Wasps Value Ricoh Arena at £48.5 million (4 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Nov 2, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
tbh, the weekend has been a tony and Grendel bore-off on this thread.

I don't disagree. But when people start accusing me of supporting Wasps etc. when I've never said anything remotely pro wasp's, don't go and watch them, never will and have repeatedly stated that CCFC's fans shouldn't be going I'm going to put the gloves on (metaphorically speaking).

Sorry you had to see that.

skybluetony176 · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
I think SISU should get a bloody move on! Draw up a proper business plan for each option (I guess groundshare at Ricoh, new ground in Cov, new ground just outside Cov). Plans that stand up to scrutiny not figures plucked out of the sky like the 8K who were going to turn up at Sixfields each week.

From there we have a shot at establishing what the best option is in the short medium and long term.

If its stay at the Ricoh then get a long term deal in place. IHMO if we stay at the Ricoh we are limited to how much we can progress and it seems the only way to solve that would be to own the Ricoh. The only way I can see that happening is if Wasps fail and / or move again. To that end I wouldn't be doing anything that gives them income. Might be pissing in the wind but I don't think they should be here and I won't be helping them make it a success.

If its moving to a new stadium we have to work out if it is affordable now or if it is something we know we need to do but have to put on the back burner.

Basically just decide what the best plan is and take us out of constant limbo.

Good post Dave. Agree whole heartedly.

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Not sure of the legal implications of the JR but if SISU win could they ask for the bidding process to be re-visited? Whilst they would appreciate the compensation. I would rather the club have an asset. Is compensation going to adequately cover the cost of a new ground? If it was an unfair process, a bit like FIFA and their world cups, could it not be done again? The only other solution is Wasps going bust but not much chance of that anytime soon. Well not with Italia, Tony, Council and the CET all cosied up with them. Amazing what a good bit of PR can do really.

I don't think that would be one of the remedies for state aid cases. SISU would have a claim against the council if they could prove a duty by the council to offer the sale to all and sundry or to have included SISU/CCFC.

As the loan has been repaid then forcing repayment is not a remedy. To get compensation they would have to prove they suffered loss directly because the loan was made. Can they do that considering they had moved out?

Could they say extending the lease by 210 years for £1m was undervalued perhaps but all that would mean would be cancelling the extension and reverting to the original that had 40 years left to run. Wouldn't stop Wasps being there and immediately negotiating the extension again. Although there might be problems with the bond security etc. My guess is they could ask CCC to revisit the decision making process on that one - but that's about it. Unlikely to arrive at a different decision. I suspect that the fine print of the deal has been checked over and over by some of the best legal minds before it was signed so the risk is not great. Did the CCC let alone Wasps have a legal duty to SISU in respect of the lease extension I expect not so hard to prove loss for CCFC or SISU on that one

Not sure where the JR will hurt Wasps. It could hurt CCC and the people of Coventry.

Captain Dart · Nov 2, 2015

Does the present Ricoh agreement cover the possibility of promotion?

I guess SW & Eastwood know, but if it doesn't then surely Waggott should be sorting out the details, because there seems to be a decent chance.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
I agree but if a new stadium is the best way forward then no matter how long it is going to take, or even if it is judged to be the best way forward but something we can't afford to do now, then at least get the plan in place. Let us know what the best option is and how we are going ot achieve it.

All we're doing with a wait and see attitude is wasting time. Why wait 5 years and then go we need to build a stadium?

Equally if it turns out building a stadium is a useless plan why waste 5 years where it is an option and we deal with Wasps short term. Better to get a long term deal sorted now.

I don't see any advantage in waiting.

The problem is, you're asking our owners to come up with the 'correct' decision.

Personally, I would go with the short term rental as much because the *next* owners need oiptions, and being tied in one way or the other serves no purpose other to limit our potential market for owners when the current lot *do* bog off.

That doesn't mean, however, that that is the same as a wait and see. Rather, pushing for suitable sites, and suitable co-operation to make a new site as painless a process possible at least means things progress, and there is the stability to look long term.

Tie in to one decision and one decision only, and if it's the wrong one (as per McGinnity, Robinson, Higgs and Hover's agreement ref: ACL for one example!) then you trap not only the present lot, but who goes afterwards.

And also limit your market, to potentially exclude the 'best' owners for a club...

chiefdave · Nov 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
I don't think that would be one of the remedies for state aid cases. SISU would have a claim against the council if they could prove a duty by the council to offer the sale to all and sundry or to have included SISU/CCFC.

Done a bit of reading on this and it seems pretty clear from what I have read that the council should have conducted a proper sales process.

Basically it has to be made available to everyone and advertised for sale.

The relevant things seems to be section 123 of the 1972 Local Government Act which requires councils to achieve best value. One of the pieces I read said that as a result of various past cases it was generally accepted that they way to ensure a council met its obligations was to:

obtain a market valuation;
being placed on the market for an adequate length of time (3 months was the suggested minimum);
sale advertised in the appropriate local, national and international publications.

If something was found to have been sold at below value that's where state aid and the European Commission seem to come in. They offer their own advice on how to avoid state aid implications:

when it is repeatedly advertised over a reasonably long period (two months or more) in the national press, estate gazettes or other appropriate publications and through real estate agents addressing a broad range of potential buyers, so that it can come to the notice of all potential buyers. The intended sale of land and buildings, which in view of their high value or other features may attract investors operating on a Europe-wide or international scale, should be announced in publications which have a regular international circulation. Such offers should also be made known through agents addressing clients on a Europe-wide or international scale;
open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid; or
an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards

It seems some councils have tried to defend an undervalue sale on non-financial grounds, for example regeneration, there is not a single example I can find of that working.

From what I have read I can easily see the initial JR failing but the sale of ACL to was and the extension of the lease seem not to be anywhere close to following the correct procedure. Of course I'm far from an expert and I'm sure there's lots of detail only the experts know.

SkyBlueZack · Nov 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
Not sure where the JR will hurt Wasps. It could hurt CCC and the people of Coventry.

Got to love this line. If the council have done wrong so they should pay a price. It's not ideal as services may suffer. Yet, earlier in this thread you have dissected Wasps accounts and said they are on course for a 2.5m profit. Is it ideal that Wasps in 3 years will have paid the purchase price and lease extension on a stadium "worth" 42.5m"? Is it ideal that the local football team kept the stadium afloat for 10 years at a cost of over 10 million only to then be usurped by a London rugby team? If the council have done wrong, it is their fault not SISU's. They also need to be held to account if they have. Let's not forget no one knows SISU's plan, nor the details of the Ricoh sale. We also don't know Wasps plans. The only way to end this sorry mess is for all parties to release all details. Fat chance of that

SkyBlueZack · Nov 2, 2015

Great post Chief Dave, I remember reading it other day when you posted it. From reading that, people must agree that the council need to fully release all details. If as people claim they have Coventry taxpayers interests at heart. It was a private sale. It was sold from a washing it's face position to now being in sight of 2.5m profit. It was sold for 5.5m yet valued at 42.5m. No one was interested other than CCFC or Wasps yet the bonds sold out early. I'm aware they are buying bonds as an investment and not to but a stadium. My point being that as others have mentioned there were other interested parties, other options. There was no need for a quick private sale to Wasps. That is of course if you don't have a blind hatred of SISU.

chiefdave · Nov 2, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Got to love this line. If the council have done wrong so they should pay a price. It's not ideal as services may suffer.

The problem is the people who have actually done wrong won't get punished. Look at the whole "washing its face" think, Lucas pushed that off onto Reeves and West (not by name but they were they councils people on ACL so would suspect it is them). Both very highly paid employees of CCC. What punishment have they had for either misleading or being totally incompetent?

SkyBlueZack said:
Yet, earlier in this thread you have dissected Wasps accounts and said they are on course for a 2.5m profit. Is it ideal that Wasps in 3 years will have paid the purchase price and lease extension on a stadium "worth" 42.5m"?

If they renew the naming rights for anything like what Ricoh paid then they will have instantly made a lot of money on the whole thing. Wonder if those that like to add the loan into the sale price will take off that amount and talking about how we've paid Wasps to have the stadium?

Grendel · Nov 2, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
tbh, the weekend has been a tony and Grendel bore-off on this thread.

I hardly contributed over the weekend. I was too busy on the football related threads.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Got to love this line. If the council have done wrong so they should pay a price. It's not ideal as services may suffer.

I tend to agree, that's the whole point you have the ability to challenge the decisions.

As it happens, I'd be pretty sure nothing will come of the challenge but, if it does, then it would kind of demonstrate a certain incompetence from those entrusted with our money, culture and heritage that should be exposed.

I will repeat that as it happens, I'd be pretty sure nothing will come of the challenge.

skybluetony176 · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
Done a bit of reading on this and it seems pretty clear from what I have read that the council should have conducted a proper sales process.

Basically it has to be made available to everyone and advertised for sale.

The relevant things seems to be section 123 of the 1972 Local Government Act which requires councils to achieve best value. One of the pieces I read said that as a result of various past cases it was generally accepted that they way to ensure a council met its obligations was to:

obtain a market valuation;

being placed on the market for an adequate length of time (3 months was the suggested minimum);

sale advertised in the appropriate local, national and international publications.

If something was found to have been sold at below value that's where state aid and the European Commission seem to come in. They offer their own advice on how to avoid state aid implications:

when it is repeatedly advertised over a reasonably long period (two months or more) in the national press, estate gazettes or other appropriate publications and through real estate agents addressing a broad range of potential buyers, so that it can come to the notice of all potential buyers. The intended sale of land and buildings, which in view of their high value or other features may attract investors operating on a Europe-wide or international scale, should be announced in publications which have a regular international circulation. Such offers should also be made known through agents addressing clients on a Europe-wide or international scale;

open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid; or

an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards

It seems some councils have tried to defend an undervalue sale on non-financial grounds, for example regeneration, there is not a single example I can find of that working.

From what I have read I can easily see the initial JR failing but the sale of ACL to was and the extension of the lease seem not to be anywhere close to following the correct procedure. Of course I'm far from an expert and I'm sure there's lots of detail only the experts know.

Dave. I'm not deliberately trying to piss on your chip's hear but for many a year I worked in the building industry, new housing mainly. I could be wrong and I'm more than happy to be corrected but I'm pretty sure that this refers to the disposal of land or to be more specific open spaces. Neither of which has the Ricoh been since the site was redeveloped.

I'm pretty sure that this act is about the sites that the council sell for development. Not the sale of existing developments.

chiefdave · Nov 2, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Dave. I'm not deliberately trying to piss on your chip's hear but for many a year I worked in the building industry, new housing mainly. I could be wrong and I'm more than happy to be corrected but I'm pretty sure that this refers to the disposal of land or to be more specific open spaces. Neither of which has the Ricoh been since the site was redeveloped.

I'm pretty sure that this act is about the sites that the council sell for development. Not the sale of existing developments.

Could very well be, as I say far from an expert! That said I would expect something similar to be in place for other types of assets. I did read about a provision for a private sale which might indicate something like the Ricoh would be covered. It basically said it was only allowed when selling to adjoining owner, sitting tenant, former owner or a community group.

What it needs is the council to come out and explain what happened. What process they went through, how they ensure the best value for the taxpayer and if only Wasps were involved why was it not offered to others.

In my mind if you haven't got anything to hide you would be happy to provide that information.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
What it needs is the council to come out and explain what happened. What process they went through, how they ensure the best value for the taxpayer and if only Wasps were involved why was it not offered to others.

In my mind if you haven't got anything to hide you would be happy to provide that information.

I have to ask again if the FOI process, *as followed through with the West Ham case, to appeal and beyond* was taken up by anybody ref: this deal.

I know it wasn't by me(!)

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Got to love this line. If the council have done wrong so they should pay a price. It's not ideal as services may suffer. Yet, earlier in this thread you have dissected Wasps accounts and said they are on course for a 2.5m profit. Is it ideal that Wasps in 3 years will have paid the purchase price and lease extension on a stadium "worth" 42.5m"? Is it ideal that the local football team kept the stadium afloat for 10 years at a cost of over 10 million only to then be usurped by a London rugby team? If the council have done wrong, it is their fault not SISU's. They also need to be held to account if they have. Let's not forget no one knows SISU's plan, nor the details of the Ricoh sale. We also don't know Wasps plans. The only way to end this sorry mess is for all parties to release all details. Fat chance of that

wind your neck in. At what point did I say that due process of the law should not be followed? It isn't a question of ideals and never has been, if the law has been followed then so be it if it hasn't also so be it. If there is wrong doing it needs to be challenged investigated and dealt with appropriately. That may mean a penalty it may not. Based on what was known at the time and the facts that related to the decisions - previous rents are not relevant to the JR other than background. It may mean years more of legal cases whilst SISU extra their "investment return " for their investors it may not. None of it is ideal but the realities have to be dealt with first. You asked what was the likely outcomes that's all I answered.

olderskyblue · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
I agree but if a new stadium is the best way forward then no matter how long it is going to take, or even if it is judged to be the best way forward but something we can't afford to do now, then at least get the plan in place. Let us know what the best option is and how we are going ot achieve it.

All we're doing with a wait and see attitude is wasting time. Why wait 5 years and then go we need to build a stadium?

Equally if it turns out building a stadium is a useless plan why waste 5 years where it is an option and we deal with Wasps short term. Better to get a long term deal sorted now.

I don't see any advantage in waiting.

I'm getting confused, isn't this what italia has been saying for ages? (but ruling out the new stadium as a sensible option) and been accused of all sorts of crap for saying so?

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

The sales process was for shares though CD not land and the lease extension came after the share deal to an existing tenant with 40 years left on its original lease. So doesn't that take the lease extension away from the public quoting or auction?

would agree there must have been valuations as to ACL at the time and the value of the lease extension. I would assume those have been done

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2015

olderskyblue said:
I'm getting confused, isn't this what italia has been saying for ages? (but ruling out the new stadium as a sensible option) and been accused of all sorts of crap for saying so?

Italia doesn't seem keen to listen to me, that's for sure...

Personally I'm not so sure I fancy our current owners making a decision to affect us for the next 50 years. Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that...

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

just another thought

Is the reason that Lucas was quoted a number of times in local and national press saying they would listen to any reasonable offer done to cover some of this. Did the meetings between Lucas and Seppala talk of availability and invite offers?

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

I would also be very surprised if having been through the legal war with SISU already that all sides did not invest in the best legal advice available when doing the Wasps deal. The chinks in what was should or could have been done should not be great should they in those circumstances ????

Wont find out till February I guess

Sick Boy · Nov 2, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Look at the unfounded accusations I've had thrown my way over the weekend.

Didn't you claim you only come on SBT to wind people up? Nice work at playing the victim.

stupot07 · Nov 2, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Italia doesn't seem keen to listen to me, that's for sure...

Personally I'm not so sure I fancy our current owners making a decision to affect us for the next 50 years. Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that...

I'm with you. I'd rather we stayed with temporary deals at the Ricoh until sisu leave or make a decision on the new stadium. Leaves us and any new owner with options.

The one thing I'd definitely rule out now is agreeing a long term deal at the Ricoh.

If Italia had his choice we'd sign up to another 50 deal right now and just hope for the best.

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

stupot07 · Nov 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
just another thought

Is the reason that Lucas was quoted a number of times in local and national press saying they would listen to any reasonable offer done to cover some of this. Did the meetings between Lucas and Seppala talk of availability and invite offers?

I wouldn't be surprised if wasps had already made an approach at this point.

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

olderskyblue · Nov 2, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Italia doesn't seem keen to listen to me, that's for sure...

Personally I'm not so sure I fancy our current owners making a decision to affect us for the next 50 years. Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that...

And I agree with that

you see, I listen you NW..

Grendel · Nov 2, 2015

stupot07 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if wasps am had already made an approach at this point.

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

Indeed. It seems very likely as Richardson was looking at the Ricoh even prior to taking over wasps.

oldskyblue58 · Nov 2, 2015

stupot07 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if wasps had already made an approach at this point.

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

perhaps but in making the public utterances is that sufficient to advertise that their interest in the ACL shares is open to offers for the purposes Dave has highlighted? I don't know. Think they made clear the freehold was never available didn't they?

skybluetony176 · Nov 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
Could very well be, as I say far from an expert! That said I would expect something similar to be in place for other types of assets. I did read about a provision for a private sale which might indicate something like the Ricoh would be covered. It basically said it was only allowed when selling to adjoining owner, sitting tenant, former owner or a community group.

What it needs is the council to come out and explain what happened. What process they went through, how they ensure the best value for the taxpayer and if only Wasps were involved why was it not offered to others.

In my mind if you haven't got anything to hide you would be happy to provide that information.

I would think that there is almost certainly an act covering the sale of assets such as ACL. I just don't think that this is it. Keep looking Dave, it will be in the public domain so you'll find it.

italiahorse · Nov 2, 2015

stupot07 said:
I'm with you. I'd rather we stayed with temporary deals at the Ricoh until sisu leave or make a decision on the new stadium. Leaves us and any new owner with options.

The one thing I'd definitely rule out now is agreeing a long term deal at the Ricoh.

If Italia had his choice we'd sign up to another 50 deal right now and just hope for the best.

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

Deleted member 5849 said:
Italia doesn't seem keen to listen to me, that's for sure...

Personally I'm not so sure I fancy our current owners making a decision to affect us for the next 50 years. Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that...

No, I'd sign up for 10 years. Gives us a bit of stability and would be sufficient time to build a new stadium taking into account the expected lengthy planning process.

James Smith · Nov 2, 2015

oldskyblue58 said:
just another thought

Is the reason that Lucas was quoted a number of times in local and national press saying they would listen to any reasonable offer done to cover some of this. Did the meetings between Lucas and Seppala talk of availability and invite offers?

I've postulated (and yes I had to look that word up) earlier in the thread that she'd likely said that to cover the sale. It seems probable that they did it specifically for that purpose.

skybluetony176 · Nov 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
No, I'd sign up for 10 years. Gives us a bit of stability and would be sufficient time to build a new stadium taking into account the expected lengthy planning process.

10 years would be sensible.

If SISU are serious about a new stadium at the pace they are going we'll still need to be there in 10 years time. If they ain't it gives them plenty of time to get their litigation out the way and sell to some serious owners and if they want to build us a new stadium.

stupot07 · Nov 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
No, I'd sign up for 10 years. Gives us a bit of stability and would be sufficient time to build a new stadium taking into account the expected lengthy planning process.

Well that's a change in tune...

italiahorse said:
We need to commit to the stadium long term and get this idea out of our head of a new stadium.
Perhaps then we can start to personalise areas for CCFC like all other shared stadiums.

A 10 year deal with breakout clause, then hopefully wasps fail, new owners come in buy us off sisu, but the ground of wasps and drop kick them them back to London.

Win win situation.

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

Grendel · Nov 2, 2015

stupot07 said:
Well that's a change in tune...

A 10 year deal with breakout clause, then hopefully wasps fail, new owners come in buy us off sisu, but the ground of wasps and drop kick them them back to London.

Win win situation.

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

The break out clause is essential.

Other issues exist though. A moderate performing championship club would attract far more interest than wasps who without the free offers (I'm sure they will be back) will suddenly find themselves with very modest attendances and incomes.

How would a deal be structured that includes a rate for the premier league? The sponsorship deals them would actually make a powerful argument for the club to pay less rent than the current arrangement as all rights will exist with a landlord of a massively inferior product

Agreeing such a deal would in practice be very difficult.

italiahorse · Nov 2, 2015

The trouble with negotiating a long term deal at the Ricoh whilst pursuing actively the demise of Wasps means you might not get a good deal.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
No, I'd sign up for 10 years. Gives us a bit of stability and would be sufficient time to build a new stadium taking into account the expected lengthy planning process.

Astonishingly, we actually agree.

So why the hell are we arguing?!?

Grendel · Nov 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
The trouble with negotiating a long term deal at the Ricoh whilst pursuing actively the demise of Wasps means you might not get a good deal.

Once again your true colours show.

The reason we won't get a good deal is that wasps are owned by an organisation interested in one thing - money. They have no interest in values, tradition and heritage. Those are the reasons we won't get a good deal despite your continued pathetic defence of them

Wasps Value Ricoh Arena at £48.5 million (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency