Council helps football club (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Gold]

Well that would be very unlikely seeing as they have a long lease on the Ricoh and
Seem hell bent on putting down roots and building for the future.

SISU have already done it for them, can't see how it could be any more distressed TBH

They could sell the Ricoh lease on for a profit and take both clubs to London if a more profitable option became available. I don't want sisu or wasps here, they're both money hungry scum bags. The shame is the one that doesn't own our football club owns our stadium.

 

---

[Nick]

They could sell the Ricoh lease on for a profit and take both clubs to London if a more profitable option became available. I don't want sisu or wasps here, they're both money hungry scum bags. The shame is the one that doesn't own our football club owns our stadium.

Exactly, people moan about what would happen if sisu owned the ricoh. Yet wasps actually did it and it's great business.

Its no co incidence that people who are so keen about wasps seem to really hate sisu as well is it? People who were outraged at the thought of sisu mortgaging the ricoh, now think it's good business when it's somebody else

 

[Brylowes]

I don't think you can see anything other than sisu anyway can you?

You moan and say people defend sisu, but are arguing wasps cause

I'm not arguing Wasps cause at all, and yes I blame SISU for at least 80% of the shit
We are in, you think I'm blinkered in my thinking, but I think you are.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'm not arguing Wasps cause at all, and yes I blame SISU for at least 80% of the shit
We are in, you think I'm blinkered in my thinking, but I think you are.

we all have differing points of view but arguing one hedge fund is better than another is a bit naive in my opinion. We'd be much better off without either of them.

 

[Brylowes]

They could sell the Ricoh lease on for a profit and take both clubs to London if a more profitable option became available. I don't want sisu or wasps here, they're both money hungry scum bags. The shame is the one that doesn't own our football club owns our stadium.

I don't want any of them here either, I find the whole (hedge fund venture capital ) thing un enethical
And nauseating, I am sick to th back teeth watching my club die in the hands of these bastards.
I would now take almost anything or anyone as a replacement , I dream of seeing the back of them.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I don't want any of them here either, I find the whole (hedge fund venture capital ) thing un enethical
And nauseating, I am sick to th back teeth watching my club die in the hands of these bastards.
I would now take almost anything or anyone as a replacement , I dream of seeing the back of them.

So would I but who's out there? We don't want our club to go to some other set of scum bags and, even if we stumbled on a set of genuinely decent owners who had the finance to improve our situation, the stadium we built for our selves is owned by a hedge fund under the guise of a London rugby club.

 

[Brylowes]

So would I but who's out there? We don't want our club to go to some other set of scum bags and, even if we stumbled on a set of genuinely decent owners who had the finance to improve our situation, the stadium we built for our selves is owned by a hedge fund under the guise of a London rugby club.

Agreed but going back to the question I put to you earlier, who out of the two given the choice
Would you rather owned us , you can say neither BUT one of them does, I'm just saying I would
Rather the other did.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Agreed but going back to the question I put to you earlier, who out of the two given the choice
Would you rather owned us , you can say neither BUT one of them does, I'm just saying I would
Rather the other did.

It's a really difficult question and, as you said, I'd instantly go for neither. I don't know if I could make a choice because they are equally bad. We don't want owners prepared to move the club - both of them. We don't want owners who would disenfranchise loyal supporters - both have. We don't want owners who use shady financial practices to further their own ends - both would.

Why would you chose the Wasps owners?

 

[Captain Dart]

Exactly, people moan about what would happen if sisu owned the ricoh. Yet wasps actually did it and it's great business.

Its no co incidence that people who are so keen about wasps seem to really hate sisu as well is it? People who were outraged at the thought of sisu mortgaging the ricoh, now think it's good business when it's somebody else

I am not keen on either, but Wasps would not be here if SISU was looking after the club as they should have done.

 

[Grendel]

I am not keen on either, but Wasps would not be here if SISU was looking after the club as they should have done.

Why are sisu here at all do you think?

 

[Captain Dart]

Why are sisu here at all do you think?

No idea, U tell me please.

 

[clint van damme]

Going on the evidence available, in all honesty, which one would you rather
Owned us.

quite honestly, neither. Though the chances of that happening seem very slim at the moment.

 

[Grendel]

No idea, U tell me please.

Because the council wanted them here as they posed no initial threat to ACL. They wouldn't consider any bidder who wanted ownership of ACL.

Sisu are here because the club was destined for bankruptcy thanks to CCC.

Anyway are you a nopm chap?

 

[Brylowes]

It's a really difficult question and, as you said, I'd instantly go for neither. I don't know if I could make a choice because they are equally bad. We don't want owners prepared to move the club - both of them. We don't want owners who would disenfranchise loyal supporters - both have. We don't want owners who use shady financial practices to further their own ends - both would.

Why would you chose the Wasps owners?

Because from where I'm sitting, they say they're going to do something and they do, ours never
Follow anything through unless its detrimental to the club.
They seem to want to create something and come across as progressive, ours don't even seem
Interested, and come across more as destructive.
It would also be nice to be owned by someone who wasn't dragging the good name of the club
Through the mud by taking every fucker to court.

 

[Captain Dart]

Because the council wanted them here as they posed no initial threat to ACL. They wouldn't consider any bidder who wanted ownership of ACL.

Sisu are here because the club was destined for bankruptcy thanks to CCC.

Anyway are you a nopm chap?

How absurd.

 

[Brylowes]

Why are sisu here at all do you think?

Because Southampton had the sense and wisdom to tell em to "fuck off"

 

[Grendel]

How absurd.

Really? So the other bidder who wanted an extended lease was rejected even though Ken Taylor at the time admitted the sisu bid was £11 million less and derisory?

So explain why sisu are here then?

Are you a nopm chap?

 

[Grendel]

Because Southampton had the sense and wisdom to tell em to "fuck off"

The council preferred sisu as they didn't want anyone else. I assume you are aware that we were told to pay £24 million for f and b rights?

 

[Liquid Gold]

Because from where I'm sitting, they say they're going to do something and they do, ours never
Follow anything through unless its detrimental to the club.
They seem to want to create something and come across as progressive, ours don't even seem
Interested, and come across more as destructive.
It would also be nice to be owned by someone who wasn't dragging the good name of the club
Through the mud by taking every fucker to court.

Isn't that more about impression and PR though. To you they may seem progressive but to a fan of theirs in London it wouldn't be the same. Would you be happy if they owned us and said "we're going to make CCFC the best club in Europe, the first step in this is to move to London"?

It would be great to be out of the courts and be able to focus on football, I don't see how moving from one company to another with similar unethical business practices would be any better for the club.

I do get your point that anything would be better than SISU because they are absolutely terrible owners but my point of view is that, in the situation we're in, nobody with any decent business nous would be buying us. We need our situation to improve to attract some decent buyers and, as im sure you'd agree, sisu aren't going to build us a new stadium, we need rid of Wasps.

 

[Brylowes]

Really? So the other bidder who wanted an extended lease was rejected even though Ken Taylor at the time admitted the sisu bid was £11 million less and derisory?

So explain why sisu are here then?

Are you a nopm chap?

But SISU coming in and agreeing the extortionate rent in the hope of a quick promotion & profit
Set the tone for their stewardship here. Everything's short term "knee jerk" if you like, they never
Seem to think things through, they have never instilled confidence that they have a sound plan
In place. It is and always has been very amateurish IMHO

 

[Nick]

But SISU coming in and agreeing the extortionate rent in the hope of a quick promotion & profit
Set the tone for their stewardship here. Everything's short term "knee jerk" if you like, they never
Seem to think things through, they have never instilled confidence that they have a sound plan
In place. It is and always has been very amateurish IMHO

The rent was agreed before and people tried to change it didn't they?

You just side stepped it and went on another rent.

 

[Brylowes]

Isn't that more about impression and PR though. To you they may seem progressive but to a fan of theirs in London it wouldn't be the same. Would you be happy if they owned us and said "we're going to make CCFC the best club in Europe, the first step in this is to move to London"?

It would be great to be out of the courts and be able to focus on football, I don't see how moving from one company to another with similar unethical business practices would be any better for the club.

I do get your point that anything would be better than SISU because they are absolutely terrible owners but my point of view is that, in the situation we're in, nobody with any decent business nous would be buying us. We need our situation to improve to attract some decent buyers and, as im sure you'd agree, sisu aren't going to build us a new stadium, we need rid of Wasps.

Not sure it's all PR , they seem to complete what they say they are going to.
TBH Liquid Gold, if news broke tomorrow they were buying us out , I would welcome it (tentatively)
And look forward to just supporting the team again, without this endless storm of bad news and
Disappointment.
And if your right and it all turns to dust just down the line, well' I'd take that chance, after all what
Have we got to lose.

 

[Nick]

Not sure it's all PR , they seem to complete what they say they are going to.
TBH Liquid Gold, if news broke tomorrow they were buying us out , I would welcome it (tentatively)
And look forward to just supporting the team again, without this endless storm of bad news and
Disappointment.
And if your right and it all turns to dust just down the line, well' I'd take that chance, after all what
Have we got to lose.

People like Italia said that about SISU coming in, he was going apeshit at people who didn't back them and get behind them.

 

[Brylowes]

The rent was agreed before and people tried to change it didn't they?

You just side stepped it and went on another rent.

Do you mean I went on another rant ? You should recognise one
What did I sidestep? The time to re-negotiate rent is when due diligence flags up the fact that
It's to high isn't it, and if it's non-negotiable then it's not viable, so you don't buy it.

 

[Brylowes]

People like Italia said that about SISU coming in, he was going apeshit at people who didn't back them and get behind them.

And.....?

 

[Nick]

Do you mean I went on another rant ? You should recognise one
What did I sidestep? The time to re-negotiate rent is when due diligence flags up the fact that
It's to high isn't it, and if it's non-negotiable then it's not viable, so you don't buy it.

Sidestepped about the other potential buyers who wanted to pair the club with the Ricoh at the time of purchase.

How viable do you think it would have been at the time for the rent to go down?

Amazing the anger is at SISU for the stupidly high rent, and not the people charging it?

 

[Nick]

And.....?

And look how that turned out.

 

[Brylowes]

And look how that turned out.

But that doesn't mean it will be the same does it.

Sidestepped about the other potential buyers who wanted to pair the club with the Ricoh at the time of purchase.

How viable do you think it would have been at the time for the rent to go down?

Amazing the anger is at SISU for the stupidly high rent, and not the people charging it?

if your buying a company and the numbers don't stack up, you re-negotiate the numbers,
If the selling company won't / can't negotiate , then the numbers still don't stack up, so
You move on.

 

[Nick]

But that doesn't mean it will be the same does it.

if your buying a company and the numbers don't stack up, you re-negotiate the numbers,
If the selling company won't / can't negotiate , then the numbers still don't stack up, so
You move on.

I just don't get the logic the rent was their fault (I agree, they could have tried more or at least made it more public they need it lower and sooner). Surely if the rent is off putting for buyers, as was the council because of the Ricoh stuff then what happens then?

One of the major things that annoys me about SISU is their ability to communicate with fans. If they opened their mouthes at the right time they could have done the same things but had a lot more fans onside.

Look how it has worked for the council and Wasps.

 

[Liquid Gold]

But that doesn't mean it will be the same does it.

if your buying a company and the numbers don't stack up, you re-negotiate the numbers,
If the selling company won't / can't negotiate , then the numbers still don't stack up, so
You move on.

If they had moved on though we'd have gone out of business and there would be no CCFC to argue the same points over and over again.

 

[Nick]

If they had moved on though we'd have gone out of business and there would be no CCFC to argue the same points over and over again.

It's ok, I am sure they could have been blamed for moving on...

He still hasn't acknowledged about the other interested parties who wanted to take over the Ricoh at the same time but got laughed at.

 

[Brylowes]

If they had moved on though we'd have gone out of business and there would be no CCFC to argue the same points over and over again.

Not a chance, what and leave the Ricoh without an anchor tenant, in a new stadium "unthinkable"
The council would of had to re-evaluate and come down with the rent .

 

[Nick]

Not a chance, what and leave the Ricoh without an anchor tenant, in a new stadium "unthinkable"
The council would of had to re-evaluate and come down with the rent .

Surely they would have to help attract new buyers if that was the case? Wouldn't they have had to have done the bailout then to make the low rent possible?

Why not allow the ricoh lease to be sold to help get new owners? Surely they would make it much more viable.

When we tried to re evaluate the match day revenue how did that go? More than Leicester paid for the whole of their stadium.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Not a chance, what and leave the Ricoh without an anchor tenant, in a new stadium "unthinkable"
The council would of had to re-evaluate and come down with the rent .

We were 30 minutes or something from going until sisu concluded the deal. short memories.

 

[chiefdave]

if your buying a company and the numbers don't stack up, you re-negotiate the numbers,

Think you're missing the point here. Every other interested party identified it as an issue and walked when CCC made it clear they would not sell ACL. If CCC had been prepared to work with the club at that point we would not have had SISU as owners in the first place.

I agree, they could have tried more or at least made it more public they need it lower and sooner

If you look back with the benefit of hindsight at PWKH's posts he is very careful, when asked if there were any talks about lowering the rent, to always say there was no formal talks. The implication there being that the club asked for talks but were knocked back.