Search results

Why bashing Ann Lucas on this one - it's apparently AEHC who have agreed to give Wasps the veto power.

Can I just go with your first sentence (put in bold)? That suggest you actually think the offer is serious and that is essential so long we don't really know the content of the offer. If we believe the offer is serious, then we should support it - surely?

I do not bet on anything where sisu are involved! My point is that I don't think ccfc ltd being in liquidation with unpaid creditors will influence the outcome of the bid for Higgs shares. If the bid fails it will be either because Wasps have secured some sort of veto or option to match any bid.

They were paid all they were owed rent-wise. That leaves the compensation, but if the bid is successful the club own half of ACL, so surely they will not object?

It was actually my very first question when it came out ccfc ltd would have the option to buy the shares. But nobody ever answered with any kind of confidence. So I assume the issue is very complicated and we should look at who would actually object to the deal. ACL? If the bid is successful...

How do you interpret this rather cryptic statement from Fisher: “The offer is not just a financial offer, we have also proposed a far-reaching partnership with the charity to use the power of football to create a community programme." As long as we don't know the details we really don't know if...

Who are the creditors and how much are each creditor owed?

Who would object? ACL? The new director team from Wasps? Higgs? What would they gain? CCC? Surely they are out of this?

The JR is nothing to do with Higgs.

Can't they receive revenues from both? It's just hypothetical, but surely there's no law against having financial interests in two stadiums?

“The offer is not just a financial offer, we have also proposed a far-reaching partnership with the charity to use the power of football to create a community programme. “It’s about using football for community cohesion and the ultimate betterment of the whole Coventry community. How happy are...

Problem is we all know the outcome.

No. It wouldn't change anything for Wasps.

I looked into that last week:

Or - the wasps deal was dependent on the club being back paying some rent, attracting some revenue and increase the value of the sponsor deals wasps bring in. I seem to remember ACL setting ultimate demands for a return - especially dropping the appeal. Yet they backed down on that. Why?

You are forgetting the difference in the length of the lease. BTW - I don't think the £2m offer was ever a serious written offer. And we don't know if the bank would have accepted a partly write-off of the loan. We only know that ACL/CCC failed in their attempt.

I don't believe Wasps would entertain the idea of sharing ACL with anyone else. One thing to remember is that ACL must be in a critical financial state - why else sell it in a way that just about make sure the football club cannot have a sustainable future at the Ricoh? And why sell it at a...

Could that decision not have been to leave everything as it were for a period of time? Suspend negotiations and cool off a few months?

Which is the very point I was trying to make. But it's down to whether or not Wasps were known as a potential buyer at the time the loan was issued. Unless of course ACL were on the brink of insolvency at that time, but that's not what we were told.

They can deal with other parties - that's not the point. The case is about whether the council loan was unlawful legal aid. The loan was said to be a protection of their investment in ACL. But if two parties were interested in taking over ACL - one even interested in buying the loan and...