Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wasps aren't exactly rolling in profit either.
Could Otium (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
Wasps aren't exactly rolling in profit either.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day unless SISU want to be renting for a long time.
They need to approach wasps and Higgs with a business proposal behind their offer.
The proposal needs to include all the rinks Higgs were looking for in the first place. Secondly the proposal needs to show wasps why it would be advantageous to be in business with CCFC.
Otherwise it is Veto and renting or a new stadium.
They need to approach wasps and Higgs with a business proposal behind their offer.
The proposal needs to include all the rinks Higgs were looking for in the first place. Secondly the proposal needs to show wasps why it would be advantageous to be in business with CCFC.
Otherwise it is Veto and renting or a new stadium.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I fail to see at present any business advantages for anyone to be involved with ownership of CCFC.
I think this will only ever change when SISU's investors finally say enough is enough. When this happens there may be a small chance someone will want to get involved, but they would have to be prepared for the possibility of losing plenty of money.
We are going to be a poor side for quite some time.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Still think it is Higgs selling their share so it would be Higgs making the decision.
Wasps as replacement for the council could Veto.
However High's initial decision prior to a veto would based on what is best for Higgs not ACL or wasps.
Any other way round is completely illogical
Wasps as replacement for the council could Veto.
However High's initial decision prior to a veto would based on what is best for Higgs not ACL or wasps.
Any other way round is completely illogical
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you know more than OSB now. Ok.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
OSB never said it was purely a decision from the directors of ACL that is like the tail wagging the Dog.
Higgs own the shares the directors of ACL are employed partly by them and partly by the wasps consortium.
Higgs are selling their shares they will decide who they sell them to, their employees will not dictate to their employers.
The owners of the other shares however can block the bid once Higgs accept an offer.
The directors of ACL sit on a ring lower than the trustee of Higgs in this matter. Apart from the ones from wasps.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Only in your own head Don but fair enough. You know more than anyone including someone who has 50% share in a private company - fair enough.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You really don't help yourself sometimes Grendo with this stonking great arrogance.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh come on there are numerous posters who explain this over and over again but ithe facts are just ignored over and over again.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The arguments have been put forward more than once why a joint Wasps-CCFC ownership of ACL would work out better for Wasps and ACL than sole Wasps ownership for the simple reason that it will secure the presence of 2 clubs there rather than one. Do you not think there's any mileage in that? I agree with you on the council's conduct. I agree with you on the main reason for Higgs to have made this offer open to the liquidator. What I am saying is that it is possible for the club to put forward a credible case for joint ownership and the people making the final decision will have to do better than 'we don't like Seppalla' to justify rejecting it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry Don but I have to agree with other posters here that a merger between the two is unlikely to be either the solution or a good solution. Understandably CCFC fans see it from a Sky Blue perspective but the key is to see it from the perspective of the other parties. How do they benefit - it is easy to think CCFC will benefit but the other parties?
a merger creates a new entity generally and I think you are wrong in assuming an equal split is either a given or possible.
You have to look at what you are merging. Is it SBS&L with the London Wasps holdings (LWH) or is it Otium and LWH or is it even CCFC Ltd and LWH (very unlikely) or some other set up.
Having decided that then you need to look at what each of the bodies to be merged brings to the table and the effect on income steams, risk, control, value, etc. The risk factor is the important thing. Yes the LWH 2013 accounts do not look great but what about Otium or SBS&L?
Wasps are in the driving seat in this like it or not. Why would they want to merge now with a club that carries even more risk? Why would they want to give away rights to income to someone else whose recent history and performance has been nothing short of shocking? why share control with a club that is leaving in 4 years? Why do Wasps need to merge with CCFC when CCFC have to be at the stadium for a minimum of 4 years? What do CCFC actually bring to the table now for a merger - dreams of premiership rewards are just that dreams and carry no value in setting up a merger. If the intention is to take on board CCFC eventually why do Wasps need to give or compromise on anything when there is a possibility of getting it for nothing with little debt?
Not sure about this notion of isolating the loans - ARVO loans are secured on CCFC assets, CCFC shares etc and no disposal can be done without ARVO approval. At the moment ARVO and SBS&L receive interest on their loans if the loans are isolated where do they get the loans serviced from? You are asking ARVO and SBS&L to give up income and secured loans in return for the risky possibility of maybe getting a return at some point in the future.
It might make sense for CCFC but I just do not see how it benefits Wasps and that is the key. They will look at CCFC and see high risk, intransigent litigious ownership, a club with no choice about being at the Ricoh for 4 years at least, a team on the slide, declining crowds and therefore declining income, disenchanted and disconnected fans, income streams that barely cover the costs of putting a CCFC match on, ............. what exactly makes CCFC a must have to Wasps, yes they might like to use the stadium more but.............
Sorry don just do not see this
As for the Charity decision should they receive an offer from SISU. It does not simply follow that because say SISU offer more money that the Charity must accept it. Might make it more likely to be considered but the Charity must consider which offer actually best meets the aims and objectives of the Charity. That may well involve things that are not cash receivable by the Charity. It is about the package not just the cash. I do not believe the option agreement means they must accept the SISU offer simply that they must allow CCFC Ltd to bid and must consider it properly. Even in the imo unlikely event that AEHC accept the offer then I would think that the veto and ACL directors then come in to play.
The Trustees of AEHC even if directors of ACL have a duty to do what is best for the Charity (ACL doesn't come in to it) The directors of ACL have a duty to do what is best for ACL (the charity does not come in to it). Some characters wear two hats but never at the same time, they might be part of both but their responsibilities to each are quite separate
There is a in my opinion a clear plan as to how things should go....... offering the opportunity to CCFC Ltd liquidator is dotting i's and crossing t's I believe
btw my understanding is that the council officers have resigned as directors at ACL and are no longer on the Board.
a merger creates a new entity generally and I think you are wrong in assuming an equal split is either a given or possible.
You have to look at what you are merging. Is it SBS&L with the London Wasps holdings (LWH) or is it Otium and LWH or is it even CCFC Ltd and LWH (very unlikely) or some other set up.
Having decided that then you need to look at what each of the bodies to be merged brings to the table and the effect on income steams, risk, control, value, etc. The risk factor is the important thing. Yes the LWH 2013 accounts do not look great but what about Otium or SBS&L?
Wasps are in the driving seat in this like it or not. Why would they want to merge now with a club that carries even more risk? Why would they want to give away rights to income to someone else whose recent history and performance has been nothing short of shocking? why share control with a club that is leaving in 4 years? Why do Wasps need to merge with CCFC when CCFC have to be at the stadium for a minimum of 4 years? What do CCFC actually bring to the table now for a merger - dreams of premiership rewards are just that dreams and carry no value in setting up a merger. If the intention is to take on board CCFC eventually why do Wasps need to give or compromise on anything when there is a possibility of getting it for nothing with little debt?
Not sure about this notion of isolating the loans - ARVO loans are secured on CCFC assets, CCFC shares etc and no disposal can be done without ARVO approval. At the moment ARVO and SBS&L receive interest on their loans if the loans are isolated where do they get the loans serviced from? You are asking ARVO and SBS&L to give up income and secured loans in return for the risky possibility of maybe getting a return at some point in the future.
It might make sense for CCFC but I just do not see how it benefits Wasps and that is the key. They will look at CCFC and see high risk, intransigent litigious ownership, a club with no choice about being at the Ricoh for 4 years at least, a team on the slide, declining crowds and therefore declining income, disenchanted and disconnected fans, income streams that barely cover the costs of putting a CCFC match on, ............. what exactly makes CCFC a must have to Wasps, yes they might like to use the stadium more but.............
Sorry don just do not see this
As for the Charity decision should they receive an offer from SISU. It does not simply follow that because say SISU offer more money that the Charity must accept it. Might make it more likely to be considered but the Charity must consider which offer actually best meets the aims and objectives of the Charity. That may well involve things that are not cash receivable by the Charity. It is about the package not just the cash. I do not believe the option agreement means they must accept the SISU offer simply that they must allow CCFC Ltd to bid and must consider it properly. Even in the imo unlikely event that AEHC accept the offer then I would think that the veto and ACL directors then come in to play.
The Trustees of AEHC even if directors of ACL have a duty to do what is best for the Charity (ACL doesn't come in to it) The directors of ACL have a duty to do what is best for ACL (the charity does not come in to it). Some characters wear two hats but never at the same time, they might be part of both but their responsibilities to each are quite separate
There is a in my opinion a clear plan as to how things should go....... offering the opportunity to CCFC Ltd liquidator is dotting i's and crossing t's I believe
btw my understanding is that the council officers have resigned as directors at ACL and are no longer on the Board.
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
I must confess that I can't see a merger of Wasps & CCFC happening, but I can see that Wasps might be interested in taking over ownership of CCFC from SISU when they finally give up. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing by the way.
Alternatively, SISU may think that Wasps have bitten off more than they can chew, and are perhaps still hoping to get the Ricoh on the back of the rugby team's failure.
I think what we'll see now is a waiting game, where both sides see how the other does for a year or two.
To my mind both Wasps and CCFC are owned by predators in it for themselves, if it works best for them as a company to screw the other (or their own clubs) over then they'll do it without hesitation.
It might end up OK, but the only people who can see the future guaranteed as rainbows and unicorns would seem to be the Councillors.
Alternatively, SISU may think that Wasps have bitten off more than they can chew, and are perhaps still hoping to get the Ricoh on the back of the rugby team's failure.
I think what we'll see now is a waiting game, where both sides see how the other does for a year or two.
To my mind both Wasps and CCFC are owned by predators in it for themselves, if it works best for them as a company to screw the other (or their own clubs) over then they'll do it without hesitation.
It might end up OK, but the only people who can see the future guaranteed as rainbows and unicorns would seem to be the Councillors.
Last edited: