SISU & Les Reid not talking true? No need to own the RICOH (1 Viewer)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

As we all know, the situation for each club is different, for example, Hull, Ipswich, Doncaster and others pay ridiculously cheap leases, whilst earning the revenues match days create, so it is fair to say that those types of lease agreements are sustainable and to some extent mutually beneficial. Whereas CCFC, paid a large lease fee (1.28m), making nothing off match days, and was neither sustainable nor was it beneficial to CCFC, so change was needed as the RICOH's lease agreement was a burden on CCFC. Even the latest offer was never going to be accepted because although the 150k p/a rent was perfectly acceptable, there was no access to match day revenues and no option to buy the stadium (people would say they don't SISU owning a share etc. but if they accepted, lease would be to CCFC, so any new owners wouldn't have the option), what SISU argued all along. Perhaps, JS, Fisher etc. over exaggerate when they say we must own the RICOH or it's 'game over', it would certainly be better to own, than lease, 100%.

 

---

[theferret]

Maybe the council had found a partner they felt they could work with who was not the type to use buying tactics to get what they want

What, last December?

Bottom line is, that deal would have seen ACL debt free, and the council would have retained 100% ownership of the freehold and 50% of ACL. How that was not a good deal for the council I'll never know.

 

[Grendel]

Maybe the council had found a partner they felt they could work with who was not the type to use buying tactics to get what they want

So the council should determine who owns the football club and deal with them - the landlord of a football club should determine its owners?

That's bizarre even by your standards.

 

[Nick]

Maybe the council had found a partner they felt they could work with who was not the type to use buying tactics to get what they want

Who was that?

 

[James Smith]

I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.

Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.

No they agreed a Heads of terms a while ago according to PWKH and then just walked away. Apparently H.O.T. aren't binding so I don't think an actual sale had been agreed. Amazingly I think I'm right in saying they were doing this negotiation during the rent boycott, please someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. Why they didn't try and talk to the Higgs about a sale at any time before that is a complete mystery. They would have had half of ACL and a third of the seats on the board, and could have negotiated for revenue streams from a much stronger position.

 

[theferret]

No they agreed a Heads of terms a while ago according to PWKH and then just walked away. Apparently H.O.T. aren't binding so I don't think an actual sale had been agreed. Amazingly I think I'm right in saying they were doing this negotiation during the rent boycott, please someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. Why they didn't try and talk to the Higgs about a sale at any time before that is a complete mystery. They would have had half of ACL and a third of the seats on the board, and could have negotiated for revenue streams from a much stronger position.

I'm not sure I want to have this debate again! It is SISU who have constantly bought up the fact that the council walked away from the deal, it was very much the basis of JS's complaints in the recent interview (and many times previously by TF). Yes, it did all take place during the rent boycott, which is not exactly the ideal situation in which to have such negotiations. But then, the council agreed and signed up to it (albeit a HOT which as you rightly say is not legally binding). All this aside, it still would have been a good deal for the council on the face of it. Could be wrong, but I think PWKH has made reference to earlier negotiations for SISU to buy the share which eventually went cold.

 

[James Smith]

I'm not sure I want to have this debate again! It is SISU who have constantly bought up the fact that the council walked away from the deal, it was very much the basis of JS's complaints in the recent interview (and many times previously by TF). Yes, it did all take place during the rent boycott, which is not exactly the ideal situation in which to have such negotiations. But then, the council agreed and signed up to it (albeit a HOT which as you rightly say is not legally binding). All this aside, it still would have been a good deal for the council on the face of it. Could be wrong, but I think PWKH has made reference to earlier negotiations for SISU to buy the share which eventually went cold.

Sorry I obviously wasn't clear enough but I didn't mention the council - I was just talking about the Higgs share, I haven't seen or heard anything from the council regarding the purchase of their share.