That's assuming the naming rights will be paid in one go, I imagine (I could be wrong) it would be paid in instalments and just get consumed into operating costs. Wasps may give us lowish rent deal, but they won't be given us access to matchday and additional revenues unless we pay for it. And we will have to pay more for all of that in 5-6 years than they paid for the Higgs share.
If sisu buy the land and show us some tangible evidence that the new stadium is going to happen, we must now be open minded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That's assuming the naming rights will be paid in one go, I imagine (I could be wrong) it would be paid in instalments and just get consumed into operating costs. Wasps may give us lowish rent deal, but they won't be given us access to matchday and additional revenues unless we pay for it. And we will have to pay more for all of that in 5-6 years than they paid for the Higgs share.
If sisu buy the land and show us some tangible evidence that the new stadium is going to happen, we must now be open minded.
We all know Wasps negotiations were the subject of NDA's. Do you know what that acronym stands for?
In this case it stands for "No-one Dares Answer" !!
When were they asked to put an offer in then? It's just that on our return from Northampton the council quite clearly said that it was time to rebuild trust before talking about ownership.
In the meantime, could you answer the question please - it's a really, really easy one. I'm not making a point, I'm asking a straight question - you're the one dodging it by trying to make a point...
So, were the club offered 100% of ACL and 250-years on the lease for around £5.5 million - yes or no?
Lets say that the stadium will become more high profile. Wasps on TV. Us also in place. Maybe 1m a year naming rights over 10 years? On condition that both clubs stay in place? That would be the lease paid for in 5 1/2 yearsBut they would need us to stay. The idea of negotiations would be to get matchday income. Wasps need CCFC. But as it looks CCFC needs Wasps even more. All we can do is guess and also hope that SISU don't start their silly games again.
Most of us have been open minded about a new stadium. But this does not mean that miles away and in the middle of nowhere would be good enough. And yes we do need to see some sort of proof before believing a word of it.
I doubt a sponsor would be that bothered about keeping a league one club at the stadium, there's very little exposure in the media, rarely on tv and when they are the viewership is v small.
I would only find a long term rent deal acceptable if it was cheap rent, access to all matchday revenues at little cost (we've paid ACL far too much to date anyway), the sky blue seats remain, that theres a clear road map and agreement that the club can buy back 50% shares after 5-10 years and there's a breakout clause if things don't work out.
I doubt a sponsor would be that bothered about keeping a league one club at the stadium, there's very little exposure in the media, rarely on tv and when they are the viewership is v small.
I would only find a long term rent deal acceptable if it was cheap rent, access to all matchday revenues at little cost (we've paid ACL far too much to date anyway), the sky blue seats remain, that theres a clear road map and agreement that the club can buy back 50% shares after 5-10 years and there's a breakout clause if things don't work out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I'd have thought we're worth about an extra 100k a year.
a long term, cheap rent deal with access to all matchday revenues and an agreement to work together with the current owners is the absolute best scenario we can hope for realistically at least under sisu. Why would you add a condition to getting that, when there is a 100% guarantee you aren't going to get that condition and that condition is completely unreasonable. Thats a sisu tactic and is one of the reasons we don't currently own the Ricoh.
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Oh good we're back here. No one owes us anything, we don't need to own anything, no one cares if Sisu have something to sell. We need to stop acting like petulant children and get back to building relationships in the community. Luckily for us a professional sports team has moved in recently, they seem to be doing OK at this stuff. Maybe we can ask for some advice?
Isn't that the whole point of an NDA?
Honestly , if i was a betting man , id imagine that the owners of wasps will be the owners of ccfc within a year .
financially that makes sense , besides when sisu jump ship id imagine a good 2-4 k fans will return on a matchday .
100k per annum is hardly a deal breaker.
Why would I add the condition of the option to buy back 50%? Why not? We keep hearing that wasps are open minded, that this is the best time to negotiate, that they want to be long term partners with us well let them prove it with a commitment to sell half a share after 5-10 years. We need to have at least some aspiration to own a stake in the stadium whether sisu are here or not, otherwise we will remain the the junior partner for he long term. It also gives sisu something to sell with the club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Who said they owed us anything? I said we should ask for it. Personally, I would rather build a new stadium than be a long term tenant with no hope of owning a stake in the stadium. Served us well so far hasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
you actually said you would only find the long term deal acceptable with that condition in place. There is of course nothing wrong with asking for it other than it being an unreasonable request and thus a bit insulting, as long as you're willing to make the deal without it.
The new stadium makes no financial sense, it's much worse financially, in the short, medium and long term to staying where we are.
has renting really served us that badly? the rent needed dealing with certainly but it was far from the reason we were struggling financially and the horrible couple of years we've just had have been completely sisus fault and not because we were renters. If they had made a decent deal for the rent around 2 years ago, we could have made a decent go of getting promoted in the last 2 years, Robins might not of left, we might have had our trip to wembley and we'd likely have been there or abouts the playoff spots both years, our attendances would be much higher, we wouldn't all hate one another and loathe sisu. Wasps wouldn't own our stadium, we certainly wouldn't be thinking about relegation and we'd still have hope.
It's nuts to look at the last couple of years and come to the conclusion it's because we don't own our own stadium, it's because our owners are selfish, amoral scumbags.
Already answered in quite a but if detail. You are dodging the facts I have already posted. Inviting the club to bid.
Giving the club a deadline
Then moving on.
Please show me where the council have said coming back is about building trust before SISU get ownership (freehold)
The council have always said the freehold is not an option.
I have shown you the facts
You are the one dodging
You really are pissing in the wind mate. Wasps and the council don't need to do their own PR. Half of the Ccfc fans on here will do it for them.Rubbish. You've been asked the same, simple question three times, yes or no, and you won't answer it. It's not complicated, but it's embarassing seeing you squirm around like a politician trying to dodge the question so I'll answer it for you.
Were SISU offered the same deal as Wasps, 100% of ACL, a 250-year lease, for around £5.5m?
No.
Moving on to your other point, another simple question:
On the return from Northampton, did the Council say that time was needed to rebuild trust (with SISU) before discussing ownership options? Yes or no.
Will it take three attempts before I need to answer this one for you too?
Sorry Noggin, but no one can say whether a new stadium makes financial sense in the medium or long term as no one knows how it will be financed, or seen a business plan of what it would look like.
Staying in a long term rent deal with no/little access to matchday revenue makes little sense either.
You say that renting hadn't served us badly lol. We've paid c£9m rent at the Ricoh and got very little out of it, the rent and no/little access to revenues was an issue under the last board (yes, Micky Adams said it was extremely limiting), and under sisu. We know that rent only little access to revenues means our turnover in the champions if we ever get back there will be one of the lowest 3-4 in the league.
Sisu are abhorrent, they should have sorted this years ago. But the fact remains to compete and be successful we need access to all the matchday and non matchday revenues we can get. That isn't going to happen under a sub rental agreement. You can argue against that all you want, but it the exact same reason wasps have bought the Ricoh, unless you think it's bollocks?
And yes, personally for me, I need at least a glimmer of hope that the club will own part or all of a stadium (or 'leasehold'). The longer we stay at the Ricoh under a sub rental agreement with wasps the less it will feel like home.
Who said they owed us anything? I said we should ask for it. Personally, I would rather build a new stadium than be a long term tenant with no hope of owning a stake in the stadium. Served us well so far hasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You really are pissing in the wind mate. Wasps and the council don't need to do their own PR. Half of the Ccfc fans on here will do it for them.
Just a few questions.
- Who do you think will own any new stadium ?
- Do you think CCFC will be a tenant at that stadium ?
- If it has retail units around the stadium who do you think will get the income from those shops etc ?
- What facilities do you expect will be provided at the new stadium that will generate non football related incomes ?
Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.
Can I ask you the same questions in the context of someone else taking over CCFC tomorrow?
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.
The fact that wasps directly own acl suggests this argument is flawed.
Mmm Indeed, I don't think it was any coincidence when Wasps dropped the 'London' from their name as far back as 30th June !?The deal must have been in the works for many many months. It's complex, complicated and takes time.
So they were not 'secretly doing a deal' - they were 'secretly finalizing a deal'.
This is a key point for me. Fair enough, if the council didn't feel they could deal with Sisu anymore, but we were told that ACL were making a small profit. So why the rush to sell to a franchise. Sisu aren't going to be here forever, but hopefully CCFC will be and now we've got to sit out a 250 year lease before we can get a piece of the Ricoh pie.
The only way forward now is building our own ground, but can anyone really see the clowns that own us doing that. I can't
It seems to me that we're just going to bumble along between leagues 1 and 2, extremely sad tbh.
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?