Club’s owners “not prepared to take on the risk” of sharing the Ricoh (1 Viewer)

[Grendel]

Just a thought guys, and I’m sure a crazy one. If Wasps sold (say) half the revenues of the Ricoh to CCFC for an annual fee, that annual fee would still be an income for Wasps from their stadium wouldn’t it, and presumably accepted by the RFU as such for revenue/spending purposes.

At the same time, CCFC would have a substantial revenue (not profit, mind) of their own for the Football League’s FFP would they not?

We give them a pound and they give us the pound back. Bingo, we’ve both earned a quid. If anyone could pull it off, surely two hedge funds could.

Cue ridicule

Unfortunately wasps are controlled by a fund that make sisu look patsies. We already know that sporting heritage and consumer satisfaction are very low on the radar. Face it, if they can find another franchise which generated a penny more in income than CCFC they will evict. Investor gain is all that matters to these people.

 

---

[Kingokings204]

Unfortunately wasps are controlled by a fund that make sisu look patsies. We already know that sporting heritage and consumer satisfaction are very low on the radar. Face it, if they can find another franchise which generated a penny more in income than CCFC they will evict. Investor gain is all that matters to these people.

Actually Grendel, they would find a way to house both so there would be three teams at the Ricoh. If it means more money then there would be a way.

Think of it, Nuneaton town Friday nights, Ccfc at the Ricoh Saturday 3pm and then wasps Sunday. It could happen.

 

[Calista]

Actually Grendel, they would find a way to house both so there would be three teams at the Ricoh. If it means more money then there would be a way.

Think of it, Nuneaton town Friday nights, Ccfc at the Ricoh Saturday 3pm and then wasps Sunday. It could happen.

If the stadium was still useable after the Friday (just kidding)

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So because I replied with a different opinion in direct reply to his post people don't like it?

No, my view is that if people say "Tim Fisher always speaks bullshit, tim fisher is a lying bastard" they shouldn't then suddenly believe certain things and use them as hardcore evidence to make them look bad..

Well maybe you should ban anything he has said off here then!! bar RFC, and Torch I don't know anyone who has said any different about lord Tim..

And what about the posters who say I hate and blame sisu BUT

 

[Calista]

So because I replied with a different opinion in direct reply to his post people don't like it?

No, my view is that if people say "Tim Fisher always speaks bullshit, tim fisher is a lying bastard" they shouldn't then suddenly believe certain things and use them as hardcore evidence to make them look bad.

So it is a WUM to basically take people's arguments for Wasps and turn them round and ask how it would be if it was CCFC? Not sure how that is wumming to be honest. If me asking "would that be ok if it was CCFC" really upsets people then maybe that says it all.

Nick, I’m not going to stir up the whole “franchising” thing again on this thread. But you’ve misrepresented me several times, put other people’s words into my mouth, and pretty much accused me of hypocrisy.

So on the other forum (picking up a point made by Moff) I’ve made one more attempt to explain why I don’t think the circumstances of Wasps and CCFC are in any way equivalent. Of course I understand your point of view, I just think it’s a moral maze rather than a black-and-white issue.

I hope you’ll get why I believe it’s entirely possible to accept the Wasps move, whilst being utterly opposed to taking the Sky Blues to (say) Nuneaton. That doesn’t mean we’ll see it the same way.

 

[Calista]

Well maybe you should ban anything he has said off here then!! bar RFC, and Torch I don't know anyone who has said any different about lord Tim..

And what about the posters who say I hate and blame sisu BUT

Thanks for that LAST - but don’t get carried away with the impression that I’ve called Tim Fisher a liar.

You see Nick, when you wrongly assign statements to people, it can rapidly become accepted as fact. This is just one of several views you’ve wrongly attributed to me. I’ve repeatedly said that I think Mr. Fisher is incompetent, and that his policies have been totally destructive to the club. I’ve said on a many occasions that he really needs to sort out the confusion over the FOI requests. But I’ve never called him a liar.

Leaving that aside, what exactly is the “Fisher is a liar, but is telling the truth when it suits you” jibe? It would be equally cheap to point out that that, for some people, Fisher tells the truth all the time and is only lying when he says he wouldn’t have done the Wasps deal. I suggest we all just take each of Mr. Fisher’s statements on its merits.

 

[Astute]

Unfortunately wasps are controlled by a fund that make sisu look patsies. We already know that sporting heritage and consumer satisfaction are very low on the radar. Face it, if they can find another franchise which generated a penny more in income than CCFC they will evict. Investor gain is all that matters to these people.

Why keep aiming everything at Wasps and CCC. Why not look on our own doorstep?

Wasps look as though they are going to become the biggest rugger club in England. The investments they have made are paying off. They took on the Ricoh when Fisher said that SISU wouldn't because of a 14m loan......although just buying the land for a stadium to be built could easily cost this much. And as all this crap goes on we slide down the football league. It seems to be that it is only having enough teams below us that will keep us up this season and not how good we are. In 6 games time we could easily be in the bottom 4 and without a squad or manager to get us back to safety.

So who would you prefer to run our club Grendel......Wasps owner or SISU?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just thought it was strange with all the previous trumpeting of doubled turnover for ACL that it didn't seem to be mentioned that it was because IEC turnover became added to ACL turnover.

How was it accounted for before? As Compass paid £4million for 23% of IEC to ACL, then the services offered by ACL must surely have been an ACL company of some sort previously?

This must be a right pain in the arse for you, you come on to do football stuff, then spend all your time answering accounts questions because it's your day job.

If people kept asking me about aircraft when all I wanted to do was slag off Fleck or something, I'd be well pissed off!

