Hoffman on the CBS Arena board? (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
tisza

tisza

Well-Known Member
Hoffman's relationship with Ashley should raise a few eyebrows - bet there are more than a few PL clubs looking at this development with a lot of interest.
Hoffman was the one who pushed through the Saudi Newcastle deal against the wishes of many PL clubs (informed them after deal was done and without consultation) and it cost him that job.
12 months later he's going to be on the board of a new Ashley business.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
tisza said:
Hoffman's relationship with Ashley should raise a few eyebrows - bet there are more than a few PL clubs looking at this development with a lot of interest.
Hoffman was the one who pushed through the Saudi Newcastle deal against the wishes of many PL clubs (informed them after deal was done and without consultation) and it cost him that job.
12 months later he's going to be on the board of a new Ashley business.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder why a "banker" is going to be running a stadium.
 
rob9872

rob9872

Well-Known Member
As he championed Hoffmans bid and is mates with Ashley, I'll bet that c**t 'superfan' Hairy Keys has some part in this.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
slowpoke said:
They won’t evict ffs! sisu have been offered mirrored terms to play at the CBS and as yet chose not to sign. Who’s fault is that.
Click to expand...
But one a much shorter deal of a few months meaning that we'd have nowhere to play. Which puts the club at a massive disadvantage as it's highly likely the rental costs would be hiked massively and/or the revenues available from matchdays cut due to time pressures.

I find it incredible that if the intention to continue under current terms was there why was it not included in writing as part of the sale to Frasers?
 
slowpoke

slowpoke

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But one a much shorter deal of a few months meaning that we'd have nowhere to play. Which puts the club at a massive disadvantage as it's highly likely the rental costs would be hiked massively and/or the revenues available from matchdays cut due to time pressures.

I find it incredible that if the intention to continue under current terms was there why was it not included in writing as part of the sale to Frasers?
Click to expand...
They have offered mirrored terms ffs! And if there are new agreements we the fans will pay as ticket prices will go up.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
slowpoke said:
They have offered mirrored terms ffs! And if there are new agreements we the fans will pay as ticket prices will go up.
Click to expand...
It does seem that terms same as those they're on were offered pre-sale and not signed. But right now mirrored terms are NOT on the table. They've been withdrawn for a much shorter term.

The entire thing has got me thinking about why has everyone in this mess has done what they have.

My guess is that by signing the mirrored terms pre-sale SISU/King would have effectively scuppered their own bid for the stadium. So did Fraser's only offer the terms because they expected them to be turned down and thus allow them to state they offered the same terms but they were refused?

Then it's when did Fraser's remove those mirrored terms for the six month deal? Was it as soon as the deal went through? Was it when CCFC said they wanted changes in a new agreement?

Seems like crap decisions all round. MA doesn't care what people think of him but even so serving an eviction notice on a local football club where you want to base the HQ of one of your businesses seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do. It may well help him get the club cheaper but mainly because he's driven the price down and made the club and fans suffer in the process. He'd have to invest the money he saves back in just to bring us back up to the same level of competitiveness we are now. So swings and roundabouts just so he can feel like he's got one over someone. Only he's not factoring in how stubborn Seppala can be.
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily sticking up for Hoffman, but at least he attends games and has an obvious affection for the club. I have seen him at away games like Chesterfield, when we were down to our core support attending. He may be disliked for some of his connections/dealings, but at least he follows the team (add in Joe Elliot to that)
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Harry H said:
Not necessarily sticking up for Hoffman, but at least he attends games and has an obvious affection for the club. I have seen him at away games like Chesterfield, when we were down to our core support attending. He may be disliked for some of his connections/dealings, but at least he follows the team (add in Joe Elliot to that)
Click to expand...
there's definitely an upside to having someone who genuinely cares about the club in a position of power but at the same time there's a lot of people on here who live and breathe the club who I'd want nowhere near the decision making process.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
there's definitely an upside to having someone who genuinely cares about the club in a position of power but at the same time there's a lot of people on here who live and breathe the club who I'd want nowhere near the decision making process.
Click to expand...

Kevin Maton is a season ticket holder I believe…
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It does seem that terms same as those they're on were offered pre-sale and not signed. But right now mirrored terms are NOT on the table. They've been withdrawn for a much shorter term.

The entire thing has got me thinking about why has everyone in this mess has done what they have.

My guess is that by signing the mirrored terms pre-sale SISU/King would have effectively scuppered their own bid for the stadium. So did Fraser's only offer the terms because they expected them to be turned down and thus allow them to state they offered the same terms but they were refused?

Then it's when did Fraser's remove those mirrored terms for the six month deal? Was it as soon as the deal went through? Was it when CCFC said they wanted changes in a new agreement?

Seems like crap decisions all round. MA doesn't care what people think of him but even so serving an eviction notice on a local football club where you want to base the HQ of one of your businesses seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do. It may well help him get the club cheaper but mainly because he's driven the price down and made the club and fans suffer in the process. He'd have to invest the money he saves back in just to bring us back up to the same level of competitiveness we are now. So swings and roundabouts just so he can feel like he's got one over someone. Only he's not factoring in how stubborn Seppala can be.
Click to expand...
It does seem that terms same as those they're on were offered pre-sale and not signed. But right now mirrored terms are NOT on the table. They've been withdrawn for a much shorter term.

You could argue they have a longer term

The "old" agreement and "new" one are licences - so FG could have exercised the eviction terms any time aftet they took over

If they wanted certainty of tenure for CCFC why did they not offer a full lease?
 
slowpoke

slowpoke

Well-Known Member
He fronts or is spokesman for a consortium made up of local businessmen trying for a few years to buy the club with these types opinions may differ but I’d assume he talks for the majority.
 
S

steve cooper

Well-Known Member
oldfiver said:
It does seem that terms same as those they're on were offered pre-sale and not signed. But right now mirrored terms are NOT on the table. They've been withdrawn for a much shorter term.

You could argue they have a longer term

The "old" agreement and "new" one are licences - so FG could have exercised the eviction terms any time aftet they took over

If they wanted certainty of tenure for CCFC why did they not offer a full lease?
Click to expand...
But doesn't a lease give exclusive rights? So in my understanding the agreement with Wasps must have been a licence.
www.blbsolicitors.co.uk

Lease or Licence - what's the difference? | BLB Solicitors

Commercial lease or licence - what's the difference? And for landlords, beware of unintentionally creating a lease. Find out more >>
www.blbsolicitors.co.uk www.blbsolicitors.co.uk
 
slowpoke

slowpoke

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Poker Players and made up energy drink men?
Click to expand...
Why not if people come along boasting few bob which might help check them out & once seen either or both aren’t for real dump them. As said there’s a consortium might not have been Hoffman who was initially approached.
 
Last edited:
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
steve cooper said:
I agree you did, but why are we saying we should have been offered a lease for security of tenure?
Wouldn't that possibly massively disadvantage HofF?
Click to expand...

I did not say should I said they could have.

Effectively they offered nothing in the "new" licence
 
S

steve cooper

Well-Known Member
Ok, but my understanding is if we were leaseholders (sublease) our landlord would need our agreement to even enter the arena. That could affect all sort of things H of F might want to do, from concerts to allowing Wasps to play there.
If that is the case, from their pov a sublease to us makes no commercial sense.
Not sure I'm right of this, just trying to assimilate what I have read about leases v licences.
 
R

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
Ashley/ hof playing their own game? Their mindset seem to be we won’t be fucking about with SISU / King, and doing he said they said, here’s our new agreement sign it or fuck off.
Hard nosed big business man v poxy hedge fund, only one winner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top