hill83
Well-Known Member
The exact moment a couple of blokes off here finally engage with the club.
When is enough enough?
But how would the debt be gone in a deal that by definition was state aid and can’t be replicated. You want the council to write off debt just after receiving a slap on the wrist for state aid.
But how would the debt be gone in a deal that by definition was state aid and can’t be replicated. You want the council to write off debt just after receiving a slap on the wrist for state aid.
I don’t think we can afford the Ricoh on crowds of less than 10k, no. As I said to Grendel that might change if we get promoted.
The bigger point is how long do we try this avenue before giving up? Would you support another three years away while we appeal say? What about after that if we want civil action would you support another decade away?
The assumption seems to be that wait a few months and Wasps will go and CCC will come crawling giving us the Ricoh for peanuts and we ride off into the sunset making millions. It just doesn’t make sense for me. But it is a very nice dream to hold onto when wondering why your club are playing outside Coventry. People were saying this would happen any minute now for the last six years. When is enough enough?
Haven't posted for a while and this thread takes some reading, it's like war and fucking peace. My question for shmee is why would Sisu withdraw the appeal, which they can't? If you win that appeal after you have built a new stadium you could use the possibility of getting a financial settlement to offset the cost? Or perhaps get some sort of part ownership of the Ricoh as settlement which means a new stadium would be a white elephant. The one thing that you can't argue with is CCC are a bunch of idiots. I have a relative that started their last year after working in the corporate sector for 20 years. They waist money constantly and are top heavy in the management structure. If you're shit at your job you get moved side ways or paid off, this means that it's the same people doing the same things whilst holding the same political bias. The issues of grounds and ownership will never be resolved until the legal avenue's open to our owner's are exhausted. Wasps have insisted on the indemnity after taking legal advice presumably, they won't change that as they advice will have modelled all the possible outcomes. One would think that the 3 year agreement at Blues is because the owners thought that would be the time scale for legals to be exhausted. The whole scenario is s clusterfuck with 3 guilty party's, I am not s fan of them or the EU but at least the EU will give us closer for once and all.
The loan goes and the council that lake ownership why are you ignoring this
Mostly because “the council that lake ownership” makes literally no sense.
Because there’s no indication it’ll benefit CCFC from Sisu. They say we don’t want the ground and can’t afford it and the court action is nothing to do with CCFC. So as a CCFC fan I don’t care about it and want us home thanks. It’s all just assumptions from us that we’ll get tens of millions in compo which is seriously unlikely.
Mostly because “the council that lake ownership” makes literally no sense.
Mostly because “the council that lake ownership” makes literally no sense.
Really? That’s the best you’ve got?
<snip> does that meet your pedantry requirements. FFS.
So in your mind it's play in cov no matter the long term affect?
<stuff>
You care to translate then?
You’re really stretching here. Maybe try in GIF form?
You care to translate then?
You’re really stretching here. Maybe try in GIF form?
Already been translated for you. Just pointing out that you are a hypocrite.
Ohh mention a gif. You are windmilling mate. Cronies and mob coming soon.
Clearly you’re happy having both sides of this conversation by yourself so I’ll leave you to it.
Clearly you’re happy having both sides of this conversation by yourself so I’ll leave you to it.
That is the default position of ACL
2006 goes into administration and the extended lease is foreclosed
In my mind the long term effects of not playing in Cov while we wait for our owner to finish her legal fetish are worse than sucking it up and renting off a rugby club for a couple of years while we build the stadium we should’ve started more than 7 years ago when all this started.
Clearly in your mind we can play in Brum forever while we wait for the unicorns to arrive.
Right. So your plan is that the EC judgement, which is designed to return the market to its original state, not bankrupt anyone, will bankrupt Wasps. The lease is basically dead and the council come back and offer Sisu a long leasehold at a cheaper rent but not state aid despite the club repeatedly saying they wouldn’t take it?
Just to be clear. That’s the plan? That’s fine. I think it’s one hell of a long shot and isn’t likely to play out like that and I’d rather not gamble the club on it. But it’s a plan.
Right. So your plan is that the EC judgement, which is designed to return the market to its original state, not bankrupt anyone, will bankrupt Wasps. The lease is basically dead and the council come back and offer Sisu a long leasehold at a cheaper rent but not state aid despite the club repeatedly saying they wouldn’t take it?
Just to be clear. That’s the plan? That’s fine. I think it’s one hell of a long shot and isn’t likely to play out like that and I’d rather not gamble the club on it. But it’s a plan.
No one is saying play in Brum forever buddy, we are saying that we can't be held to ransom by a London rugby club to play in a stadium built for us that they now own due to all the parties involved
You do realise that sisu have gone through major staff changes in the 7 years you keep on quoting and I'm sure Dave boddy's view is very different to that of orange ken, ray ranson or any of the other cunts that have been in charge over the years
Why not see what happens short term, I'm sure we can all agree that there is more chance of us being at the Ricoh next season than us not due to numerous reasons, yet you can't let your hatred for sisu drop (just like the council)
This place will be in uproar if it all comes to nowt but right now the future looks brighter than it has done in a long time
No I’m referring to the original lease and the default clauses which protect sub tenants and their rights. So ccfc under the terms have rights to remain there on the existing terms or as the lease states can pursue court action against ACL 2006 LTD
There is absolutely no reason we can't play at the Ricoh while 'we wait for our owner to finish her legal fetish'. After all if all is above board as claimed there's nothing for Wasps or the council to worry about and therefore no need for the indemnity.In my mind the long term effects of not playing in Cov while we wait for our owner to finish her legal fetish are worse than sucking it up and renting off a rugby club for a couple of years while we build the stadium we should’ve started more than 7 years ago when all this started.
Isn’t that the lease we broke? Sorry but it’s really hard to follow your argument when you wrap it up in riddles and drop it out bit by bit.
No. The monkey has changed several times. The organ grinders are the same and haven’t budged an inch.
And you are either saying you do want us “held ransom” and back at the Ricoh or you are saying you’re happy for us to stay in Brum. You can’t have it both ways.
My position has been clear for years despite constant attempts to misrepresent it: we need our own ground. The Ricoh isn’t affordable while we are not at least an upper Championship team. Start building a ground. Drop the stupid legal shite and strike a short term deal while we build. Failing that drop the legals and strike a long term deal. It’s plainly obvious that the continued legal action is stopping us building relationships in the city and moving forward.
Sorry to sound like a stuck record (but I am genuinely interested in your different point of view) but what legals? There are no legals against wasps at the moment, if there were we would all be asking for them to be dropped
It's not as black and white as you state with the Brum or Ricoh stuff. I don't want to be in Brum in the slightest but at the moment I'd rather be in brum and still have a long term future for my football club than be at the Ricoh with the sword of Damocles over our head with the indemnity clause active. Wasps drop the indemnity clause (which again I will state as you ignored it before) was only added when wasps changed the goal posts around potential action to do with the sale of the stadium.
We can't be the secondary party in a deal at the Ricoh as long term that fucks us as much as being in Brum
Had a quick look at the Shrewsbury Town financials mainly to see how much their stadium cost. Look a well run set up having run at a profit in 2016, 2017 & 2018. In June 2018 they had accumulated £2.8m in the bank. The 2019 financials are not available yet.
Their stadium was opened in 2007 at a cost of £14.7m against which they got grant funding of £2m. In 2016 they did a deal with Lidl for a supermarket on site that looks like it raised £1m (cant be sure on that figure). It has a capacity of 9875 but can be increased to approx 10600 with temporary seating. As i understand it they already owned the site
For a ground to be capable of further expansion even if four sided as suggested then the most efficient way is to do the ground work (foundations etc) at the start of the project. This means the groundwork build costs of a stadium capable of expansion are front loaded on to the original build.
If Shrewsbury's stadium cost £14.7m in 2007 including owning the site then a stadium twice the size capable of being future expanded, and allowing for inflation is going to cost our owners an awful lot more. Can only guess north of £25m - who knows. A bowl design i would suggest would be even more than that.
Currently? The state aid complaint. I know I know we don’t think it can be stopped. But clearly Wasps do so it’s worth a try right? Going forward it would be appeals to that case and any other legal avenues they might have to try and reverse Wasps’ purchase of the Ricoh.
