Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

More Wasps BS? (2 Viewers)

  • Thread starter ccfc92
  • Start date Oct 24, 2019
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • …
  • 47
Next
First Prev 24 of 47 Next Last

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #806
Astute said:
Which one wasn't 1.2m?

Where is your evidence instead of going around in circles like you enjoy others to do?
Click to expand...

Eh - you made a comment we paid £1.2m a year.

at least you admit you made that up.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #807
Grendel said:
Eh - you made a comment we paid £1.2m a year.

at least you admit you made that up.
Click to expand...
I haven't made ut up.

So how much did we pay?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #808
Astute said:
I haven't made ut up.

So how much did we pay?
Click to expand...

We paid a rent of around £500,000 and this then went up in the years after the initial period due to penalties imposed by the builders

PWKH I think made up some rubbish the £1.3 m rent was set as it’s what we paid at highfield road but both those statements were not correct
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #809
The rent for the Ricoh was set at 1.2m to stop it being classed as state aid. It went up to 1.3m.

It cost them 800k a year to keep HR usable as it was falling to bits. 400k was added to this. This made the rent 1.2m for HR. Nothing else was included like match day costs.

Here is a more independent source. It also states the approx 60m debt Richardson put our club in.

The demise of Coventry City Football Club | Football Supporters' Federation
 
Last edited: Nov 19, 2019

peaches and cream

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #810
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
That'll be the same Gloucester that then lost to bottom-club-in-waiting Tigers?
Click to expand...
How is that even relevant? what your saying is Gloucester are not a good side and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Leicester by your reckoning after Norwich beat Man City that means Man City are now crap and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Norwich, i also appreciate you probably don't follow rugby so you wouldn't know but make no mistake Gloucester are a quality side and with Saracens accepting their fine and points deduction Gloucester have a fair chance of winning the whole thing.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #811
peaches and cream said:
How is that even relevant? what your saying is Gloucester are not a good side and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Leicester by your reckoning after Norwich beat Man City that means Man City are now crap and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Norwich, i also appreciate you probably don't follow rugby so you wouldn't know but make no mistake Gloucester are a quality side and with Saracens accepting their fine and points deduction Gloucester have a fair chance of winning the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Instead of pointing out the good points for other sides can you think of a good point for London Wasps?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #812
Astute said:
The rent for the Ricoh was set at 1.2m to stop it being classed as state aid. It went up to 1.3m.

It cost them 800k a year to keep HR usable as it was falling to bits. 400k was added to this. This made the rent 1.2m for HR. Nothing else was included like match day costs.

Here is a more independent source. It also states the approx 60m debt Richardson put our club in.

The demise of Coventry City Football Club | Football Supporters' Federation
Click to expand...

That is written by Mr JimmyHillWay I’ve read it and doesn’t reference the rent at highfield road debts reportedly at £60m forgets any facts about the joint Ccfc and council project to decontaminate the land and then the council took the profit from the land. It also fails to mention why mcginnity rejected the compromise offer of receiving £2m back every year so a £1m profit

it’s a poor article
 
Reactions: fernandopartridge
O

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #813
peaches and cream said:
How is that even relevant? what your saying is Gloucester are not a good side and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Leicester by your reckoning after Norwich beat Man City that means Man City are now crap and won't finish in the top four because they lost to Norwich, i also appreciate you probably don't follow rugby so you wouldn't know but make no mistake Gloucester are a quality side and with Saracens accepting their fine and points deduction Gloucester have a fair chance of winning the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I do "follow" rugby, so i am very aware that it's a very topsy-turvy season so far, with everyone managing to lose to someone. I suspect part of that is due to the number of players that some teams had lost to the RWC, but Bristol spanking Bath, then losing to Quins, Leicester carrying on from last season and losing to everyone but then beating Gloucester, Northampton unbeaten then losing to Bath all gives it a bit of a merry-go-round feel. Gloucester were a quality side last season, but then got walloped in the play-offs, so i wouldn't pin my hopes on them.
If everyone keeps losing the odd match like that, Sarries could put a run together which doesn't completely rule them out of getting to the play-offs (especially if they do what Jones has suggested and decide not to play for England in the 6 Nations).
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #814
Grendel said:
That is written by Mr JimmyHillWay I’ve read it and doesn’t reference the rent at highfield road debts reportedly at £60m forgets any facts about the joint Ccfc and council project to decontaminate the land and then the council took the profit from the land. It also fails to mention why mcginnity rejected the compromise offer of receiving £2m back every year so a £1m profit

it’s a poor article
Click to expand...
Poor article? It will be as it says what you don't want it to.

So what was this joint CCFC/CCC decontamination of the land?

And are you going to try and say we bought the land again like you previously have?

Or are you going to try and change history again on the 50% we were given but sold fir much more than the 1.7m total CCFC put into the project?

Yes, most know we got stitched up by CCC. So there is no need to change history (or the truth) on what happened.

Even CCC ended up losing out. Looks like the Wasp bond holders are going to lose out. We have lost out. The charity lost out. And it wouldn't surprise me if it nearly finishes Wasps off.

A total waste of 113m.
 
Reactions: montydon87

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #815
Also as FP says none of this has anything to do with the basic point that the mess is caused by the decision by a bunch of self interested directors who wanted the project and wanted to stadium built

Administration and a stadium but back would have solved most of the problems the relegation caused
 
Reactions: Deleted member 5849, AVWskyblue and Sick Boy

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #816
Astute said:
Poor article? It will be as it says what you don't want it to.

So what was this joint CCFC/CCC decontamination of the land?

And are you going to try and say we bought the land again like you previously have?

Or are you going to try and change history again on the 50% we were given but sold fir much more than the 1.7m total CCFC put into the project?

Yes, most know we got stitched up by CCC. So there is no need to change history (or the truth) on what happened.

Even CCC ended up losing out. Looks like the Wasp bond holders are going to lose out. We have lost out. The charity lost out. And it wouldn't surprise me if it nearly finishes Wasps off.

A total waste of 113m.
Click to expand...

It was a joint company to deal with the £20m contamination - the idea was to sell the land and have a joint profit on it - the council quoted state aid and said they couldn’t - to suggest we somehow then made a profit is absurd. The shares were compensation and arranged to give the club £1 m a year back surplus after rent was paid. We sold them for a pittance to desperately stave off administration
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #817
Astute said:
The rent for the Ricoh was set at 1.2m to stop it being classed as state aid. It went up to 1.3m.

It cost them 800k a year to keep HR usable as it was falling to bits. 400k was added to this. This made the rent 1.2m for HR. Nothing else was included like match day costs.

Here is a more independent source. It also states the approx 60m debt Richardson put our club in.

The demise of Coventry City Football Club | Football Supporters' Federation
Click to expand...

How was the Coventry City £1.3m Ricoh Arena rent bill decided

However, it does not explain how a loss making business would make a suitable long term tenant at the rent proposed
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #818
Grendel said:
It was a joint company to deal with the £20m contamination - the idea was to sell the land and have a joint profit on it - the council quoted state aid and said they couldn’t - to suggest we somehow then made a profit is absurd. The shares were compensation and arranged to give the club £1 m a year back surplus after rent was paid. We sold them for a pittance to desperately stave off administration
Click to expand...
And state aid it is.

Pittance? Evidence?

We sold them off because of what Richardson did to our club. Maybe administration should have been the way instead.

But you are here to defend Richardson and attack CCC.


Of course not because there isn't any to back up what you say.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #819
oldfiver said:
How was the Coventry City £1.3m Ricoh Arena rent bill decided

However, it does not explain how a loss making business would make a suitable long term tenant at the rent proposed
Click to expand...
And backs up everything I have said.

Grendel.will put his spin on it soon though.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #820
Astute said:
And backs up everything I have said.

Grendel.will put his spin on it soon though.
Click to expand...
Interesting about the intention to restructure the lease and let the club takeover running of the arena.

how come this wasn’t publically offered?
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #821
Wonder how the Eu situation will affect using the ccfc loss against other group profits once we leave?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #822
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Interesting about the intention to restructure the lease and let the club takeover running of the arena.

how come this wasn’t publically offered?
Click to expand...
Your guess is as good as mine.

Could have been a non disclosure clause. Or both sides might have acted like twats and didn't want anyone to know.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #823
Astute said:
And state aid it is.

Pittance? Evidence?

We sold them off because of what Richardson did to our club. Maybe administration should have been the way instead.

But you are here to defend Richardson and attack CCC.


Of course not because there isn't any to back up what you say.
Click to expand...

FP is correct you can’t understand what we are saying

back up to what? The land contamination and agreed deal - that’s pretty well known and had been laid out in some detail by Paul Fletcher
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #824
Astute said:
And backs up everything I have said.

Grendel.will put his spin on it soon though.
Click to expand...

lol you must be reading another article
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #825
Sky Blue Pete said:
Wonder how the Eu situation will affect using the ccfc loss against other group profits once we leave?
Click to expand...
No change to anything that happens before we leave.....If we do. It will still come under EU law in EU courts wherever is decided. And to add to that the Ricoh was built with EU money so they might well look into it more than usual.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #826
Grendel said:
FP is correct you can’t understand what we are saying

back up to what? The land contamination and agreed deal - that’s pretty well known and had been laid out in some detail by Paul Fletcher
Click to expand...
So what don't I understand?

Just name something for once.

CCFC hardly had anything to do with the building of the Ricoh. Now you make out it was something totally different.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #827
Astute said:
Your guess is as good as mine.

Could have been a non disclosure clause. Or both sides might have acted like twats and didn't want anyone to know.
Click to expand...

Eh? It was the original plan as was the deal to get £1m profit so it was rent free

It didn’t happen because the twat Mcginnity HAD to avoid administration and so we sold the shares
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #828
Grendel said:
lol you must be reading another article
Click to expand...
Go on then. Which part disagrees with me. Because it contradicts what you tried to say.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #829
Grendel said:
Eh? It was the original plan as was the deal to get £1m profit so it was debt free

It didn’t happen because the twat Mcginnity HAD to avoid administration and so we sold the shares
Click to expand...
So what was the rent and what did both of us say what it was?

