torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Exactly, shows how really spiteful CCC were as ultimately they weren't only getting on over on SISU, but on CCFC and the fans of the city's football club.
Agree,but there owners hadn't been giving them the runaround for years, agree price,
due-diligence, do deal, no messing, and at the same time pulling the rug from under
SISU.
Completely agree, it must have been blind hatred, and the ends didn't justify the means.Exactly, shows how really spiteful CCC were as ultimately they weren't only getting on over on SISU, but on CCFC and the fans of the city's football club.
I thought that. Then they sold to Wasps whose owners are no better.
Other than they put in an offer and then come up with the cash. It was a bit hard to sell to SISU when they didn't show willing enough to even table an offer.
Other than they put in an offer and then come up with the cash. It was a bit hard to sell to SISU when they didn't show willing enough to even table an offer.
If it was hard to sell to SISU then don't sell. It's an asset for the people of Coventry don't forget and it was also apparently doing rather well. Sit on it and wait until CCFC have new and proper owners and let the club who have been in the city for a 130 years prosper rather than a team from London.
As I said, they took the "spite" a little too far. 85 miles and 250 years too far.
Or put some watertight clauses in it so that it is about CCFC and not SISU.
Or put some watertight clauses in it so that it is about CCFC and not SISU.
Maybe put a clause in to protect the asset, something like the new owner not being able to take out huge loans to pay themselves back millions
Will that be when the last of the court cases is over?
I hate to enter into this, but you could equally argue if they had put in an offer it wouldnt have been accepted anyway. Until hell freezes over and all that.
They are all shit.
They are all shit. But unless SISU put a bid in to be rejected you can't argue anything. If they'd put a bid in they'd either have exposed CCC as a dictatorship or we'd be sitting in the Ricoh as owners not tennants. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a valid reason as to why SISU didn't bid. People use the the "hell will freeze over" line, it was never on the open market line ect. to let SISU of the hook for not bidding when invited all the time. It's a cop out. What have SISU done to deserve such respect from CCFC fans? Even then as fans it's our job to hold them accountable for our club and the fact is they never tabled a bid with CCC after being invited to. Serious or otherwise. Why not? It was their duty to as custodians of CCFC.
Sorry but why didn't SISU table a bid with CCC should be the first question of any CCFC's fans lips when it comes to the matter of the sale of the Ricoh. Quite frankly it staggers me that it isn't for some. It staggers me even more that some round up on those of us who do. It staggers me even more again that they then use such lame ass excuses as the aforementioned excuses to defend them. They truly don't deserve that loyalty.
They are all shit. But unless SISU put a bid in to be rejected you can't argue anything. If they'd put a bid in they'd either have exposed CCC as a dictatorship or we'd be sitting in the Ricoh as owners not tennants. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a valid reason as to why SISU didn't bid. People use the the "hell will freeze over" line, it was never on the open market line ect. to let SISU of the hook for not bidding when invited all the time. It's a cop out. What have SISU done to deserve such respect from CCFC fans? Even then as fans it's our job to hold them accountable for our club and the fact is they never tabled a bid with CCC after being invited to. Serious or otherwise. Why not? It was their duty to as custodians of CCFC.
Sorry but why didn't SISU table a bid with CCC should be the first question of any CCFC's fans lips when it comes to the matter of the sale of the Ricoh. Quite frankly it staggers me that it isn't for some. It staggers me even more that some round up on those of us who do. It staggers me even more again that they then use such lame ass excuses as the aforementioned excuses to defend them. They truly don't deserve that loyalty.
The respect is to CCFC, not SISU.
With respect Nick that's just BS. If the respect was for CCFC said posters would be asking the question of SISU not rounding up on those that do. The have either completely misunderstood what it takes to purchase something once invited to make an offer or they're giving SISU too much respect by letting them of the hook for failing to bid after being invited.
Why didn't they table an offer? Serious or otherwise? It's a simple enough question.
They entered negotiations and HOT was agreed. As the judge in the JR said there was a lack of appetite on both sides to complete a deal. Why that was no one knows for sure. Did SISU not want to pay what was being asked? Possibly. Was the asking price too much? Possibly. Did both sides think the loan could be reduced? Possibly. Did it all go horribly wrong? Most definately.
Ann Lucas did go to London to meet Joy. Did SISU ask for the meeting to remain private? Yes. Did it? No. Did this affect negotiations? Possibly. Could/can SISU be trusted? Probably not, although can't say for definate as we didn't get opportunity to find out.
When Wasps had an offer for CCC shares accepted, SISU under the agreement were invited to make an offer. They did, albeit with conditions attached. Mainly in regard to community work with AEHC. Also asked to see the terms of the Wasps sale. Which IMO is just due diligence which they would of benefited from doing when they first took over. Maybe there was an ulterior motive. Can't say definitely.
To say SISU didn't make a bid of any kind is not entirely correct. Then again I'm sure you will educate me on it all.
HOT's were for the Higgs share prior to being invited to bid for the CCC share. Not even the same thing.
And sorry but JS wanted the meeting to remain private is just another one of those lame ass excuses. Aside from the fact that the only details we know of the meeting is that SISU never tabled a bid it remained private. We know no details.
How do you know they didn't discuss buying it if it was private? Surely they weren't having a chat about handbags and makeup.
I am not saying they did, or didn't. Like you say we don't know.
I am sure of the council wanted a confidential meeting with SISU but Tim Fisher leaked it, everything would have been their fault for betraying trust etc and they shouldn't be worked with.
It also goes further than SISU too doesn't it? What happens if one of the other people interested would have taken us over? There would never have been a SISU here...
If it was hard to sell to SISU then don't sell. It's an asset for the people of Coventry don't forget and it was also apparently doing rather well. Sit on it and wait until CCFC have new and proper owners and let the club who have been in the city for a 130 years prosper rather than a team from London.
As I said, they took the "spite" a little too far. 85 miles and 250 years too far.
HOT's were for the Higgs share prior to being invited to bid for the CCC share. Not even the same thing.
And sorry but JS wanted the meeting to remain private is just another one of those lame ass excuses. Aside from the fact that the only details we know of the meeting is that SISU never tabled a bid it remained private. We know no details.
So? SISU still never tabled an offer with CCC. It's the only thing we do know for a fact. Why not? That's the question you should be asking. Why not?
Exactly, we don't know what was discussed at the time. We also dont know what was going on with wasps at this point either.But you stated no bid had been made? A bid for the Higgs or CCC share is still a bid. Wasps wanted their meetings held private. CCC complied. They even went to the length of requesting CET keep the deal secret. Well according to Italia only formal bids have to be acknowledge. Therefore SISU could have said we will give you 2.5m for your 50% and 2.5m for AEHC share. Ann Lucas could have said well yes but only with the current lease in place and no extension. SISU could have said thank but no thanks. That's called negotiations. Sometimes when you negotiate it goes no where and therefore no bid is tabled. Doesn't mean SISU didn't want to bid or CCC didn't want to sell. As you have said we don't know the details. Yet you seem to know definitivly that SISU did not attempt to bid or submitted a bid. Funny that.
Can't argue with any of that post.
How do you know wasps wasn't a done deal while all of that was going on?You would think. Yet here we are. "it was supposed to be a private meeting" "what if TF had have leaked it" More lame ass excuses that still don't explain why SISU never tabled a bid with CCC when invited. I really couldn't give a flying one that the fact the meeting was leaked. It didn't mean SISU couldn't table a bid. I fail to believe that a hard nosed hedge fund are so sensitive that they ran away crying because they were bullied by CCC announcing that AL was having a meeting about the Ricoh with JS at SISU's Mayfair office. It's difficult to see what else is being implied by constantly rolling that line out. Are we really to believe that this is the reason SISU failed to table an offer to CCC?
So you have moved the goalposts from never tabled a bid to never bidded for the CCC share. Good work Tony, keep it up. Italia will be along shortly to give you hand moving them.
How do you know wasps wasn't a done deal while all of that was going on?
How do you know discussions about it didn't take place?
Yes but it could have been pretty much agreed before then I mean?Because it had to go to a full council meeting to be rubber stamped. When did that meeting happen again?
Discussions about what exactly?
People say sisu can't be trusted. No one disagrees. By the same token the council went against the request to keep it private but complied with wasps request. Who also are a hedge fund. I imagine both hedge funds requested it as part of commercial confidentially. In part to minimise protests against the bids. Also to help keep the price down by not allowing a bidding war to start. No no one for one moment has said the sole reason is because of a meeting being leaked. What people are saying is, it contributed to the sorry mess. Is that so hard to understand?
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?