Wasps new deal with Compass (1 Viewer)

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
This was a major business deal involving serious amounts of money.

Exactly, a serious amount of money that belongs to the taxpayer and a charity. Therefore surely you would expect a process to take place to ensure the maximum possible return was achieved?

Seeing as you don't seem to have understood the last example lets try another. Let's say Man City have shown an interest in Maddison, they have been monitoring him for 24 months and have on several occasions expressed to CCFC that they hope to one day sign him. Out of the blue Chelsea approach the club and put in a bid of £500K but CCFC value him at £2m. What would you prefer the club do? Would you want them to keep the Chelsea bid secret and sell him to them on the cheap, would you want them to let Man City know a bid has been made in the hope of starting a bidding war between the two clubs or would you leak it to the press that a bid has been received in order to alert all clubs in the hope that multiple clubs will start bidding against each other?

Which of these approaches do you think would be likely to maximise the amount we receive? I would suggest that if SISU did a deal to sell one of our players on the cheap in secret there would be uproar on this forum.

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
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?

Yes and like I said, I was specifically talking about the councils share. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in my OP.

Yes and like I said they went about it arse about face. Wasps tied up a deal with the council first not Higgs. As someone who doesn't get involved in this type of thing in hindsight surely that was the right approach. I don't think that it's unfair to judge that the hard nosed apparently savvy business people of SISU should have known this without the benefit of hindsight. But then again they did move CCFC out of the Ricoh loosing any say over it's future in the process and pursue the fruitless JR merry go round so who knows, perhaps they're just not the savvy business people we're supposed to believe they are. I'm not going to argue the hard nose bit though.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Yes and like I said, I was specifically talking about the councils share. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in my OP.

But as far as we know at now point did SISU know the councils half was available under the terms with which it was sold to Wasps. Surely the fact that as soon as they knew about the vastly improved terms they bid for the Higgs half on the same basis gives an indication that there was at least a chance they would have been interested in the same deal offered to Wasps?

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Exactly, a serious amount of money that belongs to the taxpayer and a charity. Therefore surely you would expect a process to take place to ensure the maximum possible return was achieved?

Seeing as you don't seem to have understood the last example lets try another. Let's say Man City have shown an interest in Maddison, they have been monitoring him for 24 months and have on several occasions expressed to CCFC that they hope to one day sign him. Out of the blue Chelsea approach the club and put in a bid of £500K but CCFC value him at £2m. What would you prefer the club do? Would you want them to keep the Chelsea bid secret and sell him to them on the cheap, would you want them to let Man City know a bid has been made in the hope of starting a bidding war between the two clubs or would you leak it to the press that a bid has been received in order to alert all clubs in the hope that multiple clubs will start bidding against each other?

Which of these approaches do you think would be likely to maximise the amount we receive? I would suggest that if SISU did a deal to sell one of our players on the cheap in secret there would be uproar on this forum.

Dave. When there's only one party actually interested in negotiating and completing a deal and you need to sell they got the maximum return. There was only one show in town. Their only other option was to carry on limping along until ACL went bust and someone come along and bought the ashes. At that point I. Dare say that their would have been two shows in town, wasps and SISU. I also assume that you, Grendull etc. would have been up in arms if either party had then went on to purchase the lease hold for much less than Wasps had negotiated prior to ACL going bust lambasting the council for not have taken the offer that would saved ACL going bust at the expense to the taxpayer and a charity?

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
But as far as we know at now point did SISU know the councils half was available under the terms with which it was sold to Wasps. Surely the fact that as soon as they knew about the vastly improved terms they bid for the Higgs half on the same basis gives an indication that there was at least a chance they would have been interested in the same deal offered to Wasps?

I would say they learned that at the same point we all did if not before. When AL made a public statement on behalf of the council saying that they would listen to any serious offer for the Ricoh. It was on TV, radio and in all the local papers and it was over six months prior to wasps signing any deal. I couldn't tell you the exact date but is was late 2014 IIRC, it was certainly dark cold evening when AL appeared on Midlands today. It almost put me of my tea. It also directly led to AL getting on a train and going to SISU HQ and meeting JS face to face. So sorry Dave they knew and had ample time to start serious negotiations whether Wasps were already having them or not.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
When there's only one party actually interested in negotiating and completing a deal and you need to sell they got the maximum return. There was only one show in town.

