Trust Statement (4 Viewers)

[Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon]

Yes, but only £1m.
They were also expected to build facilities at Allard way but fortunately that fell through.
Wasps' £20m Ricoh Arena takeover deal approved unanimously by CCC

The link there states that the £20m deal includes a 250 year lease....I'm now confused! I think I probably need to do some background reading again.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Deal was agreed but dependent on the sale of the charity shares to wasps. If that didn't happen wasps would have walked away. The lease was signed in January 2015

 

[fernandopartridge]

Deal was agreed but dependent on the sale of the charity shares to wasps. If that didn't happen wasps would have walked away. The lease was signed in January 2015

That's the point though isn't it, the dependencies set up were essentially pre agreed formalities.

 

[Nick]

That's the point though isn't it, the dependencies set up were essentially pre agreed formalities.

Of course they were, pwkh's nonsense about conditions has already been disproved.

 

[wince]

It’s a bargaining chip. It depends what a sensible deal is. To Wasps it might be something different to what the club feels.

SISU have one bargaining chip, they give that up then they’re open to wasps charging what they want on whatever terms they want

I’ve said before, agree a deal conditional on The legal action being dropped

Isn't it the point that in a few weeks if the court rules against Sisu , that bargaining chip will disappear

 

[oldskyblue58]

Of course they were, pwkh's nonsense about conditions has already been disproved.

Has it? I have maintained from the start that there was a plan and order to events so I agree with fp's comment.

However no one has seen the offer document so we don't actually know. I assume the proof you are relying on is the comment in the latest Sisu statement about no conditions? A statement full of provable errors, half truths, selective snippets of history, disputable history and diversion..... not a statement I would rely on personally to prove anything.

 

[Captain Dart]

Isn't it the point that in a few weeks if the court rules against Sisu , that bargaining chip will disappear

True but they might decide to pursue another case.

 

[Nick]

Has it? I have maintained from the start that there was a plan and order to events so I agree with fp's comment.

However no one has seen the offer document so we don't actually know. I assume the proof you are relying on is the comment in the latest Sisu statement about no conditions? A statement full of provable errors, half truths, selective snippets of history, disputable history and diversion..... not a statement I would rely on personally to prove anything.

Yes, unless the council were lying in court

 

[oldskyblue58]

Yes, unless the council were lying in court

Explain ? Did they see the offer letter from sisu to the charity?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

My opinion is that Sisu are by far the biggest creators of this mess and must as custodians of Ccfc shoulder most of the responsibility but CCC isn't far behind because of the short sighted way they have dealt with Ccfc from the beginning

Not unfair. I'd also add that my opinion is that given the Higgs family's involvement in CCFC (and arguably it's demise) it would have been nice of the charity to remember how and why they ended up involved with CCFC in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

True but they might decide to pursue another case.

'Might'?

 

[Nick]

Explain ? Did they see the offer letter from sisu to the charity?

No, they said he had no intention of selling any shares to ccfc / sisu and tried to persuade them not to either. He was only ever going to sell to wasps.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Explain ? Did they see the offer letter from sisu to the charity?

Didn't they have veto rights? I'd imagine part of that right would involve seeing the actual offer

 

[wince]

True but they might decide to pursue another case.

True but by then we could be playing away at someone else's ground , we know the cost implications of that from last time , I know we have said it before but there must come a time when sisu stop toughing money down a hole , having no where to play for me becomes a game changer , hence joy braking here silence for the first time in three years

 

[oldskyblue58]

Fair points guys but that doesn't actually prove there were not conditions in the offer letter from the administrator made by sisu. I don't doubt there was probably never any intention to sell to sisu or that wasps by then had a veto.

 

[Nick]

Fair points guys but that doesn't actually prove there were not conditions in the offer letter from the administrator made by sisu. I don't doubt there was probably never any intention to sell to sisu or that wasps by then had a veto.

Wasn't doubting conditions, sisu said there was and what they were.

The point was that they weren't the reason that he didn't accept that, yet even now he is bullshitting about it.

 

[chiefdave]

Not unfair. I'd also add that my opinion is that given the Higgs family's involvement in CCFC (and arguably it's demise) it would have been nice of the charity to remember how and why they ended up involved with CCFC in the first place.

Could not agree with this more. The way the charity has been hijacked by the likes of PWKH, no doubt paying themselves a decent wage in the process, I find very distasteful.

 

[chiefdave]

Fair points guys but that doesn't actually prove there were not conditions in the offer letter from the administrator made by sisu. I don't doubt there was probably never any intention to sell to sisu or that wasps by then had a veto.

But if there's no intention to sell to SISU and / or Wasps had a veto then the conditions on any offer from SISU become irrelevant and any indication from Higgs that the conditions were the reason for rejecting a bid are false.