Cwr this morning (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
BigadamL

BigadamL

Well-Known Member
Seems like Wasps arnt moving and cc have no strings to pull in this battle, its more the court case they are involved in.

SISU silence I find unnerving, what are they up to? have they got something up there sleeves?

I might be putting 2+2 and getting 5 but it sounds to me like wasps have already got a plan in place with new owners if that was to happen
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
BigadamL said:
Seems like Wasps arnt moving and cc have no strings to pull in this battle, its more the court case they are involved in.

SISU silence I find unnerving, what are they up to? have they got something up there sleeves?

I might be putting 2+2 and getting 5 but it sounds to me like wasps have already got a plan in place with new owners if that was to happen
Click to expand...

Is this whole thing a Haskell Mk2?

I'd put money on SISU's plan not being "Ah you have us, we had better hand the club over to somebody else now. Good luck for the future x x ".
 
Colin Steins Smile

Colin Steins Smile

Well-Known Member
I can understand that Eastwood was never going to backtrack on Wasps stated position regarding negotiation a new agreement on CWR.
The potential of a 50% share in the Ricoh is a very attractive proposition for both Wasps and CCFC, as it cuts overheads and has the potential to increase revenue streams. For instance the sponsorship of the Ricoh would have far more value with CCFC as a joint owner.
However, I would not go into any joint ownership with a club owned by SISU. It'll be bound to end up in a legal dispute.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Colin Steins Smile said:
I can understand that Eastwood was never going to backtrack on Wasps stated position regarding negotiation a new agreement on CWR.
The potential of a 50% share in the Ricoh is a very attractive proposition for both Wasps and CCFC, as it cuts overheads and has the potential to increase revenue streams. For instance the sponsorship of the Ricoh would have far more value with CCFC as a joint owner.
However, I would not go into any joint ownership with a club owned by SISU. It'll be bound to end up in a legal dispute.
Click to expand...

As it stands, isn't a 50% share of the Ricoh also taking on a 50% share of the massive debt? Would the 50% share be at the £2.77m or so they paid or would it be 50% of the new valuation?

It really isn't as simplistic as just jumping in balls deep because of a soundbyte he put out on the radio.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Colin Steins Smile said:
I can understand that Eastwood was never going to backtrack on Wasps stated position regarding negotiation a new agreement on CWR.
The potential of a 50% share in the Ricoh is a very attractive proposition for both Wasps and CCFC, as it cuts overheads and has the potential to increase revenue streams. For instance the sponsorship of the Ricoh would have far more value with CCFC as a joint owner.
However, I would not go into any joint ownership with a club owned by SISU. It'll be bound to end up in a legal dispute.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t settle for 50% of any sponsorship income either, the value is higher because of us.

Ultimately, this is a dangerous game. If it works then awesome we can move on SISU free with a foothold in the Ricoh, if not however the club dies.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
I wouldn’t settle for 50% of any sponsorship income either, the value is higher because of us.

Ultimately, this is a dangerous game. If it works then awesome we can move on SISU free with a foothold in the Ricoh, if not however the club dies.
Click to expand...

Exactly, been trying to point it out for months.

If it works, it could potentially be amazing. Is it naive to think SISU don't know full well what the game is though so will have something up their sleeve like they did when it was Haskell. That is what worries me!
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
riyadhskyblue said:
No you are right, your house, your rules. I am out.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention anything about rules?

giphy.gif


I was pointing how naive it is to jump balls deep into something after a planned soundclip from the radio.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Forever_Blue said:
Eastwood said the perfect scenario would be for a joint Ricoh ownership enterprise with both clubs sharing ticketing and events income etc. Something tells me this would be the case if SISU sold the club.
Click to expand...
The lack of follow up questions is so frustrating. I’m not a trained journalist but I can think of several questions off the top of my head:
What valuation would be the basis for negotiations;
Would the buyer take on 50% of the bond liability;
Why now, are Wasps in financial difficulties;
Has this been discussed with any third party for example Hoff.

Why is he allowed to just drop this stuff out and not be questioned?
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
The lack of follow up questions is so frustrating. I’m not a trained journalist but I can think of several questions off the top of my head:
What valuation would be the basis for negotiations;
Would the buyer take on 50% of the bond liability;
Why now, are Wasps in financial difficulties;
Has this been discussed with any third party for example Hoff.

Why is he allowed to just drop this stuff out and not be questioned?
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t of thought so, that’s a Wasps group issue, not ACL.

My concern now is, if Wasps are interested in a 50/50 enterprise, how bad are their finances? Isn’t this going to make SISU dig in?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Tommo72 said:
He said: “I don’t think we are able to do that I think if we were to try and do something - as you say - from our side of the fence, that might lead me in my position to expose the Wasps group to significant potential risks.

“It’s not a question of wanting to do it I think it is a question of being able to do it. I think I would be failing in my statutory duty.”
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Kicked us out doesn’t stop the legals so the risk to Wasps doesn’t decrease. In fact you could claim he was failed to act in the best interests of the business by turning a significant client away.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Wouldn’t of thought so, that’s a Wasps group issue, not ACL.

My concern now is, if Wasps are interested in a 50/50 enterprise, how bad are their finances? Isn’t this going to make SISU dig in?
Click to expand...
How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
chiefdave said:
That makes no sense. Kicked us out doesn’t stop the legals so the risk to Wasps doesn’t decrease. In fact you could claim he was failed to act in the best interests of the business by turning a significant client away.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the risk is always there.

It's just soundclips for the radio.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.
Click to expand...
If they default, wont their 50% lease revert to whoever is after the money? If the whole thing is worth 60 million, then won’t their half be worth 30? Is that a too simplistic view?

Chances are any sale of the 50% will be used towards the bond - possibly pirchaseable for 15 million?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
If they default, wont their 50% lease revert to whoever is after the money? If the whole thing is worth 60 million, then won’t their half be worth 30? Is that a too simplistic view?

Chances are any sale of the 50% will be used towards the bond - possibly pirchaseable for 15 million?
Click to expand...
Half the value of the lease doesn’t come close to providing enough security for the amount they owe on the bonds.

Even if you take the valuation from their last accounts which struck me as very high.
 
shepardo01

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
riyadhskyblue said:
If I am reading this post correctly then Eastwood is saying Wasps would be open for a partner at the Ricoh. If I was our owners I would bite their hand off.
Click to expand...
The council would never let that happen. They will not deal with SISU. (Council having a vested interest in Wasps) They are in this to spite SISU at whatever cost and seem very happy to hide behind WASPs and are happy to use CCFC as collateral. Stems from before the Northampton move, before which they were already talking to WASPS.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Half the value of the lease doesn’t come close to providing enough security for the amount they owe on the bonds.

Even if you take the valuation from their last accounts which struck me as very high.
Click to expand...
Then could the plan be to bring Coventry City into the Wasps group?

Again, this is like Nick said, it’s a hostile takeover attempt. If it works then great, the cross invoicing will do wonders for the club.

If not then SISU are likely just to dig in
 
ceetee

ceetee

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Then could the plan be to bring Coventry City into the Wasps group?

Again, this is like Nick said, it’s a hostile takeover attempt. If it works then great, the cross invoicing will do wonders for the club.

If not then SISU are likely just to dig in
Click to expand...
Can't see the advantage of combining two loss making businesses.
Any savings would be relatively small compared with the operating costs.
Only advantage I could see would be the possibility of renewed stadium sponsorship
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Captain Dart said:
Pancakes, now that's more Trish's home ground not this horrible nasty politics stuff.
Click to expand...

Today was the kind of day we needed someone like Shane O'Connor answering the questions. Adudu is an empty-headed dolt, but then again most of them are.
 
tisza

tisza

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
As it stands, isn't a 50% share of the Ricoh also taking on a 50% share of the massive debt? Would the 50% share be at the £2.77m or so they paid or would it be 50% of the new valuation?

It really isn't as simplistic as just jumping in balls deep because of a soundbyte he put out on the radio.
Click to expand...
can't be that simple. From memory the leasehold is the guarantee for the bond so 50% couldn't be easily bought for 2.77m. Also there's a revaluation of the lease agreement after Wasps bought out the Higgs/CCC shares. If i was a bond holder I'd be looking at legal action if the 50% was anything less than the value of the bond debt.
SISU slightly screwed by their insistence was undervalued in the first place.
Lost track of the company structures re: bond, stadium contract etc.
 
eastwoodsdustman

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
If wasps are in the clear on the sale then they have nothing to worry about. If signing a new agreement leaves them open to potential risks then maybe there’s something to hide
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
eastwoodsdustman said:
If wasps are in the clear on the sale then they have nothing to worry about. If signing a new agreement leaves them open to potential risks then maybe there’s something to hide
Click to expand...

I don't think it does, I think it's just bullshit so that CCFC fans go on to repeat it to defend them.

"They shouldnt do a deal because it opens them up to risks".
"Like what?"
"It's what they said on the radio"
 
eastwoodsdustman

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
I don't think it does, I think it's just bullshit so that CCFC fans go on to repeat it to defend them.

"They shouldnt do a deal because it opens them up to risks".
"Like what?"
"It's what they said on the radio"
Click to expand...
Thinking about it he’s pretty stupid to say so if they are covering up the sale
 
Forever_Blue

Forever_Blue

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Exactly, the risk is always there.

It's just soundclips for the radio.
Click to expand...

Gilbert “ can you ever foresee a future where Coventry City and Wasps exist at the Ricoh arena in harmony, perhaps for each other’s benefit even?”

Eastwood “ well that’s what we’d love to see, rather than having what you might call a landlord/tenant relationship, the very best thing is to have the 2 parties closely aligned so you could run joint events or participate on things like ticketing or merchandising which would benefit both parties, this is what we would see as the ideal scenario going forward”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top