Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
And vice versa
And vice versaI said to a couple of people on here a while ago that I'd had a pretty reliable indication that a return had been agreed (presumably in principle) prior to the covid outbreak. I am not going to say any more suffice to say I found out about the previous Ricoh return ahead of the formal press release.
I think the club will be working hard to drive the hardest bargain with Wasps, and think part of that will be keeping options open as long as possible.
I’m sure that’s one of the points of dispute
as it goes i'd be happy to have an open book policy showing any offers made with CCFC playing at the Ricoh against offers made without them and then work out a fair splitAs Wasps can't seem to be able to get a stadium sponsor when 1 is finally sorted out due to CCFC being back at the stadium can we have all that money too?
I think you have much more in common with Brighton in terms of the rich owner and bumper ground. That would change if we had a rich dude who could buy out the Ricoh but that seems very unlikely. Definitely agree on the standard though which is the main upshot of the stupid money flying around.
Not sure if we work to the same model as Brighton but we have to be content with gradual progression and are very lucky to have our owner. The next step is the big one for us though, actually getting into and staying in the potential promotion places. Given where we have come from in 5 / 6 years, we seem to have made some clever decisions but, as you say, without the infrastructure, it wouldn't be conceivable, hence my frustration at the white elephant that the Ricoh is becoming. It should be an absolute goldmine and it's already there.
Absolute madness IMHO although it's not of your making.
The best I could imagine would be joint ownership of the ground but Wasps will never allow it if it's SISU making the offer. It is actually in Wasps' interest for the football club to be doing well as football will always be a bigger draw
I think Wasps would actually be Ok with part ownership with us (the football club). Just not with these particular owners. I honestly believe with different owners there would be a relaxing of attitudes and something could be done, not just in terms of rent but partial ownership.
I guess this is my point BSB. Surely there must be a way for all parties to benefit from your return to the Ricoh? Ticket sales, matchday revenues, non matchday revenues etc etc? I guess it's idealistic but it can't be that hard to see the benefits for all parties?The best I could imagine would be joint ownership of the ground but Wasps will never allow it if it's SISU making the offer. It is actually in Wasps' interest for the football club to be doing well as football will always be a bigger draw
I guess this is my point BSB. Surely there must be a way for all parties to benefit from your return to the Ricoh? Ticket sales, matchday revenues, non matchday revenues etc etc? I guess it's idealistic but it can't be that hard to see the benefits for all parties?
Well said - HOWEVER can someone on your forum start telling the supporters some truth?
There are no legals outstanding between SISU and WASPS - this has been confirmed by the WASPS Board
The outstanding "matter" is a complaint from SISU against CCC
For some reason WASPS are fearful a decision will go against CCC which appears to invoke some indemnities costing WASPS a lot of money
If those two parties have been up to some dubious dealings that is THEIR problem
If that is the case I would like to know what went on both as a CCFC supporter and a local ratepayer
You would think that, but SISU are persona non grata and there is the added complication of the bond issue that Wasps made which you'd think is secured on the ground in light of their poor financial state. It's hard not to think that the ground is cursed
i'd think the Bond issue would be a sizeable problem when it came to valuing the stadium - what a part share would be worth against what they've said it's worth for the sake of the bond financingYou would think that, but SISU are persona non grata and there is the added complication of the bond issue that Wasps made which you'd think is secured on the ground in light of their poor financial state. It's hard not to think that the ground is cursed
i'd think the Bond issue would be a sizeable problem when it came to valuing the stadium - what a part share would be worth against what they've said it's worth for the sake of the bond financing
Unless it comes out like all the other actions in which case you’ll desperately support the next one as the real action to get to the truth and not at all a massive waste of taxpayer money. As a rate payer.
i'd think the Bond issue would be a sizeable problem when it came to valuing the stadium - what a part share would be worth against what they've said it's worth for the sake of the bond financing
It’s that fucking Leicester shirt...
But they do! The words "drop the legals" (and we'll talk) have misleadingly come out of Nick Eastwoods mouth in an interview that was aired on CWR. (5 year Wasps anniversary at the Ricoh)The main point of my post was that there is no direct legal action being taken against WASPs
Clearly they are concerned about something being revealed - presumably at some point, if this proceeds they will have to disclose.
Until then they cannot trot out the SISU legals argument
Must be time for a CovTel vote
If WASPS demand an unrealistic deal do CCFC stay at Birmingham or roll over and go back to the Ricoh?
But they do! The words "drop the legals" (and we'll talk) have misleadingly come out of Nick Eastwoods mouth in an interview that was aired on CWR. (5 year Wasps anniversary at the Ricoh)
BBC Midlands today edited that bit out of their coverage after many tweets stated correctly that there was not legal action, that CCFC had signed to say no furthet legal action against Wasps and there was only a complaint against the council to the EU!!
This is part if the whole problem and the lies that Wasps and the Council have been able to peddle that have been swallowed up by so many!!!
I've pulled them up about that on there too... and specifically named Eastwood and his "drop the (legals that is a complaint that can't be dropped!) legals" rubbish!!Same as cwr did until Pete went on there and the trust still pump it out even though they have been told numerous times by numerous people that there aren't any legals
Wasps bond ends in May 2022. At that point they have to pay it back. You could purchase half of ACL without the bond debt at that point. Of course there's the slight issue of Wasps not having the money to pay it back so they'll have to borrow again and it seems the only asset they have of any value to borrow against is the Ricoh.i'd think the Bond issue would be a sizeable problem when it came to valuing the stadium - what a part share would be worth against what they've said it's worth for the sake of the bond financing
The main point of my post was that there is no direct legal action being taken against WASPs
Clearly they are concerned about something being revealed - presumably at some point, if this proceeds they will have to disclose.
Until then they cannot trot out the SISU legals argument
Why do wasps keep trotting out the line about dropping the legals when the EU Complaint can not be dropped, forgotten about or removed?It’s such a fucking disingenuous argument though. We all know what they mean, what’s the use in wheeling it out like some winning argument?
There’s no need for conspiracies, Wasps want the action around the Ricoh dropped so there’s no surprises on the horizon, they have a lever to make that happen so they’re pulling it.
All this “everyone would be happy with a load of added cost and uncertainty if they knew they were right” is clear nonsense. There’s always uncertainty in any judicial process and even fighting a winning case costs time and money.
I know you guys have invested a lot in the idea that there’s evil afoot and any second now the council and Wasps will be unmasked but it’s just not being born out by reality is it?
I remember these exact conversations from the very first JR, maybe not with you personally but the exact same concepts and everyone was so sure that all the evil doings would come out. And they just didn’t.
Time to write it off and focus on a new ground. We’ve backed ourselves into a corner and handed Wasps all the cards. There’s no obvious way out of this.
Why do wasps keep trotting out the line about dropping the legals when the EU Complaint can not be dropped, forgotten about or removed?
The trust still think it can!!!!!!Honestly so bored of this argument so going to leave it after this as we’ve been over and over so many times.
They clearly thought it could be as that’s what they told both the Trust and Linnell off the record. It took us and the media over a month to find out and we still haven’t seen it in black and white. They probably had optimistic legal advice and pushed it knowing they had the upper hand anyway.
AFAIK they haven’t trotted out any lines since that was confirmed.
What’s even the accusation here? Clearly Wasps want the complaint gone and will try whatever they think will work to get that done. That’s their right just as it’s Sisus right to keep raising complaints.
The facts remain that until we get our own ground they have us by the balls, and no amount of fantasies about Wasps going bust or whatever are going to get us home.
This is why I’m so frustrated. People acting like if you prove Wasps are meanies we will be allowed back. We won’t. We probably won’t until the complaint is resolved which could be years. So let’s build a fucking stadium! Let’s actually take our future into our own hands for the first time in almost a decade now.
Slight flaw in your argument is thats not what people are saying. The very simple point people are making is if Wasps and the council are so confident there is no wrong doing there's no need for indemnity.I know you guys have invested a lot in the idea that there’s evil afoot and any second now the council and Wasps will be unmasked but it’s just not being born out by reality is it?
I remember these exact conversations from the very first JR, maybe not with you personally but the exact same concepts and everyone was so sure that all the evil doings would come out. And they just didn’t.
The trust still think it can!!!!!!
Who is feeding them that!!????
Slight flaw in your argument is thats not what people are saying. The very simple point people are making is if Wasps and the council are so confident there is no wrong doing there's no need for indemnity.
Nick Eastwood months after it was known the EC complaint couldn't be stopped:AFAIK they haven’t trotted out any lines since that was confirmed.
They remain misguided then. Which is obviously a problem.... or a worry.... or both.... Especially if they are or might be being misguided by somebody who may be a key player in this whole saga!!!.... remember, they are in dialogue with wasps too!!!
Nick Eastwood months after it was known the EC complaint couldn't be stopped:
"Our public position is pretty clear. They have a choice to make - they either pursue legal action through the courts or they play here."
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?