Thats absolute rubbish. You would have to be a complete idiot to truly believe there was zero chance that SISU would have even the slightest interest in purchasing ACL. And of course there is a complete unknown in that we don't know if any other potential purchasers would have come forward had ACL been put up for sale in an open manner and correctly marketed.

Its a very simple concept. If you want to sell anything, from some second hand tat you have lying around to a car or a multi-million pound business you want to make sure as many people as possible know it is for sale. You don't want to risk a single potential buyer not knowing about what you have to sell.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
So sorry Dave they knew and had ample time to start serious negotiations whether Wasps were already having them or not.

Perhaps you can share a link showing a quote from Lucas that a 200 year lease was available?

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Perhaps you can share a link showing a quote from Lucas that a 200 year lease was available?

No I can't as she never said that and I never remotely suggested she did. What I will suggest is is that is exactly the sort of detail that you bash out in negotiations. AL made a public statement saying that they would listen to any serious offer. Fact. If that serious offer had have been X amount for the councils share of ACL with a lease extension of X amount of years there would have been a starting point for negotiations. Fact. AL got on a train to see JS at SISU HQ to listen to her serious offer. Fact. Not the other way around. AL pursued JS, JS wasn't doing the pursuing. Fact. I don't see why you're having trouble with following that.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

OK then Tony, lets assume SISU had zero interest in ever buying ACL with or without an extended lease.

Now if you are the council and you want to get maximum return for what you have to sale do you put it on the open market and allow a full, free market, bidding process to take place. Or do you sell it on the cheap in secret? Which option do you think gets the best return for the taxpayer?

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Thats absolute rubbish. You would have to be a complete idiot to truly believe there was zero chance that SISU would have even the slightest interest in purchasing ACL. And of course there is a complete unknown in that we don't know if any other potential purchasers would have come forward had ACL been put up for sale in an open manner and correctly marketed.

Its a very simple concept. If you want to sell anything, from some second hand tat you have lying around to a car or a multi-million pound business you want to make sure as many people as possible know it is for sale. You don't want to risk a single potential buyer not knowing about what you have to sell.

AL went on TV and made a statement saying that we will listen to any serious offer. IIRC it was even covered on the BBC's website in their sports section. That's the world wide web. You can't get any more open than that. The BBC website is one of the most visited websites in the whole world.

What more could they have done? Put it on eBay? I don't see what you're suggesting that they should have done?

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
OK then Tony, lets assume SISU had zero interest in ever buying ACL with or without an extended lease.

Now if you are the council and you want to get maximum return for what you have to sale do you put it on the open market and allow a full, free market, bidding process to take place. Or do you sell it on the cheap in secret? Which option do you think gets the best return for the taxpayer?

See post #115. It was no secret that they were willing to listen to offers. How are you not getting that?

Do we really have to assume that SISU had zero interest in ever buying ACL with or without anything. A judge even said so (regarding the Higgs share).

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
AL went on TV and made a statement saying that we will listen to any serious offer. IIRC it was even covered on the BBC's website in their sports section. That's the world wide web. You can't get any more open than that. The BBC website is one of the most visited websites in the whole world.

What more could they have done? Put it on eBay? I don't see what you're suggesting that they should have done?

Tony stop playing dumb. Saying we will listen to any serious offer is a laughable way to market an asset such as ACL. What they hell would a sensible offer be? Given that ACL quoted SISU £24m just for revenue access on a handful of days a year surely a serious offer would be hundreds of millions?

If you want to market and sell an asset like the Ricoh you don't just blurt it out in a vague statement. You prepare documents and presentations, you approach organisations who might be interested, you engage specialists in selling that type of asset. Do you think when Birmingham Council needed to sell the NEC they just slipped a vague statement into a press release? Why was there and open and thorough bidding process for the Olympic Stadium - bit strange to sell something that way isn't it Tony?

No they shouldn't have put it on eBay. What they should have done is prepared a full brief containing details of what they were prepared to offer, i.e. the extended lease, financial figures from recent years, financial projections for future years. They should have made sure every possible potential buyer worldwide received those details, most likely achieved by engaging a specialist. They should have listed a deadline for bids and at that points all bids should have been considered and any bids that could potentially impact on local organisations, such as CCFC or CRFC, should have been made public to allow for objections to be lodged.

