Private Eye (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Dal · Oct 16, 2014

duffer said:
I can see the point about the 'streaking contest' - clearly the Ricoh had done other, better business than that. Which presumably is why Ann Lucas had described ACL as profitable and sustainable right up until the point that the Wasps franchise offer came along, at which point it turned out that the Ricoh was just 'washing its face'.

The hypocrisy point made against the council regarding franchising is undeniable here - bad for CCFC, good for Wasps, apparently.

There's also an issue of honesty with regard to how profitable the Ricoh was - again this shifted remarkably when it suited the council to push for the Wasps deal, from when they stood against SISU via the bailout.

I'm not for a moment saying SISU were right to do what they did - but the premise of the Private Eye thing isn't far off either, imho.

The way the council have handled this stinks, and more than of just hypocrisy, there's a strong whiff of dishonesty here too, imho.

Duffer, I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your post but please can you explain to me how you would have dealt with the Wasp situation.

Please note that if you were running ACL/CCC and there was a serious buyer who behaved in a professional business manner to your liking, made you a reasonable offer compared to the other organisation which had become a thorn on your side , unprofessional and constantly carrying out law suits against you knowing the fact that they were spending more on legal fee's against you than what the original contracted annual rent was that they decided to stop paying and then finally you come to a point and have decided enough is enough, time is ticking against you and you can't afford to lose this deal otherwise you be back to square one as again hostages to a possible forced takeover which would result financially in you ending up with nothing.

Now you are in charge of ACL...How would you deal with this? How would you play it???

Also note into your decision the fateful comment TF made when he left the Ricoh for Sixfields that SISU are not staying at the Ricoh to subsidise ACL/Higgs. So the option of CCC/ACL/Higgs subsidising SISU/CCFC can become an issue for you with your own colleagues and other elected councillors.

fernandopartridge · Oct 16, 2014

duffer said:
I can see the point about the 'streaking contest' - clearly the Ricoh had done other, better business than that. Which presumably is why Ann Lucas had described ACL as profitable and sustainable right up until the point that the Wasps franchise offer came along, at which point it turned out that the Ricoh was just 'washing its face'.

The hypocrisy point made against the council regarding franchising is undeniable here - bad for CCFC, good for Wasps, apparently.

There's also an issue of honesty with regard to how profitable the Ricoh was - again this shifted remarkably when it suited the council to push for the Wasps deal, from when they stood against SISU via the bailout.

I'm not for a moment saying SISU were right to do what they did - but the premise of the Private Eye thing isn't far off either, imho.

The way the council have handled this stinks, and more than of just hypocrisy, there's a strong whiff of dishonesty here too, imho.

When I questioned the comments made by Mrs KH about the trebling of turnover and what that meant I was shouted down.

fernandopartridge · Oct 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
At a very quick glance the "£14.4m council tax payers bail out" was a loan from central goverment and as SISU lost the JR and are paying CCC's legal fees i doubt the council tax payer is. SISU coulnd't provide proof of funds for £ 5.5M and instead offered £ 2M and as part of that deal SISU wouldn't have taken the councils loan completely as there was no council loan at this time, the debt was too the Yorkshire bank.

Apart from that I'm sure its bang on.

Tony. The taxpayer has borrowed £14m which it lent to ACL. The taxpayer cannot repay that borrowing until ACL repays the loan If ACL fails and doesn't repay then the taxpayer picks up the bill.

If you can't understand the basics like that no wonder your view is so skewed.

wingy · Oct 16, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
When I questioned the comments made by Mrs KH about the trebling of turnover and what that meant I was shouted down.

It has been quoted by Wasps of having turnover of £15M and turning a profit

Rusty Trombone · Oct 16, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Tony. The taxpayer has borrowed £14m which it lent to ACL. The taxpayer cannot repay that borrowing until ACL repays the loan If ACL fails and doesn't repay then the taxpayer picks up the bill.

If you can't understand the basics like that no wonder your view is so skewed.

Why dont you think that the loan will be secured on the lease?

Sick Boy · Oct 16, 2014

Noggin said:
what? I never accused them of being bought off.

I said the article is biased, misleading and in many cases is outright false and it is.

Thinking whoever wrote the article is a terrible journalist and a biased idiot isn't not accusing them of being bought off.

hahahahaaha...why would Private Eye be biased against the council and in favour of a hedge fund?!

skybluetony176 · Oct 16, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Tony. The taxpayer has borrowed £14m which it lent to ACL. The taxpayer cannot repay that borrowing until ACL repays the loan If ACL fails and doesn't repay then the taxpayer picks up the bill.

