More Court Action (1 Viewer)

Hobo · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
There have been 3 already

You may be right. But for someone who is paid a 100,000 a year in a marketing dept for Land Rover you didn't see the deal coming?

You weren't spouting this stuff earlier today, so either someone has bent your ear or you are trying to kick up a dust storm?

Yes you maybe tied to confidentially but then you wouldn't be spouting this stuff if that where the case? Remember you might be wrecking a Land Rover Sponsorship deal?

Im sure this deal isn't over without a few SISU twists and turns...but their primary interest seems in the compensation market...rather than running and marketing a football club.

martcov · Oct 8, 2014

Amazing really. Wasps come along, do due diligence, research, spend time discussing things. No court cases, no threats, no lawyers, friendly tone regarding CCFC and CRFC and put in a bid, show ambition, gain sponsors and get on with the council. Naming rights up for renewal, station being built etc.. Ricoh becoming more attractive. And still some think that the council and wasps owners are the bad guys. No. Sorry to annoy some people, but our owners have missed the boat - unless they get into the deal somehow. The club was formed to achieve sporting success - not to make a quick buck for Cayman Isles investors and is about time we got back to that. We have no big money sponsors and no ambition.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
Naive in the extreme I'm afraid.

As long as that's just your opinion then, rather than having anything to explain why. I can live with that.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

martcov said:
Amazing really. Wasps come along, do due diligence, research, spend time discussing things. No court cases, no threats, no lawyers, friendly tone regarding CCFC and CRFC and put in a bid, show ambition, gain sponsors and get on with the council. Naming rights up for renewal, station being built etc.. Ricoh becoming more attractive. And still some think that the council and wasps owners are the bad guys. No. Sorry to annoy some people, but our owners have missed the boat - unless they get into the deal somehow. The club was formed to achieve sporting success - not to make a quick buck for Cayman Isles investors and is about time we got back to that. We have no big money sponsors and no ambition.

So you can't see any hypocrisy from the council? Are Wasps not bad for moving the club?

(Me saying somebody else is bad isn't saying somebody else is good by the way. More than one set of people can be utter penis pullers at the same time.)

James Smith · Oct 8, 2014

Lord_Nampil said:
Did they sell the rights??? I think they thought they sold one thing, but actually sold something else only later realising the full implications when everything was finalised!

Joy said that but I've never seen any of the previous directors come out and confirm it.

Grendel · Oct 8, 2014

Hobo said:
You may be right. But for someone who is paid a 100,000 a year in a marketing dept for Land Rover you didn't see the deal coming?

You weren't spouting this stuff earlier today, so either someone has bent your ear or you are trying to kick up a dust storm?

Yes you maybe tied to confidentially but then you wouldn't be spouting this stuff if that where the case? Remember you might be wrecking a Land Rover Sponsorship deal?

Im sure this deal isn't over without a few SISU twists and turns...but their primary interest seems in the compensation market...rather than running and marketing a football club.

I don't work in the area you stated - that is a factual innacuracy and of course an irrelevance

I made the point several times earlier. The deal is actually done isn't it?

My point is two fold;

1 the spin and manipulation by the council should be highlighted
2 the blatant irony that sisu will no doubt not pursue a course of action when they probably have greater legitimacy in doing so

You on the other hand seem very keen on this transaction.

I suppose we will have to make our own assumptions why.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
50% of ACL for 2.77 million:thinking about:

Surely the only players are the club (in one form or other), as Higgs have already agreed to sell to Wasps. I doubt Wasps would have agreed to buy 50% without being confident of the destiny of the other 50%.

hinkleee boyz · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
I think some like it a lot less than others.

martcov said:
Amazing really. Wasps come along, do due diligence, research, spend time discussing things. No court cases, no threats, no lawyers, friendly tone regarding CCFC and CRFC and put in a bid, show ambition, gain sponsors and get on with the council. Naming rights up for renewal, station being built etc.. Ricoh becoming more attractive. And still some think that the council and wasps owners are the bad guys. No. Sorry to annoy some people, but our owners have missed the boat - unless they get into the deal somehow. The club was formed to achieve sporting success - not to make a quick buck for Cayman Isles investors and is about time we got back to that. We have no big money sponsors and no ambition.