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Tony stop playing dumb. Saying we will listen to any serious offer is a laughable way to market an asset such as ACL. What they hell would a sensible offer be? Given that ACL quoted SISU £24m just for revenue access on a handful of days a year surely a serious offer would be hundreds of millions?

If you want to market and sell an asset like the Ricoh you don't just blurt it out in a vague statement. You prepare documents and presentations, you approach organisations who might be interested, you engage specialists in selling that type of asset. Do you think when Birmingham Council needed to sell the NEC they just slipped a vague statement into a press release? Why was there and open and thorough bidding process for the Olympic Stadium - bit strange to sell something that way isn't it Tony?

No they shouldn't have put it on eBay. What they should have done is prepared a full brief containing details of what they were prepared to offer, i.e. the extended lease, financial figures from recent years, financial projections for future years. They should have made sure every possible potential buyer worldwide received those details, most likely achieved by engaging a specialist. They should have listed a deadline for bids and at that points all bids should have been considered and any bids that could potentially impact on local organisations, such as CCFC or CRFC, should have been made public to allow for objections to be lodged.

I don't disagree that they could have marketed it but to suggest it was some sort of secret and SISU didn't know is an illusion.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

Did SISU know a 200 year lease was available in an approximate price range of say £5m - £10m. A yes or no will do.

I would suggest given past actions of ACL, CCC and Higgs, such as offering the F&B for £24m, would make it unlikely SISU would believe the whole of ACL could be purchased with a quadrupling of the lease for the cost of under 7 years rent.

The sale of ACL is actually very similar to the sale of the NEC conducted by Birmingham Council. They retained the freehold but sold the lease, as with the Ricoh. The difference being they engaged three companies to deal with the marketing and sale (Eversheds, Wragge Lawrence Graham and Gateley) as such a sale was beyond the council to carry out themselves. There was a full and open process with deadlines, shortlisting etc prior to the sale to Lloyds. Part of the process is detailed in the Birmingham Mail:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/bus.../enquiries-flood-after-birmingham-nec-6881531

If you are agreeing that CCC did not properly market ACL and therefore it is possible potential buyers were not aware it was for sale surely you should be furious with the council for not maximising the return for taxpayers?

Grendel · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Did SISU know a 200 year lease was available in an approximate price range of say £5m - £10m. A yes or no will do.

I would suggest given past actions of ACL, CCC and Higgs, such as offering the F&B for £24m, would make it unlikely SISU would believe the whole of ACL could be purchased with a quadrupling of the lease for the cost of under 7 years rent.

The sale of ACL is actually very similar to the sale of the NEC conducted by Birmingham Council. They retained the freehold but sold the lease, as with the Ricoh. The difference being they engaged three companies to deal with the marketing and sale (Eversheds, Wragge Lawrence Graham and Gateley) as such a sale was beyond the council to carry out themselves. There was a full and open process with deadlines, shortlisting etc prior to the sale to Lloyds. Part of the process is detailed in the Birmingham Mail:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/bus.../enquiries-flood-after-birmingham-nec-6881531

If you are agreeing that CCC did not properly market ACL and therefore it is possible potential buyers were not aware it was for sale surely you should be furious with the council for not maximising the return for taxpayers?

Yep this has always been the problem. Overblown rent, ridiculous Fand B re-purchase valuation, an absolute insistence of the club bought even a half share with no F and B rights it always had to be more than Wasos paid for everything.

Given that also the hotel is changing owners we can safely assume the nonsense spouted about the freehold was another illusion.

There is no question, none whatsoever, that the council and Higgs (well one person) would NEVER sell the stadium to the club. The secrecy around the deal proves they were terrified it went on the open market.

Give up Tony. Like Heather Watson you've tried to compete above your level and ultimately lost. Unlike Heather you didn't even have an argument in the first place.

James Smith · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
But as far as we know at now point did SISU know the councils half was available under the terms with which it was sold to Wasps. Surely the fact that as soon as they knew about the vastly improved terms they bid for the Higgs half on the same basis gives an indication that there was at least a chance they would have been interested in the same deal offered to Wasps?

