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.
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 review
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.
What have the council potentially done or even could have potentially done that would warrant an investigation?
You missed out Jim Brown. Or is everyone going to hate him now?
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 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.
Put £14m of tax payers money at risk by loaning it to a nearly broke rugby team while cutting £15m in public services
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So if wasps are not successful, the loan won't be defaulted? They ain't doing that great!
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?
What specifically do you have doubts about?
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.
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.
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?
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.
There ain't going to be an investigation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?