What has been said here is bang on. If you disagree 'Vote for Grendel' at the next council elections. Not sure it will change anything, but at least G will be able to pursue his desire of 'power for powers sake'.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Surely the only players are the club (in one form or other), as Higgs have already agreed to sell to Wasps. I doubt Wasps would have agreed to buy 50% without being confident of the destiny of the other 50%.

However the charity commission might have something to say if they accept 2.77 and someone offers more!!!!!!!!!

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
However the charity commission might have something to say if they accept 2.77 and someone offers more!!!!!!!!!

Not if their partners veto a higher bid.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

hinkleee boyz said:
What has been said here is bang on. If you disagree 'Vote for Grendel' at the next council elections. Not sure it will change anything, but at least G will be able to pursue his desire of 'power for powers sake'.

So you don't think that it is bad moving teams and the council have been a bit hypocritical? Then again somebody calling themselves Hinkleee Boyz at your age must be on a bit of a wind up

Rusty Trombone · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
However the charity commission might have something to say if they accept 2.77 and someone offers more!!!!!!!!!

Good point, I would suspect that has been considered by Higgs though, and as wasps can veto anyway a higher bid wouldn't be successful unless there's something in it for them as well.

skybluetony176 · Oct 8, 2014

Nick said:
So you don't think that it is bad moving teams and the council have been a bit hypocritical?

People in glass house's and all that.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
People in glass house's and all that.

Not sure what you mean? Where have I ever supported the permanent moving of teams up the country?

James Smith · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
However the charity commission might have something to say if they accept 2.77 and someone offers more!!!!!!!!!

I guess it would depend on whether the bid was legally possible given the apparent legal restrictions, with Ltd seemingly the only one who can bid.

Hobo · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
I don't work in the area you stated - that is a factual innacuracy and of course an irrelevance

I made the point several times earlier. The deal is actually done isn't it?

My point is two fold;

1 the spin and manipulation by the council should be highlighted
2 the blatant irony that sisu will no doubt not pursue a course of action when they probably have greater legitimacy in doing so

You on the other hand seem very keen on this transaction.

I suppose we will have to make our own assumptions why.

I am totally against the transaction. I grew up supporting three teams Coventry City FC, Coventry RFC and Coventry Bees. I do not support franchising in sport. But I can see how this deal came about. I can see why it is attractive to Wasps. I can see why it is attractive to CCC..

It may not change things for CCFC in the short term but is not beneficial in the long term. Ann Lucas has only be advised on short term benefits for Coventry RFC judging by her statement today.

SISU have missed an opportunity through terrible business practice to really move our club forward. In fact their tenure has been a catalogue of errors that befits a Shakespearian drama.

You are entitled to your assumptions, most of them are wrong anyway.

Grendel · Oct 8, 2014

hinkleee boyz said:
What has been said here is bang on. If you disagree 'Vote for Grendel' at the next council elections. Not sure it will change anything, but at least G will be able to pursue his desire of 'power for powers sake'.

Given that you have made only a handful of posts on here you seem to have a curious obsession as around 40% mention me. If you wish PM your address and I will send you my autograph.

Failing that I can put it through the council letter box tonight and you can collect on the way in.

skybluetony176 · Oct 8, 2014

Nick said:
Not sure what you mean? Where have I ever supported the permanent moving of teams up the country?

You went into Suxfields now all of a sudden you're a moral compass on the subject of clubs moving. I also pulled you up several times for not being critical of all things SISU in the past and you always his behind the excuse that SISU don't have an account on here so what would be the point. Yet when it comes to CCC and Wasps we can't stop you from being critical despite neither party holding an account on here.

