Wave of optimism (2 Viewers)

chiefdave · Dec 18, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Point 2 what do you think would drive a council to do a deal so secretively. Once they have decided they are going the Wasps way?

In my opinion from a council perspective the deal was done in a manner that left it subject to as little scrutiny as possible. There doesn't really seem to be a commercial case for keeping things confidential from the council's side.

I think that actually works much more in Wasps advantage than the taxpayers of Coventry. They presented it to their fans as a done deal minimising opportunity for dissent. It also meant they didn't have any risk of getting into a bidding war, ensuring themselves the lowest possible purchase price.

chiefdave · Dec 18, 2016

martcov said:
There are no complaints from the taxpayers ( at least no legal challenges or political challenges ) which would imly that most of Coventry can live with the deal.

How many people do you think have looked past the reports in the CT and actually looked in any detail at what has happened? CCFC fans would be the ones most likely to do that but it just needs someone to say something about SISU and everyone stops looking.

Astute · Dec 18, 2016

Grendel said:
What has my point got to do with anything you've just said?

So what was the point you say that you was making?

letsallsingtogether · Dec 18, 2016

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
So I took time off work not to protest but to see who didn't go to protest?

Of course you did just to catch out that wanker and and his mates.
You couldnt the make it up.

Astute · Dec 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
How many people do you think have looked past the reports in the CT and actually looked in any detail at what has happened? CCFC fans would be the ones most likely to do that but it just needs someone to say something about SISU and everyone stops looking.

I don't read the CET.

Yes it isn't good that CCC sold to Wasps. But are you saying that you don't know why?

Astute · Dec 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
In my opinion from a council perspective the deal was done in a manner that left it subject to as little scrutiny as possible. There doesn't really seem to be a commercial case for keeping things confidential from the council's side.

I think that actually works much more in Wasps advantage than the taxpayers of Coventry. They presented it to their fans as a done deal minimising opportunity for dissent. It also meant they didn't have any risk of getting into a bidding war, ensuring themselves the lowest possible purchase price.

SISU made sure that it was sold for the lowest price. That is what we went to Northampton for. You know....when we were never going to move back to the Ricoh because we were building our own stadium :shifty:

martcov · Dec 18, 2016

chiefdave said:
How many people do you think have looked past the reports in the CT and actually looked in any detail at what has happened? CCFC fans would be the ones most likely to do that but it just needs someone to say something about SISU and everyone stops looking.

I think they read the loan was paid back and the taxpayers were out of it. That's enough for most of the population.

Sky Blue Harry H · Dec 18, 2016

Guys - keep the focus on how to deal with the problem of getting the leech off our back, not arguing about why it is there in the first place and who should have spotted it.

hutch1972 · Dec 18, 2016

italiahorse said:
We are not going to convince you that Sisu got it wrong, upset CCC and forced them to do what most ratepayers wanted.

How do you know it was what tax payers wanted ? To my knowledge it was signed sealed and delivered before any of us actually knew.

chiefdave · Dec 18, 2016

Astute said:
But are you saying that you don't know why?

No I'm saying that you can't say taxpayers approve of the deal on the basis of people not storming the council house to complain. Non-CCFC fans won't have looked in detail in the same way most of us would not look at the councils dealings that don't directly impact us, and most CCFC fans are just happy SISU didn't get it.

Astute said:
SISU made sure that it was sold for the lowest price. That is what we went to Northampton for. You know....when we were never going to move back to the Ricoh because we were building our own stadium :shifty:

Missing the point. In terms of a CCC / Wasps deal the council held the upper hand. A proper open and transparent sale process, at worse, would have resulted in the same sale price. At best it would have resulted in a much higher sale price and / or CCFC taking ownership.

Sky Blue Harry H · Dec 18, 2016

The title thread is 'Wave of optimism' , not 'Carry on apportioning blame' and then I'm going to say goodnight to all my fellow sky blue fans. PUSB (SISU out, Tim Fisher out, someone else in !)

Astute · Dec 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
No I'm saying that you can't say taxpayers approve of the deal on the basis of people not storming the council house to complain. Non-CCFC fans won't have looked in detail in the same way most of us would not look at the councils dealings that don't directly impact us, and most CCFC fans are just happy SISU didn't get it.

