Grendel
Well-Known Member
And still some deluded people on here think they can buy half the Higgs share by offering more money (forgetting the fact that the sale price is not for public disclosure)
and still Fisher is spouting his "we will build a new stadium" shit, the bloke is a deluded fooker:jerkit:
I think this article from May this year confirms that renewal hasn't been agreed, still quite vague though.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-sponsors-hope-see-7108507
Whether or not they intend to build a new stadium (which they don't) they would be mad not to pick up half the Ricoh on the super cheap if they get the chance, purely as a business decision. If I had an option to buy half of that stadium I'd be calling in loans, ebaying the house contents and scratching around down the back of the couch!
Ha, that's a beautiful exercise in saying nothing isn't it. Sounds like he'd have refused to confirm his name if asked!
That said, "a sporting tenant was seen as important by Ricoh in terms of its continuing sponsorship of the venue" is an interesting line...
Has the veto question been bottomed out?
If it is genuine and wasps have the power to veto then this is a waste of time.
If the council have a power to veto or there us no power to veto. Then it really comes down to SISU bidding 3 million plus with a promise of payment immediately.
3 million for half of ACL of 30 million for a 18k stadium?
Come in SISU show you can do the right thing for once do not try and manoeuvre on this one show us you have learnt from your mistakes.
If the renewal is due next year, and that's what I suspect, then it makes the shares seem very cheap at the reported £5.5m.
What we don't know, of course, is whether the extension of the lease to ACL to 250 years has resulted in an increase of rental payable to ACL's landlords.
Nothing to do with the council anymore.
What we don't know, of course, is whether the extension of the lease to ACL to 250 years has resulted in an increase of rental payable to ACL's landlords.
It is all very well saying that but your article leaves some fundamental questions unanswered
Does the power of veto exist with the other owner?
The terms of the deal are "commercially confidential". That's the only line we get from all sides involved in this particular issue. I suspect it's one of the reasons CCFC want to see the terms of the joint venture agreement and be granted access to other information.
Given that Higgs have already expressed a desire to sell to wasps why would they pursue this process if it would risk the sake to the preferred bidder?
The charity feels it is still legally obliged to offer the first option rights to CCFC Ltd as part of the 2003 deal for the charity to purchase the club's shares in ACL. In my opinion, it's an arse-covering exercise and is not an indication of willingness to complete a deal with the club's owners.
What is the actual value of the shares that the council sold?
Wasps have paid the council £2.77m for their shares in ACL.
Why did your original article clearly state that the deal was for the whole of ACL and all wasps PR communication supported this until this peculiar change of course?
The deal was initially for 100%. The deal changed between council leaders being briefed and the full council briefing a few days later before the full vote the next day. One can only speculate as to why this may be, but I'd suggest legal advice played a part.
If all goes as Wasps expect, it will ultimately be a deal for 100% of ACL.
Wasps will pay the Higgs Charity and additional £2.77m.
ACL will still be liable for the remainder of the £14.4million loan made to ACL by the council in January 2013.
Has the 50% of the share already purchased taken on the full discharge of the loan? This clearly is a major issue for both parties.
The council's 50% share is now owned by Wasps.
My understanding is that the loan is to ACL. ACL is responsible for meeting the terms of the loan arrangement, not the individual stakeholders. Getting this officially confirmed is tricky due to the "commercial confidentiality" agreement.
Why (assuming the claim is correct) will no details of the bid be released to the potential purchaser so that the counter bid can be sensibly evaluated?
Knowing the protagonists as I do, I would speculate there is a lack of real will to do a deal from one or more sides.
Also, it's possible people are not using the correct channels to request certain information.
Why don't you ask these questions to the council and the charity? After all its them who are all for openness and transparamcy isn't it?
We ask many questions, but I can't make anyone answer them!
I hope that helps.
29/08/2014 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR DAVID ROBERT DAMERY COCKROFT
10/02/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR MARTIN REEVES
07/02/2014 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR RICHARD EDWARD MOON
06/02/2014 DIRECTOR APPOINTED CHRISTOPHER PETER ROBINSON
15/11/2013 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR NICHOLAS CARTER
FWIW, it does here.
See, I can do praise too
Or to spell it out, it seems to me there could be a way out for Wasps if they don't get all they want.. just a feeling..
It doesn't answer the killer question.
Grendel you being Wasps major sponsors should be able to ask these questions of them. I expect a full report on here tomorrow evening.
Why you wish to be juvenile I am not sure. The loan is an agreement between the council and the owner and whatever has been agreed on this will decide the outcome.
Can't you take a joke. You ask all these questions do you honestly think you're going to get them all answered at the moment? Obviously in time you will I would have thought in the meantime just calm down.
So Sixfields was not a moral problem then, more of a personal one. After all, you seem to have no empathy with the Wasps fans, no moral problem with them being torn from their community. So, do you have a moral problem with clubs being moved or don't you? If its only our club you care about its hardly a moral stance is it? Morals, as I understand them, being consistent.
Whether or not they intend to build a new stadium (which they don't) they would be mad not to pick up half the Ricoh on the super cheap if they get the chance, purely as a business decision. If I had an option to buy half of that stadium I'd be calling in loans, ebaying the house contents and scratching around down the back of the couch!
i think a 50/50 deal could work for us if both parties stay open minded and commercial. The biggest issue will be the pitch condition and fixture clashes, would want to play the day after a wasps game.
It was a moral issue but it was also a personal one, I have a moral problem with a football club being seriously damaged in order to try to destroy another company for financial gain along with all the other things they were doing that I had moral issues with. However it was personal in that the reason I was so outraged by it was because it was happening to my club. It had nothing to do with with franchise sport though.
I do have empathy for the wasps fans, I've said multiple times how much it sucks for them but for multiple reasons it doesn't outrage me, I don't know enough about the situation for that, Its even possible it is what's best for them, I don't know, I also simply don't care enough about them to be outraged, you make think thats harsh but it isn't because we simply can't be outraged by everything that is outrageous, it's not possible and if it was it would be extremely unhealthy. I personally already get angry enough about the injustice and disgraceful things that happen the world over, I don't have room to feel strongly about the wasps situation especially as I don't even expect to ever go.
There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about my morals, it is the case however that to stand up against everything you believe is wrong hurts yourself more than it hurts those you have a problem with. I'd have to not watch world cup football, olympics or f1 all of which have had much more valid reasons to be extremely morally outraged than this issue yet how many of us boycott those? despite disgusting corruption, human rights abuses and deaths.
Ta for the swift answer
As with everything, there are many ways of viewing the same information. As life is short, and I'd like to have one... I shall resist ploughing a particular furrow just now
CCFC Ltd have first dibs. Have title of them and you can make the bid for the Higgs share at the contracted price and secure yourself 50% of ACL as a partner of Wasps.
BUT
Wasps indeed have a Veto over who Higgs can sell their share too. They can invoke this veto so not to shackle themselves with a partner they don't want, or, if they want to purchase themselves, and they already have an agreement to do so subject to Higgs disposing of their shares IF the pre-agreed 'First Refusal' for CCFC Ltd isn't taken up. Or is vetoed.... Er....
As sure as night follows day this will end up in Court.
Do we know for sure that they have the veto?
Do we know for sure that they have the veto?
Sisu and morals in the same sentence ..........Must be a first!!!!!Well I for one can't wait for Sisu to start talking about the moral aspect of this.
Sisu and morals in the same sentence ..........Must be a first!!!!!
7th Nov.Whens the 30 days up and therefore when will we get some official statements of intent?
Actually of the three of them you'd be safest talking about Sir Higgs as he's the only one who can't sue you because he's dead.Ta for the swift answer
As with everything, there are many ways of viewing the same information. As life is short, and I'd like to have one... I shall resist ploughing a particular furrow just now
Pretty certain having read the post by OSB58 that this was the £666k that the Telegraph reported that he'd lost when Sisu took over and was an interest free loan that McGinnity and Robinson also made at the same time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?