Grendel
Well-Known Member
So the bid that included paying off the whole loan while still allowing the council 50% ownership wasn't serious?
Sorry. I should have said a serious bid.
Clearly it didn't match the Wasps bid which is also further proof that they wouldn't have done the Wasps deal. Which is the deal I was talking about.
It was in a letter dated 13 November 2013 referring to a proposed deal in 2012 of paying off the entirety of the bank loan and buying 50% of ACL on the proviso the lease was extended to 125 years.
Can we change the bane of this thread please to "History being re-written"
So the bid that included paying off the whole loan while still allowing the council 50% ownership wasn't serious?
Snap. Similar to CCC letting Wasps having the Arena for 250 years for a fraction of its value.
What was the offer to Higgs and what were they going to offer YB then?
The big difference is the £14.4m loan. Once the council had taken it on it wasn't something that could be distressed like the one from the YB perhaps could have been. Why would you buy a loan that isn't really worth anything?
The offer is known. It was described as well over what the Higgs share in isolation was worth - by senior councillors.
As for the loan you again seem to be overlooking the fact that the only evidence we have of a reduced loan offer to the Yorkshire bank was actually from CCC not sisu who on at least two occasions contacted the bank with a reduced offer on the basis the business was not sustainable at the full amount.
They made a bid including the paying off of the loan.
I agree. But the only problem is that it means Wasps paid too much for the arena. And some won't agree with that at all.
But I'll bet they never provided any security to guarantee that the loan would be paid off. That was a big issue in earlier negotiations, they simply could not raise the money but Derek Richardson could & did, then of course got it back with the bond issue.
So under £6 million was too much - incredible.
What offer?
So under £6 million was too much - incredible.
But I'll bet they never provided any security to guarantee that the loan would be paid off. That was a big issue in earlier negotiations, they simply could not raise the money but Derek Richardson could & did, then of course got it back with the bond issue.
Sounds a bit like the wasps dealAn undocumented, unaccountable, untracable offer made in the full view of all media outlets. Contents unfathomable, some positive sounding details leaked of course.
Surely people can see the reasoning why CCC could not take a risk of putting all their eggs in one basket and wait for Sisu to buy the stadium?
They had only just returned after removing the club to Northampton and at the time said they could not afford it.
They were still talking of a new stadium (and still are) effectively saying when we move CCC you can pick up the pieces.
As for representing the people of Coventry I would guess that most of them would say they did.
Sisu gambled with our club, for 'their' gain and lost.
Sometimes we need to see the bigger picture by taking off our sky blue tinted glasses.
An undocumented, unaccountable, untracable offer made in the full view of all media outlets. Contents unfathomable, some positive sounding details leaked of course.
The big difference is the £14.4m loan. Once the council had taken it on it wasn't something that could be distressed like the one from the YB perhaps could have been. Why would you buy a loan that isn't really worth anything?
There's people on here who had a clue about Wasps before it was announced. Do a search and you'll find posts.
Sounds a bit like the wasps deal
Even if SISU had the money I think it's become quite apparent that the council had no intention of selling to them.
That offer was accepted, this wasn't. Why not? Maybe it was no where near as good or maybe it was simply far too late & brinkmanship backfired.
Only the negotiating parties know & they can't disclose details.
I was told months before but put it down to a ridiculous rumour.
It was because CCC made a strategic decision to refuse to engage with the club and look to dispose to anyone else who was interested.
It was because CCC made a strategic decision to refuse to engage with the club and look to dispose to anyone else who was interested.
But didn't Fisher say afterwards (maybe to the SCG amongst others) that the Wasps deal was a bad one for Wasps and one that SISU wouldn't have done?
Hold on a minute. Grendel is trying to think of a way of making it sound like a decent offer
They didn't pay that for the arena as such. They paid it to the council to pay off the council's debt, albeit without the "small profit" the council used to justify taking on the debt originally.I agree. But the only problem is that it means Wasps paid too much for the arena. And some won't agree with that at all.
We've not seen that detail from Wasps either rememberAn undocumented, unaccountable, untracable offer made in the full view of all media outlets. Contents unfathomable, some positive sounding details leaked of course.
Maybe. Nothing would surprise me.Do you think that maybe the Wasps offer was in negotiation already when the decision to take that loan on was made by the full council in camera? I don't know but is that plausible.
This is the same CCC who after making the announcement that they'd listen to any serious offer refused to engage with the club by sending the council leader down to London on the train to meet JS at SISU HQ to discuss their "serious" bid? Talk about writing your own history. You're not Spanish by any chance are you?
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?