Would rather be talking about the football certainly. If I can help people understand the financial shenanigans better then maybe I have contributed something positively to this saga

The turnover previous to IEC being established 20/04/12 largely didn't exist. ACL were in a comfort zone, the loans being paid, small profits being made, cashflow doing ok funded by rents and some events including CCFC rent/matchday fees/F&B etc. What the dispute did however do was to sharpen up ACL's commercial side. The friction between the two sides didn't start with the rent strike in April 2012 and you would have to think that the ACL directors could see what could be ahead and planned for it. The establishment of IEC and the partnership with Compass was used to drive the commercial side and to bring in new turnover.

The set up should have been commercial from the start. The Arena should have been driving the turnover of the Group up long before 2012. Equally I do not understand why the Council were so short sighted in the length of lease they gave ACL in the first place. Cant help thinking 21m for under 50 years lease on a business tied to a failing football club paying its bills was well over priced. It also hamstrung ACL in what it could do and the options it had in raising its own finance, moving on to a proper commercial footing and what it could offer clients and tenants. That's far more fundamental mistakes than anything in recent revelations and all driven by CCC. The council held the whole project back. Just my opinion of course.

Up until 2012 then ACL were reliant upon CCFC being there largely because of the loan. 2013 they started moving away from that - had increased turnover considerably but were vulnerable, 2014 despite the loss they had moved away from being reliant on CCFC but were and are reliant on the stadium bowl being used. 2015 onwards ACL have a major tenant in who if Wasps maintain the initial momentum will mean ACL are not reliant on CCFC being there at all. Kind of moved from a need CCFC situation to a "it would be good if CCFC were there" one. Can Wasps be successful - who knows, but looking at CCFC you wouldn't sensibly pin any successful business plan on them being there would you?

 

[shmmeee]

The existence of the loan led to ACL firstly needing hit refinanced and secondly to Wasps takeover.

Um, no. The decision of the main tenant breaking their lease illegally and then trying to bankrupt the company led to the refinancing and the Wasps sale.

FFS is there any Sisu nonsense you don't swallow hook line and sinker?

I bet you think this response is a genuine response to a fan question and not a set up for the forthcoming JR. Bless.

 

[fernandopartridge]

VC

Um, no. The decision of the main tenant breaking their lease illegally and then trying to bankrupt the company led to the refinancing and the Wasps sale.

FFS is there any Sisu nonsense you don't swallow hook line and sinker?

I bet you think this response is a genuine response to a fan question and not a set up for the forthcoming JR. Bless.

Read OSB's post above yours. ACL were in a position of being vulnerable as they were heavily reliant on rent. They were acting as a landlord rather than a company running a stadium.

 

[torchomatic]

Why would Wasps and Higgs block the "first refusal" sale of the share, buy it themselves so that they could then sell it to us at a later date? FFS.

Why buy half, just buy into the RIcoh.
they could buy a smaller share.

 

[torchomatic]

There isn't any CCC nonsense I don't swallow hook line and sinker

 

[Nick]

Why would Wasps and Higgs block the "first refusal" sale of the share, buy it themselves so that they could then sell it to us at a later date? FFS.

Only reason why they might is to stop us buying it cheaper and sell us shares at a higher price? I don't think they would want to at all anyway would they?

 

[torchomatic]

They don't want to have it at all, do they?

Only reason why they might is to stop us buying it cheaper and sell us shares at a higher price? I don't think they would want to at all anyway would they?

 

[oldskyblue58]

ACL were vulnerable in the first instance because of the £21m loan required to pay CCC for the under 50 year lease. Swiftly followed by them being reliant on a delinquent failing anchor tenant to finance a large chunk of its operations - ie they didn't drive the business commercially but linked it to the success of CCFC.

The situation has changed - the loan is more manageable, and they have moved the business away from being reliant on CCFC at all

 

[torchomatic]

Thanks goodness we only accounted for 9% of their business. Phew, they'd have been in real trouble otherwise.

ACL were vulnerable in the first instance because of the £21m loan required to pay CCC for the under 50 year lease. Swiftly followed by them being reliant on a delinquent failing anchor tenant to finance a large chunk of its operations - ie they didn't drive the business commercially but linked it to the success of CCFC.

The situation has changed - the loan is more manageable, and they have moved the business away from being reliant on CCFC at all

 

[martcov]

You lost me there!

Tf and Dr say that not owning their own stadium is a major problem. The ACL accounts without a tenant for the bowl show reduced profit or a loss. All three companies together in one company provides both sports club with a share in the stadium ownership and the stadium has the income generated from the sports teams. Together the companies are in a far stronger position than they were. In addition the new long term lease and the freeing of ACL from the council and Higgs allows Wasps ( or all companies together ) to operate on a long term commercial basis. Then comes the new station and the expected growth in interest for Rugby as a result of the rugby World Cup. I see the potential for Wasps and, hopefully CCFC, far more positive than TF, who judges the loan risk based on the time when CCFC was the only show in town and was distressing ACL. For me, building an out of town stadium has far more risk than proposing a deal ( maybe golden share swap against shares in the wasps holding company... Or maybe buying in... or some other idea ).

 

[Nick]

What makes you think Wasps would sell a slice of the pie?

 

[martcov]

What makes you think Wasps would sell a slice of the pie?

I think we ( TF ) should make a proposal. He has the stadium budget. Which project could bring the highest return for that amount of money? I would offer to trade the golden share against a share holding. We may not have a golden share in 2 or 3 years. If Wasps say stop wasting our time we will not deal with you, then we know where we stand. I still think it is worth asking because together the companies would be worth more.

 

[skybluetony176]

What makes you think Wasps would sell a slice of the pie?

There's only one way to find out and its not litigation. So its not going to happen so long as SISU are involved in the club is it?

 

[olderskyblue]

What makes you think Wasps would sell a slice of the pie?

Once they have the new naming rights deal sorted, would a slice be worth more?