Wasps new deal with Compass (2 Viewers)

[Nick]

No I don't. The point they're trying to kid people into thinking they're making along with you is a red herring.

No, you said we should have taken the Wasps approach. That approach included moving 80+ miles. Simple really, it isn't a red herring is it? It is a fact.

It isn't bullshit at all, part of the process of them and the Ricoh involved Wasps moving didn't it? Yes or no?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

No, you said we should have taken the Wasps approach. That approach included moving 80+ miles. Simple really, it isn't a red herring is it? It is a fact.

It isn't bullshit at all, part of the process of them and the Ricoh involved Wasps moving didn't it? Yes or no?

So explain to me how us doing the deal Wasps did for ACL and the Ricoh would mean that we would have to move 80 miles? We would have had to move the 35 miles home from Sixfields but I can't work out where you're getting this 80 miles nonsense from.

 

[Nick]

So explain to me how us doing the deal Wasps did for ACL and the Ricoh would mean that we would have to move 80 miles?

I haven't named the Ricoh. I have just commented on the "Wasps Approach" which involves moving a team as part of the deal.

It could be we did the "Wasps Approach" and moved 80+ miles to somewhere else we could get better attendances and our own ground to "survive".

You keep going on about CCFC doing the same deal that Wasps did and how it was there for them, I still don't see any proof though?

You would have thought if it was Ann Lucas would have been straight on the front page saying "It could have been CCFC". Like when Maton suggested somewhere for the stadium, and the council invited bids on the Higgs share. Or when the council leaders were saying Hell would freeze over?

 

[skybluetony176]

I haven't named the Ricoh. I have just commented on the "Wasps Approach" which involves moving a team as part of the deal.

It could be we did the "Wasps Approach" and moved 80+ miles to somewhere else we could get better attendances and our own ground to "survive".

Well I was quite clearly talking about the Ricoh. So you've just inadvertently admitted that you're trying to sell a red herring. Presumably in an effort to make out I was saying something I wasn't.

 

[Nick]

Well I was quite clearly talking about the Ricoh. So you've just inadvertently admitted that you're trying to sell a red herring. Presumably in an effort to make out I was saying something I wasn't.

No, you said:

The right approach was clearly the approach Wasps took

I said:

The one to move to a city 80 miles away? Without going round in circles, would our fans accept CCFC moving 80 miles to a new stadium etc?

That isn't saying you said anything. Although nobody likes to answer what city fans would think if we moved.

What about the approach to use it to get finance? Weren't city fans writing letters to councillors to prevent SISU ever buying it because of the same thing?

Would it be the right approach if SISU bought it and then financed it?

 

[Grendel]

Ha ha Thick Tony having a nightmare. Not even the usual suspects will defend him. Carry on Tony this is comedy gold.

 

[skybluetony176]

No, you said:



I said:



That isn't saying you said anything. Although nobody likes to answer what city fans would think if we moved.

What about the approach to use it to get finance? Weren't city fans writing letters to councillors to prevent SISU ever buying it because of the same thing?

Would it be the right approach if SISU bought it and then financed it?

Mmm. Quoting sound bites in a lame effort to discredit the point someone has made. Of course any with a spec of intelligence will look at my entire posts and indeed the conversation that led up to that post so they can take it in context. Then there's also the fact that the thread is about ACL and the Ricoh so what else would I have been talking about?

 

[skybluetony176]

Ha ha Thick Tony having a nightmare. Not even the usual suspects will defend him. Carry on Tony this is comedy gold.

Yeah again. Grendull calling someone thick. Confirmation that you've made a point that Grendull can't dispute. Are you even aware you do it?

 

[chiefdave]

You can't separate the sale of ACL and the fact that Wasps moved 85 miles to facilitate the move as they are inextricably linked.

SISU would have reasonably assumed that it was a 'one horse race'. Who else in Coventry would have need of a 30K capacity stadium? There was mentions of CRFC moving there but I would think that would need back to back promotions, there was also talk of Nuneaton playing there if they achieved promotion to the FL however I would argue those kind of scenarios were unlikley. Of course the complex could have been sold to a company specialising in exhibition space or something similar but at no point did that really seem to be on the cards.

