Are People really Bleating? (2 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 12, 2014

SkyblueBazza said:
I think many self-centred people who support CCFC/Wasps are perhaps the ones suggesting the council have done something bad on this.
The council are perhaps doing their duty to do what is best for their community as a whole is this. In case anyone's unaware - that extends well beyond CCFC.

PUSB

Would that they did.

Ask the sociologists for the need not just of sporting teams, but the combination of that with a history, to add depth and authenticity to the leisure pursuits, the cohesiveness, the sense of shared identity that goes into making a space function.

Community is the key word, that's not built on cash, anmd community is fostered by things such as a ready connection with a team such as CCFC and its history, even if they never set foot in the stadium itself.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
No,because in the Waps offer, the lease is for 250 years(though you have a bizarre opinion that the longer it is the less worth it has), the loan is also being paid off gradually, not to be discharged immediately as it was under the Sisu offer(negotiations with YB aside).

Really, what do you see that is so much better about the Wasps offer?

An extra £1.5million(for 100% of ACL), for an extra 125 years on the lease than Sisu wanted?

You seem to have a problem with reading and understanding, maybe you're out of your depth with this one.

I have not said the longer a lease is the less it is worth, why you would make that up I've no idea.

I'll try and make it simpler, I have said that, broadly, a lease that will last longer than the stadium isn't worth any more (not less, remember) than a lease that does last that long. You can't seriously have an issue with that.

You brush aside the small issue of negotiations being required with the bank to write off most of the loan. Incredible.

You started this off saying the SISU offer was better, I asked how you came to that conclusion. You haven't been able to to, because it wasn't.

The reported Wasps offer is for more money, without being tied to impossible loan negotiations. It's a better offer.

Grendel · Oct 12, 2014

covmark said:
You wouldn't believe we're all fans of the same team judging by this thread.

Which was the whole point if the OP - to cause arguments - it's worked and I've fallen in the trap along with everyone else

lordsummerisle · Oct 12, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
You seem to have a problem with reading and understanding, maybe you're out of your depth with this one.

I have not said the longer a lease is the less it is worth, why you would make that up I've no idea.

I'll try and make it simpler, I have said that, broadly, a lease that will last longer than the stadium isn't worth any more (not less, remember) than a lease that does last that long. You can't seriously have an issue with that.

You brush aside the small issue of negotiations being required with the bank to write off most of the loan. Incredible.

You started this off saying the SISU offer was better, I asked how you came to that conclusion. You haven't been able to to, because it wasn't.

The reported Wasps offer is for more money, without being tied to impossible loan negotiations. It's a better offer.

So a 250 year lease is worth no more than a 125 year lease?

I have never brushed aside the issue of the loan negotiations at all, merely mentioned that that Sisu had no opportunity to negotiate because the council(Standard business practice) went behind Sisu's back to deal direct with YB.

We will never know now what they may have negotiated, and what they may actually have agreed to pay in reality, as I have stated many times on here.

Think that comprehension may be a problem for you on this.

Besides, all irrelevant as Higgs knew that CCC wouldn't agree to any deal between and Sisu anyway.

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

stupot07 said:
Dons defending them

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I am yes.
I am defending on whole Coventry people, some of them Coventry fans, making decisions for the good of the people of Coventry as a whole.
Sometimes we are not going to like those decisions. However you can bet your life that when both sides agree on something. Then they are definitely making the decision because the believe it is the right one.
Not because they hate SISU or that they somehow get a personal benefit out of it.

The only thing they can be criticised for us that they have encouraged franchising. However if they turned this deal down because they took a moral stance against franchising they would get absolutely slaughtered. It is not their job to police franchising in sport. In the case its the RFU's job and they have failed dismally

Grendel · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
I am yes.
I am defending on whole Coventry people
Some Coventry fans making decisions for the good of the people if Coventry as a whole.
Sometimes we are not going to like those decisions.
However you can bet your life that when both sides agree on something. Then they are definitely making the decision because the believe it is the right one.

Not because they hate SISU or that they somehow get a personal benefit out of it.

The only thing they can be criticised for us that they have encouraged franchising.

However if they turned this deal down because they took a moral stance against franchising they would get absolutely slaughtered. It is not their job to police franchising in sport. In the case its the RFU's job and they have failed dismally

Who would slaughter them in Coventry? No one I speak to cares less

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
So a 250 year lease is worth no more than a 125 year lease?

I have never brushed aside the issue of the loan negotiations at all, merely mentioned that that Sisu had no opportunity to negotiate because the council(Standard business practice) went behind Sisu's back to deal direct with YB.

We will never know now what they may have negotiated, and what they may actually have agreed to pay in reality, as I have stated many times on here.

Think that comprehension may be a problem for you on this.

Besides, all irrelevant as Higgs knew that CCC wouldn't agree to any deal between and Sisu anyway.

Higgs knew the council wouldn't agree to any deal involving SISU? I take it that is just your opinion?

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Higgs knew the council wouldn't agree to any deal involving SISU? I take it that is just your opinion?

Wasnt it said in the jr

Grendel · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Higgs knew the council wouldn't agree to any deal involving SISU? I take it that is just your opinion?

I suggest you read your own thread. Unlike you he had facts to support his statements.

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
I am yes.
I am defending on whole Coventry people, some of them Coventry fans, making decisions for the good of the people of Coventry as a whole.
Sometimes we are not going to like those decisions. However you can bet your life that when both sides agree on something. Then they are definitely making the decision because the believe it is the right one.
Not because they hate SISU or that they somehow get a personal benefit out of it.

The only thing they can be criticised for us that they have encouraged franchising. However if they turned this deal down because they took a moral stance against franchising they would get absolutely slaughtered. It is not their job to police franchising in sport. In the case its the RFU's job and they have failed dismally

How has it benefited the people of coventry?

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

Nick said:
How has it benefited the people of coventry?

Protecting jobs, it will create more jobs.
The council have a return on its investment
The charity will get money it wants to spend in the city
As distasteful as it is people from Coventry will attend to watch top level rugby.
People will come into the area and spend money on match days.
The Ricoh's profile will raise which will be good for attracting future events....

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

Grendel said:
I suggest you read your own thread. Unlike you he had facts to support his statements.

It is a fact that if Higgs and SISU finally agreed on their deal the council would have veto'ed it?

Grendel · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Protecting jobs, it will create more jobs.
The council have a return on its investment
The charity will get money it wants to spend in the city
As distasteful as it is people from Coventry will attend to watch top level rugby.
People will come into the area and spend money on match days.
The Ricoh's profile will raise which will be good for attracting future events....

No evidence as usual. Just your opinion with not even an attempt to back it up with a shred of evidence.

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
It is a fact that if Higgs and SISU finally agreed on their deal the council would have veto'ed it?

According to higgs trustees I think it was

Grendel · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
It is a fact that if Higgs and SISU finally agreed on their deal the council would have veto'ed it?

The evidence is here in this thread though if it was t I don't know why you would question it as all your statements are personal opinion stated as facts

skybluetony176 · Oct 12, 2014

Nick said:
Wasnt it said in the jr

It was stated in the JR as an opinion. As no deal was ever finalised it will never be anything other than opinion. A fact that did come out in the JR is that SISU distressed ACL to drive the price down. Now I don't know about you but if someone was distressing a business that I was a partner in so they could drive the value down as to acquire my business partners half on the cheap and I had the power to veto I would use it. It's not exactly the right way to get off on the right foot is it?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 12, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
As no deal was ever finalised it will never be anything other than opinion.

So you're suggesting that the only way to prove no deal could be made between SISU and the council would be for a deal to be made between SISU and the council?

Rusty Trombone · Oct 12, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
So a 250 year lease is worth no more than a 125 year lease?

I have never brushed aside the issue of the loan negotiations at all, merely mentioned that that Sisu had no opportunity to negotiate because the council(Standard business practice) went behind Sisu's back to deal direct with YB.

We will never know now what they may have negotiated, and what they may actually have agreed to pay in reality, as I have stated many times on here.

Think that comprehension may be a problem for you on this.

Besides, all irrelevant as Higgs knew that CCC wouldn't agree to any deal between and Sisu anyway.

Lease - in the circumstances I've outlined, materially, yes.

The Council didn't go behind SISU's back about the loan, in fact it was SISU that were speaking to the bank even though they had no right to do so. The Council spoke to the bank about the loan, I believe this was after the judge decided that the deal SISU and Higgs were trying to do had broken down.

Loan amount, obviously we can never know the answer, and you can hide behind this, or look at what happened with the negotiations that did take place with the bank and the Council.

CCC officers did suggest that the Council would veto the deal, I believe this was in August, by which time the judge had decided the deal had broken down.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
It is a fact that if Higgs and SISU finally agreed on their deal the council would have veto'ed it?

It's not a fact as such, because it didn't get to that stage. There were emails from the Council suggesting they would veto, this was in the August, after SISU had been playing silly buggers.

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

Grendel said:
No evidence as usual. Just your opinion with not even an attempt to back it up with a shred of evidence.

Hang on a minute, I just get in my tardis, pop to the future and get the proof for you, no problem.......

I take it you think wasps coming here will lead to less money getting spent here by sports fans from other areas.
Will bring less money into our economy.
That the council did not get a return in their investment.
That the charity will spend less on the city as a result of getting its 2.77 million.
That nobody from Coventry will go and watch wasps and enjoy it.
That the Ricoh's profile will decrease as a result if wasps playing there.
That wasps won't build any training facilities and this won't create more jobs in the city.

Comedy

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Hang on a minute, I just get in my tardis, pop to the future and get the proof for you, no problem.......

I take it you think wasps coming here will lead to less money getting spent here by sports fans from other areas.
Will bring less money into our economy.
That the council did not get a return in their investment.
That the charity will spend less on the city as a result of getting its 2.77 million.
That nobody from Coventry will go and watch wasps and enjoy it.
That the Ricoh's profile will decrease as a result if wasps playing there.
That wasps won't build any training facilities and this won't create more jobs in the city.

Comedy

Wait, the charity is getting less than it paid which you have just acknowledged. When ccfc offered it, there was outrage about the kids and a charity being ripped off.

Didn't somebody post saying that the rfu will force them to keep all the training and academy stuff down south?

Now it is a great deal

lordsummerisle · Oct 12, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Lease - in the circumstances I've outlined, materially, yes.

The Council didn't go behind SISU's back about the loan, in fact it was SISU that were speaking to the bank even though they had no right to do so. The Council spoke to the bank about the loan, I believe this was after the judge decided that the deal SISU and Higgs were trying to do had broken down.

Loan amount, obviously we can never know the answer, and you can hide behind this, or look at what happened with the negotiations that did take place with the bank and the Council.

CCC officers did suggest that the Council would veto the deal, I believe this was in August, by which time the judge had decided the deal had broken down.

CCC did go behind Sisu's back to negotiate about the loan with YB whilst they were still supposed to be carrying out a two-pronged approach.

There is no evidence that Sisu were doing the same.

All in the JR, though maybe you can only read certain bits of it?

skybluetony176 · Oct 12, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
So you're suggesting that the only way to prove no deal could be made between SISU and the council would be for a deal to be made between SISU and the council?

I was talking about the Higgs share but either way is there another way to prove whether a deal can be completed other than bringing that deal to completion? No deal has ever got to the stage where the council could use it's veto so we'll never know. It's as simple as that.

WestEndAgro · Oct 12, 2014

I went to watch Broad Street under 9's today, the place was buzzing with activity, I'm beginning to think Wasps will be successful in Coventry, I think we live in a much bigger Rugby community than we are aware, lots of positivity towards the move from many, even saw a Wasps shirt up there, mixed in with Saints and the Tigers shirts, No COV ones though

Jack Griffin · Oct 12, 2014

Nick said:
Wait, the charity is getting less than it paid which you have just acknowledged. When ccfc offered it, there was outrage about the kids and a charity being ripped off.

Didn't somebody post saying that the rfu will force them to keep all the training and academy stuff down south?

Now it is a great deal

Agreed about the AEHC, I certainly bitched about it.

I would interpret this a a change in situation has changed their mind. The 2 reasons that spring to mind are:
1) The price they wanted before proved unfeasible
2) Their aims are to benefit the Coventry area, they believe this purchase will do just that.

The RFU position was that they keep the Wasps academy down south as each club has defined 'catchment areas' and the Coventry area is covered by Worcester, but there is no such restriction on 1st team traning facilities & this is what they are proposing to build here in Coventry.