Astute · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
And the council has power to veto all bids other than one from CCFC ltd

You can stop being a WUM where CCC are concerned. They are not involved with the Ricoh now.

And whilst we are on this point would you like to explain how CCC can veto something that they have nothing to do with? And wasn't you saying that you knew that Wasps had 100% of the Ricoh yesterday? And you refused to wait until the full details were out. And anyone waiting for the full details was the usual CCC puppet or similar?

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Not if their partners veto a higher bid.

Then the Higgs might have to keep there share

rupert_bear · Oct 8, 2014

Nick said:
So you don't think that it is bad moving teams and the council have been a bit hypocritical? Then again somebody calling themselves Hinkleee Boyz at your age must be on a bit of a wind up

The Wasps captain was on CWR earlier trumpeting the Wasps move to the Ricoh and added they (Wasps) have been searching for a permanent home for years and Wycombe was always a temporary thing, also said they hadn't played in London for 15 years, I thought it was 10, so Nick your constant mantra that the council are complicit in moving Wasps from their roots isn't quiet true. Seems to me Wasps were adamant they were on the move, one of their fans admitted as much on the radio too

chiefdave · Oct 8, 2014

If the Ltd companies right to buy Higgs shares is of no practical use why was everyone kicking off the other day about how out of order the council was when it was rumoured they were going to buy the shares off Higgs to get round it?

Lets assume the right is only with Ltd, there's always the potential of loopholes to be found in this type of thing. SISU should be at the very least be putting some effort into looking for one. Or even simpler call their bluff and say they want to buy the 50%.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Oct 8, 2014

rupert_bear said:
The Wasps captain was on CWR earlier trumpeting the Wasps move to the Ricoh and added they (Wasps) have been searching for a permanent home for years and Wycombe was always a temporary thing, also said they hadn't played in London for 15 years, I thought it was 10, so Nick your constant mantra that the council are complicit in moving Wasps from their roots isn't quiet true. Seems to me Wasps were adamant they were on the move, one of their fans admitted as much on the radio too

Then why were they trying to build a ground in High Wycombe?

Hobo · Oct 8, 2014

Astute said:
You can stop being a WUM where CCC are concerned. They are not involved with the Ricoh now.

And whilst we are on this point would you like to explain how CCC can veto something that they have nothing to do with? And wasn't you saying that you knew that Wasps had 100% of the Ricoh yesterday? And you refused to wait until the full details were out. And anyone waiting for the full details was the usual CCC puppet or similar?

Grendel will never let go, he hasn't got over Richardson, Thorn and a host of others yet...can't wait for him to realise what SISU have done, watch the shit hit the fan then.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Then why were they trying to build a ground in High Wycombe?

...and announcing they wanted to go back to London.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

Yes I went to support the team I follow when they moved temporarily. I didn't agree with it but wanted to see the team I support play. If they were shipped out full time to Northampton I wouldn't have gone at all as they would no longer be my team.

I always said while it was temporary I would go but if it ever became permanent then I wouldn't go. I would still have a soft spot because of memories, but I wouldn't go.

Me going to watch the team I support during a temporary move meant I still got to watch my team play, the same as I do now we are back at the Ricoh. What do people gain from backing Wasps moving in full time on here? I have a feeling though to be fair that there aren't many who do back it, and the ones who are so open about it just want to stir up a bit of trouble.

I am critical of all parties, I don't go on about SISU as much because to be fair is there any need when the same thing is said over and over? However, some people on here struggle to say the council are at fault for anything at all. I didn't agree with moving us away, I didn't agree with them not just buying the Ricoh in the first place, I didn't agree with Andy Thorn. The thing is though, SISU have done loads wrong so there is plenty for people to be angry about but people on here get silly with it and start making things up, that is why I usually reply. Why not be angry about one of the things they have actually done, rather than the things made up in their heads?

The point about SISU not being on here was when Michael was offering this rental deal, I was questioning him as he was coming on here and posting about it and couldn't answer any questions (which some fans were offended by for some reason). I said why would I make a post asking SISU a question on here when they aren't on here to reply.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 8, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Then the Higgs might have to keep there share

They've already agreed to sell, the Charity Commission is hardly going to make them keep an investment they don't want.

Grendel · Oct 8, 2014

Astute said:
You can stop being a WUM where CCC are concerned. They are not involved with the Ricoh now.

And whilst we are on this point would you like to explain how CCC can veto something that they have nothing to do with? And wasn't you saying that you knew that Wasps had 100% of the Ricoh yesterday? And you refused to wait until the full details were out. And anyone waiting for the full details was the usual CCC puppet or similar?

They have got 100% and forgive me I thought everything had go through legal process to transfer ownership which takes normally more than a day.

Unless you are suggesting council duplicity and that the deal was signed before the vote?

martcov · Oct 8, 2014

Nick said:
So you can't see any hypocrisy from the council? Are Wasps not bad for moving the club?

(Me saying somebody else is bad isn't saying somebody else is good by the way. More than one set of people can be utter penis pullers at the same time.)

I am not bothered about the hypocrisy of the council, but rather if they are doing the right thing now. I don't know if Wasps are bad for moving the club - time will tell. Comparing us to them is like comparing an apple to a pear.

SISU are our owners and carry the responsibility for the future - not CCC or Wasps. Wasps have however done something and have ambition to achieve sporting success. Our owners are stuck in their own crap. I miss the ambition and the balls to do something ( apart from spouting crap about a new stadium ) from our owners.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

rupert_bear said:
The Wasps captain was on CWR earlier trumpeting the Wasps move to the Ricoh and added they (Wasps) have been searching for a permanent home for years and Wycombe was always a temporary thing, also said they hadn't played in London for 15 years, I thought it was 10, so Nick your constant mantra that the council are complicit in moving Wasps from their roots isn't quiet true. Seems to me Wasps were adamant they were on the move, one of their fans admitted as much on the radio too

Never said they have moved them from their roots. I have only ever said they are moving a team? So yet again, something you post isn't quite true.

wingy · Oct 8, 2014

You know what would be interesting would be to test this beneficial ownership Status in a court of Law as opposed to an Administration such as we had.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

martcov said:
I am not bothered about the hypocrisy of the council, but rather if they are doing the right thing now. I don't know if Wasps are bad for moving the club - time will tell. Comparing us to them is like comparing an apple to a pear.

SISU are our owners and carry the responsibility for the future - not CCC or Wasps. Wasps have however done something and have ambition to achieve sporting success. Our owners are stuck in their own crap. I miss the ambition and the balls to do something ( apart from spouting crap about a new stadium ) from our owners.

Yes, we know you think that moving teams is right but only if it is ambition (or not SISU). You also keep going on about this stadium SISU are "building", I assume you will back that if it is outside of Coventry though as owning our on ground, getting the revenue from that is showing ambition isn't it?

Grendel · Oct 8, 2014

Nick said:
Never said they have moved them from their roots. I have only ever said they are moving a team? So yet again, something you post isn't quite true.

Rupert was being selective - many things were said including a comment it's not far to travel for the fans and anyway the players have to travel as well.

Nick · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
Rupert was being selective - many things were said including a comment it's not far to travel for the fans and anyway the players have to travel as well.

Another one who doesn't seem to like talking about football. This site will be screwed when this crap is over and the only thing to talk about is football.

I may not always agree with a lot of people on here with opinions and views, but it is starting to stand out a mile from posts the ones who actually seem to love the club.

Astute · Oct 8, 2014

Grendel said:
They have got 100% and forgive me I thought everything had go through legal process to transfer ownership which takes normally more than a day.

Unless you are suggesting council duplicity and that the deal was signed before the vote?

Who has got 100%?

Please explain as could do with a laugh.

More Court Action (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency