More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal-Les Reid

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
He looked to have a good career ahead of him....
It will be interesting, in a car crash kind of way, to see how this all pans out. It's been questioned a few times on here in the past why people like Reid, Garlick etc have 'sided' with SISU after meeting with them, could it be we're starting to see why?
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2011
8,154
463
133
Birmingham
It will be interesting, in a car crash kind of way, to see how this all pans out. It's been questioned a few times on here in the past why people like Reid, Garlick etc have 'sided' with SISU after meeting with them, could it be we're starting to see why?
It was the "Private Eye" are Sisu stooges type comments that got to me.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2010
3,688
2,598
163
Well ! I've read, and re-read the Observer article. The Observer keep stating "Evidence" but do not show this "Evidence" If a letter was sent to Ann Lucas, it becomes her property because her name is on the Letter/Envelope/E-Mail and would think anything to show her to be a liar publicly would NOT come into the public domain. Then to cap it all....I read the reporter is non other than Mr LES REID. The man who went to great lengths to "Big himself up" as being the one and only to get a exclusive 2+ hours meeting with JS. The one and only reporter on Twitter to delete anyone following him if they so much as raised a question in opposition to that which he reported.............and Samo asks me why I'm accusing "The Observer" to which I will once again state...I'm not accusing anyone, just putting out a question that has two possible answers to which posters can make up their own minds about, nothing more, nothing less.
Two things here that are factually incorrect:

First, the idea that a letter written by (say) Seppala to Lucas would become Lucas's 'property' and then be either inadmissable in court or legally unpublishable. That's just not true SBK, not even slightly. Think it through - if your bank sends you a letter saying that they are taking you to court, and then they take you to court, they will produce a copy of that letter to the court to prove that you've been warned. If Seppala sent a letter to Lucas, and kept a copy, she's entitled to show that copy to whomever she likes.

Second, I challenged Reid a few times over stuff on twitter. We had some pretty strong arguments, but it was done politely and neither of us ended up blocking the other. There's a world of difference between attacking what a person has said, and attacking the person. There's an awful lot of the latter on twitter, which is why I've largely abandoned it, fwiw. I've subsequently met Les in person and we argued about stuff again, this time over a pint. We differed on some things then too, but I certainly didn't come away thinking he was a SISU puppet.

As it turns out most of the stuff he said in terms of what the council has been doing seems to have turned out to be mostly true. As someone who argued long and loud that the council were largely blameless and had CCFC's best interests at heart, I've got to admit that it seems I've got it wrong here. Lucas now describes the club as a franchise, and the council have been caught in so many lies and half-truths that's it's difficult to know exactly what was ever really going on.

If you think that by saying all this that I'm defending SISU, then like your interpretation of Reid, you're lacking all nuance. Saying that the council have done wrong is not saying that SISU have done right. Both sides here should be ashamed of themselves - but in truth I expect SISU to be crap. As public servants with their hands on public funds, the council should and must be held to a higher standard.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2011
13,461
1,215
113
It shouldn't take too long to find out if Lucas was fed false information by council officers working for ACL. That would be a very serious matter so I expect in the next day or two we will be seeing reports that they have been suspended pending disciplinary action. If they have done as she says they may also be looking at legal action.
You really need to let it go.
They were bluffing Sisu who were bluffing them.
Are you still hoping that CCC and ACL fall over and Sisu can start the play for the Ricoh freehold again ?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2011
4,942
180
63
Fuck knows! But I can tell you that Seppala sent AL a letter saying that leasehold was acceptable and AL has been less than honest about that, but... SBK doesn't believe the letter is real and has had a huge hissy fit about it. He got all sweary and threatened to go to bed. 
But at what time was this letter sent? Presumably after the Average League One rent stance; but before the unfettered freehold stance?

The 'unfettered freehold' line is confirmed in the CET article Simon Gilbert has linked to; and also - I'm sure - confirmed to posters on here by Labovitch when people met him: NorthernWisdom: can you confirm (was it you who posted he said it to you?)
 
Last edited:

The Philosopher

Active Member
Jan 16, 2014
250
34
28
Keep voting tory and give the wealth to the super rich and you just be grateful for that zero hours contract you have. Just a different perspective.
Liblabcon all the same. Labour take high ground yet seem to be at the centre of any treachery. Tory not much better.
Labour Council should now help the club, for their own, and the People of Cov's good.
I can see this being appealed to EU Court (higher than Appeal court, higher than UK Supreme). They may well lose there, it seems that the evidence is coming out.
Labour are not part of the Establishment in the EU circles, so their influence (Gov does have influence in UK Legal system, at the moment the Court action is against the UK Government by extension and SISU will have a tougher time than they will if they get to appeal up under EU State aid).
Just my views, I'm a Eurosceptic yet it seems that EU law may have a part to play, ironically.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2011
25,676
4,974
113
It shouldn't take too long to find out if Lucas was fed false information by council officers working for ACL. That would be a very serious matter so I expect in the next day or two we will be seeing reports that they have been suspended pending disciplinary action. If they have done as she says they may also be looking at legal action.
As I've said elsewhere CD those ACL officers would have expected the FL enforced compo of circa £600K to hit the books while making those claims SISU delayed them by around six months
A technicality maybe but I don't think lies
Not withstanding they were still unprofitable without Incomes from the club and not the success claimed
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
You really need to let it go. They were bluffing Sisu who were bluffing them.
Are you still hoping that CCC and ACL fall over and Sisu can start the play for the Ricoh freehold again ?
Who was bluffing? Not Lucas as she's saying she's just relayed what she was told. Were the council officers bluffing, what did they have to bluff about. It could well be if they have then it is illegal, it certainly is if its a stock exchange listed company, you're simply not allowed to release false information as it distorts the market and the value of your company.

So what you're saying is I should be let go that a public body has told numerous lies to the people it is responsible to and not have any desire to see action taken against people who have at best behaved reprehensibly, at worst potentially illegally.

What I'm hoping for is the truth. Many others on here claimed to want the same until it turned out CCC might be to blame when it suddenly became 'it's in the past' and 'need to move on'. I would like to see the loan repaid by Wasps, either voluntarily or being ordered by the courts, so that the taxpayer isn't exposed to any risk. In an absolutely ideal world I would like to see this leading to CCFC taking a 50% stake in the stadium.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2011
4,942
180
63
So what you're saying is I should be let go that a public body has told numerous lies to the people it is responsible to and not have any desire to see action taken against people who have at best behaved reprehensibly, at worst potentially illegally
What 'numerous lies'?
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2012
19,390
2,178
113
PRESSURE is mounting on Coventry City Council and its leader Ann Lucas as she claimed she had believed information from senior officers when misleading the public with false claims about the Ricoh Arena amid its sale to London rugby club Wasps.

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.
Coun Lucas made the further false claims in a BBC interview on Friday following a Coventry Observer story which referred to her previous misleading claims that the Arena Coventry Limited firm was profitable before the Wasps deal, when newly published accounts revealed it was not.

Critics have today called for an inquiry, and said the revelations cast major doubts over the entire Wasps deal and use of taxpayers' money.

The revelations raise questions over whether councillors had acted on false information from senior council executives last October when they voted in private to sell the council’s Ricoh Arena shares to the then High Wycombe-based rugby club on a long leasehold - which the Sky Blues HAD also sought.

Coun Lucas told BBC Coventry and Warwickshire she had taken advice on face value from the council’s “advisers and ACL shareholders” - which included council executives - when she claimed ACL had been “very profitable” without the football club in 2013/14. The accounts revealed losses of nearly £400,000.

She also accepted she had taken information to be correct, without any request for further evidence, when asked why she had stated the day after the council’s Wasps deal that ACL was “washing its face” - making a small profit.

Last Thursday, in an article on the Coventry Observer website, the council leader admitted the Ricoh firm had not been “washing its face”. She said on Friday that all councillors had acted on the same information, prompting further questions about how much they knew about the finances behind the Wasps deal.

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.

London Wasps Holdings Limited reported losses of £3.2million the previous year in the last available accounts. In a statement to its fans about moving to the Ricoh in a bid to save the business, Wasps admitted: “We run a high risk of going bust”.

The council acccepted to the Coventry Observer last week that the Wasps' business plan is based on the Sky Blues remaining as tenants for at least four years. But the loss-making football club continues to insist it too needs commerical revenue from owning a stadium.

It claims to still be seeking land just outside Coventry's boundary to build a new stadium.

The Coventry Observer last Wednesday raised questions with Coun Lucas over whether she had misled Coventry voters, taxpayers and Coventry City fans after the newly published ACL’s accounts for the year up to May last year revealed the net losses of nearly £400,000.


Does the article Les Reid wrote about his exclusive interview in the CET not Categorically and repeatedly state ownership and freehold only?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
As I've said elsewhere CD those ACL officers would have expected the FL enforced compo of circa £600K to hit the books while making those claims SISU delayed them by around six months
Surely if it was that simple that message would have been relayed and Lucas would have said that. And of course that sill implies that ACL need CCFC or at least money from CCFC. What is being disputed is the claim that ACL was profitable without CCFC, it wasn't. Saying it was only if CCFC were to pay £600K is actually proving the point!
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
But at what time was this letter sent? Presumably after the Average League One rent stance; but before the unfettered freehold stance?

The 'unfettered freehold' line is confirmed in the CET article Simon Gilbert has linked to; and also - I'm sure - confirmed to posters on here by Labovitch when people met him: NorthernWisdom: can you confirm (was it you who posted he said it to you?)
If an interest had been shown in the lease, at any point, then it shows there has been an interest in the lease. It is then incorrect to say at no point has any interest been shown in the lease! Although again we are in a situation where single statements from SISU, who apparently never tell the truth, are being held up as gospel to support an argument. Remember how we were never again playing at the Ricoh, where are we playing now?

I feel you also need to drill down on what exactly SISU wanted as you could make an argument that by extending the lease by 200 years CCC have given Wasps a 200 year unfettered lease as ACL would not have been able to issue any existing contracts past the end of their previous lease. Again it comes down to the question of what CCC offered the club, was a similar deal to that done with Wasps offered to us?
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2011
13,461
1,215
113
Who was bluffing? Not Lucas as she's saying she's just relayed what she was told. Were the council officers bluffing, what did they have to bluff about. It could well be if they have then it is illegal, it certainly is if its a stock exchange listed company, you're simply not allowed to release false information as it distorts the market and the value of your company.

So what you're saying is I should be let go that a public body has told numerous lies to the people it is responsible to and not have any desire to see action taken against people who have at best behaved reprehensibly, at worst potentially illegally.

What I'm hoping for is the truth. Many others on here claimed to want the same until it turned out CCC might be to blame when it suddenly became 'it's in the past' and 'need to move on'. I would like to see the loan repaid by Wasps, either voluntarily or being ordered by the courts, so that the taxpayer isn't exposed to any risk. In an absolutely ideal world I would like to see this leading to CCFC taking a 50% stake in the stadium.
Dream on.
Your starting to sound like a Sisu lawyer.
Wingy above has a point in respect that the money owed by Sisu to ACL was in that accounting period.
That at the time would have been £200k profit.
You need to move on and perhaps Sisu will too.
 

The Philosopher

Active Member
Jan 16, 2014
250
34
28
I can't help but think the the whole "State Aid" question may resurface in line with the Wasps and ACL deal.
The recent Council "we may allow planning in Holbrooks" statement was far more telling than it seems on the surface.
This ain't over yet folks!
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
What 'numerous lies'?
Few off the top of my head:

Money for the loan to ACL has not come from CCC funds
ACL is making a profit without CCFC
CCFC only account for 10% of ACLs business
Lucas claiming SISU had shown no interest in a lease
Lucas stating they were hoping to rebuild the relationship with SISU following CCFC's return

Sure if you go back through the councils statements you will find more.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
Your starting to sound like a Sisu lawyer.
Have to laugh at that considering the number of posts made on here in the past having a pop at more for being so defensive of the council! All I'm doing, as I have done all along, is looking at the currently available evidence and making a judgement based on that. Some people on here seem so blinded by their hatred of SISU they can't consider the possibility that CCC may not be whiter than white in this.

Wingy above has a point in respect that the money owed by Sisu to ACL was in that accounting period.
That at the time would have been £200k profit.
So what you're saying is if in the accounting period in question CCFC had made a large payment to ACL then ACL would have made profit. I'm not really seeing how that proves that ACL at the time was profitable without receiving income from CCFC, to me it seems to prove the opposite.

Italia, simple question, do you want to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth about what has been done to our club? If not why don't you feel that should be done? We've had months if not years of people saying they want the truth, as soon as there's anything said against CCC that suddenly changes.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
26,146
16,587
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Few off the top of my head:

Money for the loan to ACL has not come from CCC funds
ACL is making a profit without CCFC -
CCFC only account for 10% of ACLs business
Lucas claiming SISU had shown no interest in a lease
Lucas stating they were hoping to rebuild the relationship with SISU following CCFC's return

Sure if you go back through the councils statements you will find more.
Evidence for any of that being a "lie" as opposed to being badly informed (ACL's profit status) or he said/she said (the last two)?

What do you want to happen? Another court case? Wasps kicked out? CCFC handed the Ricoh for free? Can you seriously argue that giving the Ricoh to CCFC would have been better for the City of Coventry than the Wasps deal?

You know the questions, you asked them enough before you joined the hivemind on here. How about some answers?

Long and short is still that CCFC decided they didn't want to play at the Ricoh any more. Everything else is noise (on both sides).
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2011
13,461
1,215
113
I can't help but think the the whole "State Aid" question may resurface in line with the Wasps and ACL deal.
The recent Council "we may allow planning in Holbrooks" statement was far more telling than it seems on the surface.
This ain't over yet folks!
It was one bloke, not a council statement.
Stop fighting Sisu battles and tell them to move on.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2010
3,688
2,598
163
But at what time was this letter sent? Presumably after the Average League One rent stance; but before the unfettered freehold stance?

The 'unfettered freehold' line is confirmed in the CET article Simon Gilbert has linked to; and also - I'm sure - confirmed to posters on here by Labovitch when people met him: NorthernWisdom: can you confirm (was it you who posted he said it to you?)
If I've read it right MMM, the 'unfettered freehold' comment by Lucas was in Jan 2014:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-leader-says-6600224

The letter stating 'long leasehold' might be acceptable was sent in November 2013, according to the Reid article:

http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2...s-over-controversial-stadium-deal-125024.html

Regardless, the fact is that SISU made an offer for the same kind of deal as Wasps when they were allowed to. JG is quite right in saying that SISU attached conditions to it which seemingly made it unacceptable to Higgs (disregarding perhaps the fact that it seems no one genuinely wanted to sell to SISU), but clearly there was potential for some sort of deal had the council and Higgs not sold secretly to Wasps. So on the evidence it's not correct to suggest that no deal was possible because SISU wanted unfettered freehold - that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If the council had done what they said that they were going to do when the club returned to the Ricoh, that is leave some time to rebuild trust between the parties before talking about an ownership deal, then who know how things might have panned out in a year or two. By that point it would have been clear that ACL could not survive without the club, and also that the club did not have a feasible plan to build elsewhere. A deal between the two parties would surely have been the most obvious solution.

Instead though, the council rushed through the sale to Wasps, justifying it by saying that a business they had claimed was profitable when it needed bailing out by the taxpayer was actually unprofitable. In doing so they shut the door on the club forever, regardless of who will subsequently own it.
 
Last edited:

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
I can't help but think the the whole "State Aid" question may resurface in line with the Wasps and ACL deal.
I can't see any way we're not getting a whole new batch of legal action. I wouldn't be surprised if the information coming out now is exactly what SISU were after when they were asking for access to CCC records.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
26,146
16,587
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Have to laugh at that considering the number of posts made on here in the past having a pop at more for being so defensive of the council! All I'm doing, as I have done all along, is looking at the currently available evidence and making a judgement based on that. Some people on here seem so blinded by their hatred of SISU they can't consider the possibility that CCC may not be whiter than white in this.



So what you're saying is if in the accounting period in question CCFC had made a large payment to ACL then ACL would have made profit. I'm not really seeing how that proves that ACL at the time was profitable without receiving income from CCFC, to me it seems to prove the opposite.

Italia, simple question, do you want to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth about what has been done to our club? If not why don't you feel that should be done? We've had months if not years of people saying they want the truth, as soon as there's anything said against CCC that suddenly changes.
How is more spin and unverifable statements "getting to the truth"?

We went over this. People wanted a court case, not a media battle. We had a court case (in fact we had several) and they came out pretty definitively against SISU.

There come a point where it's not "truth" you're after but one thing you can hang your point on. The irony of accusing others of doing this while you ignore the years of evidence and the opinions of very well qualified people (who were not sacked for hanging out with Fisher and co) so that you can hang on for some kind of "truth".

