More false Coventry council claims exposed over Ricoh Wasps deal-Les Reid (2 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

CCFC should have been offered the same deal as Wasps.

Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

CCFC should have been offered the same deal as Wasps.

How? The club's owners had numerous opportunities to have 'a deal' and didn't (JR judge stated they, as Higgs, had 'no appetite' for a deal). Then, after categorically stating that they were building anew, another party comes along offering a deal for what would then have been an empty bit of grass, but under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement, and you expect CCC to break that agreement to go back to SISU again? Really?

 

[lordsummerisle]

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?

Was at the same meeting as NW, don't recall, but to be honest he was going on for so long I''d decided just to drink and was possibly having a cigarette outside with LAST if he said it.

 

[Grendel]

Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?

That offer was substantially more than the wasps offer given it was for a fifth of the lease and not controlling ownership.

 

[RegTheDonk]

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.

In fairness there used to be a separate sub-forum for "finances" and such and a lot of the CCFC related "political" threads were there, but Nick merged it into the general forum because it was a pain in the arse for most people to keep flicking between the two and there were lots of duplicate discussions. Got confusing and IMHO putting it all in one place (ie. here) is the easiest way to keep an eye on whats going on.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Was at the same meeting as NW, don't recall, but to be honest he was going on for so long I''d decided just to drink and was possibly having a cigarette outside with LAST if he said it.

Let's face it, it's not thrilling so I wouldn't judge you for that; but I clearly recall a significant poster on here stating the he (or she) has been told something quite clearly with regards a freehold only deal. I reckon it was NW, but if not, it would be nice if the party stepped from the shadows, as it were - and explained exactly what was said

 

[chiefdave]

Based on the offer that SISU did make in the end for the Higgs share do you think they would have accepted the same deal? Or would they have tried putting conditions on it?

My personal opinion is that had SISU been offered a 250 year lease for under £6m, 200 plus years of which would have been unfettered or whatever term you wish to use, they would have bitten the councils hand off. Uniting the club with the stadium adds value to both.

A package of ACL and CCFC would have been something saleable and given them an exit strategy. They could, off the top of my head, have made a minimal short term investment to get us up to the championship. Then at the point the naming rights are due for renewal they could have a championship club on the up, increasing crowds and therefore increasing value for the naming rights. That chunk of money would have made a nice dent it paying off their 'debt', if they could sell the naming rights for say £10m and then another £10m plus for a package of the club and stadium I think we'd finally see the back of them. All speculation now of course, no way to prove one way or the other.

 

[duffer]

How? The club's owners had numerous opportunities to have 'a deal' and didn't (JR judge stated they, as Higgs, had 'no appetite' for a deal). Then, after categorically stating that they were building anew, another party comes along offering a deal for what would then have been an empty bit of grass, but under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement, and you expect CCC to break that agreement to go back to SISU again? Really?

After categorically stating that time was needed to rebuild trust before talking about ownership again, wouldn't that actually have been the best course of action?

Regardless of what was said in the JR about a deal, it related to a different point in time. When there was a (slim) chance of buying into ACL with a long lease, SISU at least engaged and attempted to do it. It's not right to say that there was no appetite for a deal, when in reality no serious discussions had taken place with the club in 2015.

 

[covmark]

How? The club's owners had numerous opportunities to have 'a deal' and didn't (JR judge stated they, as Higgs, had 'no appetite' for a deal). Then, after categorically stating that they were building anew, another party comes along offering a deal for what would then have been an empty bit of grass, but under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement, and you expect CCC to break that agreement to go back to SISU again? Really?

Yes, and it could have been offered to other clubs in Coventry that have historical ties to the city. Everyone should have been informed what an out of town franchise was offering and then asked if they would match it. Balls to the confidentiality agreement.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Yes, and it could have been offered to other clubs in Coventry that have historical ties to the city. Everyone should have been informed what an out of town franchise was offering and then asked if they would match it. Balls to the confidentiality agreement.

Yeah - great thinking. Now, imagine if CCC broke the confidentiality agreement and Wasps walk away. Fisher builds his new stadium and the Ricoh is left unused. What then? What the hell would the 95% of the City's population who don't go to the football say about the council then?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

After categorically stating that time was needed to rebuild trust before talking about ownership again, wouldn't that actually have been the best course of action?

Regardless of what was said in the JR about a deal, it related to a different point in time. When there was a (slim) chance of buying into ACL with a long lease, SISU at least engaged and attempted to do it. It's not right to say that there was no appetite for a deal, when in reality no serious discussions had taken place with the club in 2015.

Because by 2015, the club's owners had categorically stated time and time again that they were building anew. In those circumstances, you can't criticise ACL/CCC for looking elsewhere. The issue here is Fisher's stance, because everything thereafter stems from that.

Now - the 'rebuilding bridges' statement; I totally and wholly agree with you on. That's seemingly duplicitous at best. I se this as being much more of 'a lie' than other actions I've seen folk getting uptight about. It looks like damn deceit, and really needs explaining

 

[fernandopartridge]

I can't remember the club ever ruling out a long term tenure at the Ricoh.

 

[italiahorse]

Yeah - great thinking. Now, imagine if CCC broke the confidentiality agreement and Wasps walk away. Fisher builds his new stadium and the Ricoh is left unused. What then? What the hell would the 95% of the City's population who don't go to the football say about the council then?

Your wasting your time with these guys. They have as much idea of the real world as Sisu.

 

[Nick]

Your wasting your time with these guys. They have as much idea of the real world as Sisu.

Is that from the guy who made images saying SISU IS SAVING US? Which real world are you from again?

 

[Hobo]

Labovitz said they would accept a very long lease as long as all revenues were in place to me.

Did you give him your opinion that ACL shares were worthless and not worth making a bid for as you posted on one of these threads? Also

[h=2]

[/h]

Originally Posted by Mr Creosote
Fact is the only reason an open letter has been issued by these muppets is because they are shit scared ACL has another sports franchise to play at the Ricoh. So friggin obvious.....



No they are not - they is no Sports Franchise unless its the Old Shephard First 11.

First rule if you are desperate to get a tenant back -- issue a press release saying someone else is interested.

I'd stick to being slapped on some knackered fencing if I were you.​

 

[dongonzalos]

Yeah - great thinking. Now, imagine if CCC broke the confidentiality agreement and Wasps walk away. Fisher builds his new stadium and the Ricoh is left unused. What then? What the hell would the 95% of the City's population who don't go to the football say about the council then?

You have to look at this with skyblue tinted glasses only. You start considering the rest of Coventry then you will get really frustrated. ...

 

[Nick]

You have to look at this with skyblue tinted glasses only. You start considering the rest of Coventry then you will get really frustrated. ...

Would normal city residents not be annoyed that there are loads of cuts while loads of money is tied up in ACL?

 

[chiefdave]

Balls to the confidentiality agreement.

There should never have been a confidentiality agreement. If ACL was being put up for sale offers should have been invited from all interested parties with everyone offered the same terms, i.e.: the 250 year lease.

The issue here is Fisher's stance, because everything thereafter stems from that.

Hang on, Fishers stance from day one was that ACL was reliant on CCFC and that the rent was too high. CCC denied this and we now know Fisher was correct. If you're making a statement that everything stems from Fishers stance then does it not follow that had CCC been truthful at that point we may well be in a very different position now.

 

[dongonzalos]

Would normal city residents not be annoyed that there are loads of cuts while loads of money is tied up in ACL?

I think they would be really pissed off if CCFC did as they were absolutely resolute that they were going to do - 'Move out of Coventry'. Then the public discover the council had an opportunity for a alternative use for the Ricoh and they blew it. Leaving it empty and by what it now seems not breaking even.

 

[Nick]

I think they would be really pissed off if CCFC did as they were absolutely resolute that they were going to do - 'Move out of Coventry'. Then the public discover the council had an opportunity for a alternative use for the Ricoh and they blew it. Leaving it empty and by what it now seems not breaking even.

What has that got to do with what I asked though?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Hang on, Fishers stance from day one was that ACL was reliant on CCFC and that the rent was too high. CCC denied this and we now know Fisher was correct. If you're making a statement that everything stems from Fishers stance then does it not follow that had CCC been truthful at that point we may well be in a very different position now.

The rent was too high. That's clear. ACL being financially reliant on CCFC is only pertinent to the distressing process. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered, would they?

If rather than distress, they'd have paid a fair price, instead of spunking it on legal fees, we certainly wouldn't be where we are now. So, yes, this whole process starts with Fisher's stance, and continues right through to the 'new stadium' farce

 

[chiefdave]

The rent was too high. That's clear. ACL being financially reliant on CCFC is only pertinent to the distressing process. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered, would they?

If rather than distress, they'd have paid a fair price, instead of spunking it on legal fees, we certainly wouldn't be where we are now. So, yes, this whole process starts with Fisher's stance, and continues right through to the 'new stadium' farce

How can CCFC distress ACL by withholding rent or moving out if ACL are no way reliant on that rent from CCFC?

By saying ACL were in no way reliant on CCFC it artificially inflated any asking price. That's why, for example, a company listed on the stock exchange can not make false statements, it impacts their share price and value of the company.

The starting point for any negotiations from a CCC standpoint was completely false! There's a post somewhere on here where PWKH confirms the asking price for Higgs 50%, through the formula, is in the region of £10m. It was being suggested on here at the time that CCFC should make offers based on that and paying off the £20m loan, a total package of £40m. Wasps have purchased for a total package, including the loan, for less than half that!

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Their is no doubt that the council have been underhand in the way the wasps deal has transpired, their are questions that need to be answered. I believe the confidentiality clauses that were included may be their to enable the council to disguise discussions and actions designed to out manoeuvre Sisu. That said most would not want the owners of the club to own the Ricoh as has been often said in numerous threads, what needs to be explained was the reason for excluding CCFC down to spite because of previous bad negotiations or for other reasons that are not being stated. The stadium was built for the club and the people of Coventry, the council need to explain why in their opinion the Wasps deal was the only one in town and why if that deal was on the table why they chose not to offer the same to the club. The good folk of the City need to know why millions of our own money has not been repaid when important services and jobs are being lost, Wasps should at the very least pay that 14 million back and arrange their own funding. If they did that then I don't think their would be as much of a who har as their is now.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How can CCFC distress ACL by withholding rent or moving out if ACL are no way reliant on that rent from CCFC?

By saying ACL were in no way reliant on CCFC it artificially inflated any asking price. That's why, for example, a company listed on the stock exchange can not make false statements, it impacts their share price and value of the company.

You're making a circular debate. Whether ACL was viable with or without CCFC is irrelevant to our contract to pay rent against an agreement. It's like you rent a house, and you think your landlord's private finances have anything to do with your contract with him. It sits apart from your contract. ACL's stand-alone health was only pertinent to the distressing process, which was ruled, an illegal rent-strike.

A housing association builds houses reliant on the income from those houses to support it's borrowing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial arrangements when the viability of the landlord or lender is influenced, either partially or totally, by payments from the tenant.

But how is it pertinent? Other than to the illegal rent-withholding distressing process?

 

[Godiva]

Wasps should at the very least pay that 14 million back and arrange their own funding. If they did that then I don't think their would be as much of a who har as their is now.

I think there were a few show-stoppers for Wasps when making the deal for ACL.

1. The loan should stay on unchanged terms
2. CCFC should be back as tenants (the business plan depended on this)
3. The deal would collapse if Higgs shares were sold to any other party than Wasps.

As the contracts have been signed I see no possibility for CCC to change the conditions for the loan - they cannot demand it refinanced.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Joy would accept a 'clean restriction-free long lease', I've never heard of such a thing, do they exist?

 

[robbiethemole]

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.

I didn't think new evidence could be submitted in the case?? it can only be judged on the information available at the time of the original case. more expense and waste of money by our useless fecking owners

 

[Godiva]

I didn't think new evidence could be submitted in the case?? it can only be judged on the information available at the time of the original case. more expense and waste of money by our useless fecking owners

If they go to the EU court will it be an appeal or a new case?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

In the JR it was mentioned that the Council would use cash reserves for a while, before then getting a loan. Hadn't noticed that before.

The Council’s net interest return whilst it uses its cash balances to fund the
loan (estimated to be for at least 3-5 years) would be about 4% or £500,000
per year.

 

[chiefdave]

You're making a circular debate. Whether ACL was viable with or without CCFC is irrelevant to our contract to pay rent against an agreement. It's like you rent a house, and you think your landlord's private finances have anything to do with your contract with him. It sits apart from your contract. ACL's stand-alone health was only pertinent to the distressing process, which was ruled, an illegal rent-strike.

A housing association builds houses reliant on the income from those houses to support it's borrowing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial arrangements when the viability of the landlord or lender is influenced, either partially or totally, by payments from the tenant.

But how is it pertinent? Other than to the illegal rent-withholding distressing process?

What are you on about? The point being made is CCC and Higgs repeatedly stated that ACL was profitable without CCFC, including during the period we were at Sixfields. They weren't. Yes the rent strike was ruled illegal but that's not really the point is it, statements were made that were clearly false. People on here questioned them at the time as is didn't seem to stack up that ACL could lose £1.2m a years from CCFC and be viable but apparently it wasn't obvious enough for anyone at the council to thing it was worth double checking what they were allegedly told by council officers.

In your example it would be like a housing association building a house and then claiming they didn't actually need the rent from it.

 

[lordsummerisle]

In the JR it was mentioned that the Council would use cash reserves for a while, before then getting a loan. Hadn't noticed that before.

The Council’s net interest return whilst it uses its cash balances to fund the
loan (estimated to be for at least 3-5 years) would be about 4% or £500,000
per year.

Would they now have any justification in getting a loan through prudential borrowing to then loan to a totally private company?

 

[italiahorse]

I bet Sisu get comfort from this thread ?

 

[chiefdave]

In the JR it was mentioned that the Council would use cash reserves for a while, before then getting a loan. Hadn't noticed that before.

I had an almighty row with Maton about this as this is not what was voted on. He assured me at the time that the money taken from council reserves had already been replenished, the answers CCC provided to Reid state this not to be the case.

This does knock on to the local taxpayer, although we're moving into politics here. An argument is being made by some locally, noticeably Nellist, that council reserves should be used to cover this years funding shortfall, which I believe is £15m, while a campaign to have the cuts from central government is reversed. CCC have stated this is impossible as they don't have the money, why don't they have the money?

 

[Hobo]

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.

the laws around State Aid is EU law so it has already been used in the JR.

 

[Godiva]

I bet Sisu get comfort from this thread ?

I bet they get as much comfort as ACL/CCC/HIGGS got from the threads demanding full investigations into the transferring of players from CCFC ltd to CCFC H (back when we were in administration).