Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
As a point I reserve the right to criticise anything I deem worthy of criticism. I think we've all criticised the club we claim to support at some point haven't we.
Now to your concerns, what particularly have I criticised the club for that you're having trouble with?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
You slagged off the owners and that really hurts some on here even if they make out they blame them for at least 10% of this abortion. ..
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Where was I... oh yeah, kind of agree with this. It's the argument of the moronic, the crazed and the idiots to retort thus either way. Usually, when there is limited comeback. It'll be grammar and speeling mistakes next...
Anyway, having got that out the system, the problem is empathy goes all ways. Can I see why financially ACL may have been sold to Wasps? Yep. Can I see how the clubs actions may have accentuated that? Yes. Can I also see how a commercial dispute motivates the club to act as it did? Yes.
And here's the problem - all arguments are educed to the financial. The justifications for actions are the financial and this is what sticks. I warned (long ago
) that being owned by an entity such as SISU would see financial considerations put first and, alas, I was right... and still am.You kind of don't necessarily expect that with public service though. Unfortunately, more and more it's the case and the sale of the Ricoh exemplifies that. The entire argument has been based on the financial, the justifications are about the company being in rude health or otherwise, and a good return.
This, too, plays fast and loose with a football club. There's a fine balance between running one financially prudently and crazily but, tbh, if all of us support CCFC why on earth are we accepting of a free market to suh a degree? If we do accept it to that degree then, rightfully, the club should not exist now - it shouldn't really have existed when SISU bought it either. In the words of an auditor friend of mine then fucking hell, the club's fucked and the fucking directors are fucking nutters if they keep it fucking going. (I assume in his day job his language is tempered slightly when delivering similar news).
So that's where we are. With a basket case of a club, it appears the options are either magnanimous and social, or take a high risk strategy that may commit hari-kari, but may also at least hasten an inevitable demise. And personally if it must die, I'd rather swiftly than watch it drool in bed unable to wake and having to take in food through a straw.
But then we'll all have different views on that.
But surely we didn't support a football club in order to back the most pragmatic financial decisions? This, therefore, makes every party culpable. They all appear to attempt smoke and mirrors to present ongoing plans in certain ways, they all justify it through... money.
So that, then, makes them all culpable. They all want to have their cake and eat it. They all want the best financial deal, and they all seem to think people are too stupid to deserve the full facts in front of them
I find it very... sad.
A football club is central to a community - even if people do not go it implicitly goes towards an understanding of who they are, and this also applies to outsiders understanding who we are. The custodians of the club in all senses seem determined to eradicate that. At this rate... perhaps it should just go as it seems nobody cares about it beyond it being an extra decimalpoint of return in a budget.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
You were saying? ................................................... Coventry City FC bosses 'ready and willing' to discuss a deal to return to Ricoh Arena 18:25, 11 July 2014 By Simon Gilbert Open letter says move back home would only be temporary while club builds new stadium 120 Shares Share Tweet +1 LinkedIn Ricoh Arena Senior Coventry City FC officials have written an open letter to supporters stating they are “ready and willing” to talk about a deal to bring the club back to the Ricoh Arena. The open letter is signed by Joy Seppala, head of club owners Sisu, and Coventry City chief executive Tim Fisher and has appeared on the club website hours ahead of a protest march calling for the club's return to Coventry. However, the letter states the return would only be on an interim basis while the club builds its own stadium
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He was joking though. Either that or his fingers were crossed. Maybe his chin was itchy. He said it in a sarcastic voice while doing sarcastic quote marks with his fingers. What wasn't reported was after he said that he made a coughing noise while mumbling bullshit under his breath at the same time.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Where was I... oh yeah, kind of agree with this. It's the argument of the moronic, the crazed and the idiots to retort thus either way. Usually, when there is limited comeback. It'll be grammar and speeling mistakes next...
Anyway, having got that out the system, the problem is empathy goes all ways. Can I see why financially ACL may have been sold to Wasps? Yep. Can I see how the clubs actions may have accentuated that? Yes. Can I also see how a commercial dispute motivates the club to act as it did? Yes.
And here's the problem - all arguments are educed to the financial. The justifications for actions are the financial and this is what sticks. I warned (long ago
You kind of don't necessarily expect that with public service though. Unfortunately, more and more it's the case and the sale of the Ricoh exemplifies that. The entire argument has been based on the financial, the justifications are about the company being in rude health or otherwise, and a good return.
This, too, plays fast and loose with a football club. There's a fine balance between running one financially prudently and crazily but, tbh, if all of us support CCFC why on earth are we accepting of a free market to suh a degree? If we do accept it to that degree then, rightfully, the club should not exist now - it shouldn't really have existed when SISU bought it either. In the words of an auditor friend of mine then fucking hell, the club's fucked and the fucking directors are fucking nutters if they keep it fucking going. (I assume in his day job his language is tempered slightly when delivering similar news).
