So now we know (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Skyblueweeman

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
capel & collindridge said:
I admit I skipped pages 7 to 12 as things started getting a bit repetitive, but the thing that is blindingly obvious to me, and not apparently to Shmmeee, is that Wasps must have been perfectly well aware that they had been gifted the Ricoh at a giveaway price. More than that, they must have thought they had got away with this by making sure all the blame was heaped on SISU and CCFC. They have been totally sneaky in the way that haven't kept to any of the their promises (CCFC will always be able to play at the Ricoh etc.)

If the EU judgement goes against them - and all their behaviour suggests that they are very frightened that it might - they want an assurance that their illegal acquisition is preserved intact whilst someone else (SISU or CCFC) picks up the bill. It is not a question of saying it's simply word-play or how you interpret things or all the parties are just looking after their own interests. It is blindingly obvious to most of us that there's been a massive stitch up and that CCFC has been the massive loser. If Wasps now go bust and all those councillors get kicked out of office, who have done their best (or conspired) to deprive the city's proud football team of the stadium that was built for it to play in, they have only reaped what they sowed with their underhand tactics. This is a CCFC supporters website. We don't need to be making excuses for the parties that have been trying to make the existence of our team almost impossible. We owe Wasps nothing. They have almost cost us our very existence as a viable football club. If we do survive in the Championship, it will be no thanks to Wasps or CCC! If they have to contribute towards what we have lost, and to pay in part for us to build a new stadium, they will get no sympathy from me. They will get exactly what they deserve.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
R

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
luwalla said:
this!!

the council are the ones that held the power and drove decisions all along, simple as that!

they had the power to look after the club of this city and the supporters of the club during our hard times - through administration and relegation - and they chose to try and hold the club to a rent agreement that was far out of affordability, because the previous owners signed whatever they had to to get the funding to finish the build & expected us to be back in the premier league

they had the ability to either reduce the rent to a token amount and give the club match day revenue to help it survive , and they chose not to and force the club out of the city once

they then. had the power to put aside any personal differences and act as elected representatives Of the city of coventry and do a deal With the football club that has representated this city for over 125 years, and brought millions if not billions of pounds to the city, and they chose to be spiteful because they did t like the owners, and sUR ground to a franchise rugby club from London under dubious terms - a company that are seemingly ridden with debt, offer little stability and carry no history to this city....whatever way you look at it, that was unacceptable

and now it seems they are also preventing the club from now playing at the ground we built and partly paid for, because they are pulling the strings in the background to try and protect themselves from any uncoverings on that deal

and some are still trying to stick up for the council and say it’s big bad SISUs Fault ?

SISU were naive and guilty of not understanding the busines they had got themselves into, but they have learnt and seen the errors they made and have corrected them.

With the exception of the fa cup and the one season under strachan as ‘the entertainers’ I’ve not known such highs... and my kids certainly haven’t. They have backed the manager, invested in players and wages and secured 2 promotions and a cup win. The council should be professional and put the past aside and try to ride the wave with us and indulge the people of coventry, instead it seems their only interest is protecting themselves form any wrong doing...

if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about! Let the rugby club do the deal
Click to expand...

The fuckers had £30m of ours in the bank after refusing to share it with us, that would have seen us through, plus the ridiculous rent they refused to negotiate. They've royally fucked us over at every turn. Where did the £30m go, nobody has ever said?
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueZack said:
The money from the Tesco land sale helped pay for the build didn’t it?
Click to expand...

Most likely. What I’ve never really understood is why if ACL had to have rent payments so high to cover the loan, they couldn’t have in essence loaned us the funding to buy into the stadium on the same (or, if they have to be seen to operate profitably, slightly worse) terms and our ‘rent’ payments pay that borrowing down. Would be able to argue it was done on commercial terms then.
 
R

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
There are many lessons to learn from their experiences. Initially Coventry City FC were on their own. They had located a derelict 72-acre site within 500 yards of the M6 Motorway which would have cost around £20m to buy and decontaminate.


Before any work began, they agreed to sell 50 per cent of the site, around 35 acres, to Tesco for around £62.5m. This left a profit of around £40m to build themselves a new stadium.



By the time I arrived in Coventry the deal had been struck; in simple terms it was going to be a joint venture between the football club and the council with both parties owning 50 per cent of the equity.


As the football club did not have the money to complete the purchase of the land, which would then enable them to sell off half of it to Tesco, it was agreed that Coventry City Council would purchase the land, then conclude the deal with Tesco, all as part of their joint venture agreement.


But mysteriously, once the purchase of the land and the sale to Tesco had been completed, Coventry City Council informed the football club that they were unable to share with them the profit from the sale of the land due to ‘state aid’ implications.


Instead, they offered Coventry City FC a 50 per cent share in the company that would operate the Ricoh Arena, but they, Coventry City Council would own all the equity in the property.


extract from Paul Fletcher's book, in print or CCC who don't want anything in the open, I know who I believe.
 
S

SkyBlueZack

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
Most likely. What I’ve never really understood is why if ACL had to have rent payments so high to cover the loan, they couldn’t have in essence loaned us the funding to buy into the stadium on the same (or, if they have to be seen to operate profitably, slightly worse) terms and our ‘rent’ payments pay that borrowing down. Would be able to argue it was done on commercial terms then.
Click to expand...

The rent was high as only a 50 year lease was issued? I believe it would have been cheaper on a longer lease. The interior fit out cost 21m which is what ACL* were paying back.

*CCFC
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
SkyBlueZack said:
The rent was high as only a 50 year lease was issued? I believe it would have been cheaper on a longer lease. The interior fit out cost 21m which is what ACL* were paying back.

*CCFC
Click to expand...

Yeah, should have given ACL a 250 year lease which would then make it easier to finance and therefore they wouldn't struggle so much.

CCFC were propping ACL up.
 
R

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
It's been said the de-contamination costs were nearly double the estimate and that's why the money ran out, but you'd expect your partner in the deal to act fairly and decently, wouldn't you?
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
tisza said:
could have been long enough to encourage SISU to exit quicker.
Click to expand...

The lease wasn't considered long enough as it stood.
SBAndy said:
Most likely. What I’ve never really understood is why if ACL had to have rent payments so high to cover the loan, they couldn’t have in essence loaned us the funding to buy into the stadium on the same (or, if they have to be seen to operate profitably, slightly worse) terms and our ‘rent’ payments pay that borrowing down. Would be able to argue it was done on commercial terms then.
Click to expand...
We did of course own half of ACL.
 
ccfc1234

ccfc1234

Well-Known Member
capel & collindridge said:
Thank you ccfc1234. But you know, I have contributed before (my italics and bold)

On 30th July 2016 - 4 years ago to the day - I posted in the
Formal Planning Objection from CCFC thread:

Did Chris Anderson fail to turn up for a meeting that he had agreed to attend? If he hadn't agreed to attend in the first place, why make anything of the fact that he didn't attend?
And even if he had said he would attend - and is there actually any proof he did say he would? - he would still have been wise not to attend if it became apparent at any stage that the meeting was not being held in good faith.

I can't believe that so many City fans believe a word that Wasps and CCC say. It's utterly disgraceful - and no more than 10% SISU's fault.


and on 20th November 2015, I posted in the
Butts Park Arena is new home thread:

tonyok said: It will never happen with Sisu. Just another pointless campaign to keep the FA of their backs! Let's just concentrate on the football.

My reply: I know I'm very much in the minority here, but I've always thought it likely that somehow or other a new stadium would have to be built. I can understand why people haven't believed TF, as his job at SISU seems to have been to head up the misinformation department. But Chris Anderson is in a completely different position. Why would he come in as a high profile figure within the game, shoot his mouth off about stadium plans that don't exist and a meeting with the FA that hasn't happened, without being genuinely convinced that we will soon be acquiring a new stadium. He has everything to lose by making false claims. Equally, he has everything to lose by demonstrating that he is being duped by our owners, or that he is stupid enough not to know the difference between Coventry City Council and the adjoining areas or not to know that basic knowledge of this kind matters to City supporters. The really interesting bit for me appears to be the suggestion that CCC may be willing to contemplate some kind of an accommodation with SISU about a ground in the city for the City. Let's hope common sense prevails and we get something akin to HR Mark 2.
Click to expand...
Something I posted a while back. Seems some have woken some are entrenched.

www.skybluestalk.co.uk

The penny dropping?

I would like to state before I continue that I am not saying sisu are blameless or the way they have handled things is right, but I feel there is a significant amount of mitigation as to why they have behaved the way they have. Imagine you own a company that has an office it leases from the...
www.skybluestalk.co.uk www.skybluestalk.co.uk
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Moff said:
Sold by a previous administration, but airbrushed from history by some as it doesn’t fit their SISU are to blame for everything rhetoric
Click to expand...

True. Although you’ve “airbrushed” the fact they threw away our option on half. And refused any long term lease deal as they wanted the freehold. And I think, but could be wrong cos I can’t find a source to back me up, have said that they aren’t interested in a long term deal with Wasps either. And of course, broke the long term deal they had when they arrived.

But that doesn’t fit the Sisu are to blame for nothing rhetoric ;)

Facts are we are where we are and we need to get back to a long term stable ground situation. Let’s all hope that’s Warwick for real this time and we aren’t all here in ten years debating another stadium mess (or god forbid the 84th legal battle between Sisu and whoever and the 82nd round of “short term rental negotiations while we build a ground”).
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
True. Although you’ve “airbrushed” the fact they threw away our option on half. And refused any long term lease deal as they wanted the freehold. And I think, but could be wrong cos I can’t find a source to back me up, have said that they aren’t interested in a long term deal with Wasps either. And of course, broke the long term deal they had when they arrived.

But that doesn’t fit the Sisu are to blame for nothing rhetoric ;)

Facts are we are where we are and we need to get back to a long term stable ground situation. Let’s all hope that’s Warwick for real this time and we aren’t all here in ten years debating another stadium mess (or god forbid the 84th legal battle between Sisu and whoever and the 82nd round of “short term rental negotiations while we build a ground”).
Click to expand...

Has it actually been said that longterm deals were offered and rejected because of wanting free hold? I can remember them saying they wanted Freehold but I can't remember a lease being offered and refused?

Nobody is saying SISU are to blame for nothing though, are they? Why make things up?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Has it actually been said that longterm deals were offered and rejected because of wanting free hold? I can remember them saying they wanted Freehold but I can't remember a lease being offered and refused?

Nobody is saying SISU are to blame for nothing though, are they? Why make things up?
Click to expand...



And nobody is saying they are to blame for everything. Was simply reversing the rhetorical device, not making things up.

This is like the racism thread all over. It doesn’t have to be black or white is my point. “Hate Sisu” vs “Love Sisu” or whatever.

That’s my memory was “unencumbered freehold” was the request and they didn’t even enter talks. Could be wrong. But it’s the same as “we don’t want the Ricoh” isn’t it? If you’re not saying what you actually mean and are just using it as some kind of negotiating tactic, you don’t really get to whine when you’re taken seriously.

Like my missus always going “oh don’t buy me anything for my birthday”. You and I both know she doesn’t mean that, but in reality she can’t moan if it happens.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
And nobody is saying they are to blame for everything. Was simply reversing the rhetorical device, not making things up.

This is like the racism thread all over. It doesn’t have to be black or white is my point. “Hate Sisu” vs “Love Sisu” or whatever.

That’s my memory was “unencumbered freehold” was the request and they didn’t even enter talks. Could be wrong. But it’s the same as “we don’t want the Ricoh” isn’t it? If you’re not saying what you actually mean and are just using it as some kind of negotiating tactic, you don’t really get to whine when you’re taken seriously.

Like my missus always going “oh don’t buy me anything for my birthday”. You and I both know she doesn’t mean that, but in reality she can’t moan if it happens.
Click to expand...

The point was, people blame SISU for things previously.

Look at how you react when people say the council were cunts pre SISU and back it up with things. You lose your shit.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
The point was, people blame SISU for things previously.

Look at how you react when people say the council were cunts pre SISU and back it up with things. You lose your shit.
Click to expand...

Mate it’s not be losing my shit at that. It’s me losing my shit at you. 😘
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Funny really considering they were unpicked as soon as Wasps got in.

Is that from the legal?
Click to expand...

Leaked council cabinet report on the Observer site. Search CCFC “unencumbered freehold” and it’s about the third link.

And Wasps don’t own the freehold. ACL lease was extended not cancelled.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
Leaked council cabinet report on the Observer site. Search CCFC “unencumbered freehold” and it’s about the third link.

And Wasps don’t own the freehold. ACL lease was extended not cancelled.
Click to expand...

I will have a look.

I didn't say they did owned the freehold, I said the agreements were soon unpicked ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top