I can see the argument that “well they’re allowed their rights” and that they are, except it’s currently blocking us from having even a temporary home and frankly when it comes down to it I care more about CCFC than Joy Seppalas legal rights. I don’t think the case has merit and she should just take the L and move on.
The indemnity is only an issue because Wasps want the legals gone. It’s clearly preposterous and a last ditch attempt to inoculate themselves against anything that comes from the complaint.
So far as I see it the conversation has gone
Sisu: We have dropped all legals against Wasps as agreed
Wasps: Cool let’s talk. Hold up a second you’ve complained to the EC!!
S: *trollface.jpg* but that’s against the council not Wasps lololooolol
W: Yeah that’s bullshit. Withdraw it.
S: We can’t.
W: then make it so we won’t be impacted and then you’ll be incentivised your find a way to drop it
S: No
*talks end we move to Brum*
S: NDA
W: NDA
S: Indemnity!
W: NDA (but unofficially though Linnell/Trust meetings: if Sisu asked for it to be forgotten that’d help)
S: No
SBT: Grrrrr obviously it can’t be dropped!
Me: ?? Got to be worth a try though surely? I mean if we are making requests of the owners as a fans group, shouldn’t we be asking them to try everything?
SBT: your friends and family are cunts and you’ve got an agenda and you sound like this bloke on Twitter and here’s a windmill GIF
Me: ?? O....K....
Currently? The state aid complaint. I know I know we don’t think it can be stopped. But clearly Wasps do so it’s worth a try right? Going forward it would be appeals to that case and any other legal avenues they might have to try and reverse Wasps’ purchase of the Ricoh.
I can see the argument that “well they’re allowed their rights” and that they are, except it’s currently blocking us from having even a temporary home and frankly when it comes down to it I care more about CCFC than Joy Seppalas legal rights. I don’t think the case has merit and she should just take the L and move on.
The indemnity is only an issue because Wasps want the legals gone. It’s clearly preposterous and a last ditch attempt to inoculate themselves against anything that comes from the complaint.
So far as I see it the conversation has gone
Sisu: We have dropped all legals against Wasps as agreed
Wasps: Cool let’s talk. Hold up a second you’ve complained to the EC!!
S: *trollface.jpg* but that’s against the council not Wasps lololooolol
W: Yeah that’s bullshit. Withdraw it.
S: We can’t.
W: then make it so we won’t be impacted and then you’ll be incentivised your find a way to drop it
S: No
*talks end we move to Brum*
S: NDA
W: NDA
S: Indemnity!
W: NDA (but unofficially though Linnell/Trust meetings: if Sisu asked for it to be forgotten that’d help)
S: No
SBT: Grrrrr obviously it can’t be dropped!
Me: ?? Got to be worth a try though surely? I mean if we are making requests of the owners as a fans group, shouldn’t we be asking them to try everything?
SBT: your friends and family are cunts and you’ve got an agenda and you sound like this bloke on Twitter and here’s a windmill GIF
Me: ?? O....K....
Had a quick look at the Shrewsbury Town financials mainly to see how much their stadium cost. Look a well run set up having run at a profit in 2016, 2017 & 2018. In June 2018 they had accumulated £2.8m in the bank. The 2019 financials are not available yet.
Their stadium was opened in 2007 at a cost of £14.7m against which they got grant funding of £2m. In 2016 they did a deal with Lidl for a supermarket on site that looks like it raised £1m (cant be sure on that figure). It has a capacity of 9875 but can be increased to approx 10600 with temporary seating. As i understand it they already owned the site
For a ground to be capable of further expansion even if four sided as suggested then the most efficient way is to do the ground work (foundations etc) at the start of the project. This means the groundwork build costs of a stadium capable of expansion are front loaded on to the original build.
If Shrewsbury's stadium cost £14.7m in 2007 including £1.8m for already owning the site then a stadium twice the size capable of being future expanded, and allowing for inflation is going to cost our owners an awful lot more. Can only guess north of £25m - who knows. A bowl design i would suggest would be even more than that.
shmmeee - not sure why you or anybody else goes on about SISU breaking the lease. There was clear intent from ACL (and by extension the council) to break the lease anyway. They had applied to put the club into administration themselves.
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?