Badge coming down :( (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Common sense again Otis.
Where have they lied or told bull shit

No PR machine, this isn't a franchise, I don't know what colour the seats are at Wycombe etc

 

---

[Nick]

If he normally talks sense and all of a sudden he isn't in this one point. I would suggest you consider that maybe he is still talking sense.

Or that he is wrong or being a bit naive?

 

[chiefdave]

The real threat is that of Primacy. If at the end of 2+2 MGI decide Wasps will have Primacy then no football team can play at Ricoh in the EPL

Hang on, I thought MGI were brining in a PL team in a couple of years but now you're saying no football team can play at the Ricoh as they won't have primacy :facepalm:

They would be crazy to not give us primacy, FL / PL rules require it while it isn't a requirement for Wasps in their league. Theres no benefit to them to enforce something like that unless they want shot of us which would just mean less revenue for them.

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Depends upon what your aim is e.g. the original nopm argument was sisu are bad for ccfc and we will never progress under them so the priority is to get rid of sisu and the way to do that is deprive them of income because they are only in it for the money so will clear off when there is none. For other aims there are other options.

Hi Michael,

Now that we are 'cash flow neutral' then NOPM is in effect pointless and/or powerless as there appears to be little sign that Sisu are prepared to move on. So if this is non-starter for the moment what do you see as the other aims and options?

 

[dongonzalos]

Or that he is wrong or being a bit naive?

Or he is right and the odd chap that disagrees with him has massive sour grapes against anything wasps because CCFC have been affected

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

If he normally talks sense and all of a sudden he isn't in this one point. I would suggest you consider that maybe he is still talking sense.

Nope, the fact you agree with him confirms that on this occasion he is certainly not talking sense.

 

[dongonzalos]

Nope, the fact you agree with him confirms that on this occasion he is certainly not talking sense.

Must just be me and Otis then and you are completely right.

Wasps are wrong to modify a stadium they bought for 6 million plus 12 million debt.

SISU ignoring a statement by the council that they need to bid by January or the council would go else where. Was not a clear warning and should be ignored.

The club in response to this saying freehold or nothing as we are building a new stadium should have been ignored by the council.

The council should the have forced SISU to bid for the Ricoh.

We the fans should also have forced the council to bid.

If the council ignored the wasps offer and SISU did as their mantra said and built a new stadium lets say in Hinckley.

When an expert said the council by not believing SISU and rejecting wasps has cost the local economy x millions.

We and all other citizens of Coventry would have said well done council fair play.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Hi Michael,

Now that we are 'cash flow neutral' then NOPM is in effect pointless and/or powerless as there appears to be little sign that Sisu are prepared to move on. So if this is non-starter for the moment what do you see as the other aims and options?

Hi

I may be wrong but I read the situation as sisu aren't investing a penny, have got enough from STs sales to see them through this season and any windfalls e.g. from player sales goes in their back pocket. The short-term contracts mean they can liquidate at a moment's notice if things change. If that is anywhere near right then sisu are very vulnerable to a nopm approach. If it began to bite an offer could possibly then be made to sisu for them to clear off but they may liquidate out of spite. As for other options, I would suggest it's pretty obvious what those who oppose the wasps deal could do on Sunday - and I don't mean posting on here! (to be clear, I'm not advocating any of this it's more an answer to a theoretical question of if someone wanted to do something what are the immediate options. Obviously there are lots of others too eg Seppala hated people being outside her office, there are sympathetic - national - journos etc etc)

 

[chiefdave]

The council should the have forced SISU to bid for the Ricoh.

Obviously CCC can't force SISU to bid but I would very much like to know if SISU were informed they could purchase a 250 year lease for under £6m. That's a key point for me, ignore all the posturing and spin on both sides, was there ever any indication given that this sort of deal was possible and if not why not.

The other problem I have is the lack of consultation with both the Coventry public and the major stakeholders e.g.: CCFC, CRFC and anyone else it could potentially impact.

 

[dongonzalos]

There's a difference between that and what you do, spouting your pro wasps shit all over the forum, any time there is anything positive said about them or a positive article you are posting it within minutes in here like a hysterical 1 Direction fan girl.

Join up online and I will send you a goody bag its got a t shirt a pen and a yellow and black sun visor hat.

Or maybe the hysterical pro wasps posts are just ' I don't think they are the ones people should be venting their anger on here' Under the guise of moral outrage over franchising when really its soley because it shafted our club.

 

[dongonzalos]

Obviously CCC can't force SISU to bid but I would very much like to know if SISU were informed they could purchase a 250 year lease for under £6m. That's a key point for me, ignore all the posturing and spin on both sides, was there ever any indication given that this sort of deal was possible and if not why not.

The other problem I have is the lack of consultation with both the Coventry public and the major stakeholders e.g.: CCFC, CRFC and anyone else it could potentially impact.

They get informed of that when you bid and negotiate.

When you are told you need to bid by January and the Freehold is Not for sale.

Once January comes round and passes you say Freehold or nothing we are building a new stadium.

Is it as this point you want the council to say someone else has put in an offer now and we are negotiating ( what do u then think wasps would do)

If SISU put in a sensible bid over that Xmas period and dropped the legal action. I am personally and its only my opinion confident they would have got offered the same deal.

I am also confident they would have then tried to push for more and screwed it up.

 

[stupot07]

When was the January deadline given?


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

 

[chiefdave]

They get informed of that when you bid and negotiate.

That's changing the question. What I want to know is did CCC, Higgs or ACL ever indicate to SISU that ACL could be purchased, with a huge lease extension, for under £6m? If not then in my opinion they are very much in the wrong. The preferred course of action should always have been to unite the club and the stadium, anything that might have made this possible should have been offered, even more so if it was being offered to someone else.

When you are told you need to bid by January and the Freehold is Not for sale.

Which raises another question. SISU were told the freehold was not available. The 250 year lease Wasps have been offered is to all intents and purposes the freehold as it is longer than the life of the stadium. So again were SISU ever told that while the freehold technically wasn't for sale a 250 year lease was?

For me these are massive points. If SISU haven't been informed then in my mind CCC and Higgs have acted to deliberately disadvantage our football club and for me that is unforgivable. The football club is more than SISU and it is totally unacceptable to sacrifice the future of the club because they don't get on with the current owners.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Must just be me and Otis then and you are completely right.

Wasps are wrong to modify a stadium they bought for 6 million plus 12 million debt.

No it isn't wrong to for Wasps to modify the stadium they own. It is wrong for CCFC fans to appear happy about it and support and congratulate them for doing it, I could understand if you were a wasps fan.

SISU ignoring a statement by the council that they need to bid by January or the council would go else where. Was not a clear warning and should be ignored.

The club in response to this saying freehold or nothing as we are building a new stadium should have been ignored by the council.

SISU have made many horrific mistakes, the first of which was not purchasing the Ricoh when they arrived in 2007.

The council should the have forced SISU to bid for the Ricoh.

We the fans should also have forced the council to bid.

The council weren't interested in dealing with SISU until we withheld rent and left for Sixfields by which time relationships and were irreparably damaged between the two sides, if both sides had been reasonable and mature there could have been a deal but council had no desire to sell whilst they were taking in 1 million plus in rent alone from the club and SISU had no desire to try a reasonable approach to negotiations.

If the council ignored the wasps offer and SISU did as their mantra said and built a new stadium lets say in Hinckley.

When an expert said the council by not believing SISU and rejecting wasps has cost the local economy x millions.

We and all other citizens of Coventry would have said well done council fair play.

Wouldn't have happened, why have they gone to the trouble of distressing ACL by taking us to Sixfields and taking the council to court numerous time and still pursuing legal routes. You believe they are genuinely concerned about the morality of the councils actions and improper use of Coventry taxpayer money? I personally don't hold them in such high regard.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

That's changing the question. What I want to know is did CCC, Higgs or ACL ever indicate to SISU that ACL could be purchased, with a huge lease extension, for under £6m? If not then in my opinion they are very much in the wrong. The preferred course of action should always have been to unite the club and the stadium, anything that might have made this possible should have been offered, even more so if it was being offered to someone else.



Which raises another question. SISU were told the freehold was not available. The 250 year lease Wasps have been offered is to all intents and purposes the freehold as it is longer than the life of the stadium. So again were SISU ever told that while the freehold technically wasn't for sale a 250 year lease was?

For me these are massive points. If SISU haven't been informed then in my mind CCC and Higgs have acted to deliberately disadvantage our football club and for me that is unforgivable. The football club is more than SISU and it is totally unacceptable to sacrifice the future of the club because they don't get on with the current owners.

SISU knew they could have a 125 year lease, as the Council and SISU agreed on that as part of the original Higgs deal.

 

[chiefdave]

SISU knew they could have a 125 year lease, as the Council and SISU agreed on that as part of the original Higgs deal.

But Wasps have purchased a lease double the length of that, did CCC tell SISU that was available and the price it was available at. If they did and SISU did nothing then fair enough but if they didn't then they have not acted in the correct manner in my opinion.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

But Wasps have purchased a lease double the length of that, did CCC tell SISU that was available and the price it was available at. If they did and SISU did nothing then fair enough but if they didn't then they have not acted in the correct manner in my opinion.

What practical differences does the lease have after the year 2139? I would say none, and I guess as SISU were happy with 125 years before, they would still be happy.

 

[stupot07]

What practical differences does the lease have after the year 2139? I would say none, and I guess as SISU were happy with 125 years before, they would still be happy.

If it has no practical difference, why did wasps ask for it?


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

 

[Rusty Trombone]

If it has no practical difference, why did wasps ask for it?


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

No idea, what are the differences? Why did SISU agree 125 years before, why not 123 or 129.5? Once the lease lasts longer than the stadium the number is largely irrelevant in my view, but if anyone can list the differences I'm open minded about it.

 

[italiahorse]

Good god, the badges have moved around. FFS get over it.
They'll be banning shoe laces from CCFC matches soon as people will be hanging from the rafters.

 

[dongonzalos]

No it isn't wrong to for Wasps to modify the stadium they own. It is wrong for CCFC fans to appear happy about it and support and congratulate them for doing it, I could understand if you were a wasps fan.


SISU have made many horrific mistakes, the first of which was not purchasing the Ricoh when they arrived in 2007.

The council weren't interested in dealing with SISU until we withheld rent and left for Sixfields by which time relationships and were irreparably damaged between the two sides, if both sides had been reasonable and mature there could have been a deal but council had no desire to sell whilst they were taking in 1 million plus in rent alone from the club and SISU had no desire to try a reasonable approach to negotiations.

Wouldn't have happened, why have they gone to the trouble of distressing ACL by taking us to Sixfields and taking the council to court numerous time and still pursuing legal routes. You believe they are genuinely concerned about the morality of the councils actions and improper use of Coventry taxpayer money? I personally don't hold them in such high regard.

I agree and I think there are probably about two fans on here who said they are happy about wasps been here.
The rest just say they can't blame wasps for what they are doing and unfortunately they are showing our owners how to conduct business

No SISU said it was about morals
I think it was all about distressing ACL.
Hence why I think even if SISU were offered wasps deal they would not have taken it as they were aiming for a far lower price.

 

[dongonzalos]

When was the January deadline given?


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

So for one last time, I say, quite clearly, that I am prepared to meet with Joy Seppala and to have a discussion with her without prejudice and subject to contract in relation to all and any issues in relation to the Ricoh Arena, the land around it, and Coventry City Football Club.

But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena."



Read more: Council and Sky Blues: Let's strike up Ricoh deal | Coventry Observer

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

When was the January deadline given?


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

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/ann-lucas-statement-ricoh-arena-6257106

'But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena.'

That was October 2013

Saying that all options are available for discussion is a bit misleading though if the discussion goes like this, can we buy the Ricoh. Response no.

 

[chiefdave]

To me a clearer statement would have been we will then look for alternative buyers. When they kept saying ACL was performing well and there was no need to sell it didn't really make it sound like it would be sold off to anyone that put in a low offer.

 

[Grendel]

SISU knew they could have a 125 year lease, as the Council and SISU agreed on that as part of the original Higgs deal.

I don't see how that was ever possible. Mutton had already issued his "hell would freeze over" speech then hadn't he?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Hence why I think even if SISU were offered wasps deal they would not have taken it as they were aiming for a far lower price.

Based on there previous actions it is possible they would have, we won't know because the council had no intention of ever offering the same deal to the club.

 

[chiefdave]

Based on there previous actions it is possible they would have, we won't know because the council had no intention of ever offering the same deal to the club.

The council should have offered the deal to SISU. If they did and SISU said no there could be little criticism of the council for selling to Wasps. By not offering to SISU they have left themselves open and the only reason I can think of for not offering it is that they thought they would accept it and didn't want to sell to them.

 

[The Gentleman]

I don't see how that was ever possible. Mutton had already issued his "hell would freeze over" speech then hadn't he?

So why have we not started the build on the 'new stadium'?

Business deals have gone on through history when people have hated the sight of the very people they were doing business with. If there was enough will from Sisu then they would be the owners of the Ricoh and not Wasps.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I don't see how that was ever possible. Mutton had already issued his "hell would freeze over" speech then hadn't he?

On 25 July 2012, there was a meeting of the various parties, including the Leader of the Council, Mr John Mutton, at which it was agreed that an Indicative Term Sheet would be finalised. Draft Heads of Terms were indeed signed by the Council and SISU, on 2 August 2012........the terms included the lease to ACL being extended to 125 years.

 

[The Gentleman]

The council should have offered the deal to SISU. If they did and SISU said no there could be little criticism of the council for selling to Wasps. By not offering to SISU they have left themselves open and the only reason I can think of for not offering it is that they thought they would accept it and didn't want to sell to them.

The deal Wasps brokered could have been done when Sisu came back but were adamant that they were building Legoland so why would they? Why did Sisu put conditions on their bid and Wasps didn't? Knowing Sisu, even if they had been offered the same deal then they would have still put caveats in, else why would they still be proceeding with the JR appeal, because they don't want to pay for it. I wonder what would have happened if Sisu would have done the right thing and said "sorry, we have been fucking about but we will drop all cases and we are really serious this time about buying the Ricoh". I wonder if CCC may have taken a slightly different view.

