More Wasps BS? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfc92
- Start date
Astute
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We paid a rent of around £500,000 and this then went up in the years after the initial period due to penalties imposed by the builders
PWKH I think made up some rubbish the £1.3 m rent was set as it’s what we paid at highfield road but both those statements were not correct
Astute
Well-Known Member
The rent for the Ricoh was set at 1.2m to stop it being classed as state aid. It went up to 1.3m.
It cost them 800k a year to keep HR usable as it was falling to bits. 400k was added to this. This made the rent 1.2m for HR. Nothing else was included like match day costs.
Here is a more independent source. It also states the approx 60m debt Richardson put our club in.
The demise of Coventry City Football Club | Football Supporters' Federation
It cost them 800k a year to keep HR usable as it was falling to bits. 400k was added to this. This made the rent 1.2m for HR. Nothing else was included like match day costs.
Here is a more independent source. It also states the approx 60m debt Richardson put our club in.
The demise of Coventry City Football Club | Football Supporters' Federation
Last edited:
peaches and cream
Well-Known Member
How is that even relevant? what your saying is Gloucester are not a good side and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Leicester by your reckoning after Norwich beat Man City that means Man City are now crap and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Norwich, i also appreciate you probably don't follow rugby so you wouldn't know but make no mistake Gloucester are a quality side and with Saracens accepting their fine and points deduction Gloucester have a fair chance of winning the whole thing.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Instead of pointing out the good points for other sides can you think of a good point for London Wasps?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That is written by Mr JimmyHillWay I’ve read it and doesn’t reference the rent at highfield road debts reportedly at £60m forgets any facts about the joint Ccfc and council project to decontaminate the land and then the council took the profit from the land. It also fails to mention why mcginnity rejected the compromise offer of receiving £2m back every year so a £1m profit
it’s a poor article
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I do "follow" rugby, so i am very aware that it's a very topsy-turvy season so far, with everyone managing to lose to someone. I suspect part of that is due to the number of players that some teams had lost to the RWC, but Bristol spanking Bath, then losing to Quins, Leicester carrying on from last season and losing to everyone but then beating Gloucester, Northampton unbeaten then losing to Bath all gives it a bit of a merry-go-round feel. Gloucester were a quality side last season, but then got walloped in the play-offs, so i wouldn't pin my hopes on them.
If everyone keeps losing the odd match like that, Sarries could put a run together which doesn't completely rule them out of getting to the play-offs (especially if they do what Jones has suggested and decide not to play for England in the 6 Nations).
Astute
Well-Known Member
Poor article? It will be as it says what you don't want it to.
So what was this joint CCFC/CCC decontamination of the land?
And are you going to try and say we bought the land again like you previously have?
Or are you going to try and change history again on the 50% we were given but sold fir much more than the 1.7m total CCFC put into the project?
Yes, most know we got stitched up by CCC. So there is no need to change history (or the truth) on what happened.
Even CCC ended up losing out. Looks like the Wasp bond holders are going to lose out. We have lost out. The charity lost out. And it wouldn't surprise me if it nearly finishes Wasps off.
A total waste of 113m.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Also as FP says none of this has anything to do with the basic point that the mess is caused by the decision by a bunch of self interested directors who wanted the project and wanted to stadium built
Administration and a stadium but back would have solved most of the problems the relegation caused
Administration and a stadium but back would have solved most of the problems the relegation caused
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It was a joint company to deal with the £20m contamination - the idea was to sell the land and have a joint profit on it - the council quoted state aid and said they couldn’t - to suggest we somehow then made a profit is absurd. The shares were compensation and arranged to give the club £1 m a year back surplus after rent was paid. We sold them for a pittance to desperately stave off administration
How was the Coventry City £1.3m Ricoh Arena rent bill decided
However, it does not explain how a loss making business would make a suitable long term tenant at the rent proposed
Astute
Well-Known Member
And state aid it is.
Pittance? Evidence?
We sold them off because of what Richardson did to our club. Maybe administration should have been the way instead.
But you are here to defend Richardson and attack CCC.
Of course not because there isn't any to back up what you say.
Astute
Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Interesting about the intention to restructure the lease and let the club takeover running of the arena.
how come this wasn’t publically offered?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Wonder how the Eu situation will affect using the ccfc loss against other group profits once we leave?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Your guess is as good as mine.
Could have been a non disclosure clause. Or both sides might have acted like twats and didn't want anyone to know.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
FP is correct you can’t understand what we are saying
back up to what? The land contamination and agreed deal - that’s pretty well known and had been laid out in some detail by Paul Fletcher
Grendel
Well-Known Member
lol you must be reading another article
Astute
Well-Known Member
No change to anything that happens before we leave.....If we do. It will still come under EU law in EU courts wherever is decided. And to add to that the Ricoh was built with EU money so they might well look into it more than usual.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So what don't I understand?
Just name something for once.
CCFC hardly had anything to do with the building of the Ricoh. Now you make out it was something totally different.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Eh? It was the original plan as was the deal to get £1m profit so it was rent free
It didn’t happen because the twat Mcginnity HAD to avoid administration and so we sold the shares
Astute
Well-Known Member
Go on then. Which part disagrees with me. Because it contradicts what you tried to say.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So what was the rent and what did both of us say what it was?
I suppose you can try and discredit what you are trying to use now :smuggrin:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The point you were attempting to make was that Richardson has agreed a £1.2m rent deal - he didn’t it was £500k and the last 3 years (by which time he had gone the average was £800,000 due to the escalation penalties and closer to £1m in the final year) you seem to be reading something and failing to understand what it says
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I believe it will affect their ability to aggregate profits and losses in the group
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Jesus H Christ. Is it 2013 again? Surely we’ve done this to death.
To bring up to date, I am currently sat in the legends lounge (at a conference). I haven’t been in here for a few months and while I’m not surprised if is sad to see that CCFC no longer exist in here. Every photo, piece of membrobilla and wall theme is Wasps.
A small sign that our home is no longer here, CCFC footprint around the arena is shrinking. A stadium built for our team now has very very little connection to our team.
Thanks to all involved - good work!!!
Nick
Administrator
Wasn't it like that even when we played there?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes it’s been like it for some time
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Yes, been like that for a while. Just highlights the issue of being an afterthought to Wasps even when we were there.
peaches and cream
Well-Known Member
Totally agree if you look at my earlier posts I've already said that even with 35 points deducted i would expect Saracens to still make top six maybe even top four all dependent on if they can keep their squad together. Gloucester are stronger this season than last and Saracens will find it extremely hard to make top four (but not impossible) Exeter while still a strong side do not have the depth to compete in both Europe and domestically and i think they are desperate to do well in europe and may be below par in the premiership, Northampton and Sale will be strong along with Gloucester. while the RWC has of course had an effect on teams i also think that in recent seasons quite a few teams didn't spend up to the salary cap as they couldn't afford to but this season with CVC money most clubs have invested heavily on recruitment which has had the result in a lot of teams with big changes of personal which will take time to settle.
