03/12 which had taken a charge over all assets of the club dated 19/03 all done before any rent strike. At that point forward it had nothing to do with revenue costs. The assets had effectively been stripped out and within the SBS&L all assets became separated from CCFC Ltd. That all of course took time to plan and organise - whilst no one was aware of it.

It wasn't "some claim Higgs couldn't get security" the court case made it quite clear that the Charity had requested from SISU details of acceptable security (that's acceptable to AEHC) none was offered. It was that specific item that led the Trustees to say the deal was not acceptable and that they were open to new offers from others after the expiry of exclusivity. What you suggest above could easily be seen as a scheme that's sees ACL buying its own shares.

Doesn't mater that they didn't say we want 3m to be honest - as you say no one knows but it is also pointless conjecture. In the charities position having been offered 5.5m before why would they set the sales price? They were inviting offers. There is no point throwing in conjecture or might have beens - it is all done - we can only deal with the facts and timelines we know to have been proven or that have 3rd party corroboration surely?

Without the AEHC shares though what use was the road map? The Council position wasn't tested until December and by that time the AEHC deal was long gone.

Thing is OSB the ARVO debenture was placed at the same time as the rent boycott began. Once relegation looked probable the way to get a profit shifted from PL promotion to acquiring ACL on the cheap and offloading the club as a package. We then saw that debenture used to retain SISU's hold on the club after ACL tried to chase the rent. When the rent boycott itself wasn't enough, they went one step further and withdrew the club's custom entirely-which succeeded. They just didn't factor in that a 3rd party would come in instead.

Sky Blues · Dec 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Thing is OSB the ARVO debenture was placed at the same time as the rent boycott began. Once relegation looked probable the way to get a profit shifted from PL promotion to acquiring ACL on the cheap and offloading the club as a package. We then saw that debenture used to retain SISU's hold on the club after ACL tried to chase the rent. When the rent boycott itself wasn't enough, they went one step further and withdrew the club's custom entirely-which succeeded. They just didn't factor in that a 3rd party would come in instead.

Sisu have only themselves to blame. Sadly, CCFC was the pawn in their game and the fans are the ones who have to suffer.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

no not quite BSB. ARVO had to go through the registration process, there had to be meetings and discussions, there were professionals engaged to advise it took time to do that, time to organise. We will never know when it started exactly but certainly well before rent became the issue..... if the rent was such a factor why was it not in 2008,2009,2010 & 2011. Aggressive company reconstruction and debt is SISU's game in order to achieve capital returns isn't it?. Hedge funds don't usually look for revenue returns. Even the operation PL wasn't about the PL income (would have had to be spent on wages) it was about the capital resale value of the club

The debenture was in place before ACL chased any rent because the rent strike started 01/04/12. Surely operation PL was dead long before March 2012? There was no evidence of that being possible was there?

But I can accept others might see it slightly differently to me.

wingy · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Didn't the problems with the rent start in April 2012 and relegation? You see I do not think they were "merely" looking for a rent reduction - once Fisher & Seppala were fully engaged in project Coventry it was never about the revenues. It simply is not what a hedge fund is about, capital return is. One of the major keys to what was going on was the registration of ARVO Master fund on 20/03/12 which had taken a charge over all assets of the club dated 19/03 all done before any rent strike. At that point forward it had nothing to do with revenue costs. The assets had effectively been stripped out and within the SBS&L all assets became separated from CCFC Ltd. That all of course took time to plan and organise - whilst no one was aware of it.

It wasn't "some claim Higgs couldn't get security" the court case made it quite clear that the Charity had requested from SISU details of acceptable security (that's acceptable to AEHC) none was offered. It was that specific item that led the Trustees to say the deal was not acceptable and that they were open to new offers from others after the expiry of exclusivity. What you suggest above could easily be seen as a scheme that's sees ACL buying its own shares and left CCC helping to finance it.

Doesn't mater that they didn't say we want 3m to be honest - as you say no one knows but it is also pointless conjecture. In the charities position having been offered 5.5m before why would they set the sales price? They were inviting offers. There is no point throwing in conjecture or might have beens - it is all done - we can only deal with the facts and timelines we know to have been proven or that have 3rd party corroboration surely?

Without the AEHC shares though what use was the road map? The Council position wasn't tested until December and by that time the AEHC deal was long gone.

We were all wondering what Otium was about ,and the New CEO kept going on about how the books were all a mess ,when he officially stepped up In the DEC.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

even before that wingy, Otium was incorporated 21/04/11.

dongonzalos · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Didn't the problems with the rent start in April 2012 and relegation? You see I do not think they were "merely" looking for a rent reduction - once Fisher & Seppala were fully engaged in project Coventry it was never about the revenues. It simply is not what a hedge fund is about, capital return is. One of the major keys to what was going on was the registration of ARVO Master fund on 20/03/12 which had taken a charge over all assets of the club dated 19/03 all done before any rent strike. At that point forward it had nothing to do with revenue costs. The assets had effectively been stripped out and within the SBS&L all assets became separated from CCFC Ltd. That all of course took time to plan and organise - whilst no one was aware of it.

It wasn't "some claim Higgs couldn't get security" the court case made it quite clear that the Charity had requested from SISU details of acceptable security (that's acceptable to AEHC) none was offered. It was that specific item that led the Trustees to say the deal was not acceptable and that they were open to new offers from others after the expiry of exclusivity. What you suggest above could easily be seen as a scheme that's sees ACL buying its own shares and left CCC helping to finance it.

Doesn't mater that they didn't say we want 3m to be honest - as you say no one knows but it is also pointless conjecture. In the charities position having been offered 5.5m before why would they set the sales price? They were inviting offers. There is no point throwing in conjecture or might have beens - it is all done - we can only deal with the facts and timelines we know to have been proven or that have 3rd party corroboration surely?

Without the AEHC shares though what use was the road map? The Council position wasn't tested until December and by that time the AEHC deal was long gone.

It was an ill thought out plan.
That unfortunately got us to where we are today. I feel it was the last throw of the dice. I feel that SISU thought it was working better than ever and so they gave up plenty of opportunities to walk away flush. Then they took one gamble too many

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
As bad as SISU have been for CCFC I cant help thinking that CCC were just as much hinderance for ACL. Result of those two parties actions being - the complete disaster we have witnessed

SISU have been proved right one thing, the need for a long lease ('equivalent to freehold' in Labovitch's words) before anybody touched ACL.

Yet the campaign was not to sell to SISU under those terms.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

To be fair NW he came round to that only when it was absolutely obvious they couldn't get the freehold. Before that he and his mates were not interested in it at all

Paxman II and I used to have discussions on here about long leases etc probably over 2 years ago. It wasn't so difficult to figure.

Not sure SISU ever asked for a long lease, a comment by Labovitch doesn't actually mean they did.

But my question is what in heavens name made CCC give ACL less than 50 years and then not have the nous to extend it. Yet Wasps get 250 years easy as you like. That is down to CCC and them not having enough commerciality. they handicapped ACL from day 1

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
To be fair NW he came round to that only when it was absolutely obvious they couldn't get the freehold.

He came round to it much as CCC stopped saying 'we won't sell to SISU' and 'we won't help the club as long as a hedge fund's involved'.

We can quote things from wa-ay back... or we can congratulate some flexibility. One could always say both parties set out their negotiating position, and started to move towards common ground...

Unfortunately, there appears some blindness here that sees SISU hung, drawn and quartered on the freehold or nowt, yet CCC are allowed to move from the 'I was chanting SISU out with the best of them' quotes...

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

will congratulate the flexibility when I see it and a true desire to maintain it NW ........ precious little evidence of it so far, words mean nothing without action.

There are options there always have been but it takes two to tango and whilst SISU maintain this new stadium stance with no evidence then effective compromise/flexibility seems to be a one step not a two step dance. But it does take two parties to do a deal or not so its not just down to SISU but ......

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
will congratulate the flexibility when I see it and a true desire to maintain it NW ........ precious little evidence of it so far, words mean nothing without action.

There are options there always have been but it takes two to tango and whilst SISU maintain this new stadium stance with no evidence then effective compromise/flexibility seems to be a one step not a two step dance

And yet when they move to saying they want a long lease, not the freehold...

CCC sell to another team, a long lease that was not previously on offer.

Indeed, takes two to tango and indeed, words mean nothing. Arguably CCC's actions have demonstrated that the more genuine, less PR-savvy approach was indeed the not helping the club while a hedge fund was involved.

oldskyblue58 · Dec 2, 2014

Do we know it wasn't on offer? Do we know that option was closed to SISU but open to others? Do we know that SISU even broached the subject? Do we know there wont be a new stadium? - lot of supposition around this forum and other places.

What I suspect is that there were a lot of" political "shenanigans going on that affected SISU yes but also the charity and ACL and not in a good way ....... but that's just another supposition isn't it

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 2, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Do we know it wasn't on offer? Do we know that option was closed to SISU but open to others? Do we know that SISU even broached the subject? Do we know there wont be a new stadium? - lot of supposition around this forum and other places.

What I suspect is that there were a lot of" political "shenanigans going on that affected SISU yes but also the charity and ACL and not in a good way ....... but that's just another supposition isn't it

Everything is su[pposition... or opinion.

But the dominant discourse all too often refuses to look at the publicly made statements by political animals, and leaves them unchallenged. As such... they then get away unchallenged.

And as such, we end up in a position where we actively campaign against our club being offered the deal made to Wasps, because we're all too quick to say 'aha, but she said freehold or nothing'.

Which, to me, seems somewhat skewed.

lordsummerisle · Dec 2, 2014

After being away on holiday, it seems from catching up on a few threads that Weber Shandwick were obviously thrown in with ACL as part of the deal with Wasps.

torchomatic · Dec 2, 2014

Yes, there's certainly a buzz about the place. It's been a hive of activity with all these new members.

lordsummerisle said:
After being away on holiday, it seems from catching up on a few threads that Weber Shandwick were obviously thrown in with ACL as part of the deal with Wasps.

Meet Wasps Tonight And Ask Your Questions (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Active Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency