Astute
Well-Known Member
You used to call the arena a worthless white elephant. But since Wasps paid more than SISU offered and also paid off the loan you say they got it too cheaply.
Considering you actually think that the purchase price included a loan debt to the company then there is little point in discussing it.
I'm not saying it was a good offer. That was Mr West - a point you conveniently ignore, or in all probability goes over your head.
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.
Imagine buying a house where the current owner has decided to remortgage and now owes its lender more than the value of the house. You wouldn't want to take that debt on would you?
Absolute bollocks. SISU wouldn't negotiate. They got offers to meet. It was a take it or leave it offer. And they wanted the freehold.
So what was this offer you said about?
Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.
Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.
To pay off the operating company's debt. They'd already got hold of the 250 year lease by the time it was paid off.If they never paid it for the arena what did they pay it for?
Many of us didn't want them to sell it to them either. They wanted it to make money and not benefit our club. But we didn't want Wasps to get it either. We wanted it to be kept until we had decent owners.
Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.
Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.
And SISU didn't have a clue?
Well of course she did and made it very public - even though the other side wanted confidentiality.
Fairly obvious why - so gullible morons like you can come to the conclusion you have.
If they never paid it for the arena what did they pay it for?
On 7 December 2012 an e mail stated CCC will not/ever do a deal with sisu.
There is no evidence they only wanted the freehold so again I'm afraid you are just swallowing council spin and not bothering to read up on the available documentary evidence.
So what was the offer that SISU made in this "no longer confidential" meeting that you now acknowledged happened despite previously claiming that CCC wouldn't engage with the club?
Did the other side actually claim that they wanted it to remain confidential? Any link or is this more fabricated history from you? I will of course apologise should you provide evidence to back up this claim.
So what was the offer that SISU made in this "no longer confidential" meeting that you now acknowledged happened despite previously claiming that CCC wouldn't engage with the club?
Did the other side actually claim that they wanted it to remain confidential? Any link or is this more fabricated history from you? I will of course apologise should you provide evidence to back up this claim.
Your not seriously saying that the debt is added to the purchase price to give its value are you?
Christ.
Your not seriously saying that the debt is added to the purchase price to give its value are you?
Christ.
A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side
A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side
Even if SISU had the money I think it's become quite apparent that the council had no intention of selling to them.
A letter on the 30 August 2013 - and I repeat even a fool can see what the aim of this "meeting" was from the Council side
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.
IMHO if they made a reasonable offer and took on the loan the council would have entertained it.
The problem with Sisu (it's their business) is, if they can leverage something more from what they already have, they will.
If they had owned it all, like Wasps do, there is no risk to CCC so it would be entertained. Even 50% would allow a play for the CCC share.
The issue has always been that Sisu didn't want to pay the market value for ACL (£2M 'charitable' offer was there best/only offer) for Higgs share or the 'fabled' YB loan (£2M-£5M) so CCC were never really put in a position to reject it.
If CCC rejected an offer then we could criticise them. To say they would reject 'any' offer is silly.
Why wasn't there one?
IMHO if they made a reasonable offer and took on the loan the council would have entertained it.
The problem with Sisu (it's their business) is, if they can leverage something more from what they already have, they will.
If they had owned it all, like Wasps do, there is no risk to CCC so it would be entertained. Even 50% would allow a play for the CCC share.
The issue has always been that Sisu didn't want to pay the market value for ACL (£2M 'charitable' offer was there best/only offer) for Higgs share or the 'fabled' YB loan (£2M-£5M) so CCC were never really put in a position to reject it.
If CCC rejected an offer then we could criticise them. To say they would reject 'any' offer is silly.
gotta be honest not sure how much i care anymore. Chasing down % points to see who is the most wrong doesn't change the fact that all sides have allowed a situation where the football club isn't in control of a stadium that was built for it.I'll beat Grendel to his normal reply.
So you choose to believe when Fisher is telling the truth when it suits you
Because the invitation to come and make an offer was a PR stunt, the same as it was when Wasps had 50% and it was all over the CET that "CCFC should come and make an offer for the other 50%". Wasps were always in it for 100%.
We've not seen that detail from Wasps either remember
Did your friend Ann tell you that, if not who did?
It appears that you are claiming to have knowledge about something that you had no involvement in or are you just repeating what you were told to say.
Was that £2m "charitable" offer not Market Value then? The purchase price seems to think so, the council seemed to think that the £5.5m was way over value.
I've just explained to you how the paying off of the loan has no value in the actual deal.So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.
Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?
I think not.
So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.
Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?
I think not.
I've just explained to you how the paying off of the loan has no value in the actual deal.
So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.
Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?
I think not.
I don't know, I always thought it should get 3 independent valuations to get a true / close to true market value.
As the purchase price was not much more than they offered, I wouldn't say it was too far away though.
Either they got it too cheap, or they were lying in their prospectus for the bonds?
Because the invitation to come and make an offer was a PR stunt, the same as it was when Wasps had 50% and it was all over the CET that "CCFC should come and make an offer for the other 50%". Wasps were always in it for 100%.
I don't know 100% and just a thought, but I think CCFC knew they had no chance with the other 50% so bowed in to the PR pressure, they added the working in the community to try and claw back some pr points.
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?