If you can't understand the basics like that no wonder your view is so skewed.

All of which is correct and that isn't what the article says. If you read and took the article at face value all the if's you quite rightly point out is what has apparently happened and we know tthat isn't the case. So when Torch asks what the factual inaccuracies are and I pointed this out. Unless all the if's have happened and private eye have the exclusive, in which case I apologise.

Nick · Oct 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
All of which is correct and that isn't what the article says. If you read and took the article at face value all the if's you quite rightly point out is what hass apparently happened and we know tthat isn't the case. So when Torch asks what the factual inaccuracies are and I pointed this out. Unless all the if's have happened and private eye have the exclusive, in which case I apologise.

So does that mean the CET is biased to the Council when they put out stories saying how simple it is for CCFC to buy the Higgs share but fail to mention the things that may stop the club?

(Im not saying that article in PE isn't biased, it quite clearly is written that way )

Monners · Oct 16, 2014

I know this may seem strange, but I don't always believe what I read (except on SBT of course)!

Rusty Trombone · Oct 16, 2014

Nick said:
So does that mean the CET is biased to the Council when they put out stories saying how simple it is for CCFC to buy the Higgs share but fail to mention the things that may stop the club?

(Im not saying that article in PE isn't biased, it quite clearly is written that way )

That's all correct. Apart from it not being the CET anymore.

Nick · Oct 16, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
That's all correct. Apart from it not being the CET anymore.

I have already told you I'll buy you a pint of black label in our next Rumbelows Cup game if you stop mentioning it!

Jack Griffin · Oct 16, 2014

Sick Boy said:
hahahahaaha...why would Private Eye be biased against the council and in favour of a hedge fund?!

Maybe it is worth writing to Hislop to ask him, after all isn't it a rather odd stance for the eye to take?

torchomatic · Oct 16, 2014

Funny, every time I read one of your posts, I'm reminded of this classic, one of my favourite records. Obviously substitute "grocer" for "council".

[video=youtube;ENblHOxi1c4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENblHOxi1c4[/video]

Jack Griffin said:
Maybe it is worth writing to Hislop to ask him, after all isn't it a rather odd stance for the eye to take?

duffer · Oct 16, 2014

Sky Blue Dal said:
Duffer, I respect your opinion and enjoy reading your post but please can you explain to me how you would have dealt with the Wasp situation.

Please note that if you were running ACL/CCC and there was a serious buyer who behaved in a professional business manner to your liking, made you a reasonable offer compared to the other organisation which had become a thorn on your side , unprofessional and constantly carrying out law suits against you knowing the fact that they were spending more on legal fee's against you than what the original contracted annual rent was that they decided to stop paying and then finally you come to a point and have decided enough is enough, time is ticking against you and you can't afford to lose this deal otherwise you be back to square one as again hostages to a possible forced takeover which would result financially in you ending up with nothing.

Now you are in charge of ACL...How would you deal with this? How would you play it???

Also note into your decision the fateful comment TF made when he left the Ricoh for Sixfields that SISU are not staying at the Ricoh to subsidise ACL/Higgs. So the option of CCC/ACL/Higgs subsidising SISU/CCFC can become an issue for you with your own colleagues and other elected councillors.

Hi Dai, you must be the only one here who does respect my opinion, so thanks for that.

Honestly, if it had been me at the council I simply wouldn't have countenanced the offer from Wasps, because of the franchise issue.

But leaving that huge moral showstopper aside, I think the way I would have played it, would have been to talk to SISU (behind closed doors) and tell them that after due consideration the Council & Higgs share in ACL might be avaiable for purchase - and would they now be interested in entering into genuine negotiations based on 100% of ACL and a long lease extension? It wouldn't be unreasonable to make dropping the legal action a requirement of those negotiations, imho.

It's worth bearing in mind that regardless of SISU's daft posturing on the stadium issue, until the news about Wasps broke the council's stated position on the Ricoh was to get the club back and build trust, and that ACL was profitable and there was no rush to sell now (or ever).

If SISU still didn't want to enter negotiations, then I'd point out to them that there was the real possibility that a third-party would take over ACL on the terms above, and at that point CCFC would lose all possiblity of ever having a similar deal.

If SISU still backed away then I might entertain the deal with Wasps, but still handle it in a vastly different way...

The next thing I would do, would be to talk to Coventry RFC, under a binding non-disclosure agreement, and introduce them to Wasps at that point. If Wasps could convince Coventry RFC that a deal would be good for them, then I'd progress to the next step. If not the deal dies there - that, after all was supposed to be one of the council's own stated dealbreakers.

Assuming that CRFC are happy, the next dealbreaker is to secure the future for CCFC at the Ricoh. To do this, I would make the Wasps deal contingent on their agreement to put in place a permanent rent-deal to the part of CCFC that holds the golden share. I would put in place a contractual obligation for this deal to remain available to CCFC for as long as Wasps are in place at the Ricoh, and regardless of what owners are in place at CCFC, or whether the club at some point moved out or underwent administration. The deal would have to include the possiblity of the rent decreasing if the club were further relegated, or went through liquidation and had to start again as a phoenix club. Rent increases would be limited to annual, index-linked amounts only. This is the only way that the club's long-term future at the Ricoh could truly be ensured (other than them purchasing a stake). The current deal does not, despite what the Council imply, offer a certain future to the club beyond the current 2+2 deal.

At the point we've got CRFC on-board, and CCFC taken care of contractually, I'd be willing to offer the Ricoh to Wasps. But this on the assumption that ACL was loss-making rather than profitable (if it's profitable, then there's no need to sell, and all the council have to do is sit tight until SISU give in).

At the moment, it's clear to me that the council's supposed deal breakers haven't really been considered at all - if I was a councillor I'd find it embarassing to pretend that they have. I can only assume that they think we're all idiots.

Of course though - it's a franchise, and it's still not morally acceptable, so in truth I'd just never sell to Wasps regardless. This is where I came in I think.

fernandopartridge · Oct 16, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Why dont you think that the loan will be secured on the lease?

Of course but it's based on the assumption that somebody else will pay that amount for the lease. Is that realistic?

skybluetony176 · Oct 16, 2014

Nick said:
So does that mean the CET is biased to the Council when they put out stories saying how simple it is for CCFC to buy the Higgs share but fail to mention the things that may stop the club?

(Im not saying that article in PE isn't biased, it quite clearly is written that way )

Do you know Nick. I can't help but feel that this thread isn't going in the direction you wanted. I thought we were talking about a Private Eye story not a CT story.

Nick · Oct 16, 2014

So you think I thought that everybody would agree with something anti council? I'm not retarded, of course I didn't expect everybody on here to agree with it or say "well now it is in Private Eye it must be true, kill the council, all hail SISU"

I was making a comparison in response to a point made.

Sick Boy · Oct 16, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Maybe it is worth writing to Hislop to ask him, after all isn't it a rather odd stance for the eye to take?

No, not really. Believe it or not most people outside of the club think the council have behaved in a disgraceful manner.

skybluetony176 · Oct 16, 2014

Nick said:
So you think I thought that everybody would agree with something anti council? I'm not retarded, of course I didn't expect everybody on here to agree with it or say "well now it is in Private Eye it must be true, kill the council, all hail SISU"

I was making a comparison in response to a point made.

I didn't actually think that the PE article was anti anything It would have to be accurate before it could be classed as anything. The only thing you can judge it as is the ramblings of an ill informed mad man. Still let's talk about the council evening telegraph if it makes you feel better.

Hobo · Oct 16, 2014

Sick Boy said:
No, not really. Believe it or not most people outside of the club think the council have behaved in a disgraceful manner.

No most people outside the club don't give a toss, that's why our petition and Wasps never gathered momentum and failed to get national support.

Sick Boy · Oct 16, 2014

Hobo said:
No most people outside the club don't give a toss, that's why our petition and Wasps never gathered momentum and failed to get national support.

We did actually receive sympathy from the world of football, we even won 'Fans of the Year' after being exiled in Northampton.

That support would soon disappear if they came on this forum and read the hypocritical nonsense that gets spouted off. Fans of other clubs that i've spoken to have been alarmed at what the council have done.

torchomatic · Oct 16, 2014

I agree which is why Italia et al's excuse of "well, their fans don't seem to be saying much about the move" didn't really wash. Although the figures for our petition were low it's wrong to say we didn't care.

Hobo said:
No most people outside the club don't give a toss, that's why our petition and Wasps never gathered momentum and failed to get national support.

Buster · Oct 16, 2014

Sick Boy said:
We did actually receive sympathy from the world of football, we even won 'Fans of the Year' after being exiled in Northampton.

That support would soon disappear if they came on this forum and read the hypocritical nonsense that gets spouted off. Fans of other clubs that i've spoken to have been alarmed at what the council have done.

Did you put them straight and tell them about the reason we were at this place.?

Nick · Oct 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I didn't actually think that the PE article was anti anything It would have to be accurate before it could be classed as anything. The only thing you can judge it as is the ramblings of an ill informed mad man. Still let's talk about the council evening telegraph if it makes you feel better.

I was comparing 2 articles which don't explain things fully to try and get a point across. Getting a bit touchy?

I have never set the words Council Evening Telegraph either?

Still not sure on the direction you thought I wanted the thread to go? Posting something biased against the council on here, pretty sure I knew how it would go.

Sick Boy · Oct 16, 2014

Buster said:
Did you put them straight and tell them about the reason we were at this place.?

I told them that both the council & our owners have behaved as bad as each other.

Hobo · Oct 16, 2014

Sick Boy said:
We did actually receive sympathy from the world of football, we even won 'Fans of the Year' after being exiled in Northampton.

That support would soon disappear if they came on this forum and read the hypocritical nonsense that gets spouted off. Fans of other clubs that i've spoken to have been alarmed at what the council have done.

That is why the latest poll on national TV showed 70 per cent plus in favour of Wasps moving to Coventry. The audience was predodmanently a rugby audience and that needs consideration.

The biggest turn off for most football fans would be the bitching amongst Coventry fans and some of them disrespecting their fellow fans and their biggest gates and followings.

IF YOU ARE SKY BLUE, YOU ARE SKY BLUE.

dongonzalos · Oct 16, 2014

Nick said:
Anybody get it? I think there is an article in there about us again this week?

Nick where do you get the heads up that we are in it?

Nick · Oct 16, 2014

I saw it on gmk this morning

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 16, 2014

duffer said:
Hi Dai, you must be the only one here who does respect my opinion, so thanks for that.

Council hater

duffer · Oct 16, 2014

Hobo said:
That is why the latest poll on national TV showed 70 per cent plus in favour of Wasps moving to Coventry. The audience was predodmanently a rugby audience and that needs consideration.

The biggest turn off for most football fans would be the bitching amongst Coventry fans and some of them disrespecting their fellow fans and their biggest gates and followings.

IF YOU ARE SKY BLUE, YOU ARE SKY BLUE.

This would be the poll run by BT Sport, right? I watched the Wasps v Bath game (splitter!), but didn't notice the poll - I think they said that during the show it had been 50/50 on twitter. Interesting, given of course that most of the die-hard fans were actually at the game watching live, rather than sat watching BT Sport and posting into social media.

I also noticed that they gave Wasps owner a fair bit of time to explain the move, but they didn't exactly put him under pressure with awkward questions. They also didn't put any fans up to offer a counter argument that I could see. Could this be because BT Sport is heavily invested in Premiership Rugby perhaps?

The truth is that there are an awful lot of Wasps fans very upset by the move. You could either use a bit of empathy and put yourselves in their shoes, or you could read their boards and/or petition to see it for yourself if you wanted.

I can live with the fact that people don't care - but I don't much like it when people pretend that this isn't a franchise move against the wishes of a majority of the Wasps support. It clearly is.

stupot07 · Oct 16, 2014

Wasps had no other options in and around London....

Hang on wasn't Upton Park becoming vacant?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

dongonzalos · Oct 16, 2014

Nick said:
I saw it on gmk this morning

Cheers I never seem to see anything about private eye till well afterwards.

They have ran a mixture of stories to be fair to them.

dongonzalos · Oct 16, 2014

stupot07 said:
Wasps had no other options in and around London....

Hang on wasn't Upton Park becoming vacant?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What's happened to upton park I am guessing they sold it for a fortune to a property developer?

Maybe the could have shared the Olympic stadium with West Ham

stupot07 · Oct 16, 2014

dongonzalos said:
What's happened to upton park I am guessing they sold it for a fortune to a property developer?

Maybe the could have shared the Olympic stadium with West Ham

Sold it to developers, it was Valued at £20m but the price hasn't been divulged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...up-ahead-of-Olympic-Stadium-move-in-2016.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Nonleagueherewecome · Oct 16, 2014

Was the post quoted on page 1 deleted?:

Can't see any reason to delete that...

Private Eye (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency