Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Is that Grendelesque 'parlance' for "yes, you're right, and I was wrong"?
Mmmmm the £2 million was for half a share of a 40 year lease -- bit more than the Wasps bid proportionately.
Power to the people eh?
Mmmmm the £2 million was for half a share of a 40 year lease -- bit more than the Wasps bid proportionately.
Power to the people eh?
You also have to consider the value of the Lease at any point. Given that in 2012 they were paying 1.2m and looking to reduce this in 2012 as per the dialogue between the parties.
Richard Ellis performed a sensitivity analysis, which indicated that, if the anchor tenant rent was nil, the value of the lease would be only£6.4m; at £200,000 rent, £8.6m; and, at £400,000 rent, £10.8m. So at the time and with the club still in place then the value (at that time) was certainly much more than what SISU offered.
You cannot simply compare offers that are dislocated in terms of time and market value and be able to draw any logical conclusion.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
No they initially made a bid of £5.5 million which is acknowledged.
Once a bid had been received from wasps I can assure you it was based on 100% purchase. The right of veto still applied so wasps had the power to reject the CCFC bid. The condition you refer to was a request of documentation already supplied to wasps during purchase the intent of which is fairly obvious.
It is your seemingly genuine belief that wasps would ever have accepted a partner when they had power and clearly funding to purchase the lot that makes you and not me blind to reality.
Grendel, am I right that in replying to Noggin’s “£2.8 million” from 2014, you quoted the £5.5 million from 2012 (which Albatross has correctly scotched) and then jumped back to Wasps in 2014 without blinking an eye? Genuine question, in case I misunderstood.
So massively undersold then now?
So massively undersold then now?
You really never have any interest in reasonable discource do you, what on earth does a bid from years ago that they withdrew and was conditional on something they never had any chance of achieving have to do with whether their recent bid was actually a legitimate attempt to purchase?
It's quite possibly true but that does not mean that higgs wouldn't have accepted a 10mill offer, it's possible certainly then it would get vetoed, however I'm not sure then whether higgs would be allowed to sell at 4 times less than someone was willing to pay, but anyway the veto is really irrelevent in this discussion because it never got that far because sisu never submitted a serious bid, If sisu had actually wanted to buy (which we now now from Fishers comments they didn't, something you are trying to constantly change the subject away from) they would have a) significantly beat wasps offer before it was agreed by the council and brought the lot, or b) at least submitted an offer for half that higgs couldn't refuse, at the very least scoring them a hearts and minds victory, turning people seriously against the council and aiding their JR case by forcing a veto.
Again utterly irrelevant to the original point and discussion that Fishers words show that their bid for half the stadium had no intention or desire to succeed. You are just changing the subject. Fisher has just stated that they weren't willing to buy ACL.
Anyway no more responses to a WUM.
Personally I think wasps got the stadium cheap and it immediately increased in value by the virtue of their presence,
Minutes of the Stadium Forum Committee, 21st January 2015TF was asked whether the club could buy 50% of the Ricoh. TF said that it is unlikely that
a deal can be done re a share of the ownership of the Stadium with Wasps. TF
confirmed that the club’s owners and Directors are not prepared to take on the risk of
financial liability for half of the £14 million loan. TF has analysed the financial risk of the
loan which is a sub-investment grade loan – meaning the loan is financially speculative
and having a high risk of default. TF will not expose the club to the risk of going into
another administration by being joint and severally liable on the £14 million loan.
The loan, the loan, the loan - this entire fiasco and the destruction of our club has always been about the f***ing loan hasn’t it?
SISU have based EVERYTHING on the notion that ACL can’t pay that loan back. They reckoned they could persuade the bank to take a £10 million hit on it back in 2012, and the judge said they were fantasising.
Move on to 2015 and they are ruling out a joint venture with Wasps because Tim’s a risk expert and doesn’t want to take a chance on it. Where was the risk analysis when we kept selling vital players, got relegated and shrunk the gate receipts? Where was the risk analysis when we broke the lease and moved to Northampton? Where was the risk analysis when it was clear that Wasps valued the Ricoh far more highly than us and stepped in to take it away from us without a fight? And crucially, where’s the risk analysis for starting again by speculatively funding a second stadium outside Coventry which nobody wants? This is serial incompetence on a spectacular scale.
Of course the Ricoh’s viability was shaky when its only tenant was a bunch of short-sighted pillocks on a one-way trip to the bottom of English football. But from where I’m standing, the Council look like they have finally found a proper anchor tenant for the Ricoh in Wasps. The rugby club looks like it could really go places and attract a lot of sponsorship. They’ll be staging big games every year, which they have already proved they can turn into lucrative all-day events bringing visitors to the city as well. SISU, wake up to the opportunities and start cultivating a great relationship with them - you’re good at that, remember? Tear up the new stadium plans (shouldn’t take long!) and buy your way back into the picture at Ricoh instead, even if it’s a gradual process. For pity’s sake find somebody with a tiny bit of imagination, ambition, leadership and charisma. And if you haven’t got anyone like that, please sell up to somebody who has.
In 5 or 10 years’ time, I want CCFC and Wasps fighting for space on the back page of the Telegraph. Which of this weekend’s games at the Jaguar Arena is the biggest – Wasps v. Toulouse in the European semi-final, or the Sky Blues v. Liverpool for a place in the Champions League? OK I’m being daft now, but a city the size of Coventry has to at least think like that otherwise there’s no point.
PS I can already hear the booing from people who will say we shouldn’t touch Wasps with a bargepole. I respect that, but I genuinely believe you are worrying about a principle which just doesn’t apply. There is no moral or practical equivalence whatsoever between the Wasps move and the disgraceful Sixfields saga, and maybe I’ll put my reasons for that on the Wasps sub-forum.
As the stadium had value because of ours.
They also took on the liabilities , which SISU (even today) said was an unacceptable risk.
It could well be, too.
It could well be, too.
The Golden Goose has hardly shown itself as such yet, during its life. Things certainly need to change if it's going to be, going forward.
There is a total equivalence.PS I can already hear the booing from people who will say we shouldn’t touch Wasps with a bargepole. I respect that, but I genuinely believe you are worrying about a principle which just doesn’t apply. There is no moral or practical equivalence whatsoever between the Wasps move and the disgraceful Sixfields saga, and maybe I’ll put my reasons for that on the Wasps sub-forum.
And the naming rights running out anytime soonWASPS probably paid about what the market and book price would be at that time. Considering that as at the time there had been no anchor tenant for some and a high risk tenant, with a history of making 60m in losses and a record of non payment, agreeing a 2+2 deal for 100K rent recently installed .
They also took on the liabilities , which SISU (even today) said was an unacceptable risk.
There is a total equivalence.
Either you stand against franchised sport or you don't.
So all those City fans that go to the Ricoh to watch the MK Dons game later in the season are for franchise sport as they will be watching a franchise team???
Thought so that is why I am going to give it a miss
It's a tricky one. For me Wasps should not be here and the role of the council and higgs in helping them franchise halfway across the country is a disgrace. Same with the amount of coverage being given to them by CWR and the CT. Having said that we are where we are and while I wouldn't be unhappy if the whole thing went horribly wrong for Wasps and they ended up back in London I fear that may not happen, or at best would mean many years in limbo.
Given that our best option is to work with Wasps but we absolutely have to get a deal that works for us, not just whatever scraps Wasps will throw us. 50/50 ownership, or at the very least all the revenue generated by us going to us and we may be able to start looking to the future, anything less and the future looks bleak.
I don't like clubs moving around either. But the fact is Wasps are here and they are going to make a go of it.
1). We can stay as we are and continue to go down the pan.
2). Build our own, with all the risk of cost, location, attracting finance, right revenue streams etc.,
Or
3). We can get on board now and try and broker the right deal with Wasps and make a go of the Ricoh together!
As always SISU seem to want something for nothing, I suspect as has been the case for sometime now; they actually have nothing.
Seems like option 1) is the only option.
So all those City fans that go to the Ricoh to watch the MK Dons game later in the season are for franchise sport as they will be watching a franchise team???
Thought so that is why I am going to give it a miss, might even go to the Rugger instead.
4) stay and try and broker a deal, get a shit deal and go down the pan
5) broker the right deal but still go down the pan Because it's still not enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Wait for wasp to get desperate!
It could well be, too.
The Golden Goose has hardly shown itself as such yet, during its life. Things certainly need to change if it's going to be, going forward.
There is a total equivalence.
Either you stand against franchised sport or you don't.
There is a total equivalence.
Either you stand against franchised sport or you don't.
There is a total equivalence.
Either you stand against franchised sport or you don't.
If people love franchising, they won't moan if CCFC gets moved to somewhere else and pulls in bigger crowds than it currently is then?
Doesn't really answer the question though.A total misrepresentation of my honestly-held views. See my response on the Wasps bit of the forum.
Doesn't really answer the question though.
Why currently Nick? You know the 30,000+ potential fanbase CCFC has. Do you really believe we would garner that type of support if we were relocated to some featureless barnacle in the middle of nowhere? I hate the franchising of sporting clubs, but if anything would encourage a club owner with ambitions to relocate for this purpose, it's those who compliantly trotted along to Sixfields......If people love franchising, they won't moan if CCFC gets moved to somewhere else and pulls in bigger crowds than it currently is then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?