So that's where we are. With a basket case of a club, it appears the options are either magnanimous and social, or take a high risk strategy that may commit hari-kari, but may also at least hasten an inevitable demise. And personally if it must die, I'd rather swiftly than watch it drool in bed unable to wake and having to take in food through a straw.
But then we'll all have different views on that.
But surely we didn't support a football club in order to back the most pragmatic financial decisions? This, therefore, makes every party culpable. They all appear to attempt smoke and mirrors to present ongoing plans in certain ways, they all justify it through... money.
So that, then, makes them all culpable. They all want to have their cake and eat it. They all want the best financial deal, and they all seem to think people are too stupid to deserve the full facts in front of them
I find it very... sad.
A football club is central to a community - even if people do not go it implicitly goes towards an understanding of who they are, and this also applies to outsiders understanding who we are. The custodians of the club in all senses seem determined to eradicate that. At this rate... perhaps it should just go as it seems nobody cares about it beyond it being an extra decimalpoint of return in a budget.
And that is the paradox. Fans expect a football club to be both. A community asset and financial minded company.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
When he already knew of Wasps deal try again
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Where was I... oh yeah, kind of agree with this. It's the argument of the moronic, the crazed and the idiots to retort thus either way. Usually, when there is limited comeback. It'll be grammar and speeling mistakes next...
Anyway, having got that out the system, the problem is empathy goes all ways. Can I see why financially ACL may have been sold to Wasps? Yep. Can I see how the clubs actions may have accentuated that? Yes. Can I also see how a commercial dispute motivates the club to act as it did? Yes.
And here's the problem - all arguments are educed to the financial. The justifications for actions are the financial and this is what sticks. I warned (long ago
You kind of don't necessarily expect that with public service though. Unfortunately, more and more it's the case and the sale of the Ricoh exemplifies that. The entire argument has been based on the financial, the justifications are about the company being in rude health or otherwise, and a good return.
This, too, plays fast and loose with a football club. There's a fine balance between running one financially prudently and crazily but, tbh, if all of us support CCFC why on earth are we accepting of a free market to suh a degree? If we do accept it to that degree then, rightfully, the club should not exist now - it shouldn't really have existed when SISU bought it either. In the words of an auditor friend of mine then fucking hell, the club's fucked and the fucking directors are fucking nutters if they keep it fucking going. (I assume in his day job his language is tempered slightly when delivering similar news).
So that's where we are. With a basket case of a club, it appears the options are either magnanimous and social, or take a high risk strategy that may commit hari-kari, but may also at least hasten an inevitable demise. And personally if it must die, I'd rather swiftly than watch it drool in bed unable to wake and having to take in food through a straw.
But then we'll all have different views on that.
But surely we didn't support a football club in order to back the most pragmatic financial decisions? This, therefore, makes every party culpable. They all appear to attempt smoke and mirrors to present ongoing plans in certain ways, they all justify it through... money.
So that, then, makes them all culpable. They all want to have their cake and eat it. They all want the best financial deal, and they all seem to think people are too stupid to deserve the full facts in front of them
I find it very... sad.
A football club is central to a community - even if people do not go it implicitly goes towards an understanding of who they are, and this also applies to outsiders understanding who we are. The custodians of the club in all senses seem determined to eradicate that. At this rate... perhaps it should just go as it seems nobody cares about it beyond it being an extra decimalpoint of return in a budget.
Said much the same(though far more concisely!)on GMK some years ago, along the lines of " If I wanted to cheer on good financial results I'd go to a fucking Tesco' shareholders meeting".
Might need to update that one!
Astute
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
Some very good points are being made here against both SISU and CCC. And then you have your Grendel posts.
Our club was badly let down by Richardson. The worst of it was we were loving it at the time. We had good players and some great games to watch. But our outgoings on wages alone were much more than our income. And other money leaving our club at the time was a disgrace. I heard things at the time that I didn't believe. But we have heard things since that backs it up for instance the bonuses Richardson paid himself. This is what put our club in the position it is in now. He had the idea of building a bigger stadium as we needed more income to cover the massive outgoings. But there were two big points. We were not filling HR most of the time and we were skint because of all of the spending we were doing that we couldn't afford so couldn't raise the funds for a new stadium. But he still sold HR and the money was used to keep us going for another year. Yes Tescos put in a lot of money, but another 60m still needed raising.
So Grendel, you say that CCC treated the arena as a cash cow. Would you like to remind us how much taxpayers money that they put in and then how much they took out? It is as much of an idiotic statement as much as saying that SISU are using CCFC as a cash cow.
I don't blame SISU for where we are now. I understand why they didn't want to pay out for the arena. I do blame them for the tactics they used though. And they continued using them when they had wasted millions on them and could see that they were going to fail. I don't blame CCC. SISU were asking for what CCC couldn't give them. There was a deal to be done. But they kept asking for more for less money each time it looked like a deal had been agreed. They are at fault for this.
To me the main blame is on Richardson. He started our clubs demise and couldn't get us out of it. And it has been firefighting by everyone involved ever since.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
You are correct this nightmare was started by a guy called Richardson and ironically could be ended by a guy called Richardson. He doesn't personally have to buy the club but will probably know people who could and might. A top football club at the Ricoh would certainly be to his benefit.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You'd better have a word with a couple of your mates on here then. They acknowledge truth in the statement.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Love it how you dig back into every thread to find a snippet of information that is vaguely in context and then try and use it to boost your pathetic battles.
Astute's post is absolutely spot on yet you are unable to give any of it credit.
You must have time on your hands and a big chip on your shoulder.
Astute
Well-Known Member
If you could get past your obvious hatred of CCC you would see that the biggest thing that they did was try to help our club when we were homeless and didn't look far enough into the future on what could go wrong. They expected (rightly in my opinion ) that our club should meet payments to cover the final small costs of the build. But they didn't consider enough how bad our finances were. And they should have done something to make sure that the 50% share given stayed with our club.
H
Huckerby
Guest
Actually, Torch, contrary to the belief of a select group of you on this board, you don't have to choose a side between the council or the club. I'm absolutely gutted for my club but I'm under no illusions about who's fault the latest situation is. I'm able to recognise that the council has other fish to fry and has to act in the best interests of the tax payer...which I think they have done.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
His do you know what they've done - commercial confidentiality.
H
Huckerby
Guest
sorry, what do you mean?
Nick
Administrator
That's on the £35m bond thread?
Astute
Well-Known Member
If we all got together and put some money into this would it mean we own a bit of the arena and would get voting rights?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Thats the best part, the answer to your question is no. You give them your money, don't get a share or any voting rights. You hope like hell they've got enough money in a few years to pay you back.
Nick
Administrator
Not sure whether thats sarcasm?
Bonds are safer than shares.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you'd pick a bond issues by Otium above a Share in Tesco anyway would you?
Are you a financial advisor?
duffer
Well-Known Member
No, no - there's the alternative scenario where we're back at the Ricoh and the council and SISU sit back for a couple of years and y'know, rebuild trust. Like that nice man from the council proposed when we moved back from Northampton.
In this scenario, after a year or two it's obvious that Fisher's new stadium idea is rubbish, and also that Lucas/CCC has told a pile of lies about how much ACL is worth without the club. Presumably at this point there's a deal to be done somewhere.
Yawn, you are so boring, never capable of a reasonable discussion.
He was under the impression that the bond was bad because you aren't getting a share and you have to hope like hell they will be able to pay you back, yet a share in wasps is a much much higher risk investment (not that they are on offer and with a potentially much higher reward too)
Financial advisers have their place but I could manage the average persons money for them more successfully on average than a financial advisor, not because I know more because I assuredly don't but because they for the most part charge 3%+ initial, 0.5% per year, often chose active funds with higher TER's and don't chose the cheapest platforms. You can get the knowledge to manage your money successfully yourself from a day or two reading. It's really a great shame that people come out of school without knowing how to look after themselves financially.
To answer your question as poisoned as it was, I wouldn't chose either to make up more than 1% of a portfolio, nore do I believe in picking individual stocks and bonds and prefer to stick for the most part with passive funds. Stock picking is a zero sum game (before charges) and you'll find others are playing with alot more advantages than you are. I also didn't say bonds were better than shares, I said bonds were safer than shares, I don't own any bonds, I (well my wife actually though I manage the money) own lots of shares, you of course can't easily compare between tesco shares and wasp bonds, you have more chance of losing money with tesco shares but more chance imo of wasps going bust than tesco. If I were putting £2k in either (which I wouldn't) it would be Tesco. I've already said I feel the risk is greater than the reward for the wasps bond though I'm also not qualified to say that.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think he meant a bond in Tesco's would be safer than a share in Tesco's. You probably knew that too.
Astute
Well-Known Member
The Tesco share price has lost a lot in the last year or so. I would say about 40% in the last year. Our club has been self funding the last couple of years. So even your idea of a dig at someone shows how much you really know about shares, bonds and finance.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
A £1 chunk of ccfc is worth £1 (though I'd suggest that chunk is all of it) but the £1 shares that they recently created aren't even worth a penny.