Match Thread Polite Notice (AKA Grendel, Nick & Orca's Argument Thread) (1 Viewer)

Ginnel I've heard, You can't watch Coronation Street as much as I do without knowing that all kinds of things happen in the ginnel

fatso said:

You could also say that if wasps didnt happen to be looking for a stadium to buy at exactly the same time (coincidence?) That the only buyers would of been sisu, which is exactly what sisu were relying on.

Click to expand...

SISU might have been relying on it but it was far from certain.

Of course now we'll never know but I could see the likes of the NEC Group (who have been diversifying to operate venues outside of Birmingham in recent years) or someone like AEG taking an interest. Anyone who potentially wanted to become the owner of CCFC would also surely be interested. And if the asking price was as low as Wasps paid even something like a trust led bid would't be entirely out of the question.

Of course you only need two parties to be interested and the price starts rising, much better for the local taxpayer I would have thought than a deal done in secret and only offered to one potential buyer.

richnrg said:

ah, gamboling down the entry...sweet memories.

Click to expand...

Oh course there was the forward and reverse gambol

skyblueindorset said:

It was either entry or jetty for me.

Click to expand...

There was the back entry in Hollis road Stoke circa 1974

After that we moved to Ryton and the entry there was never referred as a back entry

ajsccfc said:

Ginnel I've heard, You can't watch Coronation Street as much as I do without knowing that all kinds of things happen in the ginnel

Click to expand...

Yeah she is from Manchester.

Actually, does that give me an 'in' to be a Man United or Man City supporter?

SEE YOU LATER LADS

Can't believe we only spent over £100 million this summer what a joke

fatso said:

I think the council/ACL may have known that ccfc were struggling with the rent for some time.

Click to expand...

Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.

Did anyone use the phrase chuddy instead of chewing gum , give us a chuddy ?

fatso said:

That would of been ideal. But once sisu had tried to financially distress the council by deliberately withholding rent, I'm afraid the council were reluctant to even engage with them (this is where in starts to become personal with ego mania taking over)
I have no doubt that ccc could well of been looking to off load the ricoh to any other interested party.

Click to expand...

Yep it was personal I know both sides personally

chiefdave said:

SISU might have been relying on it but it was far from certain.

Of course now we'll never know but I could see the likes of the NEC Group (who have been diversifying to operate venues outside of Birmingham in recent years) or someone like AEG taking an interest. Anyone who potentially wanted to become the owner of CCFC would also surely be interested. And if the asking price was as low as Wasps paid even something like a trust led bid would't be entirely out of the question.

Of course you only need two parties to be interested and the price starts rising, much better for the local taxpayer I would have thought than a deal done in secret and only offered to one potential buyer.

Click to expand...

Whilst I can see your point here Dave and in general agree with the premise that sale should have been more open, I have a slight issue with what you've said about the other parties that might be interested. Whilst I appreciate that we were back at the Ricoh by the time the deal was signed, if the stadium had been put into the open market with no anchor sporting tenant, it would have been a big gamble for any party that wanted to be solely a stadium operator. As CCFC had left to go to Northampton, anyone doing due diligence over the potential purchase would have been massively put off as the only likely tenant (CCFC) had gone and that the reasons for leaving were due to (amongst other things), a dispute over the rent. All of a sudden Wasps appear and become their own tenant at ACL (which is still the name of the operating company).

The reason the Ricoh was valued at such a low price was that the valuation was completed when there was no tenant. In fact, in 2011 PWC did a valuation and gave a sliding scale of the valuation based on the amount of rent it brought it. I don't think it's in dispute that Wasps were lucky and got a great deal, but at the time the valuation was done, the Ricoh had no tenant and that has a direct impact on the value of a business.

chiefdave said:

Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.

Click to expand...

I think it was documented somewhere the rent was less than 10% of the club's outgoings.

Skyblueweeman said:

It's the whole ethical point though, isn't it...why be party to ripping a club from its community in London? Yes Wasps might have been fishing for a move after the approach in 2012, but why get involved in something that could prove so divisive?

They (Council/ACL) would've known forecasted revenues from the Ricoh venture before it opened. Were they doing it raise more money...ie, getting in another sports team to bring more cash in? I just don't get their motives. We were paying a good whack when they approached Wasps. It was a personal move, not a business move, to bring them here.

Ultimately, ACL and Wasps tore a club away from it's community and moved them permanently approx 100 miles away. I'm sure if we moved to Bury or Bolton, there would be uproar. Not so much when it's Wasps coming to Coventry...

Click to expand...

Rugby is different of course but even so!!!

Orca said:

I think it was documented somewhere the rent was less than 10% of the club's outgoings.

Click to expand...

It was 30% of league 1 turnover

shmmeee said:

I’ll help you out: the people on this site are CCFC fans, not Wasps fans.

Some of us saw this coming a mile off when we gambled on a rent strike and leaving the Ricoh to get us a better deal.

Don’t blame everyone else your hare brained plan backfired. Take some responsibility. Neither Wasps nor CCC have maintaining CCFC as their primary objective as much as you may wish otherwise. Put your big boy pants on.

If you want us to have special treatment ahead of any other business, you should probably be backing the Trusts attempts to get some level of fan ownership. Until then it’s down to Sisu to set our business strategy for better or worse.

What boils my blood is the likes of Nick, Grendel, etc going on and on about how the rent strike was genius and no one would want the Ricoh and the Council would come crawling back. Then getting pissy that the entire world isn’t playing along with their delusion. Now, like Brexit, it’s endless backtracking and distraction to avoid facing the fact they backed a stupid idea that’s made us homeless.

For the slow ones at the back: yes the rent was too high. At that juncture Sisu had several options, they chose the high risk one of legal action and rent strikes. It hasn’t worked.

Click to expand...

I agree that Sisu messed up and have primary responsibility for ccfc but ccc have some responsibility surely!!

Orca said:

Whilst I can see your point here Dave and in general agree with the premise that sale should have been more open, I have a slight issue with what you've said about the other parties that might be interested. Whilst I appreciate that we were back at the Ricoh by the time the deal was signed, if the stadium had been put into the open market with no anchor sporting tenant, it would have been a big gamble for any party that wanted to be solely a stadium operator. As CCFC had left to go to Northampton, anyone doing due diligence over the potential purchase would have been massively put off as the only likely tenant (CCFC) had gone and that the reasons for leaving were due to (amongst other things), a dispute over the rent. All of a sudden Wasps appear and become their own tenant at ACL (which is still the name of the operating company).

The reason the Ricoh was valued at such a low price was that the valuation was completed when there was no tenant. In fact, in 2011 PWC did a valuation and gave a sliding scale of the valuation based on the amount of rent it brought it. I don't think it's in dispute that Wasps were lucky and got a great deal, but at the time the valuation was done, the Ricoh had no tenant and that has a direct impact on the value of a business.

Click to expand...

So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?

Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?

After all, if I was selling a house with no tenant and then got a tenant I'd sell it for the price with a tenant.

Nick said:

So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?

Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?

Click to expand...

Nick said:

So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?

Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?

Click to expand...

It would appear not.

Orca said:

It would appear not.

Click to expand...

How's that the best deal for the tax payer then?

Wasps didn't appear all of a sudden, their owner was talking about it before he even bought Wasps....

Nick said:

So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?

Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?

After all, if I was selling a house with no tenant and then got a tenant I'd sell it for the price with a tenant.

Click to expand...

The other absurdity of this argument is that ccfc were always going to have to pay substantially more than an organisation coming in from the outside - and the club were never offered the council share anyway

Sisu should have refused to pay the rent from day 1 that was their mistake

Nick said:

How's that the best deal for the tax payer then?

Wasps didn't appear all of a sudden, their owner was talking about it before he even bought Wasps....

Click to expand...

The tax payer isn’t impacted either way - it’s a myth

Orca said:

Whilst I can see your point here Dave and in general agree with the premise that sale should have been more open, I have a slight issue with what you've said about the other parties that might be interested. Whilst I appreciate that we were back at the Ricoh by the time the deal was signed, if the stadium had been put into the open market with no anchor sporting tenant, it would have been a big gamble for any party that wanted to be solely a stadium operator.

Click to expand...

But you can't know that nobody else would be interested. The price Wasps paid was the price they were prepared to pay when nobody else even got to bid so you've established a baseline. The only way is up from there, you just need one other interested party and the price rises and the local taxpayer benefits.

If the council had already accepted they were happy to move clubs around the country while they were in the press at every opportunity saying how disgraceful it was for a club to be playing outside of their home city then who is to say there wouldn't have been other clubs besides Wasps interested?

Also what was stopping the council working to get the club back if that made the sale more attractive and / or potential owners speaking with CCFC to ascertain the possibility of them returning to the Ricoh with ACL under new ownership?

Grendel said:

The tax payer isn’t impacted either way - it’s a myth

Click to expand...

I thought you'd previously said that ACL was loss-making with no tenant?

Orca said:

I thought you'd previously said that ACL was loss-making with no tenant?

Click to expand...

ACL is a private company and has limited liability

BackRoomRummermill said:

Did anyone use the phrase chuddy instead of chewing gum , give us a chuddy ?

Click to expand...

Yes of course.

Main characters in the council probably for good reason couldn’t and therefore wouldn’t work with Sisu. They hated one another

mark82 said:

Can't take you seriously after your conspiracy theories and talk of the Van Halen belt. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Lol, fair point.
Just a bit of fun with the conspiracy stuff, But I forgot the Oswald shooting JFK one.

fatso said:

Lol, fair point.
Just a bit of fun with the conspiracy stuff, But I forgot the Oswald shooting JFK one.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you are going to have to submit to an IQ test before any posts can be taken seriously.

chiefdave said:

Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.

Click to expand...

WTF? That's like a millionare going into Tescos to buy a Mars Bar and being told as you can afford it, we'll charge you a fiver. Totally unconnected.

Nick said:

So the Ricoh was valued at a low price with no tenant but the sale didn't actually get approved until there was a tenant?

Did nobody stop to think that the price should go up?

After all, if I was selling a house with no tenant and then got a tenant I'd sell it for the price with a tenant.

Click to expand...

Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.
I do buy to rent want my own tenants not someone elses.

richnrg said:

the marmite factory?

Click to expand...

I think they make poles.

letsallsingtogether said:

Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.
I do buy to rent want my own tenants not someone elses.

Click to expand...

I'd boldly suggest commercial letting and buy to let are not comparable

A bald, bold knight (in the day)

letsallsingtogether said:

Which would be harder to sell most people dont want tenants involved.
I do buy to rent want my own tenants not someone elses.

Click to expand...

Trust me, in commercial letting (especially purpose-built commercial letting) you want tenants in situ.

chiefdave said:

Of course they did. Mutton was council leader at the time and I seem to recall him firing off comments about the rent and how it wasn't an issue because of how much the club was spending on players.

Click to expand...

But then at the same time using one of the meetings over the stadium to berate SISU over their lack of investment in the team. The bloke is an utter numpty.

Ricketts said:

I'm sorry but you are going to have to submit to an IQ test before any posts can be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

What will the threshold be?

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

itsabuzzard said:

What will the threshold be?

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The point at which the score can be considered as coming from someone intelligent ?

Basics m8