Worcester Warriors, who are currently playing in the Greene King IPA Championship after being relegated from the Premiership last year, have also questioned the potential move, aiming to protect their RFU academy catchment boundary that covers the Coventry area.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...Coventry-says-Phil-Vickery.html#ixzz3Fw8Yt85f
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Finally, you are not very good at research are you, took me a few mins to find that?

dadgad · Oct 12, 2014

A greater sporting profile for the city can only be a good thing for the community, local businesses and image of Coventry.
It is precisely because Sisu did not embrace this concept that the football club has suffered.
Nobody else's fault.

Jack Griffin · Oct 12, 2014

Astute said:
I am bananas. Otherwise why am I on here so much?

Don't do it Astute!

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Agreed about the AEHC, I certainly bitched about it.

I would interpret this a a change in situation has changed their mind. The 2 reasons that spring to mind are:
1) The price they wanted before proved unfeasible
2) Their aims are to benefit the Coventry area, they believe this purchase will do just that.

The RFU position was that they keep the Wasps academy down south as each club has defined 'catchment areas' and the Coventry area is covered by Worcester, but there is no such restriction on 1st team traning facilities & this is what they are proposing to build here in Coventry.

Finally, you are not very good at research are you, took me a few mins to find that?

Didn't say it was fact, just said that somebody posted it. As bad as astute for not reading properly.

Ahh so why is it suddenly worth less now? I thought they shouldn't get a penny less than they paid?

Jack Griffin · Oct 12, 2014

Nick said:
Didn't say it was fact, just said that somebody posted it. As bad as astute for not reading properly.

Ahh so why is it suddenly worth less now? I thought they shouldn't get a penny less than they paid?

I gave you 2 (non mutualy exclusive) reasons. If you really want to know rather than posting this nonsense ask the trustees, write a letter if you want.

Frisky blue · Oct 12, 2014

"What I don't get is some posters on here who seem obsessed with one aspect and the politics, I may not agree with LAST, BHSB and Michael with some of their views and the way they go about some things but you can really see the passion for the club, the football team and the city. There are some strange posters on here though who only ever want to talk about the politics and not too fussed on the football".

"Then there are others who just seem to get their opinion from whatever is posted in the telegraph that day".

But the football is shit, and sisu are to blame, what "don't you get" about that fact Nick?

Frisky blue · Oct 12, 2014

Grendel said:
If a chairman told his fans they were committed long term to staying in the London area and then a year later moved 100 miles away would you believe anything he said again?

Do you still believe anything your mates at sisu say Grendel?

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

Nick said:
Wait, the charity is getting less than it paid which you have just acknowledged. When ccfc offered it, there was outrage about the kids and a charity being ripped off.

Didn't somebody post saying that the rfu will force them to keep all the training and academy stuff down south?

Now it is a great deal

No the RFU were considering forcing them to keep their scouting network down there so they don't take all the youth.

Their training facilities are to be built up here.

Yes I have always maintained a charity should not get ripped off. Anyone who doesn't agree with that is a bit warped.

The charity are choosing to do this deal so it looks like they don't think they are getting ripped off.

The original point is the council made the decision as they think it is the best thing for the people of Coventry.

dongonzalos · Oct 12, 2014

WestEndAgro said:
I went to watch Broad Street under 9's today, the place was buzzing with activity, I'm beginning to think Wasps will be successful in Coventry, I think we live in a much bigger Rugby community than we are aware, lots of positivity towards the move from many, even saw a Wasps shirt up there, mixed in with Saints and the Tigers shirts, No COV ones though

I have never really understood it or paid attention to it to be honest till this move happened. Rugby fans seem a lot less territorial about how they choose their team to support.

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
I gave you 2 (non mutualy exclusive) reasons. If you really want to know rather than posting this nonsense ask the trustees, write a letter if you want.

Those reasons could have been used before though?

Nick · Oct 12, 2014

Frisky blue said:
"What I don't get is some posters on here who seem obsessed with one aspect and the politics, I may not agree with LAST, BHSB and Michael with some of their views and the way they go about some things but you can really see the passion for the club, the football team and the city. There are some strange posters on here though who only ever want to talk about the politics and not too fussed on the football".

"Then there are others who just seem to get their opinion from whatever is posted in the telegraph that day".

But the football is shit, and sisu are to blame, what "don't you get" about that fact Nick?

Like half of the moaners on here would know about the football.

Are People really Bleating? (2 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Administrator

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency