torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Exactly, shows how really spiteful CCC were as ultimately they weren't only getting on over on SISU, but on CCFC and the fans of the city's football club.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Completely agree, it must have been blind hatred, and the ends didn't justify the means.
Probably regret it now, but as we all know it's to late.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Its a real shame that a joint deal wasn't agreed, this would have cemented a long term future for both clubs which would have been mutually beneficial. Both clubs could have worked together to run a real successful complex which would have generated cash for both teams. Sadly this did not happen and we have been shafted.
Just imagine if we won League One next season, how could the council come out and celebrate that achievement like LC Council are doing right now. Things like that they have not foreseen as they have alienated the club from the city. Not going to happen but we can dream (point still stands though!!)
Just imagine if we won League One next season, how could the council come out and celebrate that achievement like LC Council are doing right now. Things like that they have not foreseen as they have alienated the club from the city. Not going to happen but we can dream (point still stands though!!)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Other than they put in an offer and then come up with the cash. It was a bit hard to sell to SISU when they didn't show willing enough to even table an offer.
Moff
Well-Known Member
I hate to enter into this, but you could equally argue if they had put in an offer it wouldnt have been accepted anyway. Until hell freezes over and all that.
They are all shit.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
My biggest gripe on all this is the difference in the 2 sides elected (unpaid) labour councillors representing CCC v hedge fund / Private equity. Not saying one is better or worse but their motivations made a conflict almost inevitable, CCC didn't want to be seen to be conceding (potiticians never do) but paved the way for another hedge fund to clean up whilst CCC came out of it with political careers in tact.
And we the fans lost out.
And we the fans lost out.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
If it was hard to sell to SISU then don't sell. It's an asset for the people of Coventry don't forget and it was also apparently doing rather well. Sit on it and wait until CCFC have new and proper owners and let the club who have been in the city for a 130 years prosper rather than a team from London.
As I said, they took the "spite" a little too far. 85 miles and 250 years too far.
As I said, they took the "spite" a little too far. 85 miles and 250 years too far.
Nick
Administrator
Or put some watertight clauses in it so that it is about CCFC and not SISU.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Maybe put a clause in to protect the asset, something like the new owner not being able to take out huge loans to pay themselves back millions
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
That would never happen! I think we should write to the Council though, just in case.
Maybe put a clause in to protect the asset, something like the new owner not being able to take out huge loans to pay themselves back millions
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
it could have been us ................. errr no it couldnt
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They are all shit. But unless SISU put a bid in to be rejected you can't argue anything. If they'd put a bid in they'd either have exposed CCC as a dictatorship or we'd be sitting in the Ricoh as owners not tennants. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a valid reason as to why SISU didn't bid. People use the the "hell will freeze over" line, it was never on the open market line ect. to let SISU of the hook for not bidding when invited all the time. It's a cop out. What have SISU done to deserve such respect from CCFC fans? Even then as fans it's our job to hold them accountable for our club and the fact is they never tabled a bid with CCC after being invited to. Serious or otherwise. Why not? It was their duty to as custodians of CCFC.
Sorry but why didn't SISU table a bid with CCC should be the first question of any CCFC's fans lips when it comes to the matter of the sale of the Ricoh. Quite frankly it staggers me that it isn't for some. It staggers me even more that some round up on those of us who do. It staggers me even more again that they then use such lame ass excuses as the aforementioned excuses to defend them. They truly don't deserve that loyalty.
Nick
Administrator
We don't know when the Leicester owners supposedly had a look round though. It could well have been pre SISU like other parties did. We don't even know if they actually did.
The respect is to CCFC, not SISU. The same as it was before SISU were here and after they go.
I think CCC are exposing themselves without the need for SISU. What is stranger is the people who won't see that they have done anything wrong, even now when they are being exposed for other things unrelated to CCFC but along the same lines. Also things before SISU were even here.
Imagine if the Shapiro bid went ahead and not laughed at?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Can't argue with any of that post.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
They entered negotiations and HOT was agreed. As the judge in the JR said there was a lack of appetite on both sides to complete a deal. Why that was no one knows for sure. Did SISU not want to pay what was being asked? Possibly. Was the asking price too much? Possibly. Did both sides think the loan could be reduced? Possibly. Did it all go horribly wrong? Most definately.
Ann Lucas did go to London to meet Joy. Did SISU ask for the meeting to remain private? Yes. Did it? No. Did this affect negotiations? Possibly. Could/can SISU be trusted? Probably not, although can't say for definate as we didn't get opportunity to find out.
When Wasps had an offer for CCC shares accepted, SISU under the agreement were invited to make an offer. They did, albeit with conditions attached. Mainly in regard to community work with AEHC. Also asked to see the terms of the Wasps sale. Which IMO is just due diligence which they would of benefited from doing when they first took over. Maybe there was an ulterior motive. Can't say definitely.
To say SISU didn't make a bid of any kind is not entirely correct. Then again I'm sure you will educate me on it all.
Ann Lucas did go to London to meet Joy. Did SISU ask for the meeting to remain private? Yes. Did it? No. Did this affect negotiations? Possibly. Could/can SISU be trusted? Probably not, although can't say for definate as we didn't get opportunity to find out.
When Wasps had an offer for CCC shares accepted, SISU under the agreement were invited to make an offer. They did, albeit with conditions attached. Mainly in regard to community work with AEHC. Also asked to see the terms of the Wasps sale. Which IMO is just due diligence which they would of benefited from doing when they first took over. Maybe there was an ulterior motive. Can't say definitely.
To say SISU didn't make a bid of any kind is not entirely correct. Then again I'm sure you will educate me on it all.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
With respect Nick that's just BS. If the respect was for CCFC said posters would be asking the question of SISU not rounding up on those that do. The have either completely misunderstood what it takes to purchase something once invited to make an offer or they're giving SISU too much respect by letting them of the hook for failing to bid after being invited.
Why didn't they table an offer? Serious or otherwise? It's a simple enough question.
Nick
Administrator
They did, they made 2 offers didn't they? for the Higgs shares. (3 if you count the "charity" one).
Why were SISU asking for confidential meetings with the council, but the council leaking them? What was being discussed or wanted to be discussed?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
HOT's were for the Higgs share prior to being invited to bid for the CCC share. Not even the same thing.
And sorry but JS wanted the meeting to remain private is just another one of those lame ass excuses. Aside from the fact that the only details we know of the meeting is that SISU never tabled a bid it remained private. We know no details.
Nick
Administrator
How do you know they didn't discuss buying it if it was private? Surely they weren't having a chat about handbags and makeup.
I am not saying they did, or didn't. Like you say we don't know.
I am sure of the council wanted a confidential meeting with SISU but Tim Fisher leaked it, everything would have been their fault for betraying trust etc and they shouldn't be worked with.
It also goes further than SISU too doesn't it? What happens if one of the other people interested would have taken us over? There would never have been a SISU here...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So? SISU still never tabled an offer with CCC. It's the only thing we do know for a fact. Why not? That's the question you should be asking. Why not?
H
Huckerby
Guest
I think this would have been the ideal option I agree. But weren't they losing shit loads of money (despite what they said) and therefore it was better to just get rid?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
But you stated no bid had been made? A bid for the Higgs or CCC share is still a bid. Wasps wanted their meetings held private. CCC complied. They even went to the length of requesting CET keep the deal secret. Well according to Italia only formal bids have to be acknowledge. Therefore SISU could have said we will give you 2.5m for your 50% and 2.5m for AEHC share. Ann Lucas could have said well yes but only with the current lease in place and no extension. SISU could have said thank but no thanks. That's called negotiations. Sometimes when you negotiate it goes no where and therefore no bid is tabled. Doesn't mean SISU didn't want to bid or CCC didn't want to sell. As you have said we don't know the details. Yet you seem to know definitivly that SISU did not attempt to bid or submitted a bid. Funny that.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
So you have moved the goalposts from never tabled a bid to never bidded for the CCC share. Good work Tony, keep it up. Italia will be along shortly to give you hand moving them.
Nick
Administrator
Exactly, we don't know what was discussed at the time. We also dont know what was going on with wasps at this point either.
It's a good point about the wasps privacy, those discussions didn't end up in the telegraph.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You would think. Yet here we are. "it was supposed to be a private meeting" "what if TF had have leaked it" More lame ass excuses that still don't explain why SISU never tabled a bid with CCC when invited. I really couldn't give a flying one that the fact the meeting was leaked. It didn't mean SISU couldn't table a bid. I fail to believe that a hard nosed hedge fund are so sensitive that they ran away crying because they were bullied by CCC announcing that AL was having a meeting about the Ricoh with JS at SISU's Mayfair office. It's difficult to see what else is being implied by constantly rolling that line out. Are we really to believe that this is the reason SISU failed to table an offer to CCC?
Nick
Administrator
How do you know wasps wasn't a done deal while all of that was going on?
How do you know discussions about it didn't take place?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Try READING my detailed post again. I clearly say at the bottom of the first paragraph "never tabled a bid with CCC". Sorry if that confused you.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
People say sisu can't be trusted. No one disagrees. By the same token the council went against the request to keep it private but complied with wasps request. Who also are a hedge fund. I imagine both hedge funds requested it as part of commercial confidentially. In part to minimise protests against the bids. Also to help keep the price down by not allowing a bidding war to start. No no one for one moment has said the sole reason is because of a meeting being leaked. What people are saying is, it contributed to the sorry mess. Is that so hard to understand?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Because it had to go to a full council meeting to be rubber stamped. When did that meeting happen again?
Discussions about what exactly?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Sorry missed that bit. I was trying to answer in detail myself. Please do forgive me.
Nick
Administrator
Yes but it could have been pretty much agreed before then I mean?
Discussions about the ricoh obviously, let's not forget if they had been more willing with shapiro years ago things could have been totally different.
It's not a new thing with the club and stadium is it? It dates before sisu
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Considering the size and duration of the sorry mess I struggle to believe anything it might have contributed to it wouldn't even register as a drop in the ocean.