I suppose you can try and discredit what you are trying to use now :smuggrin:
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #830
Astute said:
Poor article? It will be as it says what you don't want it to.

So what was this joint CCFC/CCC decontamination of the land?

And are you going to try and say we bought the land again like you previously have?

Or are you going to try and change history again on the 50% we were given but sold fir much more than the 1.7m total CCFC put into the project?

Yes, most know we got stitched up by CCC. So there is no need to change history (or the truth) on what happened.

Even CCC ended up losing out. Looks like the Wasp bond holders are going to lose out. We have lost out. The charity lost out. And it wouldn't surprise me if it nearly finishes Wasps off.

A total waste of 113m.
Click to expand...
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #831
Astute said:
So what was the rent and what did both of us say what it was?

I suppose you can try and discredit what you are trying to use now :smuggrin:
Click to expand...

The point you were attempting to make was that Richardson has agreed a £1.2m rent deal - he didn’t it was £500k and the last 3 years (by which time he had gone the average was £800,000 due to the escalation penalties and closer to £1m in the final year) you seem to be reading something and failing to understand what it says
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #832
Also your attempt at saying selling the shares to Higgs for £4 million was a good thing as we’d only paid £2 million build costs is bizarre

the shares were valued at £18.5 million
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #833
Astute said:
No change to anything that happens before we leave.....If we do. It will still come under EU law in EU courts wherever is decided. And to add to that the Ricoh was built with EU money so they might well look into it more than usual.
Click to expand...
I believe it will affect their ability to aggregate profits and losses in the group
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #834
Jesus H Christ. Is it 2013 again? Surely we’ve done this to death.
 
Reactions: Otis and Deleted member 5849
Q

Qwerty70

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #835
skybluetony176 said:
Jesus H Christ. Is it 2013 again? Surely we’ve done this to death.
Click to expand...
To bring up to date, I am currently sat in the legends lounge (at a conference). I haven’t been in here for a few months and while I’m not surprised if is sad to see that CCFC no longer exist in here. Every photo, piece of membrobilla and wall theme is Wasps.
A small sign that our home is no longer here, CCFC footprint around the arena is shrinking. A stadium built for our team now has very very little connection to our team.
Thanks to all involved - good work!!!
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

Nick

Administrator
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #836
Qwerty70 said:
To bring up to date, I am currently sat in the legends lounge (at a conference). I haven’t been in here for a few months and while I’m not surprised if is sad to see that CCFC no longer exist in here. Every photo, piece of membrobilla and wall theme is Wasps.
A small sign that our home is no longer here, CCFC footprint around the arena is shrinking. A stadium built for our team now has very very little connection to our team.
Thanks to all involved - good work!!!
Click to expand...

Wasn't it like that even when we played there?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #837
Nick said:
Wasn't it like that even when we played there?
Click to expand...

Yes it’s been like it for some time
 
Q

Qwerty70

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #838
Maybe it just my memory Nick but after not being here for a few months I am can see a reduction in anything relating to CCFC. It’s sad to see that we basically have very little connection to the stadium that was ‘built’ for us. Pretty much like we don’t exist!
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #839
Nick said:
Wasn't it like that even when we played there?
Click to expand...
Yes, been like that for a while. Just highlights the issue of being an afterthought to Wasps even when we were there.
 

peaches and cream

Well-Known Member
  • Nov 19, 2019
  • #840
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
I do "follow" rugby, so i am very aware that it's a very topsy-turvy season so far, with everyone managing to lose to someone. I suspect part of that is due to the number of players that some teams had lost to the RWC, but Bristol spanking Bath, then losing to Quins, Leicester carrying on from last season and losing to everyone but then beating Gloucester, Northampton unbeaten then losing to Bath all gives it a bit of a merry-go-round feel. Gloucester were a quality side last season, but then got walloped in the play-offs, so i wouldn't pin my hopes on them.
If everyone keeps losing the odd match like that, Sarries could put a run together which doesn't completely rule them out of getting to the play-offs (especially if they do what Jones has suggested and decide not to play for England in the 6 Nations).
Click to expand...
Totally agree if you look at my earlier posts I've already said that even with 35 points deducted i would expect Saracens to still make top six maybe even top four all dependent on if they can keep their squad together. Gloucester are stronger this season than last and Saracens will find it extremely hard to make top four (but not impossible) Exeter while still a strong side do not have the depth to compete in both Europe and domestically and i think they are desperate to do well in europe and may be below par in the premiership, Northampton and Sale will be strong along with Gloucester. while the RWC has of course had an effect on teams i also think that in recent seasons quite a few teams didn't spend up to the salary cap as they couldn't afford to but this season with CVC money most clubs have invested heavily on recruitment which has had the result in a lot of teams with big changes of personal which will take time to settle.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • …
  • 47
Next
First Prev 24 of 47 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?