To be fair to both sides the first that I heard reported as (allegedly) coming from Joy was that she wouldn't interfere in the Wasps deal. Then we subsequently made a conditional offer via the administrator for the Higgs share under the option. This because of supposedly transferring the option out of Ltd when we shouldn't have plus a few other things saw the bid rejected.

What Wasps presented the hypocritical council was the opportunity to screw Sisu. They leapt at the chance to out Sisu sisu and get one over Joy. The fact that our club was in the middle of it was unfortunate for us in the extreme. It became Sisu versus the council and both sides were out to get the other at all costs.

skybluetony176 · Jul 3, 2015

chiefdave said:
Did SISU know a 200 year lease was available in an approximate price range of say £5m - £10m. A yes or no will do.

I would suggest given past actions of ACL, CCC and Higgs, such as offering the F&B for £24m, would make it unlikely SISU would believe the whole of ACL could be purchased with a quadrupling of the lease for the cost of under 7 years rent.

The sale of ACL is actually very similar to the sale of the NEC conducted by Birmingham Council. They retained the freehold but sold the lease, as with the Ricoh. The difference being they engaged three companies to deal with the marketing and sale (Eversheds, Wragge Lawrence Graham and Gateley) as such a sale was beyond the council to carry out themselves. There was a full and open process with deadlines, shortlisting etc prior to the sale to Lloyds. Part of the process is detailed in the Birmingham Mail:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/bus.../enquiries-flood-after-birmingham-nec-6881531

If you are agreeing that CCC did not properly market ACL and therefore it is possible potential buyers were not aware it was for sale surely you should be furious with the council for not maximising the return for taxpayers?

How would anyone ever know without entering into negotiations? That's what negotiations are for. Surely? You seem to be saying that SISU are incapable of negotiating. Well that would certainly explain a lot.

chiefdave · Jul 3, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
How would anyone ever know without entering into negotiations? That's what negotiations are for. Surely?

They would now because what was available for sale would be on the market.

You could fairly easily flip the negotiation arguement around and level the exact same critism at CCC, that they did not effectively negotiate with SISU.

Think about it, we know that in the most recent talks between CCC and SISU the area of most interest to SISU was the purchase of the freehold, there was also talk of possibly purchasing that unencumbered.

The response from CCC on both counts was pretty much to tell SISU to go away, there was no way that would be made available. Wouldn't a better response from CCC have been something along the lines of the freehold isn't available but we would consider a 200 year lease, which given that it is longer than the likely life of the stadium is to all intents and purposes the same as selling the freehold. Similar we can't sell you the lease unencumbered but these contracts expire shortly and these contract could potentially be renegotiated or terminated. I would say that would be a suitable response if CCC were willing to negotiate with SISU.

After all they have effectively sold the freehold to Wasps, not technically I know but in all practical terms they have. Similarly it seems that contracts SISU were blasted for claiming were poor and should be scrapped seem to have been scrapped since Wasps took over, it seems pretty much only the casino lease has been left untouched. Odd then that when SISU wanted similar we were told it would be impossible.

It takes two sides to negotiate and as much blame as you can place at the door of SISU it seems very clear that CCC and Higgs had no desire of intention to negotiate with SISU.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
They would now because what was available for sale would be on the market.

You could fairly easily flip the negotiation arguement around and level the exact same critism at CCC, that they did not effectively negotiate with SISU.

Think about it, we know that in the most recent talks between CCC and SISU the area of most interest to SISU was the purchase of the freehold, there was also talk of possibly purchasing that unencumbered.

The response from CCC on both counts was pretty much to tell SISU to go away, there was no way that would be made available. Wouldn't a better response from CCC have been something along the lines of the freehold isn't available but we would consider a 200 year lease, which given that it is longer than the likely life of the stadium is to all intents and purposes the same as selling the freehold. Similar we can't sell you the lease unencumbered but these contracts expire shortly and these contract could potentially be renegotiated or terminated. I would say that would be a suitable response if CCC were willing to negotiate with SISU.

After all they have effectively sold the freehold to Wasps, not technically I know but in all practical terms they have. Similarly it seems that contracts SISU were blasted for claiming were poor and should be scrapped seem to have been scrapped since Wasps took over, it seems pretty much only the casino lease has been left untouched. Odd then that when SISU wanted similar we were told it would be impossible.

It takes two sides to negotiate and as much blame as you can place at the door of SISU it seems very clear that CCC and Higgs had no desire of intention to negotiate with SISU.

