Wasps deal will be externally scrutinised (1 Viewer)

[tisza]

Apologies for not coming back on this point by point, but an enquiry into the council's actions would have nothing to do with the owners of the club, in much the same way that an investigation of the club by (say) the SFO or FL would have nothing to do with the council. The second JR regarding the deal to Wasps may not even happen, and even if it does isn't obliged to touch on issues regarding the council's relationship with the local press, or the truthfulness of the council leaders and other members statements to the public, or the seemingly endless need for secrecy in the way that the council does it's business with regard to ACL.

To be clear in itself an investigation won't give an excuse for further delays on the new stadium - SISU have got enough of those prepared already in any case. So, we shouldn't accept that as a reason to not have a proper look at what's gone on here. Indeed, as you say Fisher has already stated that the club is moving on regardless.

However it would restore some confidence that we can trust the council to work in an open and honest manner; and that it did not risk taxpayers' money simply to achieve a victory over a third-party (however much disliked).

Your point about another possible JR confounding the issues here is well made, and I'd accept that we might need to wait until that's played out before we get to the bottom of this. What I don't want though, is for it all to be forgotten.

surely any investigation needs to involve ccfc as the council's actions are largely as a reaction to situations engineered by the football club?
what's the point of an investigation where only one side is giving their version?

 

---

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Be careful to distinguish between employees and elected members. The elected members are not part of the councils pension scheme

I think the salary breakdown only shows employees earning over 50k and having read about twenty pages I gave up looking! 28k into a pension is pretty good when many of his staff don't even earn that to live on.

 

[The Gentleman]

The 7500 is a little bit of a red herring, not the same 7500 every week (except 3.5k ST's) plus there are 150k+ people registered as customers on the ccfc database (is that right Ashdown?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

You're right Stupot, it is a red herring because Tisza was saying about the Council's responsibility to the 7500 but of those how many fans come under CCC? Don't we have lots of fans from out of Coventry, so won't the figure actually be less? Also, at present and because of how shit we are, I would reckon that the large majority of 7500 are diehards who go every week. Lastly, I would also wager that a large % of that 150k+ figure are made up of people who are dead, moved on, support other teams or people who just don't give a fuck anymore.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think the salary breakdown only shows employees earning over 50k and having read about twenty pages I gave up looking! 28k into a pension is pretty good when many of his staff don't even earn that to live on.

You're absolutely right

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

You're absolutely right

I would imagine the pension for somebody elected is not bad either!

 

[tisza]

. Lastly, I would also wager that a large % of that 150k+ figure are made up of people who are dead, moved on, support other teams or people who just don't give a fuck anymore.

maybe same problem as on here multiple usernames!!

 

[duffer]

surely any investigation needs to involve ccfc as the council's actions are largely as a reaction to situations engineered by the football club?
what's the point of an investigation where only one side is giving their version?

Absolutely not - there's no logic to that anywhere that I can see. This is solely about the actions of the council and whether or not they were proper. Would you suggest that investigation into any of SISU's alleged financial wrongdoing should drag the council in, as they could claim that "it was the council what made them do it"?

 

[tisza]

Absolutely not - there's no logic to that anywhere that I can see. This is solely about the actions of the council and whether or not they were proper. Would you suggest that investigation into any of SISU's alleged financial wrongdoing should drag the council in, as they could claim that "it was the council what made them do it"?

still don't get this. council made decisions to sell ACL to a 3rd party as they didn't feel the business could carry on as it was. if it's nothing to do with the football club why is it mainly only ccfc fans complaining and every article about it extensively includes the football club in them? surely the football club is the main factor determining that the ACL had to be sold? if sisu had bought the ACL on the same terms would the same people still be calling for an inquiry?

 

[Ian1779]

surely any investigation needs to involve ccfc as the council's actions are largely as a reaction to situations engineered by the football club?
what's the point of an investigation where only one side is giving their version?

SISU got comprehensively beaten in the JR. That is not a reason to not pursue an investigation of the council's conduct in relation to the ACL issue.

They are seperate.

 

[torchomatic]

Similarly why do so many CCFC fans - yourself included - ignore anything outside SISU when it comes to CCFC and where we are today?

Not sure why a scrutiny of the deal makes people so nervous.

still don't get this. council made decisions to sell ACL to a 3rd party as they didn't feel the business could carry on as it was. if it's nothing to do with the football club why is it mainly only ccfc fans complaining and every article about it extensively includes the football club in them? surely the football club is the main factor determining that the ACL had to be sold? if sisu had bought the ACL on the same terms would the same people still be calling for an inquiry?

 

[duffer]

still don't get this. council made decisions to sell ACL to a 3rd party as they didn't feel the business could carry on as it was. if it's nothing to do with the football club why is it mainly only ccfc fans complaining and every article about it extensively includes the football club in them? surely the football club is the main factor determining that the ACL had to be sold? if sisu had bought the ACL on the same terms would the same people still be calling for an inquiry?

I can't see why you don't get it, I honestly can't. The enquiry into the Council's possible wrongdoing around ACL is entirely separate to the actions of the club. SISU undoubtedly put pressure on ACL through tactics that were probably legal, but morally wrong. That doesn't entitle the council to use public money improperly, or to mislead the public or elected members, or to suppress the legitimate reporting of their processes.

Now in fairness, if the stadium had been sold to the club on the same terms I probably wouldn't be as aggrieved by the first bit, as at least the money would be going to support a local team. (This in the same way that I lobbied the council to support the club when they screwed up the original build of the stadium and needed bailing out). However I'd have to accept that a fair number of taxpayers with no interest in the club would expect the deal to be above board and in their best interest, and would have every right to complain if it wasn't.

And in terms of misleading the public (and members), and suppressing scrutiny I don't believe that's something that is ever acceptable.

Just to flip the question, are you sure that the fact that SISU have lost out here isn't encouraging you to take a blind eye to what's gone on at CCC?

 

[tisza]

Similarly why do so many CCFC fans - yourself included - ignore anything outside SISU when it comes to CCFC and where we are today?

Not sure why a scrutiny of the deal makes people so nervous.

not nervous about any deal. not sure whether I'm tired, frustrated or maybe even apathetic. don't see why any parts should be left out if an inquiry.
for the record I've consistently said i don't see how people can make judgements without knowing all the facts and I've always backed a full inquiry going back to the lead up to the original administration.
i maybe wrong but the jr answered a load of my original questions.
i hold all parties responsible for where the club and the stadium are now but to what degree I'll wait until all the facts are out there.
my main concerns are that these things are sidetracking us from moving on - one of the few things i agree with Fisher about.
all i see is more money & time being wasted on legal fees & inquiries.

 

[tisza]

Just to flip the question, are you sure that the fact that SISU have lost out here isn't encouraging you to take a blind eye to what's gone on at CCC?

i don't see it as SISU having lost out i see it as the football club having lost out.
as I've just posted above I'm not pro council on this issue.just that all parties should have to be openly accountable on this issue.
whether i like it or not i haven't seen anything new that makes me believe there will be any changes in the jr outcomes.
the article that started all this seems to rely on suggestion and hearsay rather than anything concrete - some of which was mentioned in the jr and deemed irrelevant.
i don't see any real appetite for this independent inquiry and doubt it will ever get off the ground in any meaningful way.
like the fuss over the commercial confidentiality ( and i protested that as much as anybody) information will come out as it did Simon Gilbert's article today.

 

[duffer]

i don't see it as SISU having lost out i see it as the football club having lost out.
as I've just posted above I'm not pro council on this issue.just that all parties should have to be openly accountable on this issue.
whether i like it or not i haven't seen anything new that makes me believe there will be any changes in the jr outcomes.
the article that started all this seems to rely on suggestion and hearsay rather than anything concrete - some of which was mentioned in the jr and deemed irrelevant.
i don't see any real appetite for this independent inquiry and doubt it will ever get off the ground in any meaningful way.
like the fuss over the commercial confidentiality ( and i protested that as much as anybody) information will come out as it did Simon Gilbert's article today.

tisza mate, that's a pretty balanced response. I doubt we'll ever agree on all of this, but what you're saying here is fair enough. I suspect the Wasps JR might actually be a slightly stronger case than the first one (perhaps in part because the council no longer has a direct financial interest in ACL and can't therefore claim to be supporting its investment), but in truth I don't see it as being of any great benefit to the club even in the very unlikely event of a SISU win.

Regardless, I do still want the Council's actions looked at properly here. Not for the benefit of the club or of SISU, but just because I believe that elected bodies need to uphold proper standards, and be properly open to scrutiny and account. Whether that's happens here is probably unlikely, I'd agree, but it won't stop me asking for it!

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think the salary breakdown only shows employees earning over 50k and having read about twenty pages I gave up looking! 28k into a pension is pretty good when many of his staff don't even earn that to live on.

I would imagine the pension for somebody elected is not bad either!

They'd have to set their own up terry as I understand it

 

[covcity4life]

council clowns please leave!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sky Blue Dal]

like after the JR where everyone listened to the facts and the decision of the judge and altered their views accordingly

Sound like ISIS!

 

[oldskyblue58]

I wouldn't put money on anything more than the audit happening though duffer. I agree the process should have been far more transparent, I can think of questions I would like answered by the CCC certainly.

Would that have given CCFC a chance of ownership? Well if you take the comments of Fisher about the whole set up or offer being unviable then you would have to conclude no. It would be a bad deal according to him so could never happen for CCFC under the present owners. If they were not prepared to match the terms Wasps/CCC have accepted, and everything they have said so says they were not, then they were never going to be in the running, CCC have to take the money and run don't they?

Not what I had hoped for certainly but where was the interest from SISU that tested the CCC resolve? Yes there were secret dealings going on between Wasps and CCC but is that unusual in these kind of matters? It was not beyond the wit of man for SISU to put forward a proposal (not chatter in the press but a proposal) for a long lease interest that created something achievable (erasing ACL at a stroke really wasn't). Hell I remember having discussions on here over 2 years ago about long leases so it wasn't rocket science or ground breaking. SISU messed up, CCC messed up ....... and to my mind have both done so from day 1 of their respective involvements

I would think that CCC/Wasps/ACL will see no merit in any further investigation, certainly they will not want to pay for it. Yes there are things that rankle with a lot of us but in the scheme of things is there a smoking gun that absolutely means an independent inquiry must be undertaken? More like a pea shooter in the scheme of things evidential so far if you ask me

I would also suggest that there is an element of one-upmanship going on between two newspapers/reporters.

 

[duffer]

I wouldn't put money on anything more than the audit happening though duffer. I agree the process should have been far more transparent, I can think of questions I would like answered by the CCC certainly.

Would that have given CCFC a chance of ownership? Well if you take the comments of Fisher about the whole set up or offer being unviable then you would have to conclude no. It would be a bad deal according to him so could never happen for CCFC under the present owners. If they were not prepared to match the terms Wasps/CCC have accepted, and everything they have said so says they were not, then they were never going to be in the running, CCC have to take the money and run don't they?

Not what I had hoped for certainly but where was the interest from SISU that tested the CCC resolve? Yes there were secret dealings going on between Wasps and CCC but is that unusual in these kind of matters? It was not beyond the wit of man for SISU to put forward a proposal (not chatter in the press but a proposal) for a long lease interest that created something achievable (erasing ACL at a stroke really wasn't). Hell I remember having discussions on here over 2 years ago about long leases so it wasn't rocket science or ground breaking. SISU messed up, CCC messed up ....... and to my mind have both done so from day 1 of their respective involvements

I would think that CCC/Wasps/ACL will see no merit in any further investigation, certainly they will not want to pay for it. Yes there are things that rankle with a lot of us but in the scheme of things is there a smoking gun that absolutely means an independent inquiry must be undertaken? More like a pea shooter in the scheme of things evidential so far if you ask me

I would also suggest that there is an element of one-upmanship going on between two newspapers/reporters.

A well-reasoned analysis as ever, OSB. However until (or unless) we get some light shone on it I'll always have serious doubts regarding how the council have played this. You'll remember I'm sure to what lengths I've defended them in the past, so you know I'm not coming at this with some kind of daft prejudice - at least I hope I'm not! Your point about Fisher seeming to say that they wouldn't have bought it even under the same terms is well made, but I sure as hell wish it had been clearly offered along those lines.

I think what might open some things up before the JR court stuff could be Les Reid's impending tribunal against the CET. Despite meeting Reid (and chatting to him on social media) I've no inside knowledge or evidence here, but my instinct is that something unpleasant happened and it's possible some council officers were involved in it. That rankles with me, OSB, in much the same way as what happened to CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holdings under SISU. As with the latter I doubt anything I do or say will make any difference, but at least I've got a place here to say it!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Your point about Fisher seeming to say that they wouldn't have bought it even under the same terms is well made, but I sure as hell wish it had been clearly offered along those lines.

We wait to see how it plays out, anyway. There is after all, always the possibility that Fisher is right, and the risk is indeed too great!

It's along the lines of the dominant rhetoric being the good business sense of SISU... we don't actually know yet whether buying the Ricoh is good business sense. It wasn't overly long ago, after all, that people were suggesting a 40 year lease and £20mil cash was the very minimum it should take to buy it...

 

[duffer]

We wait to see how it plays out, anyway. There is after all, always the possibility that Fisher is right, and the risk is indeed too great!

It's along the lines of the dominant rhetoric being the good business sense of SISU... we don't actually know yet whether buying the Ricoh is good business sense. It wasn't overly long ago, after all, that people were suggesting a 40 year lease and £20mil cash was the very minimum it should take to buy it...

Absolutely. I made that very argument myself a number of times. I always thought it made much more sense to invest £20m into getting hold of ACL than it did to spunk it on a new, crappier, smaller stadium elsewhere. It looks like that hypothesis might yet be tested.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Absolutely. I made that very argument myself a number of times. I always thought it made much more sense to invest £20m into getting hold of ACL than it did to spunk it on a new, crappier, smaller stadium elsewhere. It looks like that hypothesis might yet be tested.

You say it may be tested, I still have a sneaking suspicion that with a deal of patience the ground could yet end up available for a still cheaper price further down the line.

There is precedent for this, too, in American sports, where certain grounds have changed hands between different sports sides, and as one fails, the next picks up the stadium carcass even more cheaply...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

We wait to see how it plays out, anyway. There is after all, always the possibility that Fisher is right, and the risk is indeed too great!

A small question about this quote too,to save me Googling. Was the risk too great to get into partnership with Wasps (pretty undeniable, I'd have thought) or to buy 100% of the deal for those terms?

 

[tisza]

it was in the minutes of one of the recent scg meetings. probably available on the club website ir covmad

 

[Deleted member 5849]

it was in the minutes of one of the recent scg meetings. probably available on the club website ir covmad

That still involves me Googling

 

[chiefdave]

I think a problem with this topic is too many people want a binary choice, either SISU bad or CCC bad. Lots of lip service is paid to 'blame on both sides' but that doesn't really come through in the discussion. Add in that many people seem to want a simple answer, the proverbial 'smoking gun' that can be the answer to everything either through it's existence and lack of it. The situation, from both sides, is a lot more nuanced than that hence when people dig their heels in we just end up going round in circles.

In my opinion there is enough doubt surrounding the council to warrant investigation. This is not to say that the sale is illegal. I could give my house away for nothing, wouldn't be illegal but people would also question my judgement, even more so if the house was paid for with other peoples money, to make a not particularly brilliant analogy. The questions that I would like answer are more around the process of the sale and misleading information that was given.

For example, and this is just off the top of my head, Lucas' claim that ACL was profitable whilst we were in Sixfields. This has now been shown to be false and even admitted to by Lucas but she blamed council officers, presumably Reeves and West, for not giving her the correct information. Were they deliberatly giving false information, if so for who's benefit? If it was a mistake has other information been checked since to locate any other similar instances? Were any decisions, either granting the loan or authorising the sale, both voted for by councillors, made on this basis of this incorrect information? Things like that, none of that would make the sale illegal in any way but, depending on the answers, could leave some big questions for the council to answer. And to me the single most important question, was the same deal offered to us?

It's similar to the situation when we were put into admin, most people were of the belief that while SISU were operating on the edge of legality they were being careful to ensure their actions were legal. Didn't mean that we wouldn't have wanted a thorough investigation into why and when assets were moved around and what exactly had gone on.

Instead all we got was a tick box exercise by Appleton and it sounds like this will be very similar.

 

[shmmeee]

all this talk of morality is getting ridiculous. if we're resorting to moral arguments then it must be assumed that people are struggling to find legal & financial weaknesses in the decision making process.
The moral argument has its own flaws in that what are the council's responsibilities. are they supposed to look after the 7500 people who go to football matches or the 290000 who don't which seems to be the thrust of the council's argument. is it morally right that SISU wanted to financially distress the ACL for their own benefit? is it morally right that both sides don't disclose full details on all their actions regarding the football club, the new stadium, the old stadium etc.
the morality argument is as flawed as all the others and takes us down a route which will never see fans agreeing on.

this. This. A thousand times this.

Great post.

 

[shmmeee]

I think a problem with this topic is too many people want a binary choice, either SISU bad or CCC bad. Lots of lip service is paid to 'blame on both sides' but that doesn't really come through in the discussion. Add in that many people seem to want a simple answer, the proverbial 'smoking gun' that can be the answer to everything either through it's existence and lack of it. The situation, from both sides, is a lot more nuanced than that hence when people dig their heels in we just end up going round in circles.

In my opinion there is enough doubt surrounding the council to warrant investigation. This is not to say that the sale is illegal. I could give my house away for nothing, wouldn't be illegal but people would also question my judgement, even more so if the house was paid for with other peoples money, to make a not particularly brilliant analogy. The questions that I would like answer are more around the process of the sale and misleading information that was given.

For example, and this is just off the top of my head, Lucas' claim that ACL was profitable whilst we were in Sixfields. This has now been shown to be false and even admitted to by Lucas but she blamed council officers, presumably Reeves and West, for not giving her the correct information. Were they deliberatly giving false information, if so for who's benefit? If it was a mistake has other information been checked since to locate any other similar instances? Were any decisions, either granting the loan or authorising the sale, both voted for by councillors, made on this basis of this incorrect information? Things like that, none of that would make the sale illegal in any way but, depending on the answers, could leave some big questions for the council to answer. And to me the single most important question, was the same deal offered to us?

It's similar to the situation when we were put into admin, most people were of the belief that while SISU were operating on the edge of legality they were being careful to ensure their actions were legal. Didn't mean that we wouldn't have wanted a thorough investigation into why and when assets were moved around and what exactly had gone on.

Instead all we got was a tick box exercise by Appleton and it sounds like this will be very similar.

nothing has been done wrong. Let's face it you can't prove a negative and some will always want more proof if the existing proof doesn't meet their preconceptions.

People who hate on the council did it before this and will do it after. There's no logical end point, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[italiahorse]

I think a problem with this topic is too many people want a binary choice, either SISU bad or CCC bad. Lots of lip service is paid to 'blame on both sides' but that doesn't really come through in the discussion. Add in that many people seem to want a simple answer, the proverbial 'smoking gun' that can be the answer to everything either through it's existence and lack of it. The situation, from both sides, is a lot more nuanced than that hence when people dig their heels in we just end up going round in circles.

In my opinion there is enough doubt surrounding the council to warrant investigation. This is not to say that the sale is illegal. I could give my house away for nothing, wouldn't be illegal but people would also question my judgement, even more so if the house was paid for with other peoples money, to make a not particularly brilliant analogy. The questions that I would like answer are more around the process of the sale and misleading information that was given.

For example, and this is just off the top of my head, Lucas' claim that ACL was profitable whilst we were in Sixfields. This has now been shown to be false and even admitted to by Lucas but she blamed council officers, presumably Reeves and West, for not giving her the correct information. Were they deliberatly giving false information, if so for who's benefit? If it was a mistake has other information been checked since to locate any other similar instances? Were any decisions, either granting the loan or authorising the sale, both voted for by councillors, made on this basis of this incorrect information? Things like that, none of that would make the sale illegal in any way but, depending on the answers, could leave some big questions for the council to answer. And to me the single most important question, was the same deal offered to us?

It's similar to the situation when we were put into admin, most people were of the belief that while SISU were operating on the edge of legality they were being careful to ensure their actions were legal. Didn't mean that we wouldn't have wanted a thorough investigation into why and when assets were moved around and what exactly had gone on.

Instead all we got was a tick box exercise by Appleton and it sounds like this will be very similar.

It's all one sided though.
The Council information will always come out eventually but the crucial Sisu information including crucial accounts will not.

 

[Noggin]

Absolutely. I made that very argument myself a number of times. I always thought it made much more sense to invest £20m into getting hold of ACL than it did to spunk it on a new, crappier, smaller stadium elsewhere. It looks like that hypothesis might yet be tested.

It did and still does, The fact they didn't try to significantly outbid wasps when it would have been orders of magnitude better than buying a new stadium says everything about their real intentions to build. ie not a chance in hell.

 

[Noggin]

You say it may be tested, I still have a sneaking suspicion that with a deal of patience the ground could yet end up available for a still cheaper price further down the line.

There is precedent for this, too, in American sports, where certain grounds have changed hands between different sports sides, and as one fails, the next picks up the stadium carcass even more cheaply...

lets say that happens, after 3 full seasons wasps decide the plan was flawed and sell/go bust. whats left of the football club at that point and how much more money has been lost getting to that point? Not to mention the 3 years of earnings they could have got and didn't. It's almost certainly a massive false economy and again they would have been better significantly outbidding wasps.

 

[Sub]

lets say that happens, after 3 full seasons wasps decide the plan was flawed and sell/go bust. whats left of the football club at that point and how much more money has been lost getting to that point? Not to mention the 3 years of earnings they could have got and didn't. It's almost certainly a massive false economy and again they would have been better significantly outbidding wasps.

the new stadium will be built by then :sarcasm:

 

[Noggin]

the new stadium will be built by then :sarcasm:

if their plan was to wait out wasps (which I don't believe) imagine how long they are going to have to keep up the pretence of searching for and buying land.

 

[torchomatic]

Don't have to imagine. It's 250 years.

if their plan was to wait out wasps (which I don't believe) imagine how long they are going to have to keep up the pretence of searching for and buying land.

 

[oldskyblue58]

A small question about this quote too,to save me Googling. Was the risk too great to get into partnership with Wasps (pretty undeniable, I'd have thought) or to buy 100% of the deal for those terms?

I think the quote was primarily aimed at a Wasps/CCFC partnership NW.

more generally

But given the deal that was on offer, then it is hard to see why CCFC on its own could make it work when Wasps apparently can't according to some. It doesn't matter what SISU say in terms of unencumbered freehold or leasehold the fact is it was financially impossible for CCC/AEHC to wipe out ACL to provide that, so that SISU demand could not have been met

It is all very well people saying ah well Wasps are loss making, well over the same periods CCFC's losses are greater. But crowds for Wasps will collapse perhaps they might, CCFC's have and that wont come back to a consistently higher level for some time. Will footfall in 16 Aviva games equate to 23 FL games who knows? Wasps have £10m debt (do they pay interest on it?) well last I heard CCFC were heading north of £40m and to buy in at ACL would need £5.5m more. etc etc I could think of more comparisons. But what is there about the current CCFC that would give anyone including Fisher & SISU confidence that the deal that could be offered (ie 250 year lease, 5.54m for the shares, the loan to be repaid in full over a shorter period at higher interest etc) would be workable for CCFC.

So the question I would ask were/could SISU ever realistically interested in a deal that could be done..... If it were me I would be saying we(CCFC) can not do that ..... and the biggest reason for that is the parlous state CCFC is in , the interest bearing debt it already has, the deep hole it is in - now whose fault would that be? guess we are back to the old circular argument :thinking about: and I am not going to go there. But isn't that the reality for CCFC and the Ricoh? So how do they afford to spend more on a new stadium?

Final thought about the Wasps financial plans. Would you base your financial plans and future on ground sharing with a delinquent tenant with poor financial & legal history, that is descending and massively over burdened by debt and financial charges - I know I wouldnt