In simple terms not owning the Ricoh is a good thing. No overheads. Renting it at a reasonable rent but maintaining all the rights to the income from match days would be less compromising in many ways than trying to outright own your stadium. It's really a matter of the pros and cons you are looking at. If you require collaterall to run a football cub, and need to put up the stadium for that then ownership would be required. However that has proven to be a disaster in the past, and these days clubs are more inclined, along with newer regulations to operate within sustainable budgets, therefore need to outright own a stadium is less important.
If CCFC have further success as the last few seasons, and I see no reason we won't then WASP would be foolish to turn down the opportunity of getting us back at the Ricoh. Sponsorship could increase 10 fold should we get promoted again. The stadium would be a sell out for home fixtures the vast majority of the time. Rent would natuarally incease and WASP would simply benefit exponentially all round. There is no downside to this if the contracts between SISU and WASP are are ironed out correctly. For example SISU maintain the right to reassign the sub-lease, therefore valuing the clubs residency at the Ricoh. Any lease with WASP clearly would have to be long term. Not 250 years, but substantially long as in 50 years with renewable clauses and protections should WASP decide to sell up, and new owners came in. Nothing is insurmountable, you just have to be willing and sensitive to your own requirements, while submitting to there's too. Downside would be sharing a pitch, stadium rights and signage - all those things, but who really cares about whether the seats are sky blue or black?