 

[dongonzalos]

Based on there previous actions it is possible they would have, we won't know because the council had no intention of ever offering the same deal to the club.

You are right we will never know. However I would say based on their previous actions they wouldn't.
After the council took over the loan.
They did not believe there was a commercially viable deal to have.

Even when wasps agreed a deal the commented about how they were surprised a deal could be done.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The deal Wasps brokered could have been done when Sisu came back but were adamant that they were building Legoland so why would they? Why did Sisu put conditions on their bid and Wasps didn't? Knowing Sisu, even if they had been offered the same deal then they would have still put caveats in, else why would they still be proceeding with the JR appeal, because they don't want to pay for it. I wonder what would have happened if Sisu would have done the right thing and said "sorry, we have been fucking about but we will drop all cases and we are really serious this time about buying the Ricoh". I wonder if CCC may have taken a slightly different view.

Again we will never know because SISU didn't want to take a reasonable approach to negotiations, same as we will never know whether SISU would have accepted the same deal had it been offered because the council at this point had no intention of selling to SISU.

 

[dongonzalos]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/ann-lucas-statement-ricoh-arena-6257106

'But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena.'

That was October 2013

Saying that all options are available for discussion is a bit misleading though if the discussion goes like this, can we buy the Ricoh. Response no.

Then came the deadline....

Coventry City Council is willing to consider bids for the Ricoh Arena and the surrounding land, the authority's leader has confirmed.
Councillor Ann Lucas said the council would listen to "reasonable and sensible offers" for the freehold but stressed the site would not be sold "unencumbered".
She also said it is time to consider a future for the Ricoh without a football team.
Coventry City FC declined to comment.
Speaking at a meeting on Tuesday, Ms Lucas said she wanted to see Coventry City back at the Ricoh and called it "its rightful home".
'Symbol of pride'
But she said the council could not continue to let their agenda be dictated by the stadium saga.

Councillor Ann Lucas said they would listen to any "reasonable and sensible offers" for the freehold but would not sell it "unencumbered"
"In the future we must be committed to consider all options available to not just protect but also maximise the potential of the Ricoh Arena," she said.
"The Ricoh Arena, and the site around it, has always been about much, much more than a football stadium.
"It's about regeneration, jobs creation, a symbol of pride for people in a part of the city that's had more than its fair share of hard times.
"And because I want this city to be punching not just at its weight but way above, and I'm in a hurry to make this happen, I am no long prepared for us to be distracted unnecessarily on this issue - as important as it will remain."
The Ricoh is owned by Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), a joint venture company consisting of Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity.
The Sky Blues have been playing home games at Northampton Town's Sixfields stadium after a rent row with ACL.

 

[stupot07]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/ann-lucas-statement-ricoh-arena-6257106

'But let me be clear, the clock is ticking and time is moving on. I will not lead the Council into a state of paralysis around this issue. Difficult times call for difficult decisions. If this matter cannot be resolved by the turn of the year, then I and all of my colleagues on the Labour Group on Coventry City Council will look to put in place a process which ensures the best possible deal for the people of Coventry in relation to the Ricoh Arena.'

That was October 2013

Saying that all options are available for discussion is a bit misleading though if the discussion goes like this, can we buy the Ricoh. Response no.

So, unless I've missed it whilst skim reading that article a January deadline was never set?


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

 

[stupot07]

Then came the deadline....

Coventry City Council is willing to consider bids for the Ricoh Arena and the surrounding land, the authority's leader has confirmed.
Councillor Ann Lucas said the council would listen to "reasonable and sensible offers" for the freehold but stressed the site would not be sold "unencumbered".
She also said it is time to consider a future for the Ricoh without a football team.
Coventry City FC declined to comment.
Speaking at a meeting on Tuesday, Ms Lucas said she wanted to see Coventry City back at the Ricoh and called it "its rightful home".
'Symbol of pride'
But she said the council could not continue to let their agenda be dictated by the stadium saga.

Councillor Ann Lucas said they would listen to any "reasonable and sensible offers" for the freehold but would not sell it "unencumbered"
"In the future we must be committed to consider all options available to not just protect but also maximise the potential of the Ricoh Arena," she said.
"The Ricoh Arena, and the site around it, has always been about much, much more than a football stadium.
"It's about regeneration, jobs creation, a symbol of pride for people in a part of the city that's had more than its fair share of hard times.
"And because I want this city to be punching not just at its weight but way above, and I'm in a hurry to make this happen, I am no long prepared for us to be distracted unnecessarily on this issue - as important as it will remain."
The Ricoh is owned by Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), a joint venture company consisting of Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity.
The Sky Blues have been playing home games at Northampton Town's Sixfields stadium after a rent row with ACL.

So no mention of January?


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