It was unthinkable that the ground would be sold to facilitate the franchising in of a team from outside the city even without what had happened to us with the move to Northampton. Very simply it should never have been an option. Think back to when we were at Sixfields, there was uproar. CCC, Higgs and ACL couldn't stop talking about how disgraceful it was for us to be playing outside of Coventry. The CT were running campaigns demanding our return. Every CWR phone in had people blasting the club for playing outside the city. Thousands of people marched through the streets.

Against that backdrop Wasps purchasing ACL and moving 85 miles should never have been an option therefore SISU would have been operating on that basis.

Now at some point the council decided teams moving was actually a fantastic idea and started talks with Wasps. At this point common courtesy would have seen a call to SISU to say the situation has changed. That doesn't break commercial confidentially, at no point did Wasps have an exclusivity agreement so CCC and Higgs were perfectly entitled to be in negotiation with others. Even if you ignore common courtesy and look at it from other standpoints that call should still have been made. If you look at it from a standpoint that CCC is here to serve the best interests of the city of Coventry the call should have been made, if you look at it from a purely commercial standpoint that call should have been made (two rival bidders would drive the price up and get a better return for the taxpayer and the charity). There is no scenario in which that call should not have been made. SISU never had an opportunity to bid on the basis they weren't the only interested party.

To use the favourite house buying analogy. If you want to buy a house that has been for sale and stood empty for a year you would bid low. If you knew others were interested and had placed a bid at the full valuation you would bid higher.

Wasps coming to the table totally changed the situation, it should not have been shrouded in secrecy. To say SISU should have done the deal that Wasps did is simply disingenuous.

 

[skybluetony176]

Pretty sure that the Ricoh is in Coventry so no, SISU wouldn't have had to move CCFC 80 miles away to acquire the Ricoh.

I'm more in uproar because with the right approach this is a deal SISU could have got for CCFC. SISU had other ideas though.

The right approach was clearly the approach Wasps took. SISU had ample opportunity before and after they all fell out to take this approach. I know that's uncomfortable for you to accept but that's the truth it.

The Wasps deal was there to be done. I can say this with complete confidence simply because Wasps did it. As always you'd rather deflect than accept.

So why weren't SISU capable of negotiating this pants down deal for the Ricoh. The pants down deal as you put it was there to be done, Wasps being capable of doing it proves this 100%. Why didn't / wouldn't SISU do it? Or make inroads even to try and do it?

We can say 100% Wasps pursued this deal and made it happen. Did SISU ever pursue this deal or did they choose a different disastrous route to gain control of the Ricoh?

You would only ever know that if they were in a position to turn SISU down in favour to Wasps. Again I know it's uncomfortable for you to accept but the council were simply never in a position to choose to accept an offer from SISU. What you're describing is akin to moaning you've never won the lottery despite having never bought a ticket. You're supposed to be the big business man on a six figure salary yet you constantly struggle to understand how a takeover happens.

The concept that the stadium that was being fought over was in Coventry so Coventry City Football Club wouldn't have had to move a mm let alone 80 miles? No, I'm not struggling with that at all. You and Nick on the other hand...

Yeah, you're struggling with this too so I'll dumb it down for you

The Ricoh is in Coventry so no, SISU wouldn't have had to move CCFC 80 miles. Again, NO.

I clearly don't and as the Ricoh is in Coventry (The stadium in question) it wouldn't have happened. You're really not that stupid as to not understand that so why you're trying to make yourself look that stupid is beyond me.

The Wasps moving that distance was not a condition of the deal it was a consequence.

The deal was there to be done. If SISU had of negotiated that deal as a consequence we wouldn't have had to move a mm, discounting the 35 miles back home from Northampton.

Again. As with Sickboy I know you're not too stupid to understand that so why you're trying to make out that you are is beyond me.

So now the Ricoh is 80 miles away from Coventry? When did this happen? Surely a continental drift of this magnitude would have made the news. How did I miss this?

I've never said that they were offered the same offer. I said that they never pursued a deal for the Ricoh in the same manor as Wasps did and I'm pretty sure Wasps didn't wait for someone else to negotiate the deal and then be expected to automatically be offered the same deal. Why would they? That's not how these things happen. That's why they own the Ricoh and we don't.

So what you're suggesting is that if we had have done the deal that Wasps did and bought ACL we wouldn't be playing there because moving the team 80 miles is key to doing the deal?

ACL the company Wasps purchased is based in Coventry at the Ricoh Arena. You are aware of this fact, yes? So if we did the deal to buy ACL that Wasps did why would we have had to have moved 80 miles?

The deal was there to be done. SISU never pursued the deal.

My neighbours house is up for sale at the moment. It's identical to mine except the garden is twice as big. I'd like a bigger garden. Now do I show an interest and pursue the purchase of this house or shall we sit around, let someone else negotiate to buy it because I'm automatically going to be offered the same deal? Tell me Nick. Which way does the real world work?

I'm not holding them up as a shining light of anything. Merely pointing out that the way they went about acquiring the Ricoh was successful. You can dispute that all you like but the fact is they own it.

This 85miles BS is such a red herring on your, Nick, Grendull and Sickboys part. At no point did SISU acquiring the Ricoh involve CCFC moving 80 miles. If anything that should have made the Ricoh more valuable to SISU than Wasps but they weren't even willing to pursue a deal that Wasps made available for themselves.

To be honest I'm not surprised the others are pushing this red herring of an excuse for SISU but I honestly thought you were a more intelligent poster than that.

Maybe that's why we're apparently slow in the transfer market? According to you it's company policy to rather than pursue a deal you wait for the competition to do the negotiations as SISU will automatically be offered the same deal. It must be the law or something. Here was me thinking it was because TM is to astute to panic buy and is trying to pursue deals for the right players but I stand corrected.

No the point made is by Nick and Chief Dave and you fail to understand it.

No I don't. The point they're trying to kid people into thinking they're making along with you is a red herring.

No, you said:



I said:



That isn't saying you said anything. Although nobody likes to answer what city fans would think if we moved.

What about the approach to use it to get finance? Weren't city fans writing letters to councillors to prevent SISU ever buying it because of the same thing?

Would it be the right approach if SISU bought it and then financed it?

Here you go Nick. This is pretty much all my posts on this thread and at a quick glance I would say I'm making it clear that I'm taking about ACL and the Ricoh on this thread about ACL and the Ricoh in around half of them. Why would you think I was talking about anything else?

 

[Grendel]

Mmm. Quoting sound bites in a lame effort to discredit the point someone has made. Of course any with a spec of intelligence will look at my entire posts and indeed the conversation that led up to that post so they can take it in context. Then there's also the fact that the thread is about ACL and the Ricoh so what else would I have been talking about?

Is there anyone with a "spec" of intelligence on this thread Tony? As no one else agrees with you?

 

[Grendel]

Yeah again. Grendull calling someone thick. Confirmation that you've made a point that Grendull can't dispute. Are you even aware you do it?

Didn't you call me, Nick, Chiefdave and Sickboy stupid?

 

[skybluetony176]

Didn't you call me, Nick, Chiefdave and Sickboy stupid?

Yes I did. I'm still surprised by Chief Dave too. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is I did it as part of an explanation as to why I believe you are, at least on this point anyway. You just go straight to name call with no explanation as to why, that's the difference.

 

[Grendel]

Yes I did. I'm still surprised by Chief Dave too. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is I did it as part of an explanation as to why I believe you are, at least on this point anyway. You just go straight to name call with no explanation as to why, that's the difference.

Did you? I suggest you revisit and see who started the insults and name calling. It's you that started blathering on about six figure salaries, calling people stupid. I think the debate was perfectly civil until your immaturity came in.

 

[skybluetony176]

You can't separate the sale of ACL and the fact that Wasps moved 85 miles to facilitate the move as they are inextricably linked.

SISU would have reasonably assumed that it was a 'one horse race'. Who else in Coventry would have need of a 30K capacity stadium? There was mentions of CRFC moving there but I would think that would need back to back promotions, there was also talk of Nuneaton playing there if they achieved promotion to the FL however I would argue those kind of scenarios were unlikley. Of course the complex could have been sold to a company specialising in exhibition space or something similar but at no point did that really seem to be on the cards.

It was unthinkable that the ground would be sold to facilitate the franchising in of a team from outside the city even without what had happened to us with the move to Northampton. Very simply it should never have been an option. Think back to when we were at Sixfields, there was uproar. CCC, Higgs and ACL couldn't stop talking about how disgraceful it was for us to be playing outside of Coventry. The CT were running campaigns demanding our return. Every CWR phone in had people blasting the club for playing outside the city. Thousands of people marched through the streets.

Against that backdrop Wasps purchasing ACL and moving 85 miles should never have been an option therefore SISU would have been operating on that basis.

Now at some point the council decided teams moving was actually a fantastic idea and started talks with Wasps. At this point common courtesy would have seen a call to SISU to say the situation has changed. That doesn't break commercial confidentially, at no point did Wasps have an exclusivity agreement so CCC and Higgs were perfectly entitled to be in negotiation with others. Even if you ignore common courtesy and look at it from other standpoints that call should still have been made. If you look at it from a standpoint that CCC is here to serve the best interests of the city of Coventry the call should have been made, if you look at it from a purely commercial standpoint that call should have been made (two rival bidders would drive the price up and get a better return for the taxpayer and the charity). There is no scenario in which that call should not have been made. SISU never had an opportunity to bid on the basis they weren't the only interested party.

To use the favourite house buying analogy. If you want to buy a house that has been for sale and stood empty for a year you would bid low. If you knew others were interested and had placed a bid at the full valuation you would bid higher.

Wasps coming to the table totally changed the situation, it should not have been shrouded in secrecy. To say SISU should have done the deal that Wasps did is simply disingenuous.

Dave. The fact is if SISU had have done the deal Wasps did for the Ricoh the only distance CCFC would have moved would have been the 35 miles back home. So as far as SISU doing the the deal Wasps did the 80 miles they moved to the Ricoh is completely irrelevant to SISU conducting themselves in the same manner as Wasps did to achieve the deal they did.

As for SISU reasonably assuming that it was a one horse race what is it they say about assumption being the mother of something?

Bloody hell, people on here were predicting something like what's happened happening the minute the Sixfields agreement was made and got mocked for it by the likes of Grendull. Someone even once suggested the Wasps and got shot down by a certain group of posters. Funnily enough the same little gang who have got literally everything wrong on this subject right up until predicting that the over subscribed closed early Wasps prospective was doomed for failure. The next big test is I guess the naming rights at the Ricoh. I predicted some time ago, long before Wasps turned up that JLR would be a good fit, no prizes for guessing which poster laughed me down. Looks odd's on now wouldn't you agree? Given JLR's partnership with.

 

[skybluetony176]

Did you? I suggest you revisit and see who started the insults and name calling. It's you that started blathering on about six figure salaries, calling people stupid. I think the debate was perfectly civil until your immaturity came in.

Sorry for calling you a big business man on a six figure salary. You're clearly not. Sorry again.

 

[James Smith]

That's the key question. And a question the council have so far refused to answer. Was ACL available to SISU on the same terms it was eventually sold to Wasps?

Personally I take the refusal to answer as a strong indication that the answer is no. If they wasn't the case I think the council would be making sure everyone knew as quickly as possible that the deal was there for SISU but was rejected.

I suspect that the two faced council would simply mention something along the lines of "No point doing that Sisu said they didn't want it" if they ever did give an answer.

 

[chiefdave]

Tony, unless I'm misunderstanding your argument seems to be that SISU could have, and should have, made the exact same deal Wasps made.

There appears to be no evidence at all to support your assumption. CCC could easily have said the same terms were available to SISU but were rejected by them, the fact that they haven't said anything remotely like that suggests to me its not the case.

In fact while there is no evidence to support your assumption there is evidence to suggest the opposite is true, that in fact for reasons unknown CCC were resistant to CCFC gaining ownership of ACL. Think back to when SISU first arrived. At the time there were other interested parties, all those other parties required ground ownership as part of any takeover, they all walked away after meeting with CCC as there was no deal to be done. In fact we have CCC to thank for ending up with SISU as owners as they were the only ones prepared to buy us without owning the ground.

Look at the comments of Mutton and Lucas as leaders of CCC, both have stated there would be no sale to CCFC. Mutton was particularly critical of the club and its owners. Many hoped that when he lost the leadership things might improve but at that point he was moved on to a committee to oversee the Ricoh.

And of course there's the outright deception around the return of the club and the sale to Wasps. Within a matter of days it had gone from the club coming back and hopes for a better relationship leading to the club taking at least part ownership of the ground to ACL being sold to Wasps.

Don't confuse confidentiality with exclusivity. There was absolutely nothing preventing CCC informing SISU an offer had been made and asking them to match or better it. In fact that would be the sensible thing to do if you want to maximise your return. The ideal situation for the charity and the local taxpayer would have been a bidding war between SISU and Wasps for ownership of the Ricoh.

 

[duffer]

The Wasps deal was there to be done. I can say this with complete confidence simply because Wasps did it. As always you'd rather deflect than accept.

The Wasps deal wasn't there to be done with the club. I can say this with complete confidence because the Council never made the same offer to the club, or indeed even started an open bidding process for the Ricoh.

In fact the council's official, public line was that they would talk about ownership with the club after rebuilding trust. Why people ignore this simple fact is beyond me.

 

[James Smith]

Lets go through this again. One thing its worth remembering is we ended up with SISU as owners largely because CCC refused to deal with any of their other interested parties as, with the exception of SISU, they had all identified a need for ground ownership as part of any takeover. Ownership they weren't prepared to relinquish.

Realistically we're only looking at the point from which the current team (Fisher etc) came in. If you recall when Fisher came in he made a couple of statements:
- the rent was unaffordable
- ACL was underperforming, struggling to make a profit and highly reliant on CCFC and their high rent

Its reasonable to assume that is the stance he went into negotiations with. ACL, Higgs and CCC on the other hand consistently took the stance that the rent was an amount agreed by CCFC (ignoring the fact it wasn't agreed by the current owners, had contributed to financial issues at the club and was agreed at a time the club had little in the way of alternative options) and that ACL was performing fantastically well with CCFC only making up a tiny fraction of its business.

I would say that, if you were in Tim Fishers shoes, it would be very hard to negotiate with someone who clearly doesn't want to sell to you and is steadfastly refusing to accept that what they are stating as fact simply isn't true.

If you go back and look at posts from the likes of PWKH and read between the lines it seems that the club did try to negotiate a new rent deal prior to the rent strike but ACL wouldn't even come to the table.

The ACL answer to the Trust Q&A about discussions about changing the rent said that there hadn't been any serious propositions from Sisu before April 2012 only light touch discussions. The club answered with "Not sure of historic negotiations" to that question.

Hence the rent strike to force the issue. Of course even when the rent strike stated there was still claims being made by ACL, Higgs and CCC that they would be just fine without the rent and without CCFC at the Ricoh at all. This all culminated in ACL attempting to put the club into administration, possibly with a view to allowing a way in for the likes of PWKH.

That ACL admin attempt went back to the insolvent liquidation comment from Tim didn't it? They were thinking along the lines of we might not see any rent money back if he does that. I can't imagine that the Higgs ever wanted to run or own our club. I suspect that they know as much about doing so as Sisu and they don't appear to know a fat lot given our current position etc.
Tim shouldn't have said it as it obviously started a reaction and the hypocritical council shouldn't have looked upon this as a chance for regime change.

Of course what this ultimately caused was a complete breakdown in relations and the removal of the club to Northampton.

You can of course take the view that the rent strike and subsequent move to Northampton was, at least in part, designed to force the issue by distressing ACL.

The judge appeared to take that view.

That plan appears to have worked however what SISU didn't count on was a council who were taking every opportunity to state how terrible it was that Coventry City were not playing in Coventry would quite happily franchise in a rugby club as they deemed that a preferable course of action to selling to SISU.

Quite how two faced the council were staggers me. It's not alright for SISU to take us many miles to Sixfields but it is for Wasps to movemany more!

 

[chiefdave]

The ACL answer to the Trust Q&A about discussions about changing the rent said that there hadn't been any serious propositions from Sisu before April 2012 only light touch discussions. The club answered with "Not sure of historic negotiations" to that question.

I think if you read between the lines, especially to some of the direct questions PWKH was asked you could easily draw the conclusion that the club made approaches about renegotiating the rent but there were never any actual negotiations as ACL wouldn't come to the table.

That ACL admin attempt went back to the insolvent liquidation comment from Tim didn't it? They were thinking along the lines of we might not see any rent money back if he does that. I can't imagine that the Higgs ever wanted to run or own our club.

This was around the time PH4 was sniffing around wasn't it. Could they have been hoping to force SISU out so he could take their place? I don't think they could have seriously thought Fisher was going to liquidate the club, just gave them a convenient excuse.

 

[skybluetony176]

The Wasps deal wasn't there to be done with the club. I can say this with complete confidence because the Council never made the same offer to the club, or indeed even started an open bidding process for the Ricoh.

In fact the council's official, public line was that they would talk about ownership with the club after rebuilding trust. Why people ignore this simple fact is beyond me.

Where is this magical world where SISU have to be automatically offered a deal another party has negotiated? Was there a first refusal contract in place with SISU and CCC that only the posters who keep spouting this line know about? It's just not within the realms of the real world.

Plus if the opinion piece blog that grendull insists is fact the Wasps deal was two years in the making. Posters have claimed on here that members of the CCFC board were showing fans in private meetings a copy of the Wasps prospective that was apparently doing the rounds in the investment market while we were in our first season at Sixfields.

So lets not kid ourselves that SISU didn't have ample opportunity to enter into negotiations, hell the council leader even got on a train and went to London to see JS in person. Straight to the horses mouth so to speak. If ever there was a case of leading a horse to water but not being able to make it drink this is that case.

Rather than get focused on the imaginary scenario where SISU automatically have the right to be offered someone else's negotiated deal why don't you join the real world and ask why didn't SISU pursue their own negotiations given that they not only had time but were also apparently aware that they weren't the only show in town.

 

[chiefdave]

Where is this magical world where SISU have to be automatically offered a deal another party has negotiated?

There's two ways of looking at this.

The first is that the role of CCC is to work to the advantage of the city. I would say that would mean they should be putting the needs of the likes of CCFC and CRFC above the needs of a rugby club from London. Therefore it would follow that before selling ACL to an organisation with no connection to the city they would make every attempt to ensure it remained with an organisation with a long history in the city.

The second is as a pure business transaction. In that scenario there is no way you would even consider conducting a transaction in the manner CCC have undertaken the sale of ACL. Lets use the old favourite house buying analogy to illustrate. Say you own a house that you purchased for £500K. You rent that house out, the rent covers the mortgage but the rent is much higher than the market rate and your tenants aren't happy. However they have expressed an interest in buying the house for themselves but have yet to make a formal offer and the house is not on the openly being marketed for sale. A third party comes to you and offers you £250K on the house meaning you would lose money.

What would you do? You could sell the house to them and lose money, you could tell your tenants you have had an offer (maybe even tell them how much for) and hope they make a bigger offer or you could get an estate agent in and put your house up for sale. Which of these options do you think would give you the best return and which the worst?

 

[skybluetony176]

There's two ways of looking at this.

The first is that the role of CCC is to work to the advantage of the city. I would say that would mean they should be putting the needs of the likes of CCFC and CRFC above the needs of a rugby club from London. Therefore it would follow that before selling ACL to an organisation with no connection to the city they would make every attempt to ensure it remained with an organisation with a long history in the city.

The second is as a pure business transaction. In that scenario there is no way you would even consider conducting a transaction in the manner CCC have undertaken the sale of ACL. Lets use the old favourite house buying analogy to illustrate. Say you own a house that you purchased for £500K. You rent that house out, the rent covers the mortgage but the rent is much higher than the market rate and your tenants aren't happy. However they have expressed an interest in buying the house for themselves but have yet to make a formal offer and the house is not on the openly being marketed for sale. A third party comes to you and offers you £250K on the house meaning you would lose money.

What would you do? You could sell the house to them and lose money, you could tell your tenants you have had an offer (maybe even tell them how much for) and hope they make a bigger offer or you could get an estate agent in and put your house up for sale. Which of these options do you think would give you the best return and which the worst?

Ha ha. Make a bigger offer! SISU never showed a willingness to make any offer.

 

[chiefdave]

SISU never showed a willingness to make any offer.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fcs-ricoh-arena-8108559

 

[James Smith]

Tony, unless I'm misunderstanding your argument seems to be that SISU could have, and should have, made the exact same deal Wasps made.

There appears to be no evidence at all to support your assumption. CCC could easily have said the same terms were available to SISU but were rejected by them, the fact that they haven't said anything remotely like that suggests to me its not the case.

In fact while there is no evidence to support your assumption there is evidence to suggest the opposite is true, that in fact for reasons unknown CCC were resistant to CCFC gaining ownership of ACL. Think back to when SISU first arrived. At the time there were other interested parties, all those other parties required ground ownership as part of any takeover, they all walked away after meeting with CCC as there was no deal to be done. In fact we have CCC to thank for ending up with SISU as owners as they were the only ones prepared to buy us without owning the ground.

Look at the comments of Mutton and Lucas as leaders of CCC, both have stated there would be no sale to CCFC. Mutton was particularly critical of the club and its owners. Many hoped that when he lost the leadership things might improve but at that point he was moved on to a committee to oversee the Ricoh.

And of course there's the outright deception around the return of the club and the sale to Wasps. Within a matter of days it had gone from the club coming back and hopes for a better relationship leading to the club taking at least part ownership of the ground to ACL being sold to Wasps.

Don't confuse confidentiality with exclusivity. There was absolutely nothing preventing CCC informing SISU an offer had been made and asking them to match or better it. In fact that would be the sensible thing to do if you want to maximise your return. The ideal situation for the charity and the local taxpayer would have been a bidding war between SISU and Wasps for ownership of the Ricoh.

I agree that the best option for the council would have been an auction between Wasps and Sisu. From the perspective of Wasps it would suck as they'd have competition. So if it were me as wasps and approaching the council I would make the confidentiality like a super injunction and make forbidden any discussion of an offer as part of that. It still wouldn't be exclusivity which might cost more but would prevent the council from even acknowledging an offer. I'm not saying that this is what happened just what was probably possible.

 

[chiefdave]

So if it were me as wasps and approaching the council I would make the confidentiality like a super injunction and make forbidden any discussion of an offer as part of that. It still wouldn't be exclusivity which might cost more but would prevent the council from even acknowledging an offer.

The difference between confidentiality and exclusivity is key here. Confidentially means there is absolutely nothing stopping CCC informing anyone that they had better get a bid in quickly as a sale is about to take place. In reality taking and successfully action for breach of confidentially in a case such as this would be incredibly hard, especially if it was just a quiet for to Fisher in a face to face meeting.

Exclusivity is a whole different thing and would normally be accompanied by a substantial non returnable payment from the potential purchaser.

 

[chiefdave]

Ha ha. Make a bigger offer! SISU never showed a willingness to make any offer.

If CCC were as certain you are no offer would be made by SISU then why not give them the option? They can then sell to Wasps telling us all that they offered SISU the same deal and they turned it down.

 

[skybluetony176]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fcs-ricoh-arena-8108559

Sorry. I was specifically talking about the deal Wasps negotiated with the council. That's where their deal began. But the link does point out how badly SISU got this wrong, they should have done a deal with the council first. That's the ball JS should have started rolling when AL went to SISU HQ. Why didn't she?

 

[James Smith]

I think if you read between the lines, especially to some of the direct questions PWKH was asked you could easily draw the conclusion that the club made approaches about renegotiating the rent but there were never any actual negotiations as ACL wouldn't come to the table.

I haven't read back over the posts as I have been at work today but I will. The problem with reading between the lines is that it's open to interpretation. It's too easy to interpret things in a particular way which might be wrong.

This was around the time PH4 was sniffing around wasn't it. Could they have been hoping to force SISU out so he could take their place? I don't think they could have seriously thought Fisher was going to liquidate the club, just gave them a convenient excuse.

Given the comments from councillors I wouldn't put anything past them but as with the PWKH posts it's supposition again.

 

[Ian1779]

If CCC were as certain you are no offer would be made by SISU then why not give them the option? They can then sell to Wasps telling us all that they offered SISU the same deal and they turned it down.

If this had occurred then we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[chiefdave]

Sorry. I was specifically talking about the deal Wasps negotiated with the council. That's where their deal began. But the link does point out how badly SISU got this wrong, they should have done a deal with the council first. That's the ball JS should have started rolling when AL went to SISU HQ. Why didn't she?

Hang on, you said SISU never showed any willingness to make an offer. I post a link showing they have made an offer, surely that proves they were willing to make an offer?

 

[chiefdave]

If this had occurred then we wouldn't be having this debate.

Exactly, had their been an open sale process then no fingers could be pointed at CCC. Instead they chose to operate in secret while openly lying to CCFC and the people of the city.

 

[James Smith]

The difference between confidentiality and exclusivity is key here. Confidentially means there is absolutely nothing stopping CCC informing anyone that they had better get a bid in quickly as a sale is about to take place. In reality taking and successfully action for breach of confidentially in a case such as this would be incredibly hard, especially if it was just a quiet for to Fisher in a face to face meeting.

Exclusivity is a whole different thing and would normally be accompanied by a substantial non returnable payment from the potential purchaser.

Hence why I wouldn't want exclusivity if I were Wasps might defeat the chance of getting it cheaply. However if there is a clause in the confidentiality agreement that says you can't acknowledge there's been an offer let alone talk about it. Nothing to stop anyone else from putting an offer in but you can't acknowledge that they're bidding against somebody else. It has another benefit though It doesn't tip off other potential bidders (i.e. sisu) that you or anyone else is interested. Can't be that hard for a lawyer to draft something like that.

 

[skybluetony176]

If CCC were as certain you are no offer would be made by SISU then why not give them the option? They can then sell to Wasps telling us all that they offered SISU the same deal and they turned it down.

They weren't buying a second hand LADA on eBay. This was a major business deal involving serious amounts of money. When Wasps and CCC reached the final figure do you think Wasps said to CCC make sure you offer this around it's only fair we have no interest in protecting the time and money we've invested to get to this point? Or was it probably more along the lines of don't do all of that? Surely we can assume from the Higgs/SISU court case there would have been pre contract agreements in place to protect both parties? They're not always worth the paper they're written on going by the Higgs/SISU court case but I find it hard to believe that such a pre contract agreement wasn't in place as it seems to be standard practice in such transactions.

Would this mean that CCC couldn't hawk what Wasps negotiated around? It's quite probable I would think. Did it mean that SISU couldn't start a separate set of negotiations and agree a deal for ACL that THEY were happy to pay? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure the UK operates something called a free market which from my understanding means that SISU had every right and opportunity to negotiate with CCC if they chose to and there's the real issue. SISU chose not to and why posters on hear can't/won't accept that is beyond me.