More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal-Les Reid (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 20, 2015

chiefdave said:
But again why would you get to that open book stage if the asking price is a million miles away from what you are prepared to pay? Many people have asked why didn't SISU just submit a bid even if CCC weren't or wouldn't talk to them. How could they have done that with any degree of accuracy?

Both you and I know the answer - because buying the business was never their intention. That's the whole point.

Distressing it into submission was. And that's what a High Court judge stated.

If they'd have asked to see the books in order to justify a bid, and were refused - I can understand your issue. But they didn't as they had no intention of ever paying any price. What Lucas did or didn't say was irrelevant.

You are right; insomuch as the distressing process evidently did work, and some of the comments made by CCC officials during that process were clearly inaccurate, but they only have a context or relevance if the other party ever exhibited any evidence that they were going to buy. Which SISU didn't. No 'offer' was ever influenced or shaped. At no point did they ever exhibit any behaviour that in any way represented that of a candid buyer. Did they?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 20, 2015

duffer said:
In fairness MMM, you won't get to due diligence if one side thinks that you're looking for massively beyond what you see as the true value of what they are trying to sell. Due diligence is an expensive process; if i remember correctly one of SISU's claims was that they thought they were being hampered in terms of this the first time around. I'm not saying that's necessarily true mind, but the council's recent behaviour does make me look at those negotiations in a slightly different light...

Open book with a view to making a conditional offer costs very little. Make the offer, and if that's accepted, then move to Due Diligence. Which is costly - I agree - but at least you both know you're in the same ball-park by then.

Did SISU ever ask to see the books with a view to making any bid? I didn't see any such action mentioned in any of the court hearings, or review of the legality of the CCC loan

Godiva · Jan 20, 2015

chiefdave said:
We were still there but not paying rent weren't we? Which surely would at least raise a concern.

ACL draw down on the escrow and the club paid 10t per game.
But it should lead to concern - and I am sure it did.

duffer · Jan 20, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Open book with a view to making a conditional offer costs very little. Make the offer, and if that's accepted, then move to Due Diligence. Which is costly - I agree - but at least you both know you're in the same ball-park by then.

Did SISU ever ask to see the books with a view to making any bid? I didn't see any such action mentioned in any of the court hearings, or review of the legality of the CCC loan

SISU definitely went for due diligence in the abortive bid that became subject to the JR.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/exclusive-offer-coventry-city-owners-3023213

I think they subsequently claimed that they were frustrated in the process and/or asked for more time to complete. At the time I would have argued that they were simply stalling to further distress ACL, however in the light of recent findings I think it's also entirely possible that the council were trying to oversell the value of ACL and didn't want to admit that without the club it couldn't really survive.

Regardless though, we're not talking about that - we're talking about the sale to Wasps, which was done without even giving SISU an opportunity to bid (and further, suggesting that there might be an opportunity to discuss ownership later, a straight-out lie as we both agree).

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, you seem to think that was acceptable (except for the lie, given), whereas in my opinion it wasn't.

I don't think we need to look back to the JR to come to that conclusion, personally.

Godiva · Jan 20, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Both you and I know the answer - because buying the business was never their intention. That's the whole point.

Distressing it into submission was. And that's what a High Court judge stated.

If they'd have asked to see the books in order to justify a bid, and were refused - I can understand your issue. But they didn't as they had no intention of ever paying any price. What Lucas did or didn't say was irrelevant.

You are right; insomuch as the distressing process evidently did work, and some of the comments made by CCC officials during that process were clearly inaccurate, but they only have a context or relevance if the other party ever exhibited any evidence that they were going to buy. Which SISU didn't. No 'offer' was ever influenced or shaped. At no point did they ever exhibit any behaviour that in any way represented that of a candid buyer. Did they?

Inaccurate???

We all talk about 'sisu', 'the council', 'Higgs' ... when in reality it's down to individuals. This is recognized by some when they bring up 'Fischer' or 'Joy'.
To me it seems there are two other individuals who rarely get a mention, but clearly were (is) at the hart of everything: West and Reeves.

From the JR it looks that West was the architect behind the strategy to leave negotiations and have ccc buy out the loan. It also looks plausible that West and Reeves told Ann Lucas that ACL was profitable without the club.

They deserve much more attention than they get.

fernandopartridge · Jan 20, 2015

Godiva said:
Inaccurate???

We all talk about 'sisu', 'the council', 'Higgs' ... when in reality it's down to individuals. This is recognized by some when they bring up 'Fischer' or 'Joy'.
To me it seems there are two other individuals who rarely get a mention, but clearly were (is) at the hart of everything: West and Reeves.

From the JR it looks that West was the architect behind the strategy to leave negotiations and have ccc buy out the loan. It also looks plausible that West and Reeves told Ann Lucas that ACL was profitable without the club.

They deserve much more attention than they get.

Yes. They were involved from the beginning including setting ACL up to fail with the first £21m mortgage.

WiganSkyBlue · Jan 20, 2015

Another diatribe from Les Reid who has a particular agenda against CCC.

He's not even a proper journalist (imo) - just a columnist!

lordsummerisle · Jan 20, 2015

WiganSkyBlue said:
Another diatribe from Les Reid who has a particular agenda against CCC.

He's not even a proper journalist (imo) - just a columnist!

Does he have an agenda against CCC?

fernandopartridge · Jan 20, 2015

WiganSkyBlue said:
Another diatribe from Les Reid who has a particular agenda against CCC.

He's not even a proper journalist (imo) - just a columnist!

I assume Simon also has an agenda

lordsummerisle · Jan 20, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
A lot of any ACL success will down to the stadium naming rights, the timing of the renewal and obviously the amount involved. I don't think anyone has confirmed when the actual renewal year is.

I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value in sponsoring a stadium anywhere if you are different from the initial sponsor.

Ricoh will be in the minds of pretty much everybody for many years to come, no matter who gains the next naming rights.

Bolton, I think Reebock, Huddersfield, I think McApline, Derby, think Pride Park, Leicester, think think Walkers.

Once a name is in the consciousness it's hard to get it out.

The amount of pubs I call by their names from 20 years ago, despite a few name changes since is one example for me.

wingy · Jan 20, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value in sponsoring a stadium anywhere if you are different from the initial sponsor.

Ricoh will be in the minds of pretty much everybody for many years to come, no matter who gains the next naming rights.

Bolton, I think Reebock, Huddersfield, I think McApline, Derby, think Pride Park, Leicester, think think Walkers.

Once a name is in the consciousness it's hard to get it out.

The amount of pubs I call by their names from 20 years ago, despite a few name changes since is one example for me.

Agreed to an extent but I think RT is referring to the Value of the next deal
Would have been next to zilch were no team playing there
Less this year with CCFC at current level than ten years ago
Significantly more with a Premier Rugby Franchise In house

Noggin · Jan 20, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value in sponsoring a stadium anywhere if you are different from the initial sponsor.

Ricoh will be in the minds of pretty much everybody for many years to come, no matter who gains the next naming rights.

Bolton, I think Reebock, Huddersfield, I think McApline, Derby, think Pride Park, Leicester, think think Walkers.

Once a name is in the consciousness it's hard to get it out.

The amount of pubs I call by their names from 20 years ago, despite a few name changes since is one example for me.

While thats true is it really what we call it that they pay for? or what the media call it?

duffer · Jan 20, 2015

WiganSkyBlue said:
Another diatribe from Les Reid who has a particular agenda against CCC.

He's not even a proper journalist (imo) - just a columnist!

Generally speaking it's a journalist's job to scrutinise and bring to light to wrongdoing. There's not much money or interest in articles with headlines like, "Don't Worry, All is Well". If you're a political journalist on a local newspaper then you're likely to focus on the council, and on their possible flaws, strangely enough.

As for the other stuff, journo v columnist, it might be your opinion but it's wrong. And if it's to suggest that he's just another bloke off the street banging on about something that he's not investigated then it's unfair too. Reid's obviously a qualified journalist.

lordsummerisle · Jan 20, 2015

Noggin said:
While thats true is it really what we call it that they pay for? or what the media call it?

The media can mention Macron stadium as much as they like, most are going to go "Eh?", then when somebody says "Bolton", say, "oh, the Reebok".

Noggin · Jan 20, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
The media can mention Macron stadium as much as they like, most are going to go "Eh?", then when somebody says "Bolton", say, "oh, the Reebok".

I agree, but then I already did agree, my point was most of what Macron are paying for is not us to call it the Macron (though they do want that), but for their brand to be mentioned in every tv and news report

lordsummerisle · Jan 20, 2015

Noggin said:
I agree, but then I already did agree, my point was most of what Macron are paying for is not us to call it the Macron (though they do want that), but for their brand to be mentioned in every tv and news report

Would they have paid as much for naming rights as Reebok did though?

Just think that the value of stadium naming rights would decrease after the initial sponsor.

Noggin · Jan 20, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
Would they have paid as much for naming rights as Reebok did though?

Just think that the value of stadium naming rights would decrease after the initial sponsor.

I agree there is less value, though I still think the majority of the value is still there, remember of course that while those of us that call the Reebok will continue to do so long after a change, so that will be also be true for those people who call it the Macron.

lordsummerisle · Jan 20, 2015

Noggin said:
I agree there is less value, though I still think the majority of the value is still there, remember of course that while those of us that call the Reebok will continue to do so long after a change, so that will be also be true for those people who call it the Macron.

Nobody in Bolton calls it the Macron, let alone elsewhere!

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 20, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
But at what time was this letter sent? Presumably after the Average League One rent stance; but before the unfettered freehold stance?

The 'unfettered freehold' line is confirmed in the CET article Simon Gilbert has linked to; and also - I'm sure - confirmed to posters on here by Labovitch when people met him: Deleted member 5849: can you confirm (was it you who posted he said it to you?)

Eh? What are you wanting confirming?

He actually said freehold or nothing was a mistake, and that wasn't the position at all.

FWIW I haven't ever referred to *that* on here as that was a personalmeeting, there is documented statements saying the same from him elsewhere however.

Give me a while to drag out my notes(!) and I'll be able to give you a precis of the exchange at that point if you *really* want but personally I wouldn't trust things somebody said in a small group, verbally, as 'evidence'... whichever way it leaned.

skybluedan · Jan 20, 2015

Who the fuck is les Reid? Keep meaning to ask

James Smith · Jan 20, 2015

Okay so having briefly read up on this in both the observer and the telegraph basically they're all still doing the same stuff. The council are justifying their hypocritical decision to sell to Wasps and covering their arses. Sisu are still hammering on in the courts and still getting hammered in the courts. We meanwhile are getting hammered on the pitch and heading the wrong direction in the table. The new stadium is more vapourware than ever and we're still effectively homeless.

Have I missed anything?

Rusty Trombone · Jan 20, 2015

James Smith said:
Okay so having briefly read up on this in both the observer and the telegraph basically they're all still doing the same stuff. The council are justifying their hypocritical decision to sell to Wasps and covering their arses. Sisu are still hammering on in the courts and still getting hammered in the courts. We meanwhile are getting hammered on the pitch and heading the wrong direction in the table. The new stadium is more vapourware than ever and we're still effectively homeless.

Have I missed anything?

You're playing in goal on Saturday.

James Smith · Jan 20, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
You're playing in goal on Saturday.

Actually they couldn't do worse than pick me, I was never any good at football in my youth and that was a very long time ago. Oh and I'm working so wouldn't be able to turn up, so a bit like a normal Saturday on the pitch.

dongonzalos · Jan 20, 2015

Nick said:
Would normal city residents not be annoyed that there are loads of cuts while loads of money is tied up in ACL?

The high court judge stated this about the decision to take on the loan

"However, I do not accept that this demonstrates that the council made its decision to offer a loan to ACL for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

"Its purpose was the legitimate commercial purpose of protecting investment in ACL"

So he felt the purpose was to protect the original investment.

So really when the council saved the football club's ass initially that is the time the people of Coventry may have had a gripe against a charity and council helping out a football club. I am sure both organisations have good justifications for getting involved

martcov · Jan 21, 2015

Getting cash ( assuming CCC did ) for their share and shortening the loan repayment terms, seems to be a better idea than servicing an empty stadium making a small loss whilst waiting for a hedge fund that has moved on and is suing them to make a realistic offer or even suggestions for a meeting. The money tied up in ACL was put there years before the present cuts. Let's hope SISU do drop their appeal against the appeal appeal and release funds now tied up in in litigation costs to help reduce cuts in the city.

wal3590 · Jan 21, 2015

What was Les Reids error? Must have missed that?

torchomatic · Jan 21, 2015

Not writing "SISU OUT" 500 times. He and the CT were SISU Puppets, then it was just Reid and now it's him and the Observer.

wal3590 said:
What was Les Reids error? Must have missed that?

Ian1779 · Jan 21, 2015

When his journalism fitted the SISU out mentality.. he was revered.

As soon as it changed... he became their apologist.

Same with Nikki Sinclaire... you couldn't avoid the love in when she spoke at the first march. Soon as she starting asking more questions she became a troublemaker.

martcov · Jan 21, 2015

To be honest, the last articles in the Observer don't reveal anything we didn't know or suspect already and seem to censor the facts conveniently. The timing being near to SISUs latest appeal against the appeal of the appeal ( I think that is the right description ) suggests support for SISU rather than a critical, but neutral appraisal of the council's role in this fiasco. Some new evidence or a "smoking gun" would be indeed interesting and may influence people's opinions ( including mine ). The present crusade is just, well, dare I say it..... SISU's viewpoint.

Nick · Jan 21, 2015

People do love a good bash about journalists being on certain sides, I am surprised the bit about the telegraph and council coming to a deal not to print something didn't outrage more people.

torchomatic · Jan 21, 2015

To be honest, I'd forgotten all about it until you mentioned it again. That just shows that people only hear what they want to. There's only outrage if something can be thrown at our owners. The council do seem to get a free ride. It is refreshing that Dave, Duffer and even James Smith are questioning the role of Lucas and CCC.

Nick said:
People do love a good bash about journalists being on certain sides, I am surprised the bit about the telegraph and council coming to a deal not to print something didn't outrage more people.

olderskyblue · Jan 21, 2015

torchomatic said:
To be honest, I'd forgotten all about it until you mentioned it again. That just shows that people only hear what they want to.

So you didn't want to hear about that "deal" then Torch?? Must admit, you've surprised me...

lordsummerisle · Jan 21, 2015

Nick said:
People do love a good bash about journalists being on certain sides, I am surprised the bit about the telegraph and council coming to a deal not to print something didn't outrage more people.

Bigfatron thought it was perfectly ok, strangely he cited free speech as a reason.

Samo · Jan 21, 2015

lordsummerisle said:
Bigfatron thought it was perfectly ok, strangely he cited free speech as a reason.

Ron has some very strange ideas. I expresseed an opinion opposed to his and he accused me of being 'undemocratic'. He tends to miss the point on things like free speech and democracy.

More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal-Les Reid (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency