Entertain me with an explanation of your statement.
Hate to say I told you so Grendel
But ' I told you do'
Not the ACL board that makes the decision its the shareholders and wasps have the veto
Quality, at least you recognise when you're beat.
Happy to accept league one football for the foreseeable future? Regardless of the rent, that's exactly what we will be restricted to without access to matchday and addition revenue.
Our last season in the champions, turnover on the bottom 3-4 in the league despite having better attendances than 9-10 other clubs.
How does that fit in with your anything less than PL is unacceptable, and lack of ambition?
And no, I don't think building a new stadium and associated mortgage payments is the answer. One of the answers in front of us, getting at least 50% stake in ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
No you didn't. You argued the Higgs charity could sell to who they want. They can't.
I did say the board would often have the say as normally the board on a 50 50 arrangement has equal representation.
I think you will find I said the minute this was announced it was 199% wasps. How do you reconcile the subsequent statement by Anne Lucas with the reality.
I also pointed out a shareholder cannot sell the shares without the existing shareholder authorising the sale - something you would not accept.
What I do not understand with you is that you were morally outraged from the start that the charity should get their money back.
Now the council having agreed to sell their shares have dictated the value if Higgs share and its a low price.
Yet oddly you don't complain.
Have Wasps said we can't have incremental football revenues?
Have Sisu even said they would want these revenues to stop them building the new stadium ?
Have Wasps said we can't have incremental football revenues?
Have Sisu even said they would want these revenues to stop them building the new stadium ?
Grendel
"It has nothing to do with the charity - the directors if ACL ultimately have a duty to ACL and ACL alone"
Grendel....
"The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?"
Me
"At the end of the day unless SISU want to be renting for a long time.
They need to approach wasps and Higgs with a business proposal behind their offer.
The proposal needs to include all the things Higgs were looking for in the first place. Secondly the proposal needs to show wasps why it would be advantageous to be in business with CCFC.
Otherwise it is Veto and renting or a new stadium."
Originally Posted by dongonzalos
Still think it is Higgs selling their share so it would be Higgs making the decision.
Wasps as replacement for the council could Veto.
However Higgs' initial decision prior to a veto would based on what is best for Higgs not ACL or wasps.
Any other way round is completely illogical
Grendel
"So you know more than OSB now. Ok."
Me
"OSB never said it was purely a decision from the directors of ACL that is like the tail wagging the Dog.
Higgs own the shares the directors of ACL are employed partly by them and partly by the wasps consortium.
Higgs are selling their shares they will decide who they sell them to, their employees will not dictate to their employers.
The owners of the other shares however can block the bid once Higgs accept an offer.
The directors of ACL sit on a ring lower than the trustee of Higgs in this matter. Apart from the ones from wasps."
Grendel
"Only in your own head Don but fair enough. You know more than anyone including someone who has 50% share in a private company - fair enough."
(I especially like this bit) ...........
Originally Posted by Brighton Sky Blue
You really don't help yourself sometimes Grendo with this stonking great arrogance.
Grendel
Oh come on there are numerous posters who explain this over and over again but ithe facts are just ignored over and over again.
Unlike you.
Has that happened yet?
What are "incremental football revenues"?
Let's present a hypothetical scenario;
Two businesses jointly own a company. One makes all the decisions and the other supports.
One wants out as the finances are looking bleak and wants to sell at considerably below the other ones purchase price.
The arrangement is the sale has to be approved by both sides. The other side would like its return in full.
The main decision maker wants out and suggests in a year the value will be even less and in 4 years its non existent and the loan will not be paid. We are pulling the uh on all marketing and strategy development. Sign here.
This is a fictitious hypothetic statement as to how things may evolve in an organisation which I have no knowledge of.
Grow up.
They are revenues that would only be taken because the football team are there.
It would pay Wasps to let CCFC have these as if they moved away they would be lost anyway.
Wasps would need to decide whether CCFC would really be moving, or more than likely go bust, to give these away.
They need to get the balance right as there is less risk for them with both clubs being at the Ricoh.
I agree with that - does that make me a coward too? As far as I can see, the council and Higgs have got the right to sell to Wasps 100%, as they certainly have no obligation to CCFC morally or in fact. They've bent over backwards sufficiently for the club but ended up dealing with a rent strike and a judicial review for their troubles. Good on both the ACL parties for ensuring SISU don't get the Ricoh. I'm sure the damage can be undone by future CCFC owners who can operate within the world of cooperation and fair play.
No idea why everyone seems so unhappy - for the record I don't care about franchising in rugby.
There's the key line - selling ACL to Wasps isn't reversible, it's done. No matter what owners CCFC gets in the future, or however nice they are compared to SISU, there's no way back from that.
Wasps have been quite clear that they want 100% of the 24/7/365 income from the Ricoh, and that's what the Council and AEHC have given them, and for 250 years.
So, CCFC now either stay as tenants with extremely limited access to further revenue streams, or they build a new stadium. I find it hard to believe that anyone who understands that could possibly be happy, unless all that actually mattered to them was that SISU lose.
They know full well we won't just move out, they know full well how hard it is to get planning permission and build a stadium.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Higgs do not have to sell to Wasps. Wasps can't force Higgs to sell to them. By the sound of it Wasps could stop the sale to anyone else. But they can't force a sale. Saying that Higgs do want to sell and don't trust SISU. And I don't trust SISU to put in a good enough offer. So everything does point towards a sale to Wasps.
Haven't Higgs already accepted an offer from Wasps? Think this is just going through the motions to remove any potential for SISU to drag everyone into court again.
Haven't Higgs already accepted an offer from Wasps? Think this is just going through the motions to remove any potential for SISU to drag everyone into court again.
Anyone who tries to pin it on just one entity is either
- trying to make it easy on their brain (we tend to prefer black or white solutions rather than shades of grey);
- not fully informed of all of the facts (easy to understand because the facts are many & labyrinthine); or
- bullshitting
This saga has been allowed to lumber on because people either haven't cared enough or they have lined up behind one side.
If only people hadn't have sucked up all the bullshit from one side whilst ignoring half of what was going on.
Yes, I imagine you can run a cost neutral team in league one, that's one of the reasons for the specific FFP rules has been brought in to this league and league two. Most teams have low crowds, and most teams have a lower wage bill than us. I imagine sisu could easily keep us ticking over as a lower midtable side with little extra investment. You only need the odd decent cup draw every other season to tied you over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
This is nothing new. We found out on 7 Oct that the council veto would transfer to Wasps with the sale.
The council are saying that their share is now sold so we wait for Higgs to decide over CCFC Ltd / Sisu offer & then, if Higgs want to accept it, Wasps decide if they veto.
It's down to AEHC to make a decision. Just a pity they didn't make a pro-CCFC decision way back in 2012 when a better deal than this Wasps deal was on the table. We could have avoided relegation, ridiculous legal bollox, PR machine foolishness and everything else.
James, from what i remember at the time didn't Ranson saying that mproving the squad was the priority. Purchasing a share "could wait"?
It isn’t our priority – the success of the team is. The funds should be spent on the team. It is about getting the product right on the pitch.
James, from what i remember at the time didn't Ranson say that mproving the squad was the priority. Purchasing a share "could wait"?
James, from what i remember at the time didn't Ranson say that mproving the squad was the priority. Purchasing a share "could wait"?
He did say words to that effect and I was unimpressed to hear them. The financial foundations at our club at that time weren't very stable (or indeed sadly for X number of years before that) and whilst on the pitch success is important to the club - and us fans - building on weak foundations was dodgy to say the least. I'm not saying that it would have solved all the problems we faced, far from it, but it would have given us a better shot at dealing with them.
The cost to purchase at that time would have been huge and loan was with a private enterprise. There is no comparison to the deal on the table now.
I never said there was a comparison to the deal on the table now.
We are in this mess not because of the CCC.
As a club we mismanaged our move from Highfield Rosd to the Ricoh, a move the club needed to make.
SISU have come in and in 7 years have failed to address or rectify the matter, in fact they have made a complete pigs ear of it. They have mismanaged every department of their tenure with the club continuing to spiral down.
Even their claims to batter people in court and claims that they are good negotiators have fallen flat. If they ever had a smoking gun, then they failed to keep the gunpowder dry!
So at the time the council wanted an unrealistic price
Its true value is about the same as the club paid for Freddie Eastwood (including wages) on a dice year contract.
A premier league stadium worth the same as a Southend journeyman.
Something is wrong somewhere.
No it wouldn't. There's no way wasps would just hand revenue over. They know full well we won't just move out, they know full well how hard it is to get planning permission and build a stadium. No wasp get that 100%, they're in pole position in any future rent negotiations.
I might try that down my local, I'll ask them if in can have free beer from now on as if they don't I might start drinking else where and they would be getting my money anyway. Given I also buy nuts, crisps and put money on the jukebox and pool table, free beer isn't asking for much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
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?