It is possible to play both sports on that pitch but the issue was w**** can’t afford to maintain the pitch to a high standard. That pitch would have been treated better by the council ground staff at the memorial park.One way or the other you can't play good passing football on a rugby pitch there needs to be a long term solution where we either get back the Ricoh or build our own stadium. Ground sharing with wasps won't work. It was a sorry day when they were allowed play a few Heineken cup games at the Ricoh it opened the door to this situation that we are in now
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's the problem being the tenant the landlord won't spend money on the pitch when it doesnt affect their game/performances if any changes are made the cost would be passed onto us the tenant. We wouldn't have played the style of football we played this season at the Ricoh. It would suit hoof ball tactics if Tony Pulis was our manager the Ricoh would be perfectIt is possible to play both sports on that pitch but the issue was w**** can’t afford to maintain the pitch to a high standard. That pitch would have been treated better by the council ground staff at the memorial park.
It was embarrassing and heard first hand the players don’t want to play on that surface.
That's the problem being the tenant the landlord won't spend money on the pitch when it doesnt affect their game/performances if any changes are made the cost would be passed onto us the tenant. We wouldn't have played the style of football we played this season at the Ricoh. It would suit hoof ball tactics if Tony Pulis was our manager the Ricoh would be perfect
Hi Oldskyblue! been a while since you posted! so good to get some financial logical input. Stay safe my old friendI would think the lease could be sold. It would have to be sold at market value. They could for example sell in a lease back arrangement, often done by selling to a pension scheme.
Last valuation was £51m 31/03/2019. I wouldn't think that in current circumstances it is still worth as much
The Rugby club has a 50 year lease i believe on the 250 year lease owned by ACL. so they probably dont need a lease back arrangement
What they originally paid for it is irrelevant.
They would need to clear the bond debt of £35m if it was sold.
CCC would have to give their permission but that can not be unreasonably with held.
A third party owning the stadium would not necessarily mean a cheap deal for CCFC if they decided to come back. Wasps rugby already have their lease.
CheersHi Oldskyblue! been a while since you posted! so good to get some financial logical input. Stay safe my old friend
Course but there’s so much more involvedSo the question to ask is IF we took over pitch maintenance as part of a deal in exchange for lower rent would the number of extra fans we got in by being back in Coventry compared to Brum make it worthwhile financially?
Certainly looks like they received state aid to the tune of £22mWasps paid 5.77m for acl group. As said above they moved the loan liability included on acl from ccc to the bond that is not an purchase cost as it was already within acl and still is
The 5.77m was not the value of the lease or stadium it was the sale of the shares of acl. They acquired all assets (including the lease)and all liabilities (including the ccc loan) of acl and the 5.77m is in effect the net difference between assets less liabilities at October 2014. The 5.77m was the only cash they paid out.
The lease they purchased was included in the deal at a value of 18m. The value of the lease as it stood the day before they took over. To this they added an extension to 250 years at a cost of 1m.
What they effectively paid for the lease without a long term key tenant and currently valued at 51m was 19m.
Part of the increase in value is down to acl granting wasps rugby a 50 year lease i believe. It is a use of the group situation to create worth. Having a longer term tenant in wasps creates value in the lease owned by acl & acl2006
Saying they paid 5.77m for the lease or stadium I am afraid is a nonsense.
So the question to ask is IF we took over pitch maintenance as part of a deal in exchange for lower rent would the number of extra fans we got in by being back in Coventry compared to Brum make it worthwhile financially?
Valuation for bond purposes was 49m. That value included any new tenants including wasps rugby and forecasted improvements in turnover of the site. If the rent wasps rugby pay to acl was 500k pa on a 50 year lease for example then most of the increase in valuation could be accounted for depending on the discounting assumptions used. Of course what wasps purchased in 2014 would not include that increase. The clever thing is that increase value doesn't cost wasps group anything. It all remains in the group
If at October 2014 there was state aid at 22m that would value the lease at 41m meaning the value of wasps being there and on a 50 year lease of 500k pa would be under 8m by the 2015 bond Valuation. That values the 50 year wasps rugby lease at well below the rents receivable if it was 500k pa
So i think it is not so clear it is state aid. Hence why there has been no quick decision that we know of i would guess
Sisu are certainly crafty sons of guns, not costing them anything and nothing to lose either way.You would think the odds are in favour of ccc. They knew there was a high probability of challenge when the deal was done so should have acted to mitigate every risk of that. A referral to EU was always a possibility.
So the chance of action against ccc should be significantly less than 50:50.
Kind of depends as to what the purpose of the complaint was as to whether it is a success for sisu. Doing their civic duty to report something or was it to distress wasps and frustrate the refinance they need. No doubt that the complaint has made refinancing harder and time is running out. All done with minimum effort.
Sisu also got lucky on two other fronts. The success of the club on the pitch which increases public pressure on wasps for a homecoming deal. Secondly the economic damage being done by the current health crisis.
If ccc were wrong so be it they should be held to account. I just think the purpose of the complaint is more nuanced and that sisu are comfortable with a large risk of the complaint failing. To some degree sisu benefit either way and wasps are under pressure in both scenarios
Sisu are certainly crafty sons of guns, not costing them anything and nothing to lose either way.
Can't stand them, but you have got to hand it to them.
Not beyond any cost of submitting the complaint. This isn’t legal action by sisu, and if any action is taken it will be by the EU or European court. There could be further action by sisu if the complaint was upheld, perhaps for damages.Surely there are legal costs ?.
Not beyond any cost of submitting the complaint. This isn’t legal action by sisu, and if any action is taken it will be by the EU or European court. There could be further action by sisu if the complaint was upheld, perhaps for damages.
So the question to ask is IF we took over pitch maintenance as part of a deal in exchange for lower rent would the number of extra fans we got in by being back in Coventry compared to Brum make it worthwhile financially?
Sisu also got lucky on two other fronts. The success of the club on the pitch which increases public pressure on wasps for a homecoming deal.
the other question would be.....why would wasps reduce the rent to enable the football club to pay for a football quality pitch when wasps dont need it ?
Surely it would be on top of standard rent ?
Because if they needed the money and the deal hung on getting the quality of the pitch we needed so we agreed to take on pitch maintenance that's a cost Wasps won't be paying for and a service we wouldn't be receiving from them. So it should be that we shouuld be reimbursed on the costs they would've incurred maintaining the pitch to their standard while we absorb the extra cost of keeping the pitch to a higher standard.
So our costs would increase due to the extra work (offset with extra revenue), but we'd also be' reimbursed' for the service the landlord wouldn't be providing.
I have a little feeling that SISU might just win this state aid case....Sisu are certainly crafty sons of guns, not costing them anything and nothing to lose either way.
Can't stand them, but you have got to hand it to them.
Don’t know how many times this has been said this issue is not party political both political parties are together and unanimous on this subject. If anyone wanted to make a protest then stand as an independent against the leader of the council (Longford) and/or the Tory leader.I would love you to be right on this, but sadly, dont think you are.
Be interesting to see the post bag the council gets with people saying they wont vote for them again if they dont do all they can to get ccfc back to coventry etc.
You would think the odds are in favour of ccc. They knew there was a high probability of challenge when the deal was done so should have acted to mitigate every risk of that. A referral to EU was always a possibility.
So the chance of action against ccc should be significantly less than 50:50.
Kind of depends as to what the purpose of the complaint was as to whether it is a success for sisu. Doing their civic duty to report something or was it to distress wasps and frustrate the refinance they need. No doubt that the complaint has made refinancing harder and time is running out. All done with minimum effort.
Sisu also got lucky on two other fronts. The success of the club on the pitch which increases public pressure on wasps for a homecoming deal. Secondly the economic damage being done by the current health crisis.
If ccc were wrong so be it they should be held to account. I just think the purpose of the complaint is more nuanced and that sisu are comfortable with a large risk of the complaint failing. To some degree sisu benefit either way and wasps are under pressure in both scenarios
Don’t know how many times this has been said this issue is not party political both political parties are together and unanimous on this subject. If anyone wanted to make a protest then stand as an independent against the leader of the council (Longford) and/or the Tory leader.
There is no direct complaint against WASPS and they will not be involved unless they have contrived with CCC to do something wrong
Clearly there must be something to investigate otherwise why have WASPS indemnifed CCC
One should also ask why CCC are entering in to agreements that require underpinning by WASPS and presumably benefitted the the latter
Surely it just devalues the rent we would pay, despite the same overheads, ie police, match day costs etc ?
I have a little feeling that SISU might just win this state aid case....
I know there isnt a direct complaint against wasps holdings
SISU think there is something to complain about CCC, have via associated/subsidiary entities made a complaint that the EU are duty bound to investigate. That doesnt mean there is something actually wrong, or that there isnt a valid complaint - we do not know.
Clearly anyone looking to provide finance to wasps holdings to repay the bond in 18 months time would look at the risk that there is a case to answer by CCC because the remedies directly affect wasps holdings. It would go to the heart of the financing in terms of rates of interest, security of finance, payment terms etc all of which would factor in the perceived risk whether the state aid complaint is thrown out or not. Considering how long it can take to put financing in place then there is a current effect, to think otherwise is wrong.
You keep referring to an indemnity given by wasps to CCC regarding the deal. Where has that been mentioned or confirmed? have done a quick google search and found nothing. Can you provide better details. If there is then any potential lender to repay the bond would need details to assess the risk to their security etc and therefore wasps are affected by the complaint even if CCC come out clean at some unknown point in the future (could easily be years away from conclusion). What is it wasps have indemnified? Some indemnity on the deal itself or is it on the lease extension? Quite often leasees need to provide indemnity to lessors of some kind.
You need to change your search engine as the "indemnity" appears in many places. Even the Skybluestrust refer to it "These obstacles include, but are not limited to any unreasonable demands and requirements from Wasps (including the indemnity clause, whatever that may entail) and the continuing pursuit of legal actions concerning ground ownership by SISU.
Trust Statement
The original requirement from WASPS was SISU et al drop all legals against them. From published statements it seems SISU signed that document .
What SISU did do was make a complaint against CCC but WASPS seem to feel that could prejudice them in some way
What they will not say is how they could be affected. If they acted properly in the transaction what is their concern?
It would seem to me that WASPS should be seeking an indemnity from CCC as it was with them they transacted not SISU/CCFC
You said “One should also ask why CCC are entering in to agreements that require underpinning by WASPS“ implying there was indemnity between CCC and Wasps, not Sisu and Wasps, that’s what OSB was asking about.
He also answered the questions you ask about why Wasps have a stake in the complaint in the post you quoted in some detail.
What I was trying to say was :
WASPS want CCFC to indemnfify them against any fall out from the CCFC complaint to the EU
What we do not know and WASPS will not tell is - why should a complaint against CCC affect them
It would appear there is some agreement ( aka underpinning ) between WASPS & CCC otherwise why are they concerned?
I understand tenants enter in to undertakings and indemnities with their landlord. However, that would be a normal risk transaction that I doubt would be worthy of a complaint to the EU.
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?