The Ricoh (6 Viewers)

tisza · Jun 10, 2020

PL Rugby is in trouble. They've just imposed around a million cut in the salary cap.
Our problem is higher we move up the leagues the more important it is to have control of a stadium income - not just match day.
We move back to the Ricoh and things like naming rights jump in value of which we probably wouldn't see a penny. Other Ricoh income streams are boosted if we return - many of which again we wouldn't see a return on.
There should be a fair rental value of the stadium that doesn't depend on what Division we are in.
What could be a game changer is if the rugby calender does move to a more summer-based timetable as they try and harmonize a world rugby season rather than the Northern/Southern distortion it has now.

Magwitch · Jun 10, 2020

Do we need to be more forward thinking now Nick, I understand what you say and the history that are regularly highlighted are there for us all to see but history solves nothing we all need to become proactive especially with a the new stadium issue, someone somewhere must know if there are realistic locations at the very least the how and when can come later.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

Look we’ve been over this a number of times

SISU broke the lease - thought it was clever at the time but it brought wasps in.

we had the option to buy half but the option for more than the total wasps paid for a 250 year lease.

The complaint nixxed A deal last year, but it appears wasps are spooked by it, complaint cannot be withdrawn - would be suicidal to indemnify.

New stadium is bollocks and even if it wasn’t we need a short term solution which is renting the Ricoh

facts now are:
- there is no stadium sponsor, we can bring that
- wasps are 50 million in the red and the lease needs us to prop up the value.
- we desperately we need to be back in Coventry if we’re to ever at least compete in the championship

we need to stop future legal action against wasps (signed something to suggest this)

wasps need to accept the indemnity clause is stupid and back themselves if nothing it wrong with the sale

we need to not piss about and accept that any deal will need to benefit wasps aswell as is.

In short the don’t want to return to league one, I’d rather wasps go bust but that won’t happen next season. So do a deal, stop pissing about and let’s support Mark Robins

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

Magwitch said:
Do we need to be more forward thinking now Nick, I understand what you say and the history that are regularly highlighted are there for us all to see but history solves nothing we all need to become proactive especially with a the new stadium issue, someone somewhere must know if there are realistic locations at the very least the how and when can come later.

I was replying to somebody who was going on about the history?

Seems to be standard that if other parties have also done things wrong that it suddenly becomes a time for forward thinking.

tisza · Jun 10, 2020

The coventrian said:
These are probably the same people lording sisu about breaking the lease and now moaning about wasps hijacking the stadium that our wonderful owners said they didn't want.

Didn't want on the terms that were available at the time. If the same deal as Wasps ended up with had been on the table then then that's a completely different scenario.

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

tisza said:
Didn't want on the terms that were available at the time. If the same deal as Wasps ended up with had been on the table then then that's a completely different scenario.

Another thing that seems to get overlooked.

mr_monkey · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Look we’ve been over this a number of times

SISU broke the lease - thought it was clever at the time but it brought wasps in.

we had the option to buy half but the option for more than the total wasps paid for a 250 year lease.

The complaint nixxed A deal last year, but it appears wasps are spooked by it, complaint cannot be withdrawn - would be suicidal to indemnify.

New stadium is bollocks and even if it wasn’t we need a short term solution which is renting the Ricoh

facts now are:
- there is no stadium sponsor, we can bring that
- wasps are 50 million in the red and the lease needs us to prop up the value.
- we desperately we need to be back in Coventry if we’re to ever at least compete in the championship

we need to stop future legal action against wasps (signed something to suggest this)

wasps need to accept the indemnity clause is stupid and back themselves if nothing it wrong with the sale

we need to not piss about and accept that any deal will need to benefit wasps aswell as is.

In short the don’t want to return to league one, I’d rather wasps go bust but that won’t happen next season. So do a deal, stop pissing about and let’s support Mark Robins

Very well put, just a slight edit in the name of facts, wasps were coming in no matter if the lease was broken or not (as the leaked emails prove)

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

mr_monkey said:
Very well put, just a slight edit in the name of facts, wasps were coming in no matter if the lease was broken or not (as the leaked emails prove)

Regardless, we’ve done the history time and time again. I’ve been in arguments - ultimately people have their own views as to why wasps are here or why were in Birmingham.

we can only look forward - the indemnity clause has to be dropped and we need to agree to a deal.

bring promoted has strengthened our hand somewhat but they still have what we want

Grendel · Jun 10, 2020

tisza said:
Didn't want on the terms that were available at the time. If the same deal as Wasps ended up with had been on the table then then that's a completely different scenario.

Indeed - if our caring sharing council had granted the lease extension in the first place funding would have been easier and the value higher

It’s either bungling council incompetence or a deliberate strategy to suppress the share valuation until the right owners came along

pastythegreat · Jun 10, 2020

The coventrian said:
Tbh theres that much shit gone on over the years I cant even remember what's right and what's wrong. This can all be traced back to the original breaking of the lease though. What a masterstroke eh.

It could also be traced back further that the breaking of the lease to the fact that the original lease was extortionate and the Council refused to enter rent negotiations leading to said lease breaking!
Just a thought!
But hey, SISU OUT! COYW!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

zuni · Jun 10, 2020

After reading that I am raging, what an arrogant bunch of tossers

ovduk78 · Jun 10, 2020

The council have never seen the benefit of having thousands of football fans attending games in the city and now all of a sudden Wasps can see the added value it brings with naming rights & other matchday sales they benefit from. I want Wasps to go bust and go home but if they don't we should only go back if there is a low rent, I believe Forest pay about £50,000 per annum plus match day costs, we get a share of the naming rights and the pitch is sorted out which we will help to pay for. Both clubs will benefit financially but more importantly once BCD is gone we should be getting 15-20,000 and we should be able to be competitive in the championship.

tisza · Jun 10, 2020

Grendel said:
Indeed - if our caring sharing council had granted the lease extension in the first place funding would have been easier and the value higher

It’s either bungling council incompetence or a deliberate strategy to suppress the share valuation until the right owners came along

Has to be the 2nd one - business / economics 101 a longer lease is a game changer.
In the real world a 250 year lease for a stadium that probably has a life span of 50 years is just a paper exercise.

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

Telegraph pushing even more Wasps bullshit this morning.

Just need the Trust to make another statement.

shepardo01 · Jun 10, 2020

As has been documented, dialogue has been ongoing.
From what I have heard, wasps are wanting an unreasonable deal that heavily benefits them and does not really benefit us other than we are in Coventry.
What this means and whether it is just regarding the indemnity, I don't know, but have heard murmurings about naming rights and matchday income being issues.
At present, and as many have said all day long, Wasps hold the cards.
Its easy for them to say "we want to do a deal" and come across as trying to be accommodating... whilst hiding behind the fabled indemnity clause (which any telegraph only news-ees will not even know exists) and saying we need to drop legals (which can't be dropped).... and also trying to fleece the club of money under the guise of a "deal" for us to come home.
.... and the only bad guys that will be portrayed if they can't come to an agreement are.......
Well..... sure you can guess.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

shepardo01 said:
As has been documented, dialogue has been ongoing.
From what I have heard, wasps are wanting an unreasonable deal that heavily benefits them and does not really benefit us other than we are in Coventry.
What this means and whether it is just regarding the indemnity, I don't know, but have heard murmurings about naming rights and matchday income being issues.
At present, and as many have said all day long, Wasps hold the cards.
Its easy for them to say "we want to do a deal" and come across as trying to be accommodating... whilst hiding behind the fabled indemnity clause (which any telegraph only news-ees will not even know exists) and saying we need to drop legals (which can't be dropped).... and also trying to fleece the club of money under the guise of a "deal" for us to come home.
.... and the only bad guys that will be portrayed if they can't come to an agreement are.......
Well..... sure you can guess.

If SISU are clever they should find a way to “
“leak” any unreasonable figures, and definitely get an independent mediator.

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
If SISU are clever they should find a way to “
“leak” any unreasonable figures, and definitely get an independent mediator.

You mean like when documents were leaked and the local media completely ignored them?

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

Nick said:
You mean like when documents were leaked and the local media completely ignored them?

Weirdly it might be worth leaking to the trust aswell.

shepardo01 · Jun 10, 2020

Nick said:
You mean like when documents were leaked and the local media completely ignored them?

That is one of the problems isn't it!

Sky Blue Pete · Jun 10, 2020

The coventrian said:
Instead of bringing up yet another wasps debate why dont you lean on our owners about this new ground they promised 7 years ago and have started dribbling on about it again in the last 18 months. All our problems about a home would be solved if they put their money where their mouths were.

I will try and answer this genuinely from what I know. Notice know but this is based on my personal experience of speaking to the relevant parties. I am convinced that our owners know they need their own stadium and are genuinely looking at sites. Why it’s taken so long I don’t know and it means being cynical is easy. Wasps genuinely want ccfc playing at the Ricoh and think Sisu won’t build another. The council seem to not want to actively help sisu, I think they would actively help ccfc but I’ve not spoken face to face with cllr duggins and maton. It was arranged and that’s what I’d have wanted to say.
So we have lost money every game playing at St. Andrews - all acknowledge that and a solution has to be returning to Coventry ASAP but our owners won’t be coming back at any price. And they have my full support on this but I’d really like some transparent information once it’s ok to share as to why a deal wasn’t possible if one doesn’t materialise

pastythegreat · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Look we’ve been over this a number of times

SISU broke the lease - thought it was clever at the time but it brought wasps in.

we had the option to buy half but the option for more than the total wasps paid for a 250 year lease.

The complaint nixxed A deal last year, but it appears wasps are spooked by it, complaint cannot be withdrawn - would be suicidal to indemnify.

New stadium is bollocks and even if it wasn’t we need a short term solution which is renting the Ricoh

facts now are:
- there is no stadium sponsor, we can bring that
- wasps are 50 million in the red and the lease needs us to prop up the value.
- we desperately we need to be back in Coventry if we’re to ever at least compete in the championship

we need to stop future legal action against wasps (signed something to suggest this)

wasps need to accept the indemnity clause is stupid and back themselves if nothing it wrong with the sale

we need to not piss about and accept that any deal will need to benefit wasps aswell as is.

In short the don’t want to return to league one, I’d rather wasps go bust but that won’t happen next season. So do a deal, stop pissing about and let’s support Mark Robins

Agree with pretty much all of that except your FACT that we have to be in Coventry to at least compete in the Championship!

I agree, sooner or later, we MUST be playing games in Coventry.
But:
A) This time last year people said we would never compete in L1 playing at St.Andrews with reduced crowds. How did that work out?
B) I feel the majority of this season will be behind closed doors. At least half of it I'd say, so why the rush to pay rent on the ricoh when all we need is a pitch, we have a few of them at the Allan Higgs and Ryton if we only need some grass and some goals.

I wouldnt rush back to give w**ps a leg up for us to only play in an empty stadium anyway!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Weirdly it might be worth leaking to the trust aswell.

For what reason?

It took them months and months to even acknowledge the indemnity. Have they even commented on the stuff about Wasps planning to come here years before?

Peter Billing · Jun 10, 2020

The coventrian said:
Do you have any evidence that they werent intending to do a deal?

Well, there was the small point about them working in secret with new owners involved in a potential takeover. The club wasn't for sale, what possibly was it that made them think a sale could be forced?

Millionaire claims he quit CCFC takeover bid because of Wasps

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

pastythegreat said:
Agree with pretty much all of that except your FACT that we have to be in Coventry to at least compete in the Championship!

I agree, sooner or later, we MUST be playing games in Coventry.
But:
A) This time last year people said we would never compete in L1 playing at St.Andrews with reduced crowds. How did that work out?
B) I feel the majority of this season will be behind closed doors. At least half of it I'd say, so why the rush to pay rent on the ricoh when all we need is a pitch, we have a few of them at the Allan Higgs and Ryton if we only need some grass and some goals.

I wouldnt rush back to give w**ps a leg up for us to only play in an empty stadium anyway!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Ooh I wouldn’t rush back. If we could convince 15 to 20k fans over to St Andrews I’d be all in to stay. But the telegraph and CWR have done their job well and we’re likely to be around 10k next season.

I want Robins to have the biggest budget possible, and having 20-25k regularly will help this

if it’s behind closed doors I wouldn’t rush back at all. But I don’t think we can play it at Ryton. You still need significant media facilities to play in the championship

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

Nick said:
For what reason?

It took them months and months to even acknowledge the indemnity. Have they even commented on the stuff about Wasps planning to come here years before?

It means that they can’t run from the facts.

with the indemnity it was literally our word against there’s with no proof, they had time to manipulate it.

Magwitch · Jun 10, 2020

pastythegreat said:
Agree with pretty much all of that except your FACT that we have to be in Coventry to at least compete in the Championship!

I agree, sooner or later, we MUST be playing games in Coventry.
But:
A) This time last year people said we would never compete in L1 playing at St.Andrews with reduced crowds. How did that work out?
B) I feel the majority of this season will be behind closed doors. At least half of it I'd say, so why the rush to pay rent on the ricoh when all we need is a pitch, we have a few of them at the Allan Higgs and Ryton if we only need some grass and some goals.

I wouldnt rush back to give w**ps a leg up for us to only play in an empty stadium anyway!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I agree with you by bcd, I think it could be a year or more before football grounds are fully open as they used to be, in a way it could work in our favour. SISU need to identify a preferred site asap

mr_monkey · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
It means that they can’t run from the facts.

with the indemnity it was literally our word against there’s with no proof, they had time to manipulate it.

Happy to be proven wrong on this but I don't think I've ever seen anything where wasps have denied that the indemnity clause existed..... Dave boddy has mentioned it numerous times but wasps have never confirmed or denied it (and you would think that if it was rubbish they would very quickly deny it)

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
It means that they can’t run from the facts.

with the indemnity it was literally our word against there’s with no proof, they had time to manipulate it.

They just fail to mention many facts, they spin things.

It's pointless leaking anything to them when they work with Wasps, Hoffman and the Council.

The Indemnity stuff wasn't our word against theirs, the fact they were meeting with Wasps and actively refused to mention it proved there was something to it.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

mr_monkey said:
Happy to be proven wrong on this but I don't think I've ever seen anything where wasps have denied that the indemnity clause existed..... Dave boddy has mentioned it numerous times but wasps have never confirmed or denied it (and you would think that if it was rubbish they would very quickly deny it)

They hide behind the term “legals” - it was finally acknowledged when Pete rang up CWR and even then Stuart Linnell tried to deny it before finally accepting it was in place.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2020

Nick said:
They just fail to mention many facts, they spin things.

It's pointless leaking anything to them when they work with Wasps, Hoffman and the Council.

The Indemnity stuff wasn't our word against theirs, the fact they were meeting with Wasps and actively refused to mention it proved there was something to it.

Difference is they can’t instantly dismiss it. They either back the call to get a deal done or they keep quiet and not spin it their way

Magwitch · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Ooh I wouldn’t rush back. If we could convince 15 to 20k fans over to St Andrews I’d be all in to stay. But the telegraph and CWR have done their job well and we’re likely to be around 10k next season.

I want Robins to have the biggest budget possible, and having 20-25k regularly will help this

if it’s behind closed doors I wouldn’t rush back at all. But I don’t think we can play it at Ryton. You still need significant media facilities to play in the championship

Don’t think we can just play at Ryton there are stipulations to the standards grounds need to have adequate flood lighting being one. As for bcd can finance be realised through ifollow I’m sure there would be a big take locally for that.

Peter Billing · Jun 10, 2020

Surely a credible discussion about a return starts with the question of whether the current owners of the Ricoh can not only provide a playing surface of Championship standard quality but maintain it to that standard all year. We need to keep in perspective against the level of football this team is now playing that today it's a rugby pitch.

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Difference is they can’t instantly dismiss it. They either back the call to get a deal done or they keep quiet and not spin it their way

No they just completely ignore things for a bit and then come out blazing when there's something to push for the Wasps or Council.

How many times did the trust mention the indemnity when speaking to the media?

Grendel · Jun 10, 2020

Nick said:
No they just completely ignore things for a bit and then come out blazing when there's something to push for the Wasps or Council.

How many times did the trust mention the indemnity when speaking to the media?

The trust were more interested in the notion Sisu could ask the EU to “lose” the original complaint as was a certain poster on here

Nick · Jun 10, 2020

Grendel said:
The trust were more interested in the notion Sisu could ask the EU to “lose” the original complaint as was a certain poster on here

Exactly. They even went to the trouble of making something up, as did CWR.

The Ricoh (6 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency