Council meeting for Mark and I (10 Viewers)

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Frostie said:
It's fairly clear that Wasps simply don't want to do a deal, ignore all their nonsense & hyperbole about being "shocked" etc.

The question is why?
They are the only party realistically who can change this.

SISU cannot withdraw the EU complaint even if they wanted to & of course are free to take whatever legal recourse they choose.

That scenario is the same regardless if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews, UoW or the dark side of the moon.

By refusing to agree a rent deal Wasps are knowingly & deliberately turning down the financial benefits of having the football club at the Ricoh & causing significant harm to the football club, the local community & local businesses etc as well as their own, already precarious finances.

It all comes back to the point, if they're all so sure of their position regarding the purchase of the Ricoh, why not just let it run its course &, in the meantime agree a mutually beneficial deal?

It’s nothing to do with the state aid case.

Wasps want Sisu to stop trying legal action aimed at reversing the Ricoh sale *in the future*, they have set aside the state aid case.

Sisu want to reserve that right.

That’s it. That’s the problem.

And to answer your second point it’s because it costs time and money and is a risk when refinancing.

This has been stated over and over and over. Sorry to get frustrated but if we can’t even get the basic facts right as we know them there’s no hope.

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

usskyblue said:
What did you wear?

Bold print polo, full home kit with trainers ?

I actually changed for the meeting

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
The trouble is every legal action so far has been jointly brought by ccfc in the guise of ccfc h or otium. It would be safe i think to assume that the complaint has jointly been brought by ccfc. Sisu haven't actually taken any of the actions in legal terms ..... never been named as complainant etc. So when it gets to doing the legals of any agreement it is going throw up the connection

Sisu need to include ccfc for any legals or potential damage claim as the wronged party. Wasps want an end to all legals from any sisu connected entity so that includes ccfc/otium. In legal terms I don't think you can separate the owners from the club so whilst the idea is good the legal practice won't work

Wasps currently calculate the harm repeated legal actions cause is in value more than the benefit of 5 or 6 years of ccfc tenancy ( assuming new stadium a reality)

Purely financially absolutely right other things not so clear

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
I actually changed for the meeting

In a telephone box?

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
What happens if the difference is way more than 50%?

Wasps only potential losses are if there's wrongdoing with the deal, surely?

You could do a pro-rata thing. So see what the difference is and how much that is compared to what was originally paid and then whatever that percentage is is how much ownership you get.

If the difference comes to over 50% of the price Wasps could pay some of it, similarly if it's under 50% SISU could pay the lot and offer Wasps an equivalent amount to get it to 50:50 ownership as I can't see either being willing to be a minority shareholder.

Not going to happen cos no way do either side trust the other to work with them but the beauty of it would be it'd provide an independently adjudicated fair value neither could argue with.

However I'd expect SISU to turn that option down because they'd consider it to be too much, despite the whole argument being the place was undervalued. Then if Wasps couldn't afford it and the stadium was returned to the council/Higgs they'd suddenly go back to their originally argument of it being overvalued.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
You could do a pro-rata thing. So see what the difference is and how much that is compared to what was originally paid and then whatever that percentage is is how much ownership you get.

If the difference comes to over 50% of the price Wasps could pay some of it, similarly if it's under 50% SISU could pay the lot and offer Wasps an equivalent amount to get it to 50:50 ownership as I can't see either being willing to be a minority shareholder.

Not going to happen cos no way do either side trust the other to work with them but the beauty of it would be it'd provide an independently adjudicated fair value neither could argue with.

However I'd expect SISU to turn that option down because they'd consider it to be too much, despite the whole argument being the place was undervalued. Then if Wasps couldn't afford it and the stadium was returned to the council/Higgs they'd suddenly go back to their originally argument of it being overvalued.

If Sisus argument is accepted isn’t the difference something like 98%? (Can’t remember the figures off the top of my head but it’s £1m vs £48m or something)

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
So to sum the meeting up.

"Nothing to do with us, we think SISU can take more legals if they wanted, we want CCFC here?"

It's got a couple of people's interest perked up judging by the thread.

Love that gif for laughter!!

That’s interesting I think it’s everything to do with them. I also think they could do far more to show the reality of this. And definitely respond proactively to uow site.

What do you think takes us forward Nick?

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
to get it to 50:50 ownership as I can't see either being willing to be a minority shareholder.

Could you imagine that pair with no ability for somebody to have the casting vote!

