Nick
Administrator
What about the other £21m?
Where is it coming from that we need to pay all this to be able to play in Coventry? It's interesting.
If the debt is related to the stadium purchase, then its related to what we'd have to pay to buy into it.
What a joke. Not a single person is trying to minimise SISUs role. It’s just the fallback position to throw comments like that out.Laughable
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
What a joke. Not a single person is trying to minimise SISUs role. It’s just the fallback position to throw comments like that out.
If they did that it would be the final straw for me as it wouldn't be Coventry for me. But our owners have glibly already done it once...just not permanently, and the forces involved I think ALL eant CCFC playing in Coventry...& at the RicohBased upon that it would seem that it would be fair enough for us to relocate somewhere else in the country as we too would effectively be displaced migrants without a permanent home. They weren't actually homeless either and there were likely options within the Greater London area for them.
If they did that it would be the final straw for me as it wouldn't be Coventry for me. But our owners have glibly already done it once...just not permanently, and the forces involved I think ALL eant CCFC playing in Coventry...& at the Ricoh
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Yeah, what about it? Who's obliged to pay?What about the other £21m?
Where is it coming from that we need to pay all this to be able to play in Coventry? It's interesting.
Why are ccfc obliged to pay all that if they want to play in Coventry?Yeah, what about it? Who's obliged to pay?
Better in the long term to pay for our own stadium. And laugh our bollocks off when wasps go tits up and the Ricoh becomes an empty dilapidated eyesore.You're constantly at pains to point out to people that they need to be dealing in fact. Deal with fact then. Forget sentiment, just fact. We don't own the stadium. If we want a piece of it, we're gonna have to pay.
To want the club to move out of the city to avoid doing this shows how deluded you are I'm afraid.
They had to pay the council, acl, buy back a bank debt and repay their owner £10m. Funded by £35 million of repayable bonds iirc.I asked you.
Not all of it was, £10m to the owner but the Ricoh as collateralIf the debt is related to the stadium purchase, then its related to what we'd have to pay to buy into it.
"MK Dons now appear to have a growing fanbase in an area where there is a good potential fanbase" - No they don't. They aren't liked even around MK... Fans around here are even more fickle than at Cov, and they give less of a shit cos they primarily support the London or Manchester teams. (I nearly puked on a guy wearing a Man City shirt the other day when he told me he supported them all his life even though his family is from South London - the smell of bullshit was too much!)I can't argue with what appears to be SISUs ambition...to unite club with stadium ownership. The underlying ambition & tactics of getting there by being virtually gifted the Ricoh to gain a huge asset was the major flaw.
As for Wasps...they were homeless. Just like displaced migrants who had a chance of a permanent home. Why wouldn't you go for it?
It is shit in terms if consideration for loyal fans (we know this ourselves) but MK Dons now appear to have a growing fanbase in an area where there is a good potential fanbase. So Wasps have taken the same risk.
I am pretty confident we will now be able to strike a deal with Wasps for mutual benefit. Long-term we would ideally get a proper local stadium of our own but politically (yes - it IS political) the council need Wasps to succeed.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Would you be happy for us to move to Doncaster? I certainly wouldn't...
I think the article is largely factual in what is included and is best understood when the links included in it are read with it. It is however slanted in a particular direction and it was intended to be. It is an opinion on the SISU tactics & strategy that have been used in the dispute. Like it or not SISU have led the tactics and CCC, Wasps, ACL have had to react to those tactics. It is not meant to be an in depth analysis of the whole history,
It uses selected facts to make a point, nothing wrong with that so long as you keep it in mind when you read it. That is exactly the same as the statements put out by SISU, which frankly simply ignore the contents of the court judgements that went against their "history" of events and assert their opinion as correct
At this stage let me once more make clear that the blame for where we are can be laid in varying degrees at the feet of all parties involved. I suspect all parties would have done some things differently now if they could. The previous owners created the conditions for SISU to be here, the council less than transparent in the build of the stadium and imposing short term solutions for a long term problem, SISU for getting the set up wrong from the start when they had a clean slate and then compounding it with high risk nil return court actions & business strategies, the personalities for letting egos and animosity get in the way of clear thinking etc etc .............. (not a full or exhaustive list but you get the gist).
I dont want wasps here, i never have their presence threatens CRFC, but they are here to stay...... i do not share the confident statements of some on here that Wasps are about to go bust though. The article was not about Wasps however so why would it go in to great depth about their finances and auditors comments? News articles need to be reasonably short or lose their direction. Perhaps Conn will write an article on wasps at a later date
Do i think the actions of any of the parties has been entirely professional and above board - certainly not. CCC were not innocent victims
To get a few things clear
Wasps did not acquire the stadium at one third of its value. Wasps acquired the shares of ACL (all its assets less all its liabilities). SISU & Fisher were quite clear they would not have done the same deal.
The lease may be valued at 60m in the last Wasps accounts but that is not what it was worth in 2014 to CCC/Charity. Any current valuation includes the lease given to the rugby club by ACL which simply did not exist in 2014 for starters - that creates value now not then. As the judge said to compare 2014 under other ownership to current value under Wasps is to compare "apples with pears"
There is no legal requirement to offer a party the same deal. Indeed I would argue CCFC should have been offered a better deal - but the owners said they were never coming back didnt they
The JR cases dealt with far more than state aid.
To get a deal on the incomes at the Ricoh does not require ownership interest in the Ricoh, but it could. I do not see how it is in wasps interest to give up control in any way
The bonds are secured against the 250 year lease at the Ricoh that does not mean ACL owes all the bond money unless the whole group defaults. The lease is held as security to the bond. ACL owes £14.6m of the bond finance directly. So buying in would not mean immediately paying £20m but it would mean accepting possible risk in the future. So what is owed to Richardson is not relevant,
Any funds to acquire interest in the 250 year lease would have to be utilised against the bond because a smaller share of the wasps portion of the lease would be covering it as security to the bondholders. Currently the early settlement cost of the bonds is way above market value so why would you pay it off early?
Wasps holdings does not appear to be for sale, and the liability to Richardson lies in that company not ACL
To buy in does not mean you have to buy into the whole group, you could simply buy in to ACL or even just IEC. But again it might be too complex to unravel, and you dont have to their are ways around it
There is nothing other than gossip that there is even any interest from Wasps in selling any of their interest in the various companies
There was a rent strike - the judgements were crystal clear on that.
The Escrow account was a contractual agreement that was there for emergencies to safe guard both parties - it will almost certainly have had a clause in it requiring it to be kept at a certain amount. Its purpose was not to cover rent when the tenant simply chose to not pay it.
It would be possible to give CCFC a long lease at the Ricoh and have access to its own incomes on match days. They can already access some of the event incomes simply by putting events on. That would increase the value of the 250 year lease but also create a value for say a 125 year lease in CCFC. That creates worth in the football club. It costs though either as a one off fee or an annual rent.
If the option to build own stadium is so good lets see some outline finance info to prove it. Build costs could be upwards of £40m, that has to be financed and paid for out of the profit figure not the turnover figure
The emails in 2012 were released for a purpose. Purpose achieved and i certainly do not appreciate the risk CCC/ACL were prepared to take with CRFC. However it never happened. What did happen at that time was SISU preparing the ground to break the lease via administration by registering a charge from ARVO within days of that email. Assets of CCFC were separated from and secured away from its liabilities. That didnt just suddenly happen it was planned. Neither side were being transparent.
I suspect what is currently being hammered out is a rental deal, i also suspect SISU are being more amenable to discussions because they simply have no other choice. I wonder what they were quoted at BCFC for a rent? It would seem that the best SISU have to secure the future of our club is PR and their own opinion of history..............
I dont want wasps here, i never have their presence threatens CRFC, but they are here to stay
Were you aware of the AEHC / ACL discussions to purchase Wasps in 2012?
I was with you with much of your post, but this is an assertion that can't be proven, and is as partial as suggesting they're about to go bust. The great moving experiment is still up in the air, we still don't know how it's going to go - it would be unwise to suggest one way or another it's worked or failed, we need more years, and a bigger dataset to see.
Never said you weren'tAgreed but I am allowed the odd opinion
No I wasnt. Nor was i aware at the time of assets being moved or misplaced
Both as bad as each other. Which is the point I was trying to make
I suspect the purchase of wasps didn't happen in part because ACL could not afford it.
tbh, the rhetoric from all parties suggests poersonalities and egos have played a large part in this.You can't really say that any path taken is some sort of vendetta, sensible businesses don't behave in that way and if personalities and egos were the cause of this mess it would be extremely disappointing.
Author of the article doesn't help themselves by having the caption beneath the picture of the Butts refer to it as the home of Coventry Bears.
Matters not. It's a PR piece playing to the crowd and will be lapped up by many.
surely they would have changed thier name to Coventry Wasps to ingratiate themselves with the coventry public?Never said you weren't
If I were Wasps, however, I'd want the 'they are here to stay' line trotted out until it became naturalised as the default position. That's exactly what they need to happen, in fact.
So... they're not here to stay, until the last possible momentCurrent evidence based on past behaviours (not just them, but other London Rugby clubs) would suggest not is the favourite however.
Slowly slowly.surely they would have changed thier name to Coventry Wasps to ingratiate themselves with the coventry public?
I think the article is largely factual in what is included and is best understood when the links included in it are read with it. It is however slanted in a particular direction and it was intended to be. It is an opinion on the SISU tactics & strategy that have been used in the dispute. Like it or not SISU have led the tactics and CCC, Wasps, ACL have had to react to those tactics. It is not meant to be an in depth analysis of the whole history,
It uses selected facts to make a point, nothing wrong with that so long as you keep it in mind when you read it. That is exactly the same as the statements put out by SISU, which frankly simply ignore the contents of the court judgements that went against their "history" of events and assert their opinion as correct
At this stage let me once more make clear that the blame for where we are can be laid in varying degrees at the feet of all parties involved. I suspect all parties would have done some things differently now if they could. The previous owners created the conditions for SISU to be here, the council less than transparent in the build of the stadium and imposing short term solutions for a long term problem, SISU for getting the set up wrong from the start when they had a clean slate and then compounding it with high risk nil return court actions & business strategies, the personalities for letting egos and animosity get in the way of clear thinking etc etc .............. (not a full or exhaustive list but you get the gist).
I dont want wasps here, i never have their presence threatens CRFC, but they are here to stay...... i do not share the confident statements of some on here that Wasps are about to go bust though. The article was not about Wasps however so why would it go in to great depth about their finances and auditors comments? News articles need to be reasonably short or lose their direction. Perhaps Conn will write an article on wasps at a later date
Do i think the actions of any of the parties has been entirely professional and above board - certainly not. CCC were not innocent victims
To get a few things clear
Wasps did not acquire the stadium at one third of its value. Wasps acquired the shares of ACL (all its assets less all its liabilities). SISU & Fisher were quite clear they would not have done the same deal.
The lease may be valued at 60m in the last Wasps accounts but that is not what it was worth in 2014 to CCC/Charity. Any current valuation includes the lease given to the rugby club by ACL which simply did not exist in 2014 for starters - that creates value now not then. As the judge said to compare 2014 under other ownership to current value under Wasps is to compare "apples with pears"
There is no legal requirement to offer a party the same deal. Indeed I would argue CCFC should have been offered a better deal - but the owners said they were never coming back didnt they
The JR cases dealt with far more than state aid.
To get a deal on the incomes at the Ricoh does not require ownership interest in the Ricoh, but it could. I do not see how it is in wasps interest to give up control in any way
The bonds are secured against the 250 year lease at the Ricoh that does not mean ACL owes all the bond money unless the whole group defaults. The lease is held as security to the bond. ACL owes £14.6m of the bond finance directly. So buying in would not mean immediately paying £20m but it would mean accepting possible risk in the future. So what is owed to Richardson is not relevant,
Any funds to acquire interest in the 250 year lease would have to be utilised against the bond because a smaller share of the wasps portion of the lease would be covering it as security to the bondholders. Currently the early settlement cost of the bonds is way above market value so why would you pay it off early?
Wasps holdings does not appear to be for sale, and the liability to Richardson lies in that company not ACL
To buy in does not mean you have to buy into the whole group, you could simply buy in to ACL or even just IEC. But again it might be too complex to unravel, and you dont have to their are ways around it
There is nothing other than gossip that there is even any interest from Wasps in selling any of their interest in the various companies
There was a rent strike - the judgements were crystal clear on that.
The Escrow account was a contractual agreement that was there for emergencies to safe guard both parties - it will almost certainly have had a clause in it requiring it to be kept at a certain amount. Its purpose was not to cover rent when the tenant simply chose to not pay it.
It would be possible to give CCFC a long lease at the Ricoh and have access to its own incomes on match days. They can already access some of the event incomes simply by putting events on. That would increase the value of the 250 year lease but also create a value for say a 125 year lease in CCFC. That creates worth in the football club. It costs though either as a one off fee or an annual rent.
If the option to build own stadium is so good lets see some outline finance info to prove it. Build costs could be upwards of £40m, that has to be financed and paid for out of the profit figure not the turnover figure
The emails in 2012 were released for a purpose. Purpose achieved and i certainly do not appreciate the risk CCC/ACL were prepared to take with CRFC. However it never happened. What did happen at that time was SISU preparing the ground to break the lease via administration by registering a charge from ARVO within days of that email. Assets of CCFC were separated from and secured away from its liabilities. That didnt just suddenly happen it was planned. Neither side were being transparent.
I suspect what is currently being hammered out is a rental deal, i also suspect SISU are being more amenable to discussions because they simply have no other choice. I wonder what they were quoted at BCFC for a rent? It would seem that the best SISU have to secure the future of our club is PR and their own opinion of history..............
You really think there's no more court cases to come...?For the first time SISU have nowhere else to run.
You really think there's no more court cases to come...?
Am sure they'll find something!Where else can they go? What is there left to sue about?
Well they never had any case with any realistic chance of success in the first place but that didn't stop them. It is only hard economic reality that will.Where else can they go? What is there left to sue about?
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?