Statement by Councillor Ann Lucas (1 Viewer)

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

SISU are absolutely responsible for he state of the football club I agree. However we know what SISU are and we know that ultimately their motive is to make money out of our club. The motive of the council should be very different.

I think SISU have said and done entirely the wrong thing at every turn. I would have loved Joys statement after the Wasps sale was announced to along the lines of 'this must be blocked, we need ownership of the Ricoh, there is no new stadium' and who knows why she said what she said but that doesn't give CCC & Higgs the green light to do what they have done.

I know, I think both are valid questions. Why weren't the club offered the deal Wasps were given and did the football club ask for the same deal. Both parties had a responsibility to the fans to make the deal happen, so why didn't they?

Why couldn't either side just rise above the pettiness and approach the other instead of waiting for each other to make the first move, all whilst in the background the council were secretly engineering the Wasps sale.

 

---

[rondog1973]

SISU are absolutely responsible for he state of the football club I agree. However we know what SISU are and we know that ultimately their motive is to make money out of our club. The motive of the council should be very different.

I think SISU have said and done entirely the wrong thing at every turn. I would have loved Joys statement after the Wasps sale was announced to along the lines of 'this must be blocked, we need ownership of the Ricoh, there is no new stadium' and who knows why she said what she said but that doesn't give CCC & Higgs the green light to do what they have done.

But....had they vetoed the sale on the grounds of obligation to the city's only professional football outfit, it would have surely given Sisu conclusive proof that they really were the only show in town, strengthening their bargaining power, and providing the green light to obtain the stadium via without doubt more depressing, distressing litigation tactics.

As it stands, it's difficult to know which way they can turn now, and that's absolutely fine by me.

 

[chiefdave]

But....had they vetoed the sale on the grounds of obligation to the city's only professional football outfit, it would have surely given Sisu conclusive proof that they really were the only show in town, strengthening their bargaining power, and providing the green light to obtain the stadium via without doubt more depressing, distressing litigation tactics.

Simple solution, CCC say match Wasps offer and its yours.

 

[dongonzalos]

Simple solution, CCC say match Wasps offer and its yours.

SISU themselves have said they wouldn't do that deal. Both before the wasps bid and now after it.

 

[rondog1973]

Simple solution, CCC say match Wasps offer and its yours.

Had this conversation the other day, Sisu obtaining the ground doesn't mean they're gonna sell it!

We've witnessed the spite they're capable of, wouldn't be at all confident that would end should they acquire the Ricoh.

 

[chiefdave]

SISU themselves have said they wouldn't do that deal. Both before the wasps bid and now after it.

When did CCC offer them that deal?

 

[chiefdave]

Had this conversation the other day, Sisu obtaining the ground doesn't mean they're gonna sell it!

We've witnessed the spite they're capable of, wouldn't be at all confident that would end should they acquire the Ricoh.

That's why I've long said the type of deal Wasps have been given is the ideal solution. CCC retain the freehold but CCFC, or now Wasps, have effective ownership and all the income. Terms could be put in the deal that say, for example, ACL and CCFC must remain in the same company.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Had this conversation the other day, Sisu obtaining the ground doesn't mean they're gonna sell it!

We've witnessed the spite they're capable of, wouldn't be at all confident that would end should they acquire the Ricoh.

Not immediately, but it becomes much, much easier to sell the club as a package with its own ground.

 

[rondog1973]

That's why I've long said the type of deal Wasps have been given is the ideal solution. CCC retain the freehold but CCFC, or now Wasps, have effective ownership and all the income. Terms could be put in the deal that say, for example, ACL and CCFC must remain in the same company.

Only to be challenged in the Courts further down the line no doubt.....

 

[dongonzalos]

When did CCC offer them that deal?

SISU stated they wanted an unencumbered freehold only otherwise they are building a new stadium.
Anne said ownership is available but not unencumbered Freehold. Come and bid before January.

Wasps bid SISU didn't wasps got encumbered ownership.

SISU have since looked at the deal that Wasps got and said they would not have been able to do that deal. They are still building their new stadium.