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Could you imagine that pair with no ability for somebody to have the casting vote!

Yep wouldn’t work as the relationship currently stands

better days · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
So where it was council plant for me and I wouldn’t ever use that term as I respect you and value your often counter opinions. It’s the looking at the past which feeds the victims and those that don’t want to have to face the reality in each of the parties that unless people move from hate and intransigent positions then nothing will change.

My opinion

Sisu are not selling up
Wasps are not going out of business
Martin Reeves is not retiring soon
Labour aren’t going to lose the council in May
Eu don’t give a monkeys about sorting the case out any time soon

Do we just argue and talk with each party and nod happily cos they say what we want or attempt to find solutions that are possible for people to follow

I do hope each party recognises that in our haphazard way mark and I are trustworthy, decent and have been clear we want what’s best for Ccfc supporters and that means we have some influence all be it tiny to push the solutions that bring us closer to a return to coventry long term and if that includes a new stadium then let’s get on and do it with support from all

Excellent synopsis and suggestions
If this works I think we should send you to the Middle East to sort out the problems there

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
So to sum the meeting up.

"Nothing to do with us, we think SISU can take more legals if they wanted, we want CCFC here?"

It's got a couple of people's interest perked up judging by the thread.

It seems to me because they haven't come back out and said "they're utter bastards and to blame for everything", which is what you want to be the case really, you've decided the meeting was therefore a waste of time and they've been hoodwinked.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
Ok assume that’s all the case what’s wrong with a party taking a jump and agreeing with all those clauses understood. Everyone knows the case is most likely to be thrown out.

Don’t want positivity I want answers people

Solutions

You aren’t getting off this thread until we have a proposal

Fine. Will you marry me?

oldskyblue58 · Aug 19, 2020

if you accept that sisu are entitled to take whatever legal action they see fit to protect their interests then you have to also accept wasps have exactly the same right to protect their interests including the use of legal agreements

It is not ccfc should take a deal at all costs but equally it is not wasps should do a deal at all costs. Wasps assessment is that the risks outweigh the benefits without protection from all legals that might directly or indirectly affect them.

Ccc do not need to be involved for wasps to want to include an indemnity in the rent agreement to stop all legals or legal process regarding the sale and lease of the ricoh. The reason they require it is because if legal claim or process continues then wasps continue to be at risk and that affects their business. They do not need to take into account what is best for ccfc above what is in their assessment best for wasps.

Certainly sisu are not looking at what us best for wasps quite the reverse i would suggest. I would query also whether they put ccfc or sisu interests first, I would suggest the latter

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It seems to me because they haven't come back out and said "they're utter bastards and to blame for everything", which is what you want to be the case really, you've decided the meeting was therefore a waste of time and they've been hoodwinked.

I think even nick would have been surprised at some of the robust questions we asked! Much more than with the others. I have to say the fact that ccc wouldn’t say they regret the impact the sale of acl has caused to Ccfc supporters was a low moment. I did push it three times

Marks question about any requests to indemnify anything or anyone was brilliant and left no wriggle room whatsoever

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It seems to me because they haven't come back out and said "they're utter bastards and to blame for everything", which is what you want to be the case really, you've decided the meeting was therefore a waste of time and they've been hoodwinked.

TBF that was my reaction to the Sisu meeting

Esoterica · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Was on MS Teams, so T-Shirt and underwear. Maybe not the underwear.

That's very clever. Council can't pull your pants down if you're not wearing any!

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
if you accept that sisu are entitled to take whatever legal action they see fit to protect their interests then you have to also accept wasps have exactly the same right to protect their interests including the use of legal agreements

It is not ccfc should take a deal at all costs but equally it is not wasps should do a deal at all costs. Wasps assessment is that the risks outweigh the benefits without protection from all legals that might directly or indirectly affect them.

Ccc do not need to be involved for wasps to want to include an indemnity in the rent agreement to stop all legals or legal process regarding the sale and lease of the ricoh. The reason they require it is because if legal claim or process continues then wasps continue to be at risk and that affects their business. They do not need to take into account what is best for ccfc above what is in their assessment best for wasps.

Certainly sisu are not looking at what us best for wasps quite the reverse i would suggest. I would query also whether they put ccfc or sisu interests first, I would suggest the latter

That’s all ok so what takes things forward?

For me it’s the nature of reasonableness in those clauses and that’s where the discussions should take place. That’s our in I reckon

Nick · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
I think even nick would have been surprised at some of the robust questions we asked! Much more than with the others. I have to say the fact that ccc wouldn’t say they regret the impact the sale of acl has caused to Ccfc supporters was a low moment. I did push it three times

Marks question about any requests to indemnify anything or anyone was brilliant and left no wriggle room whatsoever

I have no doubt about you 2, it's the answers

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
I have no doubt about you 2, it's the answers

Thanks that means a lot

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
If Sisus argument is accepted isn’t the difference something like 98%? (Can’t remember the figures off the top of my head but it’s £1m vs £48m or something)

Possibly. But like I say in that case both could pay roughly half of it (Wasps a bit less as they've already paid some) to whatever equals 50:50. But good luck to anyone trying to get that sorted!

One thing I would say won't happen is that if Wasps can't afford it and give the stadium back, SISU putting forward a bid for that value on that length lease because they'll say it isn't worth that much.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Possibly. But like I say in that case both could pay roughly half of it (Wasps a bit less as they've already paid some) to whatever equals 50:50. But good luck to anyone trying to get that sorted!

One thing I would say won't happen is that if Wasps can't afford it and give the stadium back, SISU putting forward a bid for that value on that length lease because they'll say it isn't worth that much.

I have a sneaky suspicion that if Wasps were willing to give up half the Ricoh ownership we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 19, 2020

what takes it forward from fans point of view is to continue talking and questioning. You and Mark are doing a good job with that - perhaps also finding the frustration others have felt

Sorry to be down beat but it won't really be solved until the legals play out or ownership changes. Thats not in our gift. So long as both companies can survive financially not sure much changes.

In terms of playing at the ricoh it is down to who blinks first and who has the deeper pockets.

Frustrating isn't it.

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
what takes it forward from fans point of view is to continue talking and questioning. You and Mark are doing a good job with that - perhaps also finding the frustration others have felt

Sorry to be down beat but it won't really be solved until the legals play out or ownership changes. Thats not in our gift. So long as both companies can survive financially not sure much changes.

In terms of playing at the ricoh it is down to who blinks first and who has the deeper pockets.

Frustrating isn't it.

Think we always thought it was going to be frustrating. We have so much intelligence on here though and so much creativity to come up with solutions and suggestions and to keep asking questions

oldskyblue58 · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
If Sisus argument is accepted isn’t the difference something like 98%? (Can’t remember the figures off the top of my head but it’s £1m vs £48m or something)

Wasps bought the lease for 18.4m in the original deal as part of the share price then extended for 1m. Sisu are saying the value to ccc with no anchor tenant immediately before sale was 28m more than that at 47m.

Wasps then got it valued at 48m in May 2015 with wasps rugby as the anchor tenant.

Frostie · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
It’s nothing to do with the state aid case.

Wasps want Sisu to stop trying legal action aimed at reversing the Ricoh sale *in the future*, they have set aside the state aid case.

Sisu want to reserve that right.

That’s it. That’s the problem.

And to answer your second point it’s because it costs time and money and is a risk when refinancing.

This has been stated over and over and over. Sorry to get frustrated but if we can’t even get the basic facts right as we know them there’s no hope.

Sorry, crossed meaning, I wasn't directly meaning the state aid case though I appreciate it does read like that.
I actually broadly agree with you in what you're saying.

My point was:

A) Is it correct that a landlord should be able to restrict the basic legal rights of their tenant?

SISU will pursue whatever avenue they see fit - as is their right.
Wasps will do what they see fit to protect their interests - as is their right but I don't see how preventing CCFC from playing at the Ricoh protects their interests?

B) You're right about the time/money/refinancing etc. too.
My point is that that will not change, regardless of where CCFC play.
Is their less risk to Wasps now because we're playing at St Andrews? Of course not.

The risk will always be on Wasps & they knew that when they signed up to the purchase, unless we believe they failed to do any due diligence.

So, accepting all that is the only place to start from. The benefits of having CCFC at the Ricoh both to Wasps & the community they pledged to improve & invest in must outweigh the negatives, if there are actually any?

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Frostie said:
Sorry, crossed meaning, I wasn't directly meaning the state aid case though I appreciate it does read like that.
I actually broadly agree with you in what you're saying.

My point was:

A) Is it correct that a landlord should be able to restrict the basic legal rights of their tenant?

SISU will pursue whatever avenue they see fit - as is their right.
Wasps will do what they see fit to protect their interests - as is their right but I don't see how preventing CCFC from playing at the Ricoh protects their interests?

B) You're right about the time/money/refinancing etc. too.
My point is that that will not change, regardless of where CCFC play.
Is their less risk to Wasps now because we're playing at St Andrews? Of course not.

The risk will always be on Wasps & they knew that when they signed up to the purchase, unless we believe they failed to do any due diligence.

So, accepting all that is the only place to start from. The benefits of having CCFC at the Ricoh both to Wasps & the community they pledged to improve & invest in must outweigh the negatives, if there are actually any?

Yeah I think we’re broadly in agreement on the facts then. As I said earlier I can’t see what difference it makes other than leverage to have CCFC playing at home.

I think the only place we disagree is whether it’s in CCFCs interests to keep trying these legal routes. But that’s fair enough, it’s a risk calculation on an unknown.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
Wasps bought the lease for 18.4m in the original deal as part of the share price then extended for 1m. Sisu are saying the value to ccc with no anchor tenant immediately before sale was 28m more than that at 47m.

Wasps then got it valued at 48m in May 2015 with wasps rugby as the anchor tenant.

Got ya. Got confused between the lease extension and the lease itself.

So it is about 50% give or take.

Cranfield Sky Blue · Aug 19, 2020

Didn’t Boddy say last year that CCFC could leave Stans at any time if an agreement was reached to play at The Ricoh?

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
Wasps bought the lease for 18.4m in the original deal as part of the share price then extended for 1m. Sisu are saying the value to ccc with no anchor tenant immediately before sale was 28m more than that at 47m.

Wasps then got it valued at 48m in May 2015 with wasps rugby as the anchor tenant.

I think, taken in isolation, the value paid and the value of extension aren't unreasonable. I think the argument being made in The EU complaint is that they can't be taken in isolation, and that the lease extension was agreed prior to the sale and therefore should've formed part of the valuation.

It's hard to argue, from my point of view, that CCC maximised the value when Wasps had it value so soon afterwards at double what they'd paid.

Also have to remember that they haven't bought bricks & mortar, they've bought a company that operates a stadium. Does that make it harder to put a set value on it?

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

Cranfield Sky Blue said:
Didn’t Boddy say last year that CCFC could leave Stans at any time if an agreement was reached to play at The Ricoh?

We can leave (with EFL approval), but there is a cost to do so (and it's not cheap).

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Cranfield Sky Blue said:
Didn’t Boddy say last year that CCFC could leave Stans at any time if an agreement was reached to play at The Ricoh?

Not this year though

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
I think, taken in isolation, the value paid and the value of extension aren't unreasonable. I think the argument being made in The EU complaint is that they can't be taken in isolation, and that the lease extension was agreed prior to the sale and therefore should've formed part of the valuation.

It's hard to argue, from my point of view, that CCC maximised the value when Wasps had it value so soon afterwards at double what they'd paid.

Also have to remember that they haven't bought bricks & mortar, they've bought a company that operates a stadium. Does that make it harder to put a set value on it?

And you made the point well

better days · Aug 19, 2020

oldskyblue58 said:
Wasps bought the lease for 18.4m in the original deal as part of the share price then extended for 1m. Sisu are saying the value to ccc with no anchor tenant immediately before sale was 28m more than that at 47m.

Wasps then got it valued at 48m in May 2015 with wasps rugby as the anchor tenant.

Sounds like they had clever lawyers

Pete in Portugal · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Well, I think they're acting in self interest. The indemnity would be to stop action against CCC so that could be read as protecting a 3rd party, but in reality if courts find against CCC the result of this would be Wasps repaying the difference in valuations to CCC.

If the complaint from CCFC to the EC is upheld, the EC will order some sort of remedial action, which may, or may not, involve Wasps. But as I see it, the main outcome of the complaint being upheld, would be that it would make a sizeable civil action from CCFC/Sisu against CCC for damages, lost revenue etc., a virtual certainty.

Pete in Portugal · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
CCC seemed to think there'd be an update September/October but that's subject to change. Sounds like ECC don't see it as a priority case as it's been through UK courts (CCC opinion). Don't know how end of transition period will impact things.

Since all the events took place when we were full members of the EU, I'm not sure that the end of the transition period will have any impact on the EC investigation.

Council meeting for Mark and I (10 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency