Wasps (2 Viewers)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Nov 22, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
No proof? Are you seriously claiming that if SISU were offered 100% of ACL for £5m they'd have rejected it? Laughable.

No. I stated you had no proof they would have accepted any deal. The fact you used the word 'if' in your response proved my point totally. Next time, it'd be easier if you simply 'liked' the original post to show you agree.

Remember they wanted an 'average league one rent' or was it an 'unencumbered freehold'? You have no idea what they wanted at any point; and for you to assert you 'know' what deal they'd have signed up for at any time - well, that's laughable

Buster · Nov 22, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Why would wasps want it?

Their Sole owner is a Rugby fan, even though he is worth a few quid don't believe he has enough to support a successful Football and Rugby Club

Because they have a stadium with an incumbent football team with massive potential

italiahorse · Nov 22, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I couldn't give two fucks about wasps

But they are here in control for potentially 250 years CCFC have to deal with them !!

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

stupot07 said:
http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s96.htm?98,14981894

It's all about the MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

One of the half wits was gleefully asking if they take all of our ticket revenue the other week.

Rusty Trombone · Nov 22, 2014

italiahorse said:
The council are not there for football, they are there for the ratepayers.
7000 fans, not all from Coventry, on 23 occasions a year should not be considered ahead of 300,000 Coventrians.
Love it how you pick up on some spurious comment and generalise on it as if those that have moved on fell for it.

What do you think they should do while an asset owned by them is stressed in an attempt to get it for nothing by withholding rent and then removing the club altogether to Northampton?

Should they wait for SISU to make a sensible offer?
Should they give it away and allow SISU to take it over and then rent it back to CCFC?
Or do they take the only other option available to them, one that is only available for a limited period of time?

?

Surely the Council had an option to keep hold of their shares, and wasps can carry on their purchase of the Higgs shares. ACL are supposedly doing well, why did the Council have to sell now?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No. I stated you had no proof they would have accepted any deal. The fact you used the word 'if' in your response proved my point totally. Next time, it'd be easier if you simply 'liked' the original post to show you agree.

Remember they wanted an 'average league one rent' or was it an 'unencumbered freehold'? You have no idea what they wanted at any point; and for you to assert you 'know' what deal they'd have signed up for at any time - well, that's laughable

Well we know they tried to get 50% when they had the option to make an offer so logic dictates they would have tried to get 100% if it was available to them.

letsallsingtogether · Nov 22, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Surely the Council had an option to keep hold of their shares, and wasps can carry on their purchase of the Higgs shares. ACL are supposedly doing well, why did the Council have to sell now?

Got Redundancies to pay off.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
Well we know they tried to get 50% when they had the option to make an offer so logic dictates they would have tried to get 100% if it was available to them.

Did they try and get 50%? What was it the judge said? That they and Higgs had 'no appetite' for the deal?

Rusty Trombone · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
Well we know they tried to get 50% when they had the option to make an offer so logic dictates they would have tried to get 100% if it was available to them.

They didn't really try though, even though they must have known the bid would be unsuccessful they didn't put any pressure on Higgs, as they only appear to have matched the £2.77m, without even discussing the extras wasps were offering.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Did they try and get 50%? What was it the judge said? That they and Higgs had 'no appetite' for the deal?

Yes because they made a bid and it was rejected in favour of the Wasps bid, about a week or two ago or did you miss all that?

stupot07 · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm pompous as you're so fucking stupid. Previous losses plus ACL income equals new net position is frankly absurd. Have you thought about offering that fella Sugar your insightful acumen? And what's worse, you've had the temerity to repeat this equation repeatedly; as if repetition will afford it's pigletty ignorance an enhanced level of dignity

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

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No. I stated you had no proof they would have accepted any deal. The fact you used the word 'if' in your response proved my point totally. Next time, it'd be easier if you simply 'liked' the original post to show you agree.

Remember they wanted an 'average league one rent' or was it an 'unencumbered freehold'? You have no idea what they wanted at any point; and for you to assert you 'know' what deal they'd have signed up for at any time - well, that's laughable

Let's see. We withheld the rent for a year and then left Coventry altogether for about a year too, both with the express aim of distressing ACL in order to acquire the Ricoh for as little as possible. I said this for a long time while it was going on and then a judge delivered the same verdict in the JR. They then also bid for the Higgs share when it became apparent that they still could-indeed you could say CCFC Ltd was kept alive specifically for this purpose.

Why try so hard to get the Ricoh? Simple. 100% of ACL + CCFC is a lot more attractive to bidders than CCFC as tenants alone. All the evidence suggests they would have accepted and their exit strategy fulfilled.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
They didn't really try though, even though they must have known the bid would be unsuccessful they didn't put any pressure on Higgs, as they only appear to have matched the £2.77m, without even discussing the extras wasps were offering.

I don't think they really expected it to be successful but still they did try and purchase the Higgs 50%

italiahorse · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
I don't think they really expected it to be successful but still they did try and purchase the Higgs 50%

With conditions that are still not known.
At least make a larger bid and ask for conditions later, that will force Higgs to explain why it was turned down.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 22, 2014

italiahorse said:
But they are here in control for potentially 250 years CCFC have to deal with them !!

No we bloody don't. Build a new ground within 4-5 years then leave the egg chasers and their new fans to the Ricoh. If we don't have one sorted in that time Wasps will charge us to the hilt as we have no alternative. You mock the only option this club has of being successful-I am not surprised.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
Yes because they made a bid and it was rejected in favour of the Wasps bid, about a week or two ago or did you miss all that?

I was talking about the original bid and a verdict on its candour during ahead of, and judged by the judicial review. This is the point when, if serious, SISU could have purchased 50% and the judge concluded they (as Higgs) had 'no appetite' for a deal. So they didn't try hard, did they? The latter bid, six years after they rolled into town; and knowing they were - in effect - blocked by the Wasps manoeuvre, was no more than window dressing. Do you remember in the JR when they stated this share had no value, but they would be prepared to offer a morsel as it was a charity? And then they magically value it at circa. £3m? Do you keep a straight face when you type this foolishness?

Rusty Trombone · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
I don't think they really expected it to be successful but still they did try and purchase the Higgs 50%

Other than inventing the word communiversity I don't see any evidence of them trying.

They were successful in distressing ACL, they played it well, but in the end they got too greedy, wanted ACL for nothing, and wasps snuck in and got the prize.

They would rather spend millions on lawyers and liquidators, rather than putting that money towards a decent offer.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

italiahorse said:
With conditions that are still not known.
At least make a larger bid and ask for conditions later, that will force Higgs to explain why it was turned down.

Sort of agree, I don't think the club should have to over pay for it but if they had it would have put massive pressure on Higgs to explain themselves as to why it was rejected and would have exposed it for the stitch up it was. The way it panned out just gave people easy excuses as to why it was rejected, when in reality they never had any intention of selling to anyone but wasps regardless.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Nov 22, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Let's see. We withheld the rent for a year and then left Coventry altogether for about a year too, both with the express aim of distressing ACL in order to acquire the Ricoh for as little as possible. I said this for a long time while it was going on and then a judge delivered the same verdict in the JR. They then also bid for the Higgs share when it became apparent that they still could-indeed you could say CCFC Ltd was kept alive specifically for this purpose.

Why try so hard to get the Ricoh? Simple. 100% of ACL + CCFC is a lot more attractive to bidders than CCFC as tenants alone. All the evidence suggests they would have accepted and their exit strategy fulfilled.

I understand the latter. I agree with you. But they overplayed their hand didn't they? Unencumbered freehold, we're still building anew, the comments about the dingy Ricoh. They took it too far. SISU took it too far. Save your judgement for them. They are significantly more culpable than ACL, CCC, Higgs, or Wasps. Yes, all played a hand in this farce, but one common party blew it. And with it, blew a wonderful opportunity for CCFC

letsallsingtogether · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I was talking about the original bid and a verdict on its candour during ahead of, and judged by the judicial review. This is the point when, if serious, SISU could have purchased 50% and the judge concluded they (as Higgs) had 'no appetite' for a deal. So they didn't try hard, did they? The latter bid, six years after they rolled into town; and knowing they were - in effect - blocked by the Wasps manoeuvre, was no more than window dressing. Do you remember in the JR when they stated this share had no value, but they would be prepared to offer a morsel as it was a charity? And then they magically value it at circa. £3m? Do you keep a straight face when you type this foolishness?

Look none of this is Sisu fault or if it is it is only a small amount.......

You need to let them all believe this?

I for one will never believe it is anyone's fault but Sisu! and I will never forget what harm they have done to our club

Norman Binns · Nov 22, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
We have new owners. That's a benefit, but whoever owns us do you think that the club would ever own the stadium. There will always be a holding company involved just like I'm sure there is with wasps somewhere down the line

You haven't answered my question have you? And why are you muddying the waters with talk of holding companies? What's that got to do with the point being discussed?

How is having a new owner of any benefit to the club when they would be tenants of an ACL owned by Sisu as opposed to being tenants of an ACL being owned by Wasps? We'd still be in the same position and arguably a worse position.

Besides that, just who would find it an attractive proposition to buy an ailing league one football club steeped in debt and in your own words from a previous post "with the money that Sisu would want for it", and end up being tenants of an ACL owned Sisu?

Lets go back to your statement that prompted me to ask the question in the first place:

Originally Posted by Bennets Afro
.....The last hope of SISU being able to sell us went when the stadium got given to wasps....

Explain the rationale behind that and why anyone would want to buy us with a Sisu owned ACL?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I was talking about the original bid and a verdict on its candour during ahead of, and judged by the judicial review. This is the point when, if serious, SISU could have purchased 50% and the judge concluded they (as Higgs) had 'no appetite' for a deal. So they didn't try hard, did they? The latter bid, six years after they rolled into town; and knowing they were - in effect - blocked by the Wasps manoeuvre, was no more than window dressing. Do you remember in the JR when they stated this share had no value, but they would be prepared to offer a morsel as it was a charity? And then they magically value it at circa. £3m? Do you keep a straight face when you type this foolishness?

You asked for proof that they would have purchased 100% of ACL had it been offered, I pointed out they tried to get 50% when the opportunity was offered. What would they have done had Higgs for some reason accepted it? Turned around and said errr...shit we didn't expect you to accept that, it wasn't a real offer.

No foolishness here sir.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 22, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I understand the latter. I agree with you. But they overplayed their hand didn't they? Unencumbered freehold, we're still building anew, the comments about the dingy Ricoh. They took it too far. SISU took it too far. Save your judgement for them. They are significantly more culpable than ACL, CCC, Higgs, or Wasps. Yes, all played a hand in this farce, but one common party blew it. And with it, blew a wonderful opportunity for CCFC

Wires are crossed on this one. Doesn't change my view on what needs to be done going forward though i.e leaving the Ricoh for pastures new. Unless Wasps offer us zero rent and full access to the revenues we produce, which is about as likely as Pressley criticising his players after a league game.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Look none of this is Sisu fault or if it is it is only a small amount.......

You need to let them all believe this?

I for one will never believe it is anyone's fault but Sisu! and I will never forget what harm they have done to our club

Not at all, it's almost completely SISUs fault the position we find ourselves in.

Bennets Afro · Nov 22, 2014

Norman Binns said:
You haven't answered my question have you? And why are you muddying the waters with talk of holding companies? What's that got to do with the point being discussed?

How is having a new owner of any benefit to the club when they would be tenants of an ACL owned by Sisu as opposed to being tenants of an ACL being owned by Wasps? We'd still be in the same position and arguably a worse position.

Besides that, just who would find it an attractive proposition to buy an ailing league one football club steeped in debt and in your own words from a previous post "with the money that Sisu would want for it", and end up being tenants of an ACL owned Sisu?

Lets go back to your statement that prompted me to ask the question in the first place:

Originally Posted by Bennets Afro
.....The last hope of SISU being able to sell us went when the stadium got given to wasps....

Explain the rationale behind that and why anyone would want to buy us with a Sisu owned ACL?

So if SISU owned ACL, you think they would be able to sell the football club on its own? What a ridiculous notion.

There is no value in CCFC without a stadium. It would have to be sold as a whole package within the company structure. If there was value in a team that rents a stadium SISU would of sold up ages ago

Rusty Trombone · Nov 22, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Wires are crossed on this one. Doesn't change my view on what needs to be done going forward though i.e leaving the Ricoh for pastures new. Unless Wasps offer us zero rent and full access to the revenues we produce, which is about as likely as Pressley criticising his players after a league game.

The rent is currently reported to be £100k a year, how much extra revenue do you think we are missing out on?

Do you think this extra revenue will be enough to fund a new ground? I don't think a new ground is viable in any way at all, I think SISU agree otherwise they would have started to build one.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

Norman Binns said:
You haven't answered my question have you? And why are you muddying the waters with talk of holding companies? What's that got to do with the point being discussed?

How is having a new owner of any benefit to the club when they would be tenants of an ACL owned by Sisu as opposed to being tenants of an ACL being owned by Wasps? We'd still be in the same position and arguably a worse position.

Besides that, just who would find it an attractive proposition to buy an ailing league one football club steeped in debt and in your own words from a previous post "with the money that Sisu would want for it", and end up being tenants of an ACL owned Sisu?

Lets go back to your statement that prompted me to ask the question in the first place:

Originally Posted by Bennets Afro
.....The last hope of SISU being able to sell us went when the stadium got given to wasps....

Explain the rationale behind that and why anyone would want to buy us with a Sisu owned ACL?

The biggest incentive for any prospective owner was getting a slice of the stadium and the Wasps sale certainly decreases the likeliness of that than before the Wasps sale, whether a SISU owner ACL would have been more attractive than a wasps owned ACL I can't say. But there's no doubt the events of the last month have if possible made us even less attractive towards potential buyers.

letsallsingtogether · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
Not at all, it's almost completely SISUs fault the position we find ourselves in.

Yes I agree with that statement 100%

For that reason I have protested against all parties involved, and before people start ranting... it has nothing to do with being a better fan or hero or any of that crap,
it is to do with fighting for what I believe in.

Just pisses me off that people constantly say Sisu are mostly to blame but keep trying to find other parties to shift it too.

I for one don't blame the Wasps as all this was fucked up before they came on the scene, doesn't mean I am happy with them owning the Ricoh but hay surly they can't do any worse? IMHO

Only time will tell.

Bennets Afro · Nov 22, 2014

They have all had a part from the mess we are in now LAST. It's so depressing!!!

oldfiver · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
The biggest incentive for any prospective owner was getting a slice of the stadium and the Wasps sale certainly decreases the likeliness of that than before the Wasps sale, whether a SISU owner ACL would have been more attractive than a wasps owned ACL I can't say. But there's no doubt the events of the last month have if possible made us even less attractive towards potential buyers.

Have WASPS actually paid for anything yet?

They were still scratting around for funders when last heard

Bennets Afro · Nov 22, 2014

Fisher said last week that no money had changed hands, but if wasps are getting a £12m sponsorship deal as alluded to on here and naming rights are up next year. They are quids in and in effect the council have just given the stadium to wasps

ccfcway · Nov 22, 2014

you'll excuse me if i dont take anything that Fisher says onboard

albatross · Nov 22, 2014

SISU were never going to let CCFC own the Stadium so they would always be paying rent. The option to purchase was reported in Sky-blue Sports and leisure accounts in 2008 so at that point they wanted CCFC to be a High Rent tenant especially if we returned to the PL. So this ownership debate with SISU is redundant

Then Actually owning the RICOH, what exactly would that add to the bottom line for us ? Its easy to spout "access to match day revenue" and "365 Revenue stream" and accepting that that is going the silver bullet to cure all of our ills but i can't ever recall anybody actually spelling out what that means.

With SISU this was always about using the football club to get an asses to as close to F.A as possible

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Nov 22, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Yes I agree with that statement 100%

For that reason I have protested against all parties involved, and before people start ranting... it has nothing to do with being a better fan or hero or any of that crap,
it is to do with fighting for what I believe in.

Just pisses me off that people constantly say Sisu are mostly to blame but keep trying to find other parties to shift it too.

I for one don't blame the Wasps as all this was fucked up before they came on the scene, doesn't mean I am happy with them owning the Ricoh but hay surly they can't do any worse? IMHO

Only time will tell.

Wasps are just opportunists who sneaked in and saw an opportunity to benefit from this mess. I don't like them, I don't like them owning the Ricoh and what it means for us but there not to blame for the clubs situation.

What annoys me is when some people come on here waving the flags, singing the praises of other parties and refusing to even acknowledge other parties are even partly culpable even if it's 1%.

I was actually thinking earlier the club/SISU are like the delinquent child and CCC/ACL are the parents who have finally washed there hands with them. The delinquent child growing up caused trouble, got arrested often, stealed, lied, caused fights, got into drugs, alienated there family, friends and anyone who could help them. The parents tried to support them, they tried tough love but now they've given up on them and turned their back on them, they've washed their hands of them given away their inheritance to there new adopted child. Now the delinquent child is an adult who is homeless, no job, no family or friends, no hope and looking to just get there next fix. They themselves have no one to blame for how there life has turned out except themselves for making the wrong decisions in the past, yet there will be those who will criticise the parents and hold them partially responsible and argue you should never turn your back on your child.

Probably sound silly but just something that crossed my mind earlier and thoughI'd share

wingy · Nov 22, 2014

CCFC said:
Wasps are just opportunists who sneaked in and saw an opportunity to benefit from this mess. I don't like them, I don't like them owning the Ricoh and what it means for us but there not to blame for the clubs situation.

What annoys me is when some people come on here waving the flags, singing the praises of other parties and refusing to even acknowledge other parties are even partly culpable even if it's 1%.

I was actually thinking earlier the club/SISU are like the delinquent child and CCC/ACL are the parents who have finally washed there hands with them. The delinquent child growing up caused trouble, got arrested often, stealed, lied, caused fights, got into drugs, alienated there family, friends and anyone who could help them. The parents tried to support them, they tried tough love but now they've given up on them and turned their back on them, they've washed their hands of them given away their inheritance to there new adopted child. Now the delinquent child is an adult who is homeless, no job, no family or friends, no hope and looking to just get there next fix. They themselves have no one to blame for how there life has turned out except themselves for making the wrong decisions in the past, yet there will be those who will criticise the parents and hold them partially responsible and argue you should never turn your back on your child.

Probably sound silly but just something that crossed my mind earlier and thoughI'd share

Complex and lengthy but not a bad analogy .

Wasps (2 Viewers)

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