italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Directly by involving legal/management teams and indirectly by affecting potential local Wasps sponsors who don't want to be associated with CCFC demise.
Directly by involving legal/management teams and indirectly by affecting potential local Wasps sponsors who don't want to be associated with CCFC demise.How do the JRs cost Wasps time or money?
And thus be sympathetic to the clubs (not sisu's) needs by using their discretion.
To answer your 2 questions:
Ofcourse they have been following what's gone on since sixfields, they have been involved in discussions around the (non) stadium and academy.
And whilst there is no new stadium on thr horizon, the club have (from what they tell us) kept the FL up to date on it, and even showed them around the butts.
... because you are a little thick and can't accept other opinions perhaps ?
Yes, just like you agreed with what I said.So you agree with what I said then.
Its an opinion based on information from people 'in the know'.You haven't said it's your opinion about the JLR stuff have you? It reads to me like fact.
Once CCFC have settled the Ricoh naming rights will happen.
CCFC uncertainty is holding it back.
I could be wrong but to my mind JR2 seems even more limp wristed than JR1. Are SISU really going to go into court and say that the council didn't get a good price after spending the last three years in court arguing that it was worthless and therefore a loan shouldn't have been made. They can't argue that they were never given opportunity to make an offer ever as they clearly were and JS even had the then council leader in her office to discuss an offer which never came. I can't see that there is a protocol issue as there doesn't seem to be a process for offloading a half share in a stadium management firm from a local authority and the council also still hold the freehold so disposal of land guidelines don't come into it either. So to recap CCC sold something that SISU have said numerous times in court is worthless for a few million quid, CCC have secured payment in full of a loan SISU have argued in court shouldn't have been made in the first place partly due to the risk of loaning said worthless company and even the lease extension could be seen as a stroke of genius because as it well outstrips the design life of the arena the taxpayer won't have to pick up the bill of redevelopment the leaseholder will.
What's a judge going to say other than well done on getting this deal for the taxpayer?
JR2 is no bargaining chip. SISU could well be stupid enough to think it is though going by their philosophy of doing the same things expecting different results.
All JR2 will give is what JR1 has given. Wasted money, time and effort that could have been better invested in the club's interest's, lost opportunities, erosion of bridges and a further spiralling down of the club. This is why they have to go for the good of the club and we need to use any and every opportunity to tell them until they start listening. Them staying give's us a worst case scenario of disappearing and a best case scenario of years of stagnation. My guess is we'll fall somewhere in between.
Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?That doesn't read like opinion. It is very certain.
Unless I've missed something what OSB has said is the figure Wasps paid is the value of ACL which is not the same as the lease. However that doesn't mean the valuation of the lease stacks up.
So the lease is worth £48.5m. What in ACL caused the value of the company to be £42m lower than the value of its major asset?
Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?
Don't tell him Pike!No. Wrong again.
Don't tell him Pike!
Thats probably because my arguments are very convincing ?
What do you think will happen first?
1. There will be a human landing on Mars
2. Captain Dart will comment on a match day thread?
They are not named as defendants only primary witnesses ( or whatever the term is )
What evidence can CCC give to show they maximised the return for the taxpayer?
There are certainly questions around the value of the lease given the price Wasps paid for ACL and the lease extension compared to the lease valuation immediately after. If the £48.5m valuation of the lease stands up to scrutiny then would you say £1m for a 200 year extension was a good deal for the taxpayer?
What do you think will happen first?
1. There will be a human landing on Mars
2. Captain Dart will comment on a match day thread?
Are ins't that sweet , Grendel gives Nick a like . :wtf:Maybe him, Oucho and PWKH are having a bottle of pimms as we speak? Chaps on tour.
I very much doubt JLR will take over the sponsorship after the Ricoh contract expires. I work at JLR and there has been no indication from what I've heard that this will happen although wasps will have been banging the door ! The wasps/Land Rover sponsorship is as far as it will go I believe. Wasps aren't big enough headliners for JLR at this moment - really, how many times do you hear the Ricoh arena mentioned on TV and radio? Not much and not enough to sponsor a ground.
Wasps will be getting sweaty hands soon. The repaying of the bonds will be like a rope around there neck in the next couple of years. Wasps are heading for choppy waters soon and what I've read and hearing the gates are dropping and the £ numbers are not matching up.
I must be missing something then as in the Strutt and Parker valuation report dated 23 April 2015 it explicitly states that the valuation is the market value they would expect a buyer to pay on that date.
Your point regarding the "value" of the stadium naming rights is a good one. Football hits a greater range and scope of the target audience, in comparison to rugby.I very much doubt JLR will take over the sponsorship after the Ricoh contract expires. I work at JLR and there has been no indication from what I've heard that this will happen although wasps will have been banging the door ! The wasps/Land Rover sponsorship is as far as it will go I believe. Wasps aren't big enough headliners for JLR at this moment - really, how many times do you hear the Ricoh arena mentioned on TV and radio? Not much and not enough to sponsor a ground.
Wasps will be getting sweaty hands soon. The repaying of the bonds will be like a rope around there neck in the next couple of years. Wasps are heading for choppy waters soon and what I've read and hearing the gates are dropping and the £ numbers are not matching up.
Well it does in the PL and Championship.Your point regarding the "value" of the stadium naming rights is a good one. Football hits a greater range and scope of the target audience, in comparison to rugby.
The issue for a company entering into naming rights will be the impact on their target market. They will have calculated the scale and value of any sponsorship or promotion. So is a stadium with a Div 1 or 2 football team of significant value over just sponsoring the shirts for a Premiership Rugby team? Probably YES.Well it does in the PL and Championship.
I might be the only person here that is entirely unconcerned with SISU launching a second JR against the council regarding the sale of ACL to Wasps.
I'd be surprised if it succeeds, but there clearly are some questions over the process followed for the sale and valuation of ACL, and I think that it is entirely fair and proper for the council to be challenged in regard to it. That's the way that the law works and our opinions as to the merits of the case are just that, opinions.
This legal action in and of itself in no way prevents Wasps from dealing with CCFC. There is no direct threat to the Wasps deal for ACL here, it seems well accepted that it cannot now be unwound.
The fact that Wasps are refusing to talk to CCFC because of ongoing legal action against CCC suggests to me an unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, one perhaps in which each side is offering the other favours for preferential treatment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that in any way acceptable.
I might be the only person here that is entirely unconcerned with SISU launching a second JR against the council regarding the sale of ACL to Wasps.
I'd be surprised if it succeeds, but there clearly are some questions over the process followed for the sale and valuation of ACL, and I think that it is entirely fair and proper for the council to be challenged in regard to it. That's the way that the law works and our opinions as to the merits of the case are just that, opinions.
This legal action in and of itself in no way prevents Wasps from dealing with CCFC. There is no direct threat to the Wasps deal for ACL here, it seems well accepted that it cannot now be unwound.
The fact that Wasps are refusing to talk to CCFC because of ongoing legal action against CCC suggests to me an unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, one perhaps in which each side is offering the other favours for preferential treatment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that in any way acceptable.
Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?Like where the council leader says they have nothing to do with Wasps stance over and over as they are separate, but then says if SISU pay them loads of money they weren't legally owed then he can "help".
What money????Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?
Why should you worry about how much SISU pay to anyone whether owed or not?
A 3% contribution or is there more to that as my eyes hurt trying to read it?
Which money Nick?I wasn't on about the money paid, it was about how he distanced himself from it when Wasps said they won't talk as if it was nothing to do with CCC but then jumped on it when asking for money acting like he can fix it all.
Which money Nick?
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?