shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Might have an impact on the remedy though, but as you say the decision alone might be enough.
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.
Which I’m certain wasps and ccc expect and would see as ok if not helpful. It’s any additional stuff that I think they are seeking to be a part of any dealIf 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.
I guess the question is are ticket sales at the Ricoh, less ticket sales at Stans worth more to CCFC than the cost of the compensation plus any other costs of relocating midway through the season.So given that compensation the question is why when no crowds are likely to be allowed that would make a significant difference to finances would sisu bring the club back any time in the 20/21 season. Conclusion has to be that sisu have no intention of bringing the club back before August 2021 surely ? It would cost the club extra money that sisu or player sales would have to find
As Pete says Boddy seemed to imply that's it negotiations finished.
No reason why wasps would compensate ccfc for breaking the bcfc arrangement
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.
It would 100% mean Wasps would have to pay the difference between what they paid and what the EU think they should pay. No ifs, no bits, even if it bankrupts them. There is no leniency.
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.
IF CCC are found to be in the wrong.....
It would 100% mean Wasps would have to pay the difference between what they paid and what the EU think they should pay. No ifs, no bits, even if it bankrupts them. There is no leniency.
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?
Fuck the ignore button that's for pussies.the ignore button works so very well !! so that's Grendel and shmmeee on the naughty step for the forseeable future, and I'm more relaxed than before
It does seem like there are regular conversations with Wasps though (not a surprise) but Martin Reeves hasn't spoken with Joy Seppala since 2014. 6 years. Was staggered by that. There's clearly some very deep rooted animosity.
Yeah, I could buy into something not being done properly in the earlier JR, but if this one succeeds... you'd hope CCC had an indemnity against whichever legal firm advised them!!Seems to me the whole thing was carefully planned and structured to counter any legal claim or eu complaint. Given what has gone on it is hard to think that the eu implications were not fully considered
Agree with some of that but as with all things it wasnt entirely like that. There was a plan I think that sought to break that link.
Ccc sold their share first subject to a deal being done with the charity for wasps to acquire their shares.
That made the lease extension subject to the same requirement. If sale by charity didn't happen then the extension didn't either
The charity shares were then acquired after they were offered to sisu, on a slightly different contract and separately to the council. That creates an indication at least of market value of the shares which included a lease value of 18.4m.
Sisu offered a similar value for the charity shares so that would indicate the share sale price was about right or are sisu saying they should have offered more?
I assume that ccc would be able to show documentation that details of discussion of the terms of the extended lease after the share purchase (guess on my part but I don't think its unreasonable)
The extended lease could only be offered to acl as that company owned the original lease. It isnt legally owned by wasps holdings but it is controlled by that company. There was no open market for the lease because the original still had nearly 40 years still to run
Acl acquired the lease January 2015. The intention might exist before that and be linked but the lease had no legal standing until January 2015
Acl gave wasps rugby a 50 year lease as I understand it
The lease valued around May 2015 including the new anchor tenant wasps rugby at 48m just before the bond issued and the lease charged to the bond.
ccc loan repaid may 2015
Seems to me the whole thing was carefully planned and structured to counter any legal claim or eu complaint. Given what has gone on it is hard to think that the eu implications were not fully considered
Had said for years before the sale to wasps that
- the original lease was too short ... that was the ccc doing
- that acl lease should have been extended to create extra value ..... by time of sale to wasps acl didnt have the funds to do that and were almost bust. But also it would have allowed different finance options and the possibility of a long lease for ccfc
There is no link between what wasps valued it at and what the pre- sale value to ccc was. The acl lease value under wasps included a sub lease to wasps rugby as anchor tenant. The value to ccc pre-sale was without anchor tenant. The sale values of lease and extension to ccc are for eu to sort out.
Would the extension alone add 28m ? No idea.
One thing I am not sure of is are sisu claiming ccc are due an extra 28m or 50% of 28m ..... i assume the latter but if the argument is that the extension added 28m and was linked at date of sale it could be the full amount.
But then if the sisu argument is correct that must mean the valuations done since are incorrect because they ignore the intrinsic value of the extension and rely only on the cash flows of the tenants the biggest of which wasn't a tenant when ccc sold 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
surely be very difficult politically for the council not to "collect" the extra money (if that is the verdict ) whilst having to cut services etc for financial reasonsWould make it difficult to enforce the remediation (i.e. what Wasps would have to pay to CCC).
[
surely be very difficult politically for the council not to "collect" the extra money (if that is the verdict ) whilst having to cut services etc for financial reasons
Yes. They know nothing more than any of us. Wouldn't commit to a particular position on it as didn't know details but I think in theory they would support it. With anything around planning as a local authority it's quite prescriptive what they can do as it's regulated. They certainly didn't seem against it, but like the rest of us want to see more detail. Certainly didn't seem to be any bad blood with UoW side.
Do you know what, I'd love nothing more than us to include a way of bringing Bees back , as long as it's not in the football ground.
Tommy Hutchison in the afternoon and Ole Olsen at night...halcyon days!!!Back in the day when we would go to watch CCFC in the winter and the Bees in the summer, if someone had said you won't be watching them in Coventry in the future I would have said, you're mad and had one too many.
So sad.
Tommy Hutchison in the afternoon and Ole Olsen at night...halcyon days!!!
Did they speak to Wasps?The current state of play is that all parties have now spoken to Pete and Mark and apart from the NDA it is believed we now have a clearer? picture.
It does seem that it is unlikely we will see a solution without movement on one side or the other. Maybe the impact of Covid will force a more conciliatory mood? but what is clear is that we don’t have skin in this game and despite the best efforts of Pete and Mark, where they have been listened to respectfully, it seems that progress is not forthcoming.
Arbitration didn’t yield a result and court cases have ended in cul de sacs of appeals and new avenue explored to not get the verdict our owners require.
I am not sure if SIsu can raise the funds to build a stadium but i wonder if they have made representations to buy a share of the Ricoh and have been turned down or have been quoted an unrealistic price and couldn’t make the numbers work?
I may be way off base in saying this but if we were to get to the premier league our turnover would dwarf Wasps many fold and whereas in 2018 we were three seasons away and a million miles from that position we are potentially ten months away and within reachable distance. You would have thought that both sides would have seen the attractive carrot on the horizon and if they have seen it then so has a potential buyer.
Pete, you have asked for a solution. It seems to this supporter that 5 years away from Coventry is not sustainable and the party that needs to compromise is our owners and we know that is not in their DNA.
I would like to think that common sense will prevail but from your reporting back it seems that nothing has changed and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel.
Did they speak to Wasps?
Thought that kept being put off?
....I could be mistaken....
Liquidate! as you say we are the company stuck between a rock and a hardplace, I should think Joy is looking forward to getting a shot at a £100 million game at the end of the season (me being an optomist LOL)
There have been conversations. Hopefully get something more formal at some point. Sometimes think it'd be more likely to get an open conversation with Vladimir Putin.
To go slightly off topic, there was some cautious good news yesterday about the Bees and that an offer has been made to buy Brandon stadium back and return it to a sporting venue.Back in the day when we would go to watch CCFC in the winter and the Bees in the summer, if someone had said you won't be watching them in Coventry in the future I would have said, you're mad and had one too many.
So sad.
The owners of the site seem determined to keep it, though. Let's hope a few years of fighting has bored them into submission!To go slightly off topic, there was some cautious good news yesterday about the Bees and that an offer has been made to buy Brandon stadium back and return it to a sporting venue.
Fingers crossed we end up with 2 clubs returning sooner rather than later!
Absolutely, hopefully they get the hint! Its an absolute tip of a site at the minute which is a big shameThe owners of the site seem determined to keep it, though. Let's hope a few years of fighting has bored them into submission!
The potential new owner has been lining this up since 2017, so I'd hope it's plausible.Absolutely, hopefully they get the hint! Its an absolute tip of a site at the minute which is a big shame
Remember Ian Hindle ? I remember him scoring two points at one meeting.Tommy Hutchison in the afternoon and Ole Olsen at night...halcyon days!!!
Not the council that’s the issue. U.K. gov would have to enact the remedy I believe, ECJ just makes recommendations to them. Theory is we’re out of the EU they can’t make us and Cummings loves state aid and the optics of us following ECJ rulings after Dec 31st ain’t great.
So I can publicly confirm that I have now spoken face to face with Derek Richardson a couple of weeks ago and again today to discuss the situation, barriers and potential solutions. I have also been in contact with Joy Seppalla today.
what’s so clear as I’ve said further up in this thread is that each party has reason to feel aggrieved and hurt. It’s also clear that all parties want ccfc to play in Coventry.
The opinions and suggestions and challenges that were outlined on here have been so useful for mark and I to clarify our own thinking and ensure that we are able to maintain a consistent line about our motivations and desires and to be clear that we don’t represent the fan base, dont speak on behalf of the fan base but do speak as Ccfc fans
I may be hopelessly naive but I still have hope
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?