FYI - reported in Nov 2013 (not by me).The Observer can also exclusively reveal evidence to show Coun Lucas last week made further false claims, wrongly alleging the Sky Blues had only been interested in buying back the stadium, built by and for the football club, on a FREEHOLD basis.
The evidence, revealed for the first time, comes from a letter written by Joy Seppala, head of Sky Blues' parent company Sisu, to Coun Lucas in November 2013, days after they met to discuss a possible stadium deal.
This appears to be an anti-Lucas standpoint based upon one piece of evidence which is being interpreted in a way to support the viewpooint. The key phrase is:
The letter states: "In any scenario we need a freehold or clean restriction-free long lease."
What is a "clean restriction-free long lease"? Did this mean that they wanted to be able to use the Ricoh as they wished and able to disvest itself of the football club yet hold onto the Ricoh lease? Did they want the building for other reasons?
I think that this needs a lot more explanation as the council would be in worse problems should they have sold without any guarantees of the Ricoh being used for sport.
Well that wouldn't be restriction free would it. Besides the issue is more about the existing contracts with the casino et al than anything to do with the football club.Dont you think there would of been clauses that said if it was used for anything other than sport the lease would go back to CCC???
By the sounds of the letter that would be a restriction which Joy would have opposed, the letter clearly states "clean restriction-free" leasehold.Dont you think there would of been clauses that said if it was used for anything other than sport the lease would go back to CCC???
Has Les apologised for his error? Or is he just still re-tweeting everyone telling him how brilliant he is again?FYI - reported in Nov 2013 (not by me).
"Coun Lucas responded to the story by issuing a statement clarifying she was willing to discuss a “deal” with Mrs Seppala – and did not exclude a sale on a freehold or leasehold basis."
"Ms Seppala has told the Telegraph the club will never return as tenants under Sisu - and wants freehold ownership of the Ricoh."
It seems to be the claim by Lucas that SISU were only interested in freehold. She had received a letter from Seppala stating that leasehold was an option.Can anybody cut it down and point out the more false claims that weren't pointed out last week? That hurts my brain!
I'm out and about at the moment so haven't read everything yet but wasn't it LR who quoted "Freehold of nothing" from JS when at the CET?
Indeed and you know what pal, I wouldn't mind having a little bet that this individual didn't put his friends in the Rugby world onto the possibilities in CV6, his vigorous and vicious defence at times of this shady deal is a bit bizarre !?MMM will be along shortly to explain it all I'm sure.
Sisu's legal team will love this part:
''The deal with Wasps firm London Wasps Holdings Limited meant £14million of city taxpayers’ money remained tied up in a loss making company, amid unprecedented cuts to council jobs and services.
Coventry council’s Labour leaders have repeatedly stated they would only loan to viable and sustainable companies. Wasps, now 100 per cent owners of the Ricoh firm ACL, were also reported to be a loss making company.''
It was said to be so, but think was admitted by AL last week that it came from Council reserves, not outside prudential borrowing as was claimed.Hate to point this out but didn't the money come from a central government pot and not the councils budget so loan or no loan it wouldn't effect either way council cut's?