Before and after sane quotes, same stance same actions.

 

[chiefdave]

So are you saying CCC didn't offer CCFC the same deal as Wasps before selling it to them? That's the question I want answer. That's it, not who said what before or after.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So are you saying CCC didn't offer CCFC the same deal as Wasps before selling it to them? That's the question I want answer. That's it, not who said what before or after.

Ask hem.

Tim Fisher said NO
Council sad it was there for them to put in a bid.

So I suppose as Tim would not speak to the council just like he wouldn't speak to the Trust that so many blame because one of the committee was a retired councillor.

yet people want to know if our owners have been offered a deal from the organisation they despise and are taking to court yet again?

I would have thought he answer is No.

If you want to buy some thing you inquire about it, if your not interested you don't.

And Sisu didn't!! Why?
Answer that question.

 

[Jack Griffin]

So are you saying CCC didn't offer CCFC the same deal as Wasps before selling it to them? That's the question I want answer. That's it, not who said what before or after.

I can't take any more of this shit, you know full well that isn't the way a deal like this would be concluded.

Grow up and start talking sense instead of trying to make stupid arguments based on false premises.

FFS!

 

[The Reverend Skyblue]

Can I just say I am fucking sick of this subject and the "they did this " and "they did that" argument.

for the lords sake can we not move on

 

[chiefdave]

Ask hem.

I am not a Coventry resident which means they are not answerable to me but I did try and was told it was confidential.

If you want to buy some thing you inquire about it, if your not interested you don't.

And Sisu didn't!! Why?
Answer that question.

Totally agree and I have consistently said SISU should have made an offer. That doesn't absolve CCC & Higgs of their responsibilities.

I can't take any more of this shit, you know full well that isn't the way a deal like this would be concluded.

Grow up and start talking sense instead of trying to make stupid arguments based on false premises.

I'm not saying SISU would have said yes, I'm saying it should have been offered. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your narrative of everything being SISU's fault. It's not an argument, it's not false premises, it's an incredibly simple question that CCC & Higgs should answer.

 

[skybluetony176]

I am not a Coventry resident which means they are not answerable to me but I did try and was told it was confidential.



Totally agree and I have consistently said SISU should have made an offer. That doesn't absolve CCC & Higgs of their responsibilities.



I'm not saying SISU would have said yes, I'm saying it should have been offered. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your narrative of everything being SISU's fault. It's not an argument, it's not false premises, it's an incredibly simple question that CCC & Higgs should answer.

When you say responsibilities do you mean that they didn't do what you think they should have done or something more?

 

[cloughie]

SISU stated they wanted an unencumbered freehold only otherwise they are building a new stadium.
Anne said ownership is available but not unencumbered Freehold. Come and bid before January.

Wasps bid SISU didn't wasps got encumbered ownership.

SISU have since looked at the deal that Wasps got and said they would not have been able to do that deal. They are still building their new stadium.

Before and after sane quotes, same stance same actions.

About sums up the truth of the matter

Sisu have never intended to BUY the stadium but acquire it through disgraceful means and actions

Why oh why some still keep going on about what the CCC should have done is beyond belief.

Oh i have seen the light!!! !lets give it free to sisu ......... BUT SADLY THAT IS NOT CCFC

 

[chiefdave]

When you say responsibilities do you mean that they didn't do what you think they should have done or something more?

It's pretty simple to me. In my opinion CCC have a responsibility to serve the city of Coventry and the people of Coventry. They're aren't a private business and as such should operate in a different manner. I believe two things should have happened with regard to the sale of ACL

1) CCFC should have had the opportunity to match any accepted bid.
2) A period of public consultation should have taken place before any sale to an organisation such as Wasps. This would allow the people of Coventry to voice their opinion and local organisations, such as CCFC and CRFC to give their view.

Its my belief that by not doing those two things they have failed in their duty. I appreciate there are far more people living in the city than the 8K who attend our games and the 1K who attend CRFC but I don't think that absolves them of responsibility. If it did every facility in the city that the council run, fund or own that is not used by every member of the population should be sold off. And of course while 8K attended in better times the football club have provided a big lift to the city. There was a lot more than 8K lining the steps for the FA Cup celebrations.

To be absolutely clear I am not saying SISU are blameless. Their actions at every turn have been shockingly bad but I don't believe that gives CCC & Higgs a valid reason to take actions that will impact the city long after SISU have gone.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's pretty simple to me. In my opinion CCC have a responsibility to serve the city of Coventry and the people of Coventry. They're aren't a private business and as such should operate in a different manner. I believe two things should have happened with regard to the sale of ACL

1) CCFC should have had the opportunity to match any accepted bid.
2) A period of public consultation should have taken place before any sale to an organisation such as Wasps. This would allow the people of Coventry to voice their opinion and local organisations, such as CCFC and CRFC to give their view.

Its my belief that by not doing those two things they have failed in their duty. I appreciate there are far more people living in the city than the 8K who attend our games and the 1K who attend CRFC but I don't think that absolves them of responsibility. If it did every facility in the city that the council run, fund or own that is not used by every member of the population should be sold off. And of course while 8K attended in better times the football club have provided a big lift to the city. There was a lot more than 8K lining the steps for the FA Cup celebrations.

To be absolutely clear I am not saying SISU are blameless. Their actions at every turn have been shockingly bad but I don't believe that gives CCC & Higgs a valid reason to take actions that will impact the city long after SISU have gone.

Although I don't agree with point 1, SISU have had years of opportunity to do a deal in a manor where it has a chance of being accepted and completed but didn't. That's their failing and no-one else.

I do agree with point 2. There most definitely should have been some type of public consultation before the full council meeting to vote the deal through. I'm not convinced it would have changed the decision though as I don't think the majority of Coventry tax payers are that bothered.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

On point 1...They had the opportunity to match it but they asked for (in the former of some additional unacceptable conditions) MORE - never entirely satisfied unless they get the better side of the deal!

 

[Nick]

On point 1...They had the opportunity to match it but they asked for (in the former of some additional unacceptable conditions) MORE - never entirely satisfied unless they get the better side of the deal!

When did they?

 

[chiefdave]

On point 1...They had the opportunity to match it but they asked for (in the former of some additional unacceptable conditions) MORE - never entirely satisfied unless they get the better side of the deal!

What were these conditions? The only thing I have read is a joint community initiative which, until they changed them when SISU submitted their bid, were in line with the charities stated objectives.

 

[Astute]

What were these conditions? The only thing I have read is a joint community initiative which, until they changed them when SISU submitted their bid, were in line with the charities stated objectives.

SISU made a confidential bid. Yes they wanted to work with Higgs. They said so. But we also know that Higgs wanted out. And they don't trust SISU in the slightest. Does anyone? Was working with Higgs mean paying over 10 years like the last offer made to them was? Or we could go to the comment that we get frequently. SISU should have been given the same offer that Wasps got. They put in the offer for the Higgs share. Wasps was unconditional. SISU's offer came with conditions. Conditions that we don't know about. Were these conditions just after information that would have been SISU trying to look for information that would have been used to continue with the ongoing litigation?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

When did they?

As soon as it became clear that it was available for the right bid

 

[SkyblueBazza]

What were these conditions? The only thing I have read is a joint community initiative which, until they changed them when SISU submitted their bid, were in line with the charities stated objectives.

I don't know & nor do you. None of it matters now anyway. The deal has been done. We have no stadium & no great revenue stream - but we do have what appear greedy manipulative owners that seem intent on reducing us to & consolidating us as a reasonably well supported mid - low table L1 side.

 

[ecky]

Sisu had 7 long years to put in a package to buy the Ricoh ...
We know their plan and they messed up big time.
Seppala is the one to blame, where is she as the owner of ccfc?
Clueless and soulless entity are Sisu they need to go and quickly

 

[Otis]

Sisu had 7 long years to put in a package to buy the Ricoh ...
We know their plan and they messed up big time.
Seppala is the one to blame, where is she as the owner of ccfc?
Clueless and soulless entity are Sisu they need to go and quickly

I wouldn't hold your breath.