As I said: 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a better time handling fact and evidence.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
4,292
123
63
As I've said elsewhere CD those ACL officers would have expected the FL enforced compo of circa £600K to hit the books while making those claims SISU delayed them by around six months
A technicality maybe but I don't think lies
Not withstanding they were still unprofitable without Incomes from the club and not the success claimed
The delay in receiving the payment wouldn't have any effect on profit/loss in the books. Only the cash flow would be effected.
If you send an invoice within the 2013 financial year - the income is booked in that year, even if the payment is received in the next financial year.
 

covmark

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
5,651
2,505
163
hampshire
It was one bloke, not a council statement.
Stop fighting Sisu battles and tell them to move on.
No one is fighting Sisu's battles you clown. People want to know what has happened in the destruction of our club. You obviously aren't bothered because it seems the council may have had more of a hand in it than you thought. Now toddle off back to the wasps forum.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
26,146
16,587
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
If I've read it right MMM, the 'unfettered freehold' comment by Lucas was in Jan 2014:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-leader-says-6600224

The letter staing 'long leasehold' might be acceptable was sent in November 2013, according to the Reid article:

http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2...s-over-controversial-stadium-deal-125024.html

Regardless, the fact is that SISU made an offer for the same kind of deal as Wasps when they were allowed to. JG is quite right in saying that SISU attached conditions to it which seemingly made it unacceptable to Higgs (disregarding perhaps the fact that it seems no one genuinely wanted to sell to SISU), but clearly there was potential for some sort of deal had the council and Higgs not sold secretly to Wasps. So on the evidence it's not correct to suggest that no deal was possible because SISU wanted unfettered freehold - that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If the council had done what they said that they were going to do when the club returned to the Ricoh, that is leave some time to rebuild trust between the parties before talking about an ownership deal, then who know how things might have panned out in a year or two. By that point it would have been clear that ACL could not survive without the club, and also that the club did not have a feasible plan to build elsewhere. A deal between the two parties would surely have been the most obvious solution.

Instead though, the council rushed through the sale to Wasps, justifying it by saying that a business they had claimed was profitable when it needed bailing out by the taxpayer was actually unprofitable. In doing so they shut the door on the club forever, regardless of who will subsequently own it.
The council was talknig to Sisu for three years about the Ricoh, two full years before entering into discussion with Wasps. Sisu were given the chance to bid on even terms, their bid wasn't as good a deal for the charity or the people of Coventry. Sisu repeatedly (even while bidding) claimed they didn't want the Ricoh long term.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
26,146
16,587
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
No one is fighting Sisu's battles you clown. People want to know what has happened in the destruction of our club. You obviously aren't bothered because it seems the council may have had more of a hand in it than you thought. Now toddle off back to the wasps forum.
Mature.

Do you think CCC should've taken the offer from Sisu despite it beuing worth less? Wouldn't that be illegal state aid?
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
4,292
123
63
Mature.

Do you think CCC should've taken the offer from Sisu despite it beuing worth less? Wouldn't that be illegal state aid?
When did sisu make an offer to CCC?
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2010
3,688
2,598
163
Evidence for any of that being a "lie" as opposed to being badly informed (ACL's profit status) or he said/she said (the last two)?

What do you want to happen? Another court case? Wasps kicked out? CCFC handed the Ricoh for free? Can you seriously argue that giving the Ricoh to CCFC would have been better for the City of Coventry than the Wasps deal?

You know the questions, you asked them enough before you joined the hivemind on here. How about some answers?

Long and short is still that CCFC decided they didn't want to play at the Ricoh any more. Everything else is noise (on both sides).
If the financial miscalculation - ACL being definitively profitable and without risk when it needed bailing out, and then being unprofitable when it needed selling to Wasps wasn't a flat out lie, then boy was it convenient for Lucas and CCC that they were told exactly the wrong thing at exactly the right time, eh.

As for 'giving the Ricoh to CCFC', I'm not quite sure where that was proposed, but doing a deal with the club on the same lines as the Wasps deal would certainly be better for the City of Coventry if you care about the success of the local teams rather than the franchise, and if you've got any kind of inkling of how much more footfall and money a successful football team brings to the city, as compared to a franchise rugby team.

The long and short of it is that we don't know what would have happened in a couple of years, but with ACL failing without the club, and the club failing to build a new ground it doesn't take a genius to see what would probably have happened. No chance of that now - but don't try to sell me the line that it's good for the City if this really does lead to the club leaving or continuing to struggle, it clearly isn't.

And btw the 'hivemind' thing is a meaningless personal insult - rise above it or expect the same back.
 
