skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Very good point MC. Expect an insult from Grendull some time soon as he won't have a counter argument for that one.
If their, SISU's, ( apparently ) non-existent business plan didn't include anything for the benefit of Coventry, then maybe Higgs couldn't justify a reduced price for the share. Perhaps Wasps have put forward a better case to Higgs ( and not sued them ).
If their, SISU's, ( apparently ) non-existent business plan didn't include anything for the benefit of Coventry, then maybe Higgs couldn't justify a reduced price for the share. Perhaps Wasps have put forward a better case to Higgs ( and not sued them ).
No they are a football club and shouldn't be involved in regeneration.
No its not I'm afraid - the determining factor is the valuation and sale price. I'm sure if the council received more there would be an issue but they have not. It's an equal split.
If your view was true and such investment failed to occur then there would be potential issues - however it is not.
So now we can add Higgs policy to your ever growing list of expertise.
I love it when you are proved wrong you make some silly irrelevant statement.
Collectively the two owners agreed to sell to one party and that's it . If you deny that there is zero point in continuing this discussion.
Only agreed at this moment in time as no other bids have been received as far as we know. Didn't LR tweet yesterday that PA has received 3 different bids for the first refusal option that Ltd has? Surely this means that at least 2 other parties are interested in bidding for the Higgs share assuming one of those bids is wasps and if not 3 other parties? Shouldn't we as fans be more concerned that one of these parties is the club and not egging sisu on with more court action. Seeing as that corse of action is yet to benefit the club?
On the basis that SISU's chosen method of problem solving is going to court I would think they are trying to find ways to take that course...... so I tend to agree with Grendel more legal cases are a distinct possibility.
This process has been set up by CCC/Charity/Wasps over many months knowing the pitfalls that could arise and the various options that SISU might have. As the dispute has gone on from 2012 (not saying Wasps involved in at the start of this btw) it has been a matter of closing doors and moving to the next "room" and closing some more - primarily in the hope they would commit CCFC to the Ricoh but more recently primarily to ensure the well being of the stadium. Not sure I see many more doors open for SISU. The intention now is clearly that Wasps own 100% even if that has not been said...... the process will have been set up to achieve that with the least amount of problems and expense.
That doesn't stop CCFC playing there or even getting a better deal on income but it wont include ownership. Ownership was key to SISU's investment. Could have been so different but ..............
at a guess SISU will probably try to argue that the bidding process is artificial that a deal has been done and that their rights as owners of CCFC Ltd through SBS&L have been prejudiced
If the terms of the option are simply to inform CCFC Ltd of any verifiable bid received by AEHC then the Charity can say it has done that. The grey area is the length of discussions before informing CCFC Ltd and at what point they a duty to notify.
That court action might hold up a deal but not sure it is going to stop it
Considering how AEHC and CCC were supposed to be the amateurs out of their depth in this I find it surprising how many times SISU etc.,despite their high paid advisors and apparent experience, are wrong footed and have doors closed on them. Doesn't fill me with confidence about SISU's future decision making for CCFC that's for sure.
So to sum it up, the council are just giving it billy big bollocks to say "SISU can still buy it" to mug them off in the press as it is pretty much impossible or not?
So to sum it up, the council are just giving it billy big bollocks to say "SISU can still buy it" to mug them off in the press as it is pretty much impossible or not?
So to sum it up, the council are just giving it billy big bollocks to say "SISU can still buy it" to mug them off in the press as it is pretty much impossible or not?
Why is this shit getting printed in the news paper then? IF it is pretty much for SISU to get it anyway, why are the council giving it the press chatter? Makes you wonder how they have used the press in the past doesn't it?
Not sure about that Nick (and watch those libel laws). I suppose it had to be mentioned otherwise we would be asking Simon Gilbert why he isn't doing his job (not starting anything there, so don't worry!). Maybe could have dug around a bit to give some clarity (asked OSB perhaps). Higgs weren't didn't seemed to concerned to clarify by the way. Also TF was quite clear on his position on CWR yesterday morning - and took his dog for a walk.
No-one cares 'cept us, the fans -and it doesn't matter what we think
The journalist should have investigated the legitimacy of the council statement and should have confirmed the construct of the deal was for 100% ownership.
People should question why he didn't and should question what Reid would have said and, most significantly, would it have been printed.
To be fair though, when that dickhead from America with his website from the 90's for crowd funding started mouthing off, he wasn't checked into either.
Ah, it is just the same as some bloke coming up to me in the street and saying I can take my daughter to disney world, go on a yacht, meet One Direction (while she is stood there) but it will actually cost me £20 million so it isn't actually going to happen. I would think he was a prick for getting her hopes up knowing full well it wouldn't be able to happen even if I wanted it to.
What if he was legally obliged to offer the trip to your daughter? As for the media coverage, one minute it is wrong for private meetings, next it is wrong for details to be published because it gets people's hopes up?
Is it getting people's hopes up Nick or is it people jumping to their own conclusions. Perhaps we owe it to our selves to research things a bit better. It's a bit like the JR, people deciding the JR would bring loads of answers when they didn't understand what the JR would be about.
What if he was legally obliged to offer the trip to your daughter? As for the media coverage, one minute it is wrong for private meetings, next it is wrong for details to be published because it gets people's hopes up?
Is it getting people's hopes up Nick or is it people jumping to their own conclusions. Perhaps we owe it to our selves to research things a bit better. It's a bit like the JR, people deciding the JR would bring loads of answers when they didn't understand what the JR would be about.
It was specifically designed to create an impression that suited a certain party.
Most things in the press are. Don't car manufacturers manipulate performance and reliability figures for favourable reviews?
So we agree. The council evening telegraph is riddled with bias - fair enough
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?