Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Did Sisu appeal? (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter Paul Jones
  • Start date Jul 23, 2017
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Next
First Prev 7 of 10 Next Last

Nick

Administrator
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #211
dongonzalos said:
I am talking about Wasps of today who are trying to be the Richest club in Europe and unfortunately own ACL and all the marketing that comes with it.
Not Wasps of old.

I am surprised you think a 4th division football club. Renting it's stadium of which it has no agreement on beyond next summer.
Who have been on consecutive decline. Playing in front of crowds probably of 8k next year. Have more marketing pull than a Rugby club who are probably one of the best 2-3 in the country.
Who play at the top level in Europe and average crowds of 20k (guess)

I genuinely assumed it would just be a fact accepted by everyone that Wasps have more pull at the moment.
Clearly not
Click to expand...

I was pointing out to compare people who sponsor Wasps as a rugby team and CCFC as a football team so it was like for like.

Both will probably have more sponsors and partners than you have listed anyway. I was just pointing out that somehow you managed to miss a massive blue image with a Nike tick on when listing CCFC's
 
T

thekidfromstrettoncamp

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #212
dongonzalos said:
We were also not moving to Northampton. That was a mere bluff.
The owners were right to not agree a deal with ACL. As the Ricoh was a white elephant no one else would want so you may as well make ACL bust and pick it up for nothing.
We should stay at Northampton till ACL go bust.
SISU will win the legal action. SISU should do the legal action it won't harm the club. SISU never wanted to win the legal
Wasps are not affected by the legal action.
The list is endless and priceless to be fair.
The only bloke on this web site who actually does seem to know something about what is going on us Italia.
Click to expand...
That isn't a bad list and he also helps toward our best informants pension I hear.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #213
dongonzalos said:
We were also not moving to Northampton. That was a mere bluff. .
Click to expand...


No I never said that – can you post me a link

dongonzalos said:
The owners were right to not agree a deal with ACL. As the Ricoh was a white elephant no one else would want so you may as well make ACL bust and pick it up for nothing
Click to expand...


I was right on that. As I have previously pointed out you need to understand the original meaning of the term. Without an extended lease the value was zero which is why it had to have a 6 fold extension on price to even then only have a value of the amount we signed and paid Freddie Eastwood for the duration of his stay here. You, on the other hand, thought it was worth around £60 million on its original lease and that the club should have paid more for the Higgs share on said lease for a 50% share than Wasps paid for the lot on a lifetime lease


dongonzalos said:
We should stay at Northampton till ACL go bust.
Click to expand...


I never actually said that either but as a strategy it had merit – it was just a shame that the Council were prepared to give effectively freehold to a London sports team rather than the football team that has been here over 100 years.


dongonzalos said:
SISU will win the legal action.
Click to expand...
I certainly never said that



dongonzalos said:
SISU should do the legal action it won't harm the club.
Click to expand...


Again I never said any of that. What I said was if the legal process allows it to happen you should not use blackmail to prevent due process


dongonzalos said:
SISU never wanted to win the legal
Click to expand...


Correct they don’t – they want to use it as a means of remaining in the battleground. It may not be a strategy people can understand but it is their strategy which many on here now acknowledge.



dongonzalos said:
Wasps are not affected by the legal action.
Click to expand...


Correct they aren’t. They still want the club to commit to a long term arrangement at the ground.


dongonzalos said:
The list is endless and priceless to be fair.
Click to expand...


It clearly isn’t



dongonzalos said:
The only bloke on this web site who actually does seem to know something about what is going on us Italia.
Click to expand...


According to Italia initially the Ricoh would be more profitable if there was no sporting club at all but it was used for showjumping. Then it was the Land Rover stadium 3 years ago. Then Wasps were lining up to buy CCFC. His one fact apparently was on facebook two weeks prior though I suspect his source was closer to his nest.
 

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #214
dongonzalos said:
What was the situation when Allsop took over?
Click to expand...

We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #215
bawtryneal said:
We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.
Click to expand...

We had the Charity for 3 months I think, the cup game was against arsenal when we had a betting company if I remember. Never heard of them before or since. Before that it was city link, then they went tits up. Probably from giving us an apparent £1m for a shirt deal!

 
Reactions: bawtryneal, dongonzalos and Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #216
dongonzalos said:
What was the situation when Allsop took over?
Click to expand...
We swapped one crap GK for another crap GK.
 
Reactions: Brylowes, Kingokings204, wingy and 3 others
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #217
Nick said:
We had the Charity for 3 months I think, the cup game was against arsenal when we had a betting company if I remember. Never heard of them before or since. Before that it was city link, then they went tits up. Probably from giving us an apparent £1m for a shirt deal!

Click to expand...

Bloody hell
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #218
bawtryneal said:
We didn't have a shirt sponsor for 6 months.
From memory didn't we put a local charity on shirt for a cup game.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really show us an attractive proposition
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 28, 2017
  • #219
dongonzalos said:
Doesn't really show us an attractive proposition
Click to expand...

The current shirt sponsorship is around £100,000
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #220
Grendel said:
What did Land Rover have to do with wasps coming here.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but they announced their sponsorship at the time of Wasps purchase of ACL pre first game. That sort of deal doesn't happen over night.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #221
Hobo said:
I don't know, but they announced their sponsorship at the time of Wasps purchase of ACL pre first game. That sort of deal doesn't happen over night.
Click to expand...
Neither does a multi million pound purchase of a stadium nearly a hundred miles from home.
 

singers_pore

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #222
Grendel said:
Without an extended lease the value was zero
Click to expand...

So a lease that is 50 years long has a value of zero while a lease that is 250 years long has a value of 65 million. You really are an idiot aren't you.
 
Reactions: Brylowes, skystevie43, Captain Dart and 2 others
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #223
Grendel said:
No I never said that – can you post me a link




I was right on that. As I have previously pointed out you need to understand the original meaning of the term. Without an extended lease the value was zero which is why it had to have a 6 fold extension on price to even then only have a value of the amount we signed and paid Freddie Eastwood for the duration of his stay here. You, on the other hand, thought it was worth around £60 million on its original lease and that the club should have paid more for the Higgs share on said lease for a 50% share than Wasps paid for the lot on a lifetime lease


Who set the value at nil? Joy. And you. Wasps and the council thought differently. There was a way of increasing the value relatively simply - for anyone other than SISU. So the value wasn't nil because of the potential.

I never actually said that either but as a strategy it had merit – it was just a shame that the Council were prepared to give effectively freehold to a London sports team rather than the football team that has been here over 100 years.

No it didn't have merit. There was no guarantee that we were "the only show in town". The strategy didn't last long when Wasps appeared on the horizon.


I certainly never said that






Again I never said any of that. What I said was if the legal process allows it to happen you should not use blackmail to prevent due process

What, like threatening continuous litigation if you don't get your own way?



Correct they don’t – they want to use it as a means of remaining in the battleground. It may not be a strategy people can understand but it is their strategy which many on here now acknowledge.

Great strategy. Prefer Wasps strategy though. Increase the value of the Ricoh and achieve sporting success.





Correct they aren’t. They still want the club to commit to a long term arrangement at the ground.

Wasps may have been affected if SISU had a case and were well prepared. At the time it could have been presumed that SISU may have known what they were doing.





It clearly isn’t


Not bad though.



According to Italia initially the Ricoh would be more profitable if there was no sporting club at all but it was used for showjumping. Then it was the Land Rover stadium 3 years ago. Then Wasps were lining up to buy CCFC. His one fact apparently was on facebook two weeks prior though I suspect his source was closer to his nest.
Click to expand...

Yes, at least as accurate as calling it an "edifice" in a negative comment or a "white elephant"
 
Reactions: Brylowes and Astute

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #223
Grendel said:
Without an extended lease the value was zero
Click to expand...

That actually isn't true.

As OSB has explained a gazillion times owning the original lease gave you the exclusive right to buy an extended lease. You had to have the original lease to get the extended lease so to say it that the original lease had no value is just plain wrong. In many ways it was more valuable and if you look at the purchase of ACL you could argue that they did actually pay more for the initial lease than the extension. Unless you're now saying ACL wasn't worthless.
 
Reactions: singers_pore, skystevie43, Captain Dart and 2 others

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #224
Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #225
Astute said:
Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.
Click to expand...

What we found out was that in certain person's minds there is no distinction between a lie and a fact used to back up an argument provided the lie fits the argument.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #226
Astute said:
Just had to turn Grendels comments back on to see what crap he was coming out wirh this time.

We found out in JR1 that he said SISU lost on purpose that it did have a value. Also the true value of something is what someone is willing to pay. It wasn't valueless just because SISU valued it at a 1m donation to a charity.
Click to expand...

So without a lease extension would wasps have purchased it -- yes or no?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #227
singers_pore said:
So a lease that is 50 years long has a value of zero while a lease that is 250 years long has a value of 65 million. You really are an idiot aren't you.
Click to expand...

The lease was 42 years long and the real value as you well know is nowhere near 65 million. If that were the case then the business was sold significantly under value - you sound like sisus legal team.

You also know that wasps wouldn't have contemplating buying ACL without any lease extension.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #228
martcov said:
Yes, at least as accurate as calling it an "edifice" in a negative comment or a "white elephant"
Click to expand...

If, as you say, the value could have been achieved relatively simply (I assume you mean the lease) why was it not extended at the beginning thus increasing the Higgs valuation overnight?
Why, if it was that simple, were the club never even when relations were OK offered a purchase of the council share first and only ever the inflation Higgs formula price which under the terms of the lease was collosolly overvalued?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #229
Grendel said:
So without a lease extension would wasps have purchased it -- yes or no?
Click to expand...

As per usual you're putting the cart before the horse. Could Wasps have purchased the lease extension without purchasing ACL first? Yes or No?

The true cost of purchasing the 250 year lease was the cost of purchasing ACL AND the cost of the extension. You couldn't do one without the other. You're only fooling yourself if you think any different.
 
Last edited: Jul 29, 2017

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #230
Grendel said:
If, as you say, the value could have been achieved relatively simply (I assume you mean the lease) why was it not extended at the beginning thus increasing the Higgs valuation overnight?
Why, if it was that simple, were the club never even when relations were OK offered a purchase of the council share first and only ever the inflation Higgs formula price which under the terms of the lease was collosolly overvalued?
Click to expand...
The formula price was the maximum the club would have to pay, the club's owners agreed a lower than formula price with Higgs. As part of the same deal the Council were willing to extend the lease to 125 years for free. Sounds like a good deal to me, but alas 'mad' Joy changed her mind.
 
Reactions: martcov, Astute, skystevie43 and 2 others

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #231
Rusty Trombone said:
The formula price was the maximum the club would have to pay, the club's owners agreed a lower than formula price with Higgs. As part of the same deal the Council were willing to extend the lease to 125 years for free. Sounds like a good deal to me, but alas 'mad' Joy changed her mind.
Click to expand...

Did the council agree to sell their share?
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #232
Grendel said:
Did the council agree to sell their share?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of them either agreeing to or not agreeing to, are you saying they refused? I take it you accept the other points.
 
Reactions: skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #233
Grendel said:
Did the council agree to sell their share?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't SISU have to have been an interested purchaser for the council to agree or disagree a sale to the club.

It is well documented in the courts that SISU are interested in investing millions in speculative legal action but not interested in investing millions in a tangible asset such as The Ricoh to the benefit of the club. Hell it would have even been of benefit to SISU given how speculative said court action has proved to be. You have to have a willing purchaser equally as much as you have to have a willing seller. In that respect SISU are at least equal to whatever you like to think the council are. Given the fact that Joy had the council leader in her office willing to listen to her proposal (which never came) you'd have to (using your logic) say they're were even less willing.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #234
The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.
 
Reactions: Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #235
Rusty Trombone said:
I'm not aware of them either agreeing to or not agreeing to, are you saying they refused? I take it you accept the other points.
Click to expand...

They said bridges needed to built
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #236
Grendel said:
They said bridges needed to built
Click to expand...

What about the prior 7 years? What about when Joy had the council leader in her office having travelled to London to hear her offer that was never made?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #237
chiefdave said:
The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.
Click to expand...

Only problem with that theory is that the plain truth is ACL couldn't afford to extend the lease. Something else I think OSB has explained a gazillion times.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #238
chiefdave said:
The councils own document states the value of the freehold increases as the end of the lease gets closer. By extending the lease there is an impact on the asset retained by the council.

The key question is if the lease extension increases the value as significantly as Wasps valuation would indicate why not extend it prior to the sale?

There's also no reason a extension had to be sold at all. The council could have waited until the original lease was ending and then invite offers.
Click to expand...

Indeed and it's a question most on this forum conveniently ignore.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #239
Grendel said:
Indeed and it's a question most on this forum conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...

So how were ACL going to pay for the lease extension? Maybe another YB mortgage? I think we both know the answer to that one although my guess is that you will conveniently ignore the question.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #240
skybluetony176 said:
So how were ACL going to pay for the lease extension? Maybe another YB mortgage? I think we both know the answer to that one although my guess is that you will conveniently ignore the question.
Click to expand...
The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #241
chiefdave said:
The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.
Click to expand...

There would have to be an appetite to invest from either share owner for that to happen. That was clearly not there and why would it have been. Who in their right mind would have invested in a stadium with no anchor tennant unless you had an anchor tennant to bring to the show?

So that means that the only way investment was going to happen was for ACL to be sold. Should have been to CCFC but Joy was more interested in investing in speculative legal action than a tangible asset. Queue Wasps arrival.

A millstone of a company offloaded and a sizable debt paid back. No brainer really in business terms.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #242
chiefdave said:
The council loaned them £14m when, given the sale price, ACL was worth less than £6m. Why not loan then £15m, sell the lease extension then you have ACL worth far more than the loan.

Or Higgs give ACL a bridging loan knowing a sale is imminent and they'll get their money straight back.
Click to expand...

Indeed
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #243
skybluetony176 said:
Who in their right mind would have invested in a stadium with no anchor tennant unless you had an anchor tennant to bring to the show?
Click to expand...
The lease extension was agreed at the same meeting as the sale to Wasps. They could have extended the lease at that point under CCC / Higgs ownership knowing there was an anchor tenant coming in.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #244
chiefdave said:
The lease extension was agreed at the same meeting as the sale to Wasps. They could have extended the lease at that point under CCC / Higgs ownership knowing there was an anchor tenant coming in.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Rusty or Council Dart will have an explanation.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Jul 29, 2017
  • #245
Grendel said:
Did the council agree to sell their share?
Click to expand...
When a serious bidder came along yes.

As you know SISU kept coming to an agreement with Higgs ant then pulling out at the last minute. Each time they came back with a lower bid. Until finally they offered nothing but a 1m donation as they were a charity.

So what serious bid did they give to CCC? Oh yes I remember now. They refused to talk. They were only interested in ACL without the loan attached. Remember that word? Unencumbered.

And some still try and blame CCC for everything.
 
Reactions: skybluetony176, martcov and colin101
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Next
First Prev 7 of 10 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?