So what you're saying is Wasps didn't know either. Doesn't seem to have stopped them finding out if it's possible to get a 200 year lease so why is it a valid excuse for SISU's failure to find out is it?

It's pretty clear that whoever was going to negotiate was going to start with what ACL was and end up with what they'd negotiated ACL to be. The only way you were ever going to find out what ACL could become is by entering into negotiations. If you are unwilling to enter into negotiations it's a case of you snooze you loose.

Again. The only real question is why wouldn't SISU enter into negotiations with CCC. Maybe TF was telling the truth when he told RBC that there investors wouldn't deal with CCC? In which case you and the others ate really getting your knickers in a twist scratching for excuses as to why SISU are blameless because it must be clear that they have never had any attention of buying ACL from anyone.

James Smith · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
They would now because what was available for sale would be on the market.

You could fairly easily flip the negotiation arguement around and level the exact same critism at CCC, that they did not effectively negotiate with SISU.

Think about it, we know that in the most recent talks between CCC and SISU the area of most interest to SISU was the purchase of the freehold, there was also talk of possibly purchasing that unencumbered.

The response from CCC on both counts was pretty much to tell SISU to go away, there was no way that would be made available. Wouldn't a better response from CCC have been something along the lines of the freehold isn't available but we would consider a 200 year lease, which given that it is longer than the likely life of the stadium is to all intents and purposes the same as selling the freehold. Similar we can't sell you the lease unencumbered but these contracts expire shortly and these contract could potentially be renegotiated or terminated. I would say that would be a suitable response if CCC were willing to negotiate with SISU.

After all they have effectively sold the freehold to Wasps, not technically I know but in all practical terms they have. Similarly it seems that contracts SISU were blasted for claiming were poor and should be scrapped seem to have been scrapped since Wasps took over, it seems pretty much only the casino lease has been left untouched. Odd then that when SISU wanted similar we were told it would be impossible.

Did Wasps buy those contracts out do we know or did they just come to a natural end?

chiefdave said:
It takes two sides to negotiate and as much blame as you can place at the door of SISU it seems very clear that CCC and Higgs had no desire of intention to negotiate with SISU.

The Higgs at least had propper negotiations that we (thanks to the court case) know more about where the judge said

"neither party had any appetite to seek to persue negotiations or seek to conclude such a deal. It is quite clear from the findings I have made that there was no realistic prospect by January (2013) of the transaction being made and no possible way the council would be willing to agree a transaction with Sisu."

Only the two faced council could have extended the Ricoh lease for Wasps and I maintain that they'd decided to screw Sisu even if it meant doing what they did with the Ricoh.

chiefdave · Jul 4, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
So what you're saying is Wasps didn't know either. Doesn't seem to have stopped them finding out if it's possible to get a 200 year lease so why is it a valid excuse for SISU's failure to find out is it?

For SISU to know CCC would have had to tell them at some point. CCC did not do that. At no point when SISU were speaking with CCC were they offered a 200 year lease. Negotiation requires two willings parties. As James pointed out even the judge in the JR could see that there was "no possible way the council would be willing to agree a transaction with Sisu".

CCC, for unknown reasons, have never wanted to allow CCFC to obtain ownership of the stadium, this goes back to before SISUs arrival.

skybluetony176 said:
The only real question is why wouldn't SISU enter into negotiations with CCC.

They did and everytime they asked for anything it was rejected out of hand by CCC. Seems to me it was CCC who wouldn't negotiate. If they were prepared to negotiate with SISU and sell them the 200 year lease why did they not say so when approached by SISU?

James Smith said:
Did Wasps buy those contracts out do we know or did they just come to a natural end?

No doubt that will be confidential but what it does show is that when CCC were stating that it was absolutely impossible for SISU to take ownership of ACL without honouring the term of all the contracts in place they were again painting an incorrect picture.

martcov · Jul 4, 2015

"No doubt that will be confidential but what it does show is that when CCC were stating that it was absolutely impossible for SISU to take ownership of ACL without honouring the term of all the contracts in place they were again painting an incorrect picture."

They have renegotiated the contracts with the leasees. SISU could have bought ACL with the exsisting contracts and then renegotiate them. They had to take them over to be in a position to do this. Wasps did this. Not the council's fault that SISU didn't do the same thing - take the contracts and then renegotiate. Perfectly standard business practice.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
For SISU to know CCC would have had to tell them at some point. CCC did not do that. At no point when SISU were speaking with CCC were they offered a 200 year lease. Negotiation requires two willings parties. As James pointed out even the judge in the JR could see that there was "no possible way the council would be willing to agree a transaction with Sisu".

CCC, for unknown reasons, have never wanted to allow CCFC to obtain ownership of the stadium, this goes back to before SISUs arrival.

They did and everytime they asked for anything it was rejected out of hand by CCC. Seems to me it was CCC who wouldn't negotiate. If they were prepared to negotiate with SISU and sell them the 200 year lease why did they not say so when approached by SISU?

No doubt that will be confidential but what it does show is that when CCC were stating that it was absolutely impossible for SISU to take ownership of ACL without honouring the term of all the contracts in place they were again painting an incorrect picture.

Why is it you insist SISU are incapable of negotiating. Are they incapable of having a good idea idea and taking the right course of actions to achieve that? Negotiations doesn't just have to be about price, there is no law stopping you discussing term's as well. Are you really suggesting that SISU don't have the acumen to A) come up with the idea of extending the lease and B) renegotiate the length of a lease and a price for that lease extension as part of the purchase of CCC's share of ACL? Given the short length of the original ACL lease I find it hard to believe that an extension on the existing lease wouldn't have been a priority for anyone who was seriously considering making a move for ACL. You seem to be saying that the only way this was going to happen for SISU is if CCC held their hand and walked them through it. Which begs the question. How did SISU ever buy anything ever? According to you they're clueless.

Approached by SISU? When? They had to be publicly invited to make an offer and it was the council who did the chasing by going to SISU HQ. I don't know about you but if I was serious about negotiating for the Ricoh I would have been the one doing the chasing.

Sorry Dave but you're living in imagination land. Stay away from the Christmas critters.

chiefdave · Jul 4, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Why is it you insist SISU are incapable of negotiating.

That is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that it requires two parties to engage in negotiations. From what I can see every time SISU have attempted to negotiate with CCC they have been given the brush off. Simply put CCC did not want to sell ACL to CCFC, the judge in the JR could see that and clearly stated it so I'm not sure why you are having difficulty understanding it.

Of course this does not particularly relate to SISU as CCC have shown in the past, prior to SISUs arrival, a similar unwillingness to engage in negotiations around the club taking ownership.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that it requires two parties to engage in negotiations. From what I can see every time SISU have attempted to negotiate with CCC they have been given the brush off. Simply put CCC did not want to sell ACL to CCFC, the judge in the JR could see that and clearly stated it so I'm not sure why you are having difficulty understanding it.

Of course this does not particularly relate to SISU as CCC have shown in the past, prior to SISUs arrival, a similar unwillingness to engage in negotiations around the club taking ownership.

The judge if he did indeed say that was talking about the timescale up to the point of the council buying out the YB loan. Not what happened afterwards. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that.

The public invite and trip to SISU HQ came sometime after that period. The mood had clearly changed and the door was open for a deal to be done by anyone who was serious about doing a deal. The terms of which could only be reached by negotiations. Tell me. How did SISU follow up the meeting with the council at SISU HQ?

stupot07 · Jul 4, 2015

Yawnarama

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

chiefdave · Jul 4, 2015

Tony, there is zero evidence to suggest that CCC were prepared to sell ACL to SISU under the same terms they sold to Wasps. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest they would not offer that, or indeed any other deal to SISU or any other past or potential owner of the football club.

That's it, plain and simple.

CCC did not want to sell to SISU.

Wasps turning up was like all their Christmases coming at once as it gave CCC a way out of a hole they had dug for themselves, albeit at a loss to the taxpayer and a local charity.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
Tony, there is zero evidence to suggest that CCC were prepared to sell ACL to SISU under the same terms they sold to Wasps. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest they would not offer that, or indeed any other deal to SISU or any other past or potential owner of the football club.

That's it, plain and simple.

CCC did not want to sell to SISU.

Wasps turning up was like all their Christmases coming at once as it gave CCC a way out of a hole they had dug for themselves, albeit at a loss to the taxpayer and a local charity.

Offer offer offer. Where was SISU's offer? If sisu were serious about BUYING ACL and put half the effort into pursuing it as they did into the fruitless, pointless great idea they had that's the JR they would have had a chance of being successful, unlike the JR. They consciously took the wrong turn and went down the dead end JR road instead of the constructive rd of negotiation and purchasing. They were even given directions and chose to ignore them. It's that simple.

italiahorse · Jul 4, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Offer offer offer. Where was SISU's offer? If sisu were serious about BUYING ACL and put half the effort into pursuing it as they did into the fruitless, pointless great idea they had that's the JR they would have had a chance of being successful, unlike the JR. They consciously took the wrong turn and went down the dead end JR road instead of the constructive rd of negotiation and purchasing. They were even given directions and chose to ignore them. It's that simple.

Tony, there are only half a dozen posters who will never change there view on this regardless how many times you put the facts before them.
Not worth the long battles. CD is as blind as they come.

martcov · Jul 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
Tony, there is zero evidence to suggest that CCC were prepared to sell ACL to SISU under the same terms they sold to Wasps. There is however plenty of evidence to suggest they would not offer that, or indeed any other deal to SISU or any other past or potential owner of the football club.

That's it, plain and simple.

CCC did not want to sell to SISU.

Wasps turning up was like all their Christmases coming at once as it gave CCC a way out of a hole they had dug for themselves, albeit at a loss to the taxpayer and a local charity.

Plain and simple. SISU also dug a hole for themselves - and, as opposed to CCC - are still well and truly in it. Let's hope they can increase the value of CCFC by running it as a football club - forgetting the stadium for at least the time being and losing the JR and JR2 - and aiming for the play offs. Maybe then they can attract Investors....

Rusty Trombone · Jul 4, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Why is it you insist SISU are incapable of negotiating. Are they incapable of having a good idea idea and taking the right course of actions to achieve that? Negotiations doesn't just have to be about price, there is no law stopping you discussing term's as well. Are you really suggesting that SISU don't have the acumen to A) come up with the idea of extending the lease and B) renegotiate the length of a lease and a price for that lease extension as part of the purchase of CCC's share of ACL? Given the short length of the original ACL lease I find it hard to believe that an extension on the existing lease wouldn't have been a priority for anyone who was seriously considering making a move for ACL. You seem to be saying that the only way this was going to happen for SISU is if CCC held their hand and walked them through it. Which begs the question. How did SISU ever buy anything ever? According to you they're clueless.

SISU and CCC worked together to agree a lease extension before, a 125 year one, clearly they must have thought that was long enough. They signed draft terms in August 2012. So it seems odd that anyone would think SISU weren't aware such an extension was possible.

Grendel · Jul 4, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
SISU and CCC worked together to agree a lease extension before, a 125 year one, clearly they must have thought that was long enough. They signed draft terms in August 2012. So it seems odd that anyone would think SISU weren't aware such an extension was possible.

Was that for the whole of ACL?

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
SISU and CCC worked together to agree a lease extension before, a 125 year one, clearly they must have thought that was long enough. They signed draft terms in August 2012. So it seems odd that anyone would think SISU weren't aware such an extension was possible.

Personally I can't recall that but then with everything that has gone on details easily get lost. But yes, if that's right there really is no point arguing that CCC hadn't took SISU by the hand informed them that a longer lease (200 years or whatever) was available because as you say SISU were fully aware that the length of the lease is negotiable having already done so. Which I imagine (to coin a phrase) is standard business practice with commercial leases. Which after all a commercial lease is exactly what ACL have with CCC.

Grendel · Jul 4, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Personally I can't recall that but then with everything that has gone on details easily get lost. But yes, if that's right there really is no point arguing that CCC hadn't took SISU by the hand informed them that a longer lease (200 years or whatever) was available because as you say SISU were fully aware that the length of the lease is negotiable having already done so. Which I imagine (to coin a phrase) is standard business practice with commercial leases. Which after all a commercial lease is exactly what ACL have with CCC.

The point is irrelevant. The council in those negotiations never offered their share and indeed there would always have been the spectre of a veto rejecting the deal.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2015

Grendel said:
Was that for the whole of ACL?

I don't think Wasps negotiated it for the whole of ACL either initially. But when they purchased the Higgs share that of course changed.

Wasps new deal with Compass (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency