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.
Very good Guardian article (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Harry Krishner
- Start date
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.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
Nick
Administrator
It's because the "SISU Apologist" line doesn't work like it used to now they have all been found out themselves.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
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
Nick
Administrator
Love how you miss the irony.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Yeah, what about it? Who's obliged to pay?
Nick
Administrator
Why are ccfc obliged to pay all that if they want to play in Coventry?
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Not all of it was, £10m to the owner but the Ricoh as collateral
win9nut
Well-Known Member
"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!)
MK Dons Average Attendances as per Wikipedia
14-15 League 1 9452
15-16 Championship 13158
16-17 League 1 10307
17-18 League 1 9202
18-19 League 2 7180
"Why wouldn't you go for it?" - Just like you said, it is shit for loyal fans. I wouldn't go for it because it would move my club over 100 miles away from the area in which I belong.
Would you be happy for us to move to Doncaster? I certainly wouldn't...
I do hope that SISU are now able to strike a deal with Wasps, but by the same token, I want to see potential for us to own our own stadium. Whether that's the Ricoh, or something at Woodlands remains to be seen, but I think I'd prefer Woodlands, so long as no Leicester fans are involved in the build.
Nick
Administrator
This has been the point since the start.
We keep having supposed CCFC fans telling us "wasps had to move else they would die" and it "was good business" but when you ask them now if they would be OK with CCFC moving rather than dying they are usually the ones most strongly against it.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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..............
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..............
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Were you aware of the AEHC / ACL discussions to purchase Wasps in 2012?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
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.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Never said you weren'tAgreed but I am allowed the odd opinion
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 moment
Current evidence based on past behaviours (not just them, but other London Rugby clubs) would suggest not is the favourite however.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
A lot of things hapening March 2012, this is the same time ACL discovered SISU were attempting to negotioate with Yorkshire Bank over ACL loan without having obtained permission to do so and the talks with the club about buying the stadium were not going well. At the same time surely the Directors of ACL had to explore all possible strategies. 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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
tbh, the rhetoric from all parties suggests poersonalities and egos have played a large part in this.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Matters not. It's a PR piece playing to the crowd and will be lapped up by many.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The irony.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
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 moment
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
For the first time SISU have nowhere else to run. One might think they would give up the ghost and sell up but they clearly have a taste for drawn out pain
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You really think there's no more court cases to come...?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Where else can they go? What is there left to sue about?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Am sure they'll find something!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
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.