Last edited:

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,908
14,188
363
Coventry
Evidence for any of that being a "lie" as opposed to being badly informed (ACL's profit status) or he said/she said (the last two)?
Money for the loan to ACL has not come from CCC funds - "The council loan to ACL was capital expenditure by the council", CCC response to question from Reid
ACL is making a profit without CCFC - accounts released last week show this is false
CCFC only account for 10% of ACLs business - accounts released last week would suggest this is false
Lucas claiming SISU had shown no interest in a lease - Reid claims SISU - Letter to Lucas Nov 2014
Lucas stating they were hoping to rebuild the relationship with SISU following CCFC's return - "We recognise that this stalemate had to be broken, and that if the club could come home it would help everyone ...begin to rebuild and repair damaged relationships, so we’re pleased that ACL has been able to come to an agreement with the club" CCC statement at the end of August, 18th September news of the sale to Wasps broke, it is inconceivable to me that at the time CCC made that statement they were unaware of negotiations with Wasps.

What do you want to happen? Another court case? Wasps kicked out? CCFC handed the Ricoh for free? Can you seriously argue that giving the Ricoh to CCFC would have been better for the City of Coventry than the Wasps deal?
I want the truth and if there is any wrongdoing on the council side I want them to held to account, I don't think that is in any way unreasonable. I said the same about SISU and the same can apply to any party involved in this mess from Richardson onwards.

I suspect there will be another court case, I would expect CCC to take their own disciplinary action as Lucas has stated she has been lied to be officers of the council. I suspect it will end up in a new court case, I would prefer if everyone could get round a table and come to some sort of amicable arrangement but I suspect we are long past this stage. Now ACL has been sold to Wasps I don't think CCC can propose any solution that SISU would deem acceptable. I expect CCC to speak with Wasps and arrange for the loan to be repaid immediately with Wasps sourcing replacement, independent, financing.

I would argue that the Wasps deal has damaged both CCFC and CRFC (who the council claimed had been consulted only for CRFC to state they didn't know anything about it). I think CCFC is larger than SISU and will (hopefully!) be here long after SISU. I think CCC have acted out of spite for SISU leading to a situation that could do severe damage to the club for decades to come. I absolutely think CCFC owning ACL would be preferable to Wasps owning it. I would be unhappy with a 50/50 split as I don't agree with franchising but at this point I would accept it.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
54,295
13,959
763
But at what time was this letter sent? Presumably after the Average League One rent stance; but before the unfettered freehold stance?

The 'unfettered freehold' line is confirmed in the CET article Simon Gilbert has linked to; and also - I'm sure - confirmed to posters on here by Labovitch when people met him: NorthernWisdom: can you confirm (was it you who posted he said it to you?)
Labovitz said they would accept a very long lease as long as all revenues were in place to me.
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2012
6,491
1,365
113
In the bottom 6 of division 3 and with division 4 looming large and then the conference, yet again there's another bullshit thread about the council, the Ricoh add a bit of Wasps.
Can't there be a separate forum dedicated to those who just want or even need to talk the politics probably not though as nick thrives on it.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2010
3,688
2,598
163
The council was talknig to Sisu for three years about the Ricoh, two full years before entering into discussion with Wasps. Sisu were given the chance to bid on even terms, their bid wasn't as good a deal for the charity or the people of Coventry. Sisu repeatedly (even while bidding) claimed they didn't want the Ricoh long term.
SISU were not given the chance to bid on even terms. Not even close. When were SISU offered the chance to bid for 100% of ACL with a 250-year lease?

Otium were grudgingly offered 50% after the fact, with a deadline on the bid and no scope for negotiation, so that Higgs fulfilled the bare minimum required of them by the law. In effect Wasps offer had already been accepted.

The deal with Wasps was made secretly at the same point that the council claimed that time was needed to rebuild trust with CCFC - so it's also absolutely not true that CCC were talking to SISU about buying ACL at this point in time, in fact they'd clearly discouraged those types of conversations on CCFC's return.

And yes, SISU claimed they were moving on, and still do. I don't think anyone believed that it was likely, but the actions of the council have undoubtedly increased exactly that possibility now, unless you're one of those who think that Wasps will for some reason sell to us what they claim they need for themselves.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2011
4,942
180
63
Labovitz said they would accept a very long lease as long as all revenues were in place to me.
Okay - but honestly - do you not recall someone else saying, and I'm sure it was NorthernWisdom - stating hat he was clearly told it was freehold only?