Missing the point. In terms of a CCC / Wasps deal the council held the upper hand. A proper open and transparent sale process, at worse, would have resulted in the same sale price. At best it would have resulted in a much higher sale price and / or CCFC taking ownership.

So how would you negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate?

phildownunder · Dec 19, 2016

Sky Blue Harry H said:
The title thread is 'Wave of optimism' , not 'Carry on apportioning blame' and then I'm going to say goodnight to all my fellow sky blue fans. PUSB (SISU out, Tim Fisher out, someone else in !)

Nice try to get back on topic Harry (though I doubt it will work).

Maybe like me you`re getting rather tired of thread after thread degenerating into a circular argument about the recent history of the club and who did (or Didn`t ) do what.

Como · Dec 19, 2016

We are where we are and it may be decades or never before the details come out.

For the life of me I can envisage a positive route forward.

Think this has been coming since we lost our own ground, just has taken a long time.

The way the system works is that you need your own ground to survive. Just the way things are.

skybluetony176 · Dec 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
Missing the point. In terms of a CCC / Wasps deal the council held the upper hand. A proper open and transparent sale process, at worse, would have resulted in the same sale price. At best it would have resulted in a much higher sale price and / or CCFC taking ownership.

Stop talking nonsense Dave. Any process wouldn't have ended with CCFC purchasing ACL. They were given the opportunity to bid, they bid FA. You can speculate as much as you like but it's BS. Stop making up excuses for them.

chiefdave · Dec 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Stop talking nonsense Dave. Any process wouldn't have ended with CCFC purchasing ACL. They were given the opportunity to bid, they bid FA. You can speculate as much as you like but it's BS. Stop making up excuses for them.

As I said CCFC ownership would be a best case scenario. At no point have I said a proper sale process would have definitely ended with the club owning the stadium. What I have said is that process taking place would potentially give a greater return to the taxpayer, at worst it would give the same return.

dongonzalos · Dec 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
As I said CCFC ownership would be a best case scenario. At no point have I said a proper sale process would have definitely ended with the club owning the stadium. What I have said is that process taking place would potentially give a greater return to the taxpayer, at worst it would give the same return.

What do you think made them scared to do a proper process?
I know what i think, you seem an intelligent guy. Not sure if you are ignoring the obvious as it doesn't suit your 'the owners were hard done by' opinion or if you genuinely don't see it?

Astute · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
As I said CCFC ownership would be a best case scenario. At no point have I said a proper sale process would have definitely ended with the club owning the stadium. What I have said is that process taking place would potentially give a greater return to the taxpayer, at worst it would give the same return.

Of course CCFC ownership would have been best. But no serious effort was made to buy it. The only serious effort was put into making out we didn't want or need it.

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
What do you think made them scared to do a proper process?

I can't see any reason other than concern others would raise objections. Remember they stated CRFC were aware and had been consulted only for CRFC to say they hadn't. Maybe they didn't want to be seen to be selling the stadium while we were in Northampton.

What else is there to be scared of? If, as many believe, the club would never have bid then it would have absolved CCC of any blame. They could state that there was an open and transparent process and CCFC chose not to make a bid. It would, IMO, also have massively increased the pressure on SISU and united the fanbase.

Of course there may have been other groups who wished to bid. Maybe the Trust would have looked to put something together or someone who was interested as a potential future owner of CCFC. Or someone totally unrelated looking for an investment opportunely such as when Lloyds Bank recently purchased the NEC from Brum Council.

dongonzalos · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
I can't see any reason other than concern others would raise objections. Remember they stated CRFC were aware and had been consulted only for CRFC to say they hadn't. Maybe they didn't want to be seen to be selling the stadium while we were in Northampton.

What else is there to be scared of? If, as many believe, the club would never have bid then it would have absolved CCC of any blame. They could state that there was an open and transparent process and CCFC chose not to make a bid. It would, IMO, also have massively increased the pressure on SISU and united the fanbase.

Of course there may have been other groups who wished to bid. Maybe the Trust would have looked to put something together or someone who was interested as a potential future owner of CCFC. Or someone totally unrelated looking for an investment opportunely such as when Lloyds Bank recently purchased the NEC from Brum Council.

Ok. I would happily put £100 on it that they felt SISU wanted ACL but were never prepared to do a deal similar to the one Wasps did.
That SISU felt that they just needed to keep the club in Northampton until ACL goes bust.
Joy reportedly said in a previous meeting that she would tie the council up in legal battles over the decision to take on the loan.
Mr Fisher has stated that SISU batter people in court that's what they do.
Do you not think the council were a bit paranoid that SISU would take all sorts of strange and wonderful legal battles and do everything in their power to disrupt and ultimately stop any potential sale to anyone else. Whilst trying to maintain the status quo of sitting in Northampton whilst ACL go bust.
Do you not think that the council would have loved nothing more than a bidding war between lots of parties and get the price up as much as possible.
Sorry Dave but you are completely ignoring the most obvious reason because it again goes back to our owners creating this situation themselves.
SISU are still taking legal action over the sale to Wasps after it has happened.
So imagine what they would have done before. (Just my opinion of course)

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Ok. I would happily put £100 on it that they felt SISU wanted ACL but were never prepared to do a deal similar to the one Wasps did.

In which case SISU wouldn't have won and open and transparent bidding process.

dongonzalos said:
Do you not think the council were a bit paranoid that SISU would take all sorts of strange and wonderful legal battles and do everything in their power to disrupt and ultimately stop any potential sale to anyone else. Whilst trying to maintain the status quo of sitting in Northampton whilst ACL go bust.

Struggling to see on what basis SISU could take legal action if the council decide to sell something owned by the taxpayer in a open and transparent manner.

dongonzalos said:
Do you not think that the council would have loved nothing more than a bidding war between lots of parties and get the price up as much as possible.

So why, to borrow a phrase, sell at the 'bottom of the cycle' in secret? Why not extend the lease prior to sale? Both actions that drove the price down.

dongonzalos said:
Just my opinion of course

And that's the key point. Can the council do whatever they feel like in secret and then brush aside any concerns claiming they were worried what a third party might possibly do?

torchomatic · Dec 20, 2016

Astute said:
Of course CCFC ownership would have been best. But no serious effort was made to buy it. The only serious effort was put into making out we didn't want or need it.

Still no reason to sell it to an entity with zero ties to the area and at the same time hamstringing the football club forever.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

torchomatic said:
Still no reason to sell it to an entity with zero ties to the area and at the same time hamstringing the football club forever.

That's enough about the sale of CCFC to SISU

torchomatic · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
That's enough about the sale of CCFC to SISU

LOL, etc Wasps and SISU, of course. Not much fuss over their choice.

Astute · Dec 20, 2016

torchomatic said:
Still no reason to sell it to an entity with zero ties to the area and at the same time hamstringing the football club forever.

Through the eyes of a CCFC supporter no.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
As I said CCFC ownership would be a best case scenario. At no point have I said a proper sale process would have definitely ended with the club owning the stadium. What I have said is that process taking place would potentially give a greater return to the taxpayer, at worst it would give the same return.

You just don't get it do you? CCFC will never own any stadium. It will always be rented to the Club. Unless that is, any future owner stipulates in a "Cast Iron" legal Document that the Football Club owns the Stadium, "Lock Stock, and Barrel"

torchomatic · Dec 20, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
You just don't get it do you? CCFC will never own any stadium. It will always be rented to the Club. Unless that is, any future owner stipulates in a "Cast Iron" legal Document that the Football Club owns the Stadium, "Lock Stock, and Barrel"

You use this little chestnut all the time. Look who owns Old Trafford or the King Power Stadium for example. It's not the football clubs.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
You just don't get it do you? CCFC will never own any stadium. It will always be rented to the Club. Unless that is, any future owner stipulates in a "Cast Iron" legal Document that the Football Club owns the Stadium, "Lock Stock, and Barrel"

Rightly so. A company that allows the club to own the stadium in its own right should never be near a football club.

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
You just don't get it do you? CCFC will never own any stadium. It will always be rented to the Club. Unless that is, any future owner stipulates in a "Cast Iron" legal Document that the Football Club owns the Stadium, "Lock Stock, and Barrel"

OK then, just for you read it as a stadco in the same group of companies as whatever entity the football club is at the time.

dongonzalos · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
In which case SISU wouldn't have won and open and transparent bidding process.

Struggling to see on what basis SISU could take legal action if the council decide to sell something owned by the taxpayer in a open and transparent manner.

So why, to borrow a phrase, sell at the 'bottom of the cycle' in secret? Why not extend the lease prior to sale? Both actions that drove the price down.

And that's the key point. Can the council do whatever they feel like in secret and then brush aside any concerns claiming they were worried what a third party might possibly do?

So you honestly believe there was nothing SISU would have done to scupper Wasps taking over. Other than just out bidding or matching Wasps bid?
Please think about it and answer genuinely.

dongonzalos · Dec 20, 2016

Astute said:
Through the eyes of a CCFC supporter no.

To anyone else the council would have been nuts not to.
They also would have taken a big risk if they made the deal public before hand.
The result of such action would not have been SISU coming in with the big cheque book and finally putting in a sensible bid. They admitted themselves they would never have done that same bid

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
So you honestly believe there was nothing SISU would have done to scupper Wasps taking over. Other than just out bidding or matching Wasps bid?
Please think about it and answer genuinely.

Why focus on Wasps? Nobody has any idea how many interested parties there would have been. Doesn't have to be a football or rugby club. Could be a venue management company or just someone looking for an investment opportunity.

What action do you think would have been successful in stopping a sale carried out in an open and transparent manner where every potential bidder knew exactly what they were bidding for and on what terms?

dongonzalos · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
Why focus on Wasps? Nobody has any idea how many interested parties there would have been. Doesn't have to be a football or rugby club. Could be a venue management company or just someone looking for an investment opportunity.

What action do you think would have been successful in stopping a sale carried out in an open and transparent manner where every potential bidder knew exactly what they were bidding for and on what terms?

So hand on heart. You genuinely believe if ACL was put up for sale.
That if SISU were not in a position to put in an acceptable offer.
Or keep up with the bidding to Wasps for example.
Don't forget the experts on here were repeatedly pointing out there would be no other buyer for the business at all other than CCFC.
Then SISU would have left it at that and patiently waited for the new buyer to make there bids.
Whilst SUSU carried on in Northampton and built their new stadium, here?
Regarding legal action I had no idea about the 2 JR's that are completely unwinable that they are wasting people's time with now.
So I also would not know what weird and wonderful action they would have took back then.
However you can bet they would have done

Astute · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
Why focus on Wasps? Nobody has any idea how many interested parties there would have been. Doesn't have to be a football or rugby club. Could be a venue management company or just someone looking for an investment opportunity.

What action do you think would have been successful in stopping a sale carried out in an open and transparent manner where every potential bidder knew exactly what they were bidding for and on what terms?

Why do you constantly go around in circles looking for someone to blame?

We know that SISU refused to negotiate.

We know that Fisher said that they would never have paid as much as Wasps as they took on the loan.

We know that CCC kept saying that they had interest in the arena and would sell it if SISU wouldn't negotiate on it.

We know that Fisher constantly said that we would never move back to the Ricoh and would build our own stadium.

Then we have your ifs, buts, mights, maybes and fantasies that you make out to be factual :shifty:

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Don't forget the experts on here were repeatedly pointing out there would be no other buyer for the business at all other than CCFC.

Which there wasnt, According to you the ricoh on a 47 year lease was worth £60 million was it?
The council, to coin a popular phrase on here, moved the goalposts by extending the lease to 250 years. I can assure you even a small premises with a sub 50 year lease is worthless. A lease that equates to freehold makes the value rise massively.

I suggest you indulge in some introspection and ask yourself the following;

Why did the council never make acl a 250 year lease before selling to wasps?

Why did the council actually take a loan from the Yorkshire Bank at all when they had clearly agreed a same to wasps prior to the transfer?

Why, as Dave constantly says and you ignore, did they not say that they will sell the whole shooting match for less than £6 million with a lifetime lease and left the loan at the Yorkshire Bank

Why are you so proud of a council that, if they did all of the above, would, without question have raised the equity value of the children's charity share overnight?

Why did they insist on the loan in the first place rather than agree a set fee of £1.9 million a year for acl to pay (which was the alternate option) and at the same time allow a lifetime lease?

Still - apparantly you are proud and they had no choice - none at all.

Wave of optimism (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