Appeal granted (3 Viewers)

Captain Dart said:

It is the club and ARVO who are instigating legal proceedings.

Click to expand...

So the clubs statement is really out then. It's not even SISU who are officially the clubs owners that have brought the action in conjunction with us, it's ARVO. Unless of course there's been a change in ownership.

skybluetony176 said:

So the clubs statement is really out then. It's not even SISU who are officially the clubs owners that have brought the action in conjunction with us, it's ARVO. Unless of course there's been a change in ownership.

Click to expand...

But as I said the director's of Arvo Master Fund are listed as SISU Capital. Now I will wait for people to say SISU aren't Otium. SISU aren't Arvo

skybluetony176 said:

So the clubs statement is really out then. It's not even SISU who are officially the clubs owners that have brought the action in conjunction with us, it's ARVO. Unless of course there's been a change in ownership.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it should read the club and its part owners (ARVO own approx. 10% of the shares but have a charge on all of the assets).

Hobo said:

But as I said the director's of Arvo Master Fund are listed as SISU Capital. Now I will wait for people to say SISU aren't Otium. SISU aren't Arvo

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. However if SISU aren't Otium surely it follows that ARVO aren't SISU.

martcov said:

Whether or not CCFC is SISU or not SISU, nothing is going to be agreed upon as long as Joy is playing hardball through the courts. If I were Wasps, CRFC or CCC, I would say carry on with your court cases as long as you see fit, but until it is finally over, the present deal will end and there will be no more discussion s about CCFC's tenure at the Ricoh or The Butts.

The choice for Joy is crash the club or continue with the court case.

Is she crashes the club, then someone else will bid for the wreck.

Not nice, but it is up to Joy at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

Agreed unfortunately. I suppose Joy thinks there is more to gain by hanging on and trying to bankrupt WASPs than sell the club cheaply. Without more investment and a stable stadium deal/training ground/academy set up, surely we will never be much more than a lower league outfit attracting sub 10K crowds. So why is she still here?

Re. seperate entities, why was the Fisher handshake vetoed by Joy? How often when quizzed on CWR in the past has Fisher referred to "the owners". Did Joy also not say she would be taking a more hands on approach once? On paper CCFC may be separate but there is no doubt SISU pull the strings.

Wish it would all be resolved one way or another, the legal limbo is frustrating, particularly if we get promoted and then end up homeless.

:singing:It's all gone quiet over there, Oh it's all gone quiet over there:singing::eggonface::eggonface::eggonface::mooning::mooning::mooning:

skybluetony176 said:

Who in their right mind would be behind fruitless, pointless legal action that win, loose or draw won't benefit CCFC in any way shape or form? Can't seem why Northampton would be a deciding factor in anyone's thinking on this. In fact I don't understand why you're even bringing up Northampton at all.

Click to expand...

It's LOSE ffs.

Ignoring CCFC or SISU for one minute....

Has the council demonstrated to the local taxpayer that it achieved value for money in the deal it made to sell its share of ACL to Wasps and the subsequent 250 year lease extension? Or was the way they went about it a deliberate fudge to try and avoid those duties?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The silence is deafening:emoji_mute:

fernandopartridge said:

It's LOSE ffs.

Ignoring CCFC or SISU for one minute....

Has the council demonstrated to the local taxpayer that it achieved value for money in the deal it made to sell its share of ACL to Wasps and the subsequent 250 year lease extension? Or was the way they went about it a deliberate fudge to try and avoid those duties?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Only one person has done well out of this sorry saga. That is the Wasps chairman. He banked 10m from what he was owed.

Everyone else has been shafted.

fernandopartridge said:

It's LOSE ffs.

Ignoring CCFC or SISU for one minute....

Has the council demonstrated to the local taxpayer that it achieved value for money in the deal it made to sell its share of ACL to Wasps and the subsequent 250 year lease extension? Or was the way they went about it a deliberate fudge to try and avoid those duties?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well SISU said they wouldn't have done the Wasps deal
Fisher said that we are going to build our own stadium and not interested in the Ricoh.
Grendel said the stadium was worthless and a white elephant.
So SISU's balls up in the PR they were pumping out makes most tax payers feel it was a good deal and are glad SISU (who were trying to make ACL go bust) never got their hands on it. Victims of their own spin mate.

Hobo said:

Well SISU said they wouldn't have done the Wasps deal
Fisher said that we are going to build our own stadium and not interested in the Ricoh.
Grendel said the stadium was worthless and a white elephant.
So SISU's balls up in the PR they were pumping out makes most tax payers feel it was a good deal and are glad SISU (who were trying to make ACL go bust) never got their hands on it. Victims of their own spin mate.

Click to expand...

Well the ACL lease at 47 years clearly was a great big white elephant wasn't it?

It is not a question of entity nor ever has been that's a complete waste of thought. Legally they are different which means in court they are different. IT IS a question of control. The fact that ccfc and Sisu are not the same entity has given the owners strength to carry out many of their actions with impunity. It is the control that colours the thinking of CCC wasps and crfc they understand that they not the same entity and that restricts the actions they can take to get rid of Sisu. The fact that Sisu has control keeps CCC wasps and crfc from dealing with "Ccfc" on a strategic or structural basis or put simply planning a stable long term future. The only relationship is at low level day to day operations seated in necessity

Because ccfc. Is a tool used by Sisu in their investment strategy then CCC wasps crfc have see the two as one force but they are all aware that ccfc. Is not the same entity as Sisu. if they were the same entity the actions against Sisu could be stronger and more effective

Are otium and Ccfc the same entity in my mind yes absolutely how can anyone say they are not. One question who pays the players or MR wages otium entertainment group limited that legally can have a bank account or Ccfc which is legally just a trading name and can't register an account.? If Ccfc is in fact otium legally then there is no separation of the day to day operations of the club from the operation of otium in its entirety. To think or promote otherwise is to be misleading or gullible at best. In which case the football operation is intertwined with the court case controlled by but not actioned by Sisu in name.

The only elements that are one and the same entity are otium and Ccfc. The rest of the relationships are different entities but totally controlled by Sisu. It is that legal divide that gives strength in the choices Sisu have made.

Grendel said:

Well the ACL lease at 47 years clearly was a great big white elephant wasn't it?

Click to expand...

So are you saying it isn't now? Or are you still saying Wasps are doomed to go bust?

fernandopartridge said:

It's LOSE ffs.

Ignoring CCFC or SISU for one minute....

Has the council demonstrated to the local taxpayer that it achieved value for money in the deal it made to sell its share of ACL to Wasps and the subsequent 250 year lease extension? Or was the way they went about it a deliberate fudge to try and avoid those duties?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So what if it's lose. Is your point so invalid that you have to get all petty over a simple spelling mistake as if it somehow validates your point and argues against mine? Grow up FFS.

What's it got to do with a company that operates from a tax haven anyway? If they're so bothered about about the tax payer getting value for money why do they operate from a tax haven? If that's their angle it's being done with a huge slice of hypocrisy.

What duty are you on about exactly? If you're talking about how they offloaded it you tell me what the guidelines are for offloading a half share in a quango. With regards to the lease again what are the guidelines? Also how are you measuring value? The case seems to be claiming it to be monetary. Chief Dave made it his full time job to scour the rules and regulations on this and all he could turn up was something on offloading freehold not leases and in there I remember it stating that value for money didn't just have to be measured in monetary terms. So you tell me what is something that many people would have you believe was a worthless white elephant (you were probably one of them) and said tax haven company have just spent millions on arguing it was worthless worth? In both monetary terms but also social terms? If that's the basis of their argument now they got a couple of million for something apparently worthless. Got a historical debt repaid to the taxpayer. You could argue that they brought/secured jobs to/in the area. You could argue that they brought social benefits to the area. You could argue that extending the lease relieves the taxpayer the cost of redevelopment of the site as I doubt that the Ricoh has a 250year design life. There's dozens of ways that you can measure value. Haven't the council gifted loads of sites over the years to developers? Most recently the Co op site I believe. Isn't it true that every council in the country does this? Isn't it true that they do this completely within government guidelines because value to the taxpayer is measured in more than just monetary terms and when it comes to abandoned buildings (which is essentially what he arena was) the playing field changes.

This case is weaker than JR1 if you ask me, it also completely contradicts the claims of JR1 as far as I can tell. It also can do nothing to benefit CCFC win or lose (happy now) and in fact can only do the opposite. Why would I champion that as a CCFC fan? Why would you?

Take CCFC and SISU out of it as you ask. Where's the citizens of Coventry on this? Have they demonstrated about it? Are they looking for blood? Are they screaming for "justice" to be done? Or are they indifferent and/or accepting of the deal? Who's exactly saying that the council didn't get value for money? Aside from a few nut cases on here and a few other places with a grudge and a company that operates from a tax haven and therefore have no right to take the moral high ground.

It also amazing how many outraged taxpayers aren't Coventry taxpayers.

Grendel said:

Well the ACL lease at 47 years clearly was a great big white elephant wasn't it?

Click to expand...

It clearly wasn't. ACL was the only entity with a right to extend the lease. You couldn't buy a 250 year lease without owning ACL so ACL always had value. Unless you're claiming that ACL was a white elephant regardless of the length of the lease because the two can only possibly go hand in hand. It's either worth nothing or worth something because the option was always owned by ACL.

Hobo said:

It also amazing how many outraged taxpayers aren't Coventry taxpayers.

Click to expand...

And non taxpayers also not from Coventry.

Hobo said:

So are you saying it isn't now? Or are you still saying Wasps are doomed to go bust?

Click to expand...

The fact they had to raise an additional £36 million through extra funding and a look at the balance sheet suggests it's a far from stable business.

The decision by the council to take out a loan for ACL as opposed to the other option they considered has always been its albatross.

The lease as it originally stood was valueless yet the club were supposed to pay £10 million for a half share in it.

Grendel said:

Well the ACL lease at 47 years clearly was a great big white elephant wasn't it?

Click to expand...

So much of a big white elephant that Wasps moved nearly 100 miles to move in as our football club didn't want it.

As there was only 47 years left of the lease the leaseholder had a legal right to extend the lease. But you know this. SISU were more interested in devaluing the arena than taking over the lease. They agreed with you. Nobody else would want a stadium in Coventry. That was wrong. You kept telling me that I was wrong for thinking someone else would be interested.

So Wasps took over the arena. They then had the legal right to extend the lease. They did so. It made no difference on if it was 100 years or 250 years. Both meant it was lost to our football club.

Grendel said:

The fact they had to raise an additional £36 million through extra funding and a look at the balance sheet suggests it's a far from stable business.

The decision by the council to take out a loan for ACL as opposed to the other option they considered has always been its albatross.

The lease as it originally stood was valueless yet the club were supposed to pay £10 million for a half share in it.

Click to expand...

1, They didn't have to raise an extra 36m. 10m went to their chairman.

2, A few million went to future repayments of interest.

The reason I didn't want SISU to get the arena was I expected them to do the same then charge us a massive rent. You said it couldn't or wouldn't be done. We would be in the same position as Wasps. A massive amount of debt on the arena. But at least they could have taken the money and run.

clint van damme said:

if you think CCFC and sisu are the same why are you on a sisu message board?
Why are you bothered about them? Surely you have something better to do?

Click to expand...

Haha !! Doh !

Grendel said:

The fact they had to raise an additional £36 million through extra funding and a look at the balance sheet suggests it's a far from stable business.

The decision by the council to take out a loan for ACL as opposed to the other option they considered has always been its albatross.

The lease as it originally stood was valueless yet the club were supposed to pay £10 million for a half share in it.

Click to expand...

Well the half share was up for negotiation but SISU went down their tried and trusted lets distress the business and devalue it. I remember posting Wasps were interested in buying the Ricoh and you laughed at the idea.

Hobo said:

Well the half share was up for negotiation but SISU went down their tried and trusted lets distress the business and devalue it. I remember posting Wasps were interested in buying the Ricoh and you laughed at the idea.

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember that.

As usual Toni and Obtuse miss the point. Wasps moved for the 47 year lease as they'd got a de facto agreement to extend it prior to even taking over ACL

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Astute said:

So much of a big white elephant that Wasps moved nearly 100 miles to move in as our football club didn't want it.

As there was only 47 years left of the lease the leaseholder had a legal right to extend the lease. But you know this. SISU were more interested in devaluing the arena than taking over the lease. They agreed with you. Nobody else would want a stadium in Coventry. That was wrong. You kept telling me that I was wrong for thinking someone else would be interested.

So Wasps took over the arena. They then had the legal right to extend the lease. They did so. It made no difference on if it was 100 years or 250 years. Both meant it was lost to our football club.

Click to expand...

Can you please explain to me how wasps had "the legal right" to extend the lease?

The point is that the club were asked to pay £10 million for a half share in a valueless company. It's value is only inflated by a lease extension.

Furthermore you still seem to suggest wasps may go bankrupt. How so if the palace is not in fact the gift from Siam?

fernandopartridge said:

As usual Toni and Obtuse miss the point. Wasps moved for the 47 year lease as they'd got a de facto agreement to extend it prior to even taking over ACL

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I know it's beyond tedious.

Hobo said:

Well the half share was up for negotiation but SISU went down their tried and trusted lets distress the business and devalue it. I remember posting Wasps were interested in buying the Ricoh and you laughed at the idea.

Click to expand...

What was the value pre sisu of a half share?

Also wasps wouldn't have bought it at £20 million for a 47 year lease would they?

fernandopartridge said:

As usual Toni and Obtuse miss the point. Wasps moved for the 47 year lease as they'd got a de facto agreement to extend it prior to even taking over ACL

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

They got it by purchasing ACL you nutcase. ACL always had the right to extend the lease. They didn't need a de facto agreement it was always there so long as you purchased ACL.

Grendel said:

Can you please explain to me how wasps had "the legal right" to extend the lease?

The point is that the club were asked to pay £10 million for a half share in a valueless company. It's value is only inflated by a lease extension.

Furthermore you still seem to suggest wasps may go bankrupt. How so if the palace is not in fact the gift from Siam?

Click to expand...

Anybody can ask for an extension of their lease at anytime.

Grendel said:

What was the value pre sisu of a half share?

Also wasps wouldn't have bought it at £20 million for a 47 year lease would they?

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The value of something yesterday isn't the value of it today and next week it could be something else. The thing that matters is SISU got it wrong. If they had got it right it wouldn't have benefited the club. Just like their court proceedings isn't being done for the benefit of the club, the club is just being used as a vehicle.

Hobo said:

Anybody can ask for an extension of their lease at anytime.

Click to expand...

Er we never owned the lease.

Astute said:

1, They didn't have to raise an extra 36m. 10m went to their chairman.

Click to expand...

Well, clearly they did have to raise the extra 10m because their Chairman needed the money. I heard he needed it due to margin calls on his other business activities but that's only a rumour.

Astute said:

2, A few million went to future repayments of interest.

Click to expand...

Yep, which essentially makes their bond issue a Ponzi scheme.

Grendel said:

Er we never owned the lease.

Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock. We had to own ACL for that but according to you and SISU it was worthless. Unless of course you wanted an extended lease at the Ricoh. In which case it was valuable. Are you really not getting this? Aren't you supposed to be clever or something or is that just an act?

singers_pore said:

Yep, which essentially makes their bond issue a Ponzi scheme.

Click to expand...

You should contact the FCA and offer your expert advice if you truly believe it was a Ponzi scheme. I'm no legal expert like yourself but I'm pretty sure they're illegal.

Wasps' most recent accounts for the last 6 months of 2016 show a loss of over 1 million and an operating cash flow deficit of more than 2.5 million. In other words, their business shows no sign of any improvement when compared to the losses they incurred in previous years. If they get a run of bad form on the pitch, the attendances will drop dramatically and they are then finished. It's just a matter of time as far as I am concerned.