Club’s owners “not prepared to take on the risk” of sharing the Ricoh (5 Viewers)

Calista

Well-Known Member
Minutes of the Stadium Forum Committee, 21st January 2015
TF 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.
 

Bill Glazier

Active Member
Absolute top response Norman. If Fisher can't see this opportunity then he's an idiot. It's a total no-brainer. And if this is too risky for our club, then what the hell is he going to do apart from milk the academy for Sisu while we get relegated?
 

Noggin

New Member
this pretty much catagorically shows that their "bid" for half the Ricoh was just done to turn people against the council/acl and they knew it wasn't good enough to be accepted and didn't want it to be.

To me it also shows without a doubt in my mind that they have no intention of building a stadium, if taking half of a 14m loan is too big a risk, building a stadium is a complete non starter.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member
this pretty much catagorically shows that their "bid" for half the Ricoh was just done to turn people against the council/acl and they knew it wasn't good enough to be accepted and didn't want it to be.

To me it also shows without a doubt in my mind that they have no intention of building a stadium, if taking half of a 14m loan is too big a risk, building a stadium is a complete non starter.

They could have bidded £10 million and it would never have been agreed as it was sold as a 100% deal to wasps. Anyone believing otherwise is totally bought into the council spin machine.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
They could have bidded £10 million and it would never have been agreed as it was sold as a 100% deal to wasps. Anyone believing otherwise is totally bought into the council spin machine.

But, they didn't make a serious bid at all and didn't want the deal Wasps got, and still don't want even half of it. That's not council spin. So your point is irrelevant.
 

Noggin

New Member
They could have bidded £10 million and it would never have been agreed as it was sold as a 100% deal to wasps. Anyone believing otherwise is totally bought into the council spin machine.

however much the council and acl hated sisu they absolutely would have taken twice as much and sold to them, not to mention that the higgs charity would have had to have taken the offer that provides twice as much money because they would be obliged too. Not to mention the absolute fury from the people of Coventry/fans of ccfc if they turned down that much more money and it would probably have made them (sisu) much more likely to win the JR.

But even ignoring all that and assuming you are right (which I don't belive) that doesn't change anything about what I wrote, this comment from Fisher shows the bid was not serious and the only logical explanation is that it was done to a) prevent grief from fans for not trying and b) cause grief to their enemy, make people angry with the council and acl and give themselves more JR ammo.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
To paraphrase a great man, I've learned that supporting CCFC is one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Fisher was dead.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
however much the council and acl hated sisu they absolutely would have taken twice as much and sold to them, not to mention that the higgs charity would have had to have taken the offer that provides twice as much money because they would be obliged too. Not to mention the absolute fury from the people of Coventry/fans of ccfc if they turned down that much more money and it would probably have made them (sisu) much more likely to win the JR.

But even ignoring all that and assuming you are right (which I don't belive) that doesn't change anything about what I wrote, this comment from Fisher shows the bid was not serious and the only logical explanation is that it was done to a) prevent grief from fans for not trying and b) cause grief to their enemy, make people angry with the council and acl and give themselves more JR ammo.

The council had already sold to wasps so what are you talking about?

Higgs were governed by the sale of ownership terms relating to the veto.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It can only be a fraction of the risk of the JR. If they don't gain a penny from the JR and end up picking up everyone's costs what's the betting it costs them more than half the liability of the debt. And anyway I thought debt restructuring was there thing? Surely if ACL did get in arrears on the loan SISU would be in a prime position to restructure the debt and maybe just maybe gain control of the Ricoh to boot.

I would say it's a no go because wasp's are too astute to get into bed with them and run the risk of being distressed into defaulting on the loan.
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But, they didn't make a serious bid at all and didn't want the deal Wasps got, and still don't want even half of it. That's not council spin. So your point is irrelevant.

They made a bid of £5.5 million for 50%.
 

Noggin

New Member
The council had already sold to wasps so what are you talking about?

I was suggesting that if sisu had bid 10 mill before the council had voted on and agreed to sell to Wasps then both sides would have sold to Sisu. I didn't realise you were just talking about 10mill for the half share, you are even more mad if you think higgs wouldn't have taken that.

Higgs simply wouldn't have been able to sell for 2.77mill if someone was offering 10mill, they clearly would not be doing whats best for the charity. None of us know the veto terms but it never got to a veto stage so it's completely irrelevant at this point.
 

Noggin

New Member
They made a bid of £5.5 million for 50%.

no they didn't they made a conditional bid of around 2.8mill for half (which is probably £2770001) a conditional bid that we now know with certainty from Fishers comments that they had no intention or desire to win, it wasn't a legitimate offer. Anyway no more point saying anymore, if you read fishers words and still think they tried to buy half the share with any seriousness at all it shows how open you are to evidence and logic.
 

Calista

Well-Known Member
So the club's offer to buy the Higgs' half sare of ACL wasn't serious then?

I suspect that’s the case, and the way the bid was framed it looked awfully like it was only done for appearances’ sake. I think Grendel will probably agree with that, even if he sees it in a different way which I respect. Here’s Fisher’s comment on that from the same minutes. To me it just doesn’t sound like they wanted it – that pesky unsustainable loan again …
When CCFC recently bid for 50% of the Ricoh, they had to look at it from an Insolvency
perspective ie what happens if Wasps were to default on the loan repayment (which
might be as much as approximately £2m per year on the new 20 year loan term). TF
does not want the club to go through that situation again and recalls 2nd August, where
the club nearly went out of existence.
 
Last edited:

Noggin

New Member
This is what annoys me about the SCG/Forum group, how does fisher always get to say these things without anyone seeing the massive hole in what he just said and question him. We pretty much all saw instantly that this meant there offer wasn't real, how does no one at the group see the same?

how does no one question the fact that if ACL with wasps and CCFC wouldn't be viable then building a stadium just for ccfc sure as hell isnt.
 

Calista

Well-Known Member
Having had a go at our owners, I’d really like to emphasise the positive side of this. What prompted my original post was this – if Fisher is even discussing the reasons why he doesn’t want to get into bed with Wasps (ouch!), it does suggest that it is STILL possible.

So to hear him say they won’t do it because of the risks is astonishing. He’s keen enough to take on more finance for a new stadium whilst admitting that “a lot of work would then need to be done on a travel plan for fans”. How much more risky can you get, and there would be no other club to share costs with.

Some will say that because Wasps are in the driving seat (ouch again) we can never be more than their slaves while we are at the Ricoh. I don’t agree, and if you bring enough money to the table everything has its price. Would anybody on here seriously turn down the idea of a joint venture with Wasps if it was on fair terms?
 

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
To paraphrase a great man, I've learned that supporting CCFC is one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Fisher was dead.

Except Fisher really is only the mouthpiece, he's the puppet { well Paid} who comes out with all the shit for the real scumbags hiding in their ivory towers !
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
fisher makes it easy for the council by claiming it could cost 2 million a year. how can a 14 million loan returning 40 million be bad business?
 

SuttonSkyBlue

New Member
Norman - I couldn't agree more with your posts. The only game in town is for SISU/CCFC to cut a deal with Wasps for a significant stake in the Ricoh (once SISU has finally exhausted all avenues to appeal the JR decision - which, of course, comprehensively rejected its original appeal).

The good news is that it has been commented by both parties more than once that CCFC and Wasps have developed a very positive working relationship already. I too strongly believe that there is real potential for a very beneficial mutual relationship (e.g. through lucrative sponsorship opportunities)

The top brass at Wasps seem very clued up and will surely be in no doubt that CCFC's potential permanent departure from the Ricoh would be a huge blow for their and the Ricoh's future prospects. It will also be a PR disaster for them if they were seen to hasten any permanent departure.

Wasps only know too well they imperative for any club to own its own stadium - whether fully or in part. They're in a very strong negotiating position thanks to a very clever piece of opportunism, but the signal they seem to be sending out is that they're extremely keen for CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. If that's to be realised then there will have to be a far more equal business partnership than is currently in place.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
no they didn't they made a conditional bid of around 2.8mill for half (which is probably £2770001) a conditional bid that we now know with certainty from Fishers comments that they had no intention or desire to win, it wasn't a legitimate offer. Anyway no more point saying anymore, if you read fishers words and still think they tried to buy half the share with any seriousness at all it shows how open you are to evidence and logic.

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.

PWKH said wasps would be buying the shares prior to any CCFC bid which the CEO of wasps tried to refute due to legal parlance.
 

The Lurker

Well-Known Member
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.

PWKH said wasps would be buying the shares prior to any CCFC bid which the CEO of wasps tried to refute due to legal parlance.

So what fisher said last week was irrelevant and incorrect regarding buying 50% of the Ricoh?
 

albatross

Well-Known Member
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.

PWKH said wasps would be buying the shares prior to any CCFC bid which the CEO of wasps tried to refute due to legal parlance.


They made a conditional offer of 5.5m , one of the conditions was successful negotiation with the bank to purchase the Loan where they were miles away with their offer to the bank. Also they reduced the offer to about 2m. So in reality there was never an offer at 5m other than in the initial heads of terms which they never intended to honour
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
They made a conditional offer of 5.5m , one of the conditions was successful negotiation with the bank to purchase the Loan where they were miles away with their offer to the bank. Also they reduced the offer to about 2m. So in reality there was never an offer at 5m other than in the initial heads of terms which they never intended to honour

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?
 

Calista

Well-Known Member
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.

PWKH said wasps would be buying the shares prior to any CCFC bid which the CEO of wasps tried to refute due to legal parlance.

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top