OPen Letter Asking For Public Inquiry Over Wasps Deal (4 Viewers)

[albatross]

It's a bit tricky to investigate if the main player here, the Council, isn't answering any questions. The logic here seems to be that because the first judicial review failed the council can have done no wrong since then. Politely, that's not clear thinking in my opinion.

There are some very detailed questions there, to which I'd like to know the answers. There's no way that anyone can tell me all of the people on that list are SISU puppets.

As before if people don't want a enquiry because all that matters to them is that SISU lost, fair enough. Personally I think there's enough going on here, and enough public funds at risk to merit more than just a box-ticking exercise by an auditor.

Understand what you are saying but isn't JR1 still under appeal so until that's cleared up its difficult if not impossible to move into the second and pending enquiry? SISU through litigation have effectively stopped any public review process

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

It's a bit tricky to investigate if the main player here, the Council, isn't answering any questions. The logic here seems to be that because the first judicial review failed the council can have done no wrong since then. Politely, that's not clear thinking in my opinion.

There are some very detailed questions there, to which I'd like to know the answers. There's no way that anyone can tell me all of the people on that list are SISU puppets.

As before if people don't want a enquiry because all that matters to them is that SISU lost, fair enough. Personally I think there's enough going on here, and enough public funds at risk to merit more than just a box-ticking exercise by an auditor.

tbf the questions asked are reasonable.

The problem I have is, much as with the football club and its recent practices, the club still has enough of a profile that there's *no way* you'd not do things by the book, as you'd know peoples' eyes are on you (although the amount of shrugging of shoulders and 'ah well, they're here now' suggests otherwise!).

So if done by the book, isn't there a risk that any enquiry confirms that, and therefore stops any perfectly valid questions being asked about the direction of the public sector and how it deals with its assets? What next to be sold, after all, if encouraged by a successful defence of any enquiry?

 

[duffer]

Understand what you are saying but isn't JR1 still under appeal so until that's cleared up its difficult if not impossible to move into the second and pending review

That's a very fair point mate - and we shouldn't forget the possiblity of JR2 either. The article says that sub judice doesn't really apply here, the argument being that unlike a jury a High Court judge cannot be swayed by media discussion. However I've got to admit that you can obviously understand why people from the council won't want to say anything that might be used against them in court.

Personally I'd accept that until all of the court stuff is played out then asking for a full review is probably unreasonable. Regardless of the result though, I doubt the court will cover the full scope of the questions asked in that letter - and I'd like the answer to most of those questions even if it's a year or two down the line.

 

[duffer]

tbf the questions asked are reasonable.

The problem I have is, much as with the football club and its recent practices, the club still has enough of a profile that there's *no way* you'd not do things by the book, as you'd know peoples' eyes are on you (although the amount of shrugging of shoulders and 'ah well, they're here now' suggests otherwise!).

So if done by the book, isn't there a risk that any enquiry confirms that, and therefore stops any perfectly valid questions being asked about the direction of the public sector and how it deals with its assets? What next to be sold, after all, if encouraged by a successful defence of any enquiry?

I see what you're saying, but isn't it a bit of a circular argument though (there's a posh word for this that I can't remember - tautology?). The council knew it was SISU, so they must have done everything by the book, therefore there's no point in an enquiry.

Also, I wouldn't personally look beyond the matter in hand here - I don't think that you should stop looking for the truth just because finding it might have unexpected consequences.

 

[skybluetony176]

What have the council potentially done or even could have potentially done that would warrant an investigation?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I see what you're saying, but isn't it a bit of a circular argument though (there's a posh word for this that I can't remember - tautology?). The council knew it was SISU, so they must have done everything by the book, therefore there's no point in an enquiry.

I don't even think it's 'because it's SISU' tbf. They're not the only local council to be selling off its property assets through closed meetings, put it this way - it's a fairly common practice (watch this space!). Take away the emotion of the football club out of it and it's a ruthless business transaction.

Now personally I'm all for less of those! But the way local government's being pushed by national sees it going more and more that way. Turning it around, the only reason ou'd ask for an enquiry would be because it involves the football club.

Does that make it right? Nope. But it makes it even more unlikely there's anything 'wrong' in the process. In the meantime the red herring encourages more of it.

 

[Bennets Afro]

What have the council potentially done or even could have potentially done that would warrant an investigation?

Put £14m of tax payers money at risk by loaning it to a nearly broke rugby team while cutting £15m in public services

 

[Noggin]

You missed out Jim Brown. Or is everyone going to hate him now?

I said the usual suspects for the most part, I don't see why anyone would hate him for signing a letter no but I didn't say anything of the sort. I don't think he is a notable signatory though either. He's the club historian, his view is no more or less valid on this issue than any other fan.

 

[Noggin]

Put £14m of tax payers money at risk by loaning it to a nearly broke rugby team while cutting £15m in public services

I can understand and even in part agree with hating the council because they sold to wasps. But that view doesn't make sense. Selling to wasps not only dramatically improved the loans terms and conditions making it much more financially viable it also made it much less likely that the loan would be defaulted. Selling the Ricoh even means less cuts will need to be made not more.

 

[Bennets Afro]

I can understand and even in part agree with hating the council because they sold to wasps. But that view is just silly. Selling to wasps not only dramatically improved the loans terms and conditions making it much more financially viable it also made it much less likely that the loan would be defaulted. Selling the Ricoh even means less cuts will need to be made not more.

So if wasps are not successful, the loan won't be defaulted? They ain't doing that great!

 

[skybluetony176]

Put £14m of tax payers money at risk by loaning it to a nearly broke rugby team while cutting £15m in public services

That decision on it's own is never going to be illegal though. Councils all around the UK lend money to private companies such as Northampton Council to NTFC for their extension all the time and loans by their very nature carry risk.

So where is the need for an investigation? I would think that Wasps and ACL would have to file their accounts from the first full year Wasps have been at The Ricoh before anyone could even make a call on how risky a decision it was.

 

[duffer]

I don't even think it's 'because it's SISU' tbf. They're not the only local council to be selling off its property assets through closed meetings, put it this way - it's a fairly common practice (watch this space!). Take away the emotion of the football club out of it and it's a ruthless business transaction.

Now personally I'm all for less of those! But the way local government's being pushed by national sees it going more and more that way. Turning it around, the only reason ou'd ask for an enquiry would be because it involves the football club.

Does that make it right? Nope. But it makes it even more unlikely there's anything 'wrong' in the process. In the meantime the red herring encourages more of it.

This isn't a simple sale of an asset to boost council coffers though is it? The taxpayer still carries a big risk here, currently around £14m. If the Council had sold it's share in ACL and Wasps had also bought out the mortgage, then it would be a bit clearer. It still wouldn't mean that it had been done legitimately though.

And again, politely, you're still arguing in a circular way in my opinion - you're saying that it's probably not wrong because the council wouldn't do anything wrong knowing that it would be under scrutiny, so what's the point in scrutinising. I don't quite see the logic in that, personally. There are enough questions here to suggest that at least some of the things the council have done here are wrong.

 

[chiefdave]

There's enough doubt about the whole process to warrant an investigation in my opinion. If everything is above board and the council have done the best for the city and it's football club and rugby club then why would they have a problem with any inquiry?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And again, politely, you're still arguing in a circular way in my opinion - you're saying that it's probably not wrong because the council wouldn't do anything wrong knowing that it would be under scrutiny, so what's the point in scrutinising. I don't quite see the logic in that, personally. There are enough questions here to suggest that at least some of the things the council have done here are wrong.

What I'm suggesting is there are more appropriate ways of scrutinising in this instance... not that it's not worth scrutinising.

 

[chiefdave]

Selling to wasps not only dramatically improved the loans terms and conditions making it much more financially viable it also made it much less likely that the loan would be defaulted.

As the term of the loan has been halted the payments must have increased. So a loss making business now has to pay out more on an annual basis. Wouldn't that increase the risk of default?

 

[duffer]

I can understand and even in part agree with hating the council because they sold to wasps. But that view doesn't make sense. Selling to wasps not only dramatically improved the loans terms and conditions making it much more financially viable it also made it much less likely that the loan would be defaulted. Selling the Ricoh even means less cuts will need to be made not more.

That's not quite true if it turns out that Wasps are actually a bigger risk than the council purported. It also ignores the fact that when the council bailed out ACL they told precisely the reverse story regarding its profitability in order to justify it.

 

[skybluetony176]

There's enough doubt about the whole process to warrant an investigation in my opinion. If everything is above board and the council have done the best for the city and it's football club and rugby club then why would they have a problem with any inquiry?

What specifically do you have doubts about?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What specifically do you have doubts about?

As we know absolutely nothing about the process, it's pretty easy to have doubts about, well... all of it!

 

[Noggin]

So if wasps are not successful, the loan won't be defaulted? They ain't doing that great!

If ACL go bust and no one wants to buy them yes the loan will be defaulted and CCFC will get the lease back, I don't think there is any significant risk especially with an 11% interest rate it seems very fair imo but thats not what I'm talking about, thats not the reason for it being a misguided viewpoint. They were in the same position before selling to wasps except acl had to survive for twice as long, the interest rate was much worse and acl were even more likely to go bust and the sale brought in money making cuts less likely, so all in all the sale had complete opposite results to the ones you were complaining about.

 

[Noggin]

As the term of the loan has been halted the payments must have increased. So a loss making business now has to pay out more on an annual basis. Wouldn't that increase the risk of default?

If that were the only thing that happened sure (though of course they could if they wished lower payments again in future) but acls income significantly increases with the sale to wasps. ACL are far far less likely to go bust now than they were before the sale to wasps.

 

[chiefdave]

What specifically do you have doubts about?

Well to give one example off the top of my head Lucas stated after the sale that she hadn't lied about the profitability of ACL but had been given incorrect information. What other incorrect information was she and the rest of the council given and how can we be sure that the information used to make their decision was correct?

 

[Noggin]

That's not quite true if it turns out that Wasps are actually a bigger risk than the council purported. It also ignores the fact that when the council bailed out ACL they told precisely the reverse story regarding its profitability in order to justify it.

however much risk wasps are its a better situation than they were in. If his comment had been about the original bailout of acl it would have been far far more valid, that was the point that the council took the risk, the sale to wasps not only mitigated that risk it made the risk much more lucrative and much more likely to be a commercially viable loan, that another lender would have been willing to take on.

 

[chiefdave]

If that were the only thing that happened sure (though of course they could if they wished lower payments again in future) but acls income significantly increases with the sale to wasps. ACL are far far less likely to go bust now than they were before the sale to wasps.

How have you come to the conclusion ACLs income has significantly increased? The only increase would be through rent from Wasps wouldn't it? The F&B etc goes to IEC.

 

[albatross]

How have you come to the conclusion ACLs income has significantly increased? The only increase would be through rent from Wasps wouldn't it? The F&B etc goes to IEC.

No if they are smart they will sweat the asset more... more concerts, exhibitions etc... sponsorship and TV cash and don't forget the naming rights of the stadium to possibly JLR Beer and Pies are nice but they need to be sold on the big concert days rather than the 3 hrs round the football.

 

[skybluetony176]

Well to give one example off the top of my head Lucas stated after the sale that she hadn't lied about the profitability of ACL but had been given incorrect information. What other incorrect information was she and the rest of the council given and how can we be sure that the information used to make their decision was correct?

Sorry dude but I think you're clutching at straws. There ain't going to be an investigation based on if's and but's especially when you consider where the "demands" for an investigation are coming from. The only chance of an investigation will be of the back of the audit whenever that happens. I also suspect that the quarters that are "demanding" an investigation know this. It's almost as if they have a separate agenda and are trying to use some pissed of football fans to do their bidding.

 

[Noggin]

How have you come to the conclusion ACLs income has significantly increased? The only increase would be through rent from Wasps wouldn't it? The F&B etc goes to IEC.

Wasps have had nearly 100k people visit the arena since they got here, so there is rent from wasps + the income from that footfall.

We all know sisus plan was to try and send acl bust, it makes no sense whatsoever to believe acl are now more vulnerable to that now than they would have been without wasps. If you agree with that sentence then I'm not sure what you are debating with me about because thats all I was saying.

 

[chiefdave]

No if they are smart they will sweat the asset more... more concerts, exhibitions etc.

People say that like they can just snap their fingers and it will happen. It ignores the state of those industries. The Ricoh got a lot of outdoor events while Villa Park was being refurbished. That work is now complete and any booking agent is going to prefer their band playing a city the size of Birmingham with a lot more potential casual punter, at a bigger capacity stadium generating more revenue. Similarly the takeover of the NEC could have a big impact, it is reasonable to expect the new owners will go all out and they have a bigger and better facility in a better location.

Don't get me wrong the Ricoh is a great venue but its not as easy as Wasps just going lets make a few million extra.

There ain't going to be an investigation

I didn't say there would be, I said that I would be in favour of one as there is doubt over the whole sale process. You asked what doubt so I gave you an example. If I was in Ann Lucas position and convinced I was totally in the right I'd say bring it on, investigate all you like. Any other response gives the likes a Reid the option to suggest they don't want it to happen as they have something to hide.

 

[duffer]

however much risk wasps are its a better situation than they were in. If his comment had been about the original bailout of acl it would have been far far more valid, that was the point that the council took the risk, the sale to wasps not only mitigated that risk it made the risk much more lucrative and much more likely to be a commercially viable loan, that another lender would have been willing to take on.

If you mean more lucrative in the sense that the council will get more interest, then that assumes that the loan is going to be paid back. As we've seen, without Richardson chucking millions into Wasps, it's not a profitable business. CCFC is now apparently cash flow neutral - would opening up the sale of ACL to CCFC or indeed any other interested parties actually have been in the tax payers better interests, if there was indeed a pressing need to sell. As it stands we're holding £14m of debt to a company reliant on a sugar daddy to survive.

The fact that ACL went from profitable when the council 'had' to bail it out, to unprofitable when the council 'had' to sell it is one of the very reasons this needs to be looked into in much more detail, imho. And with that I'm off to get a spot of dinner - appreciate the point you're making here Noggin, but I think we'll probably have to differ.

 

[skybluetony176]

People say that like they can just snap their fingers and it will happen. It ignores the state of those industries. The Ricoh got a lot of outdoor events while Villa Park was being refurbished. That work is now complete and any booking agent is going to prefer their band playing a city the size of Birmingham with a lot more potential casual punter, at a bigger capacity stadium generating more revenue. Similarly the takeover of the NEC could have a big impact, it is reasonable to expect the new owners will go all out and they have a bigger and better facility in a better location.

Don't get me wrong the Ricoh is a great venue but its not as easy as Wasps just going lets make a few million extra.



I didn't say there would be, I said that I would be in favour of one as there is doubt over the whole sale process. You asked what doubt so I gave you an example. If I was in Ann Lucas position and convinced I was totally in the right I'd say bring it on, investigate all you like. Any other response gives the likes a Reid the option to suggest they don't want it to happen as they have something to hide.

I've said it a couple of times but I can't help but feel that AL and her buddies at the council house are too busy pissing themselves at SISU and LR etc. running around demanding an investigation in a hope of unearthing another fabled smoking gun to say "bring it on".

 

[Noggin]

If you mean more lucrative in the sense that the council will get more interest, then that assumes that the loan is going to be paid back. As we've seen, without Richardson chucking millions into Wasps, it's not a profitable business. CCFC is now apparently cash flow neutral - would opening up the sale of ACL to CCFC or indeed any other interested parties actually have been in the tax payers better interests, if there was indeed a pressing need to sell. As it stands we're holding £14m of debt to a company reliant on a sugar daddy to survive.

The fact that ACL went from profitable when the council 'had' to bail it out, to unprofitable when the council 'had' to sell it is one of the very reasons this needs to be looked into in much more detail, imho. And with that I'm off to get a spot of dinner - appreciate the point you're making here Noggin, but I think we'll probably have to differ.

you and I have discussed whether or not the loan to wasps has significant risk and is a good deal financially before, it was a good discussion though yes we do differ. I recognise though that we don't have the full facts and either of us can be right on that topic. I was deliberately trying to avoid having the same discussion again because I don't think we were going to get any further on it, we both had good points and only time is going to tell.

However I completely stand by the fact that whatever you think about the risk of acl going bust under wasps weather it is significant or negligible it is much less likely that it would have been without wasps and that was the main point of my post. I really think this is something we should be able to agree on and as such this post "Put £14m of tax payers money at risk by loaning it to a nearly broke rugby team while cutting £15m in public services" to which I responded is misguided.

But anyway I too should go do something else, have a good evening sir.

 

[tisza]

I can't see it ever happening.
would set a crazy precedent for local govt to have the possibility of every loan decision or asset sale to a private company being subject to a public enquiry.
if the courts can't find anything wrong then the grounds for an enquiry aren't particularly strong. and there just doesn't seem to be enough of an outcry from non-ccfc fans to convince the necessary people to order and finance an enquiry which. can only make recommendations not enforce change. they can't make ACL be nice to ccfc.

 

[James Smith]

As I said before I don't mind having a public enquiry but I don't want the club or the taxpayers forking out for it. The main problem for me is that it is likely that this will be probably covered by JR2 and a waste? Also it might well just conclude that the council did everything to the letter of the law and statements made about profitability were based on projections that proved to be optimistic. Council provide the club/Sisu statements about the new stadium being plan A. There'll be some criticism of the length of the extension of the lease and the sale price but nothing major. Someone will take a fat fee for conducting it and whilst it is happening we'll welcome a new season in League One with a new manager at the helm.

How much has JR1 cost and do we have any guesses for the cost of JR2?

Joy has no limits when we look to the sky.

 

[SBT]

Nothing short of bizarre for Les Reid to have written the Observer article about the letter if he's insisted on signing it himself. What on earth is he thinking?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Wasps have had nearly 100k people visit the arena since they got here, so there is rent from wasps + the income from that footfall.

We all know sisus plan was to try and send acl bust, it makes no sense whatsoever to believe acl are now more vulnerable to that now than they would have been without wasps. If you agree with that sentence then I'm not sure what you are debating with me about because thats all I was saying.

The Godiva Festival got 125,000 people over a weekend, most spending all day, yet CCC are looking at cutting it to Bill-annual or totally scrapping it.

Using some councillors calculations that would be about £50 million lost to the economy.

Over a weekend.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

As I said before I don't mind having a public enquiry but I don't want the club or the taxpayers forking out for it. The main problem for me is that it is likely that this will be probably covered by JR2 and a waste? Also it might well just conclude that the council did everything to the letter of the law and statements made about profitability were based on projections that proved to be optimistic. Council provide the club/Sisu statements about the new stadium being plan A. There'll be some criticism of the length of the extension of the lease and the sale price but nothing major. Someone will take a fat fee for conducting it and whilst it is happening we'll welcome a new season in League One with a new manager at the helm.

How much has JR1 cost and do we have any guesses for the cost of JR2?

Joy has no limits when we look to the sky.

I agree about the public enquiry if this rag of a paper or Reid are so keen to have one why don't they fund it and not get the poor old tax payer to foot the bill.