Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that Wasps have got the Ricoh at a good rate, I just don't see that convincing the Council to help SISU (and by extension CCFC) out to any great extent.
Trust Statement (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
I don't doubt that Wasps have got the Ricoh at a good rate, I just don't see that convincing the Council to help SISU (and by extension CCFC) out to any great extent.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Do “whatever”? I’m asking what they could do.
Do you think they wouldn’t offer a sensible deal? All your theories seem to start from the idea what Wasps don’t want us in the ground. Why?
Nick
Administrator
Are you being purposely naive again? Why won't sisu drop the legals before any talks?
They could refuse to talk, they could still try and take the piss for starters, they could just laugh and say nice one.
That's why they go into discussions to see if they been meet in the middle to get a deal for ccfc and hopefully the legals gone.
It really is that simple, people are not going to drop their hand before even beginning talks.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
A question for you. In what way would we be worse off if Wasps and the council agreed to engage with the club?
Lets say you're 100% right. The council have zero influence over Wasps or planning and can offer no assistance to the club. Wasps want us playing at the Ricoh and will negotiate in good faith.
So they have a meeting and the council say we will do everything we can to assist, knowing that realistically they can do nothing and are therefore agreeing to do nothing. Wasps say you can have 10 years at £100K a year with all match day revenues and 50% of any naming rights while you build your new stadium. All SISU have to do is drop the legals.
SISU then turn round and say they won't drop them. Are we really any worse off then than we are now? The absolute worse case scenario is we are still in the same position so why not give it a go.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
We you talk of naivety.
Look Sisu know they are fucked they are trying to save face by saying we will drop the levels IF.
Their bluff is be called by Drop the legals or NO ltalking.
Easy really just have to see who is the second one to blink.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Thats the opposite of calling their bluff. Calling their bluff would be to say great, lets get a meeting sorted and get things moving on the new stadium.
This course of action just plays into SISUs hands and gives them more ammunition to take to the EFL and, more worrying, more legal action.
Nick
Administrator
How are sisu fucked? This is the sort of thing people like you and the trust were getting excited about when Haskell was about. Its ccfc who are fucked.
Interesting how it has gone from first to blink to second to blink.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
same few people arguing on every thread, don't know why we don't just merge them and be done with it.
All CCC have to do is come out with a list of sites that SISU have asked about planning permission for
All SISU have to do is list the sites they would like consideration for planning permission for
All Wasps have to do is talk to CCFC and agree a deal "in principle" providing legals are dropped
none of those will happen, so we are left with 10 people on here fighting amount each other whilst the club edges closer to having to leave the city
All CCC have to do is come out with a list of sites that SISU have asked about planning permission for
All SISU have to do is list the sites they would like consideration for planning permission for
All Wasps have to do is talk to CCFC and agree a deal "in principle" providing legals are dropped
none of those will happen, so we are left with 10 people on here fighting amount each other whilst the club edges closer to having to leave the city
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
It’s a bargaining chip. It depends what a sensible deal is. To Wasps it might be something different to what the club feels.
SISU have one bargaining chip, they give that up then they’re open to wasps charging what they want on whatever terms they want
I’ve said before, agree a deal conditional on The legal action being dropped
Nick
Administrator
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yep, they've leveraged the stadium to buy it out presumably with the approval of the council.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And if they did they’d be in a very sticky PR situation. Which according to you they’ve spent thousands on plants and agencies to avoid. It doesn’t add up.
By your logic Sisu just need to drop the legals to expose Wasps for the evil people they are. Job done. No more annoying posts from me. What indication have Wasps given that they don’t want to deal once the legals are over?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Sisus bargaining chip should be their rental payments and ancillary benefits.
Agree with your last line though. Seems like a perfect solution. Make the deal contingent on that and the ball is in Sisus court.
Does make you wonder why the government, West Midlands Combined Authority, the EFL and CCC couldn’t suggest that yesterday.
BigadamL
Well-Known Member
only just seen this thread and just seen the crapy statement from Sky blues trust. they calm to represent the fans, I'm a fan and i think they are full of shit! they have no pull with any of the parties involved and just come out with a shit statement every so often as if people give a toss about them.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
I also think it’s been agreed. Someone said last week it had.
This is all chest beating and saving face, if a deal is agreed and legals have been dropped all parties can claim victory.
Get a deal and we can move on to the long term, at that point I’m ok with a full attack back on SISU - build a stadium or get out. I’ve been one of the biggest trust, wasps and council detractor, but I wanted the focus on sorting our medium term future out.
We need our own home
Nick
Administrator
Because nobody with any clout from ccc turned up.
I wonder if that will happen anyway, as the last home game is after the EFL meeting which could vote CCFC out of existence?
If they had paid the correct value and borrowed 100% of that, there should not be any additional value to leverage in such a short time.
Having effectively sold the stadium, CCC would not have to give permission for WASPS to borrow more.
So I think you have proved a sale at under value!
But if ccfc dies, that will have the same, potentially greater, negative impact on the Ricoh leading to failure. And if wasps did go under, a prominent white elephant for all to see. Scandalous.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The under value of the lease is part of the Sisu argument for JR2 that has been rejected in court several times already. Comparing apples and pears in their words. The leverage doesn't prove sale at under value at all.
Date of sale there is no sporting lease tenant other than a four year agreement with Ccfc who said they are not staying. Value in accounts 18m
The key is, the lease is an ACL asset and ACL is a separate company owned by the wasps group so in group accounts it becomes a wasps asset but is always owned by acl. It is use of the group situation to create value.
If ACL who own the lease give wasps rugby a 50 year lease at say 500k per annum then that increases the value of the lease in ACL. At a net present value of say 3% that alone adds 13m to the lease value. Of course the rent can be set at anything they choose because the money remains in the wasps holdings group its just a question of where. Call the rent 750k and with the other agreements and incomes it is not difficult to get to 48m of the first valuation
In those circumstances then the under valuation at date of sale is? Just because the value changes under different ownership doesn't mean the sale was under valued. Especially if new sub leases are created after the date of sale. And no you do not include the effect of being under wasps ownership in the sale value... no one would pay a third party for their own brand, for anyone to suggest they should or would is complete nonsense
Date of sale there is no sporting lease tenant other than a four year agreement with Ccfc who said they are not staying. Value in accounts 18m
The key is, the lease is an ACL asset and ACL is a separate company owned by the wasps group so in group accounts it becomes a wasps asset but is always owned by acl. It is use of the group situation to create value.
If ACL who own the lease give wasps rugby a 50 year lease at say 500k per annum then that increases the value of the lease in ACL. At a net present value of say 3% that alone adds 13m to the lease value. Of course the rent can be set at anything they choose because the money remains in the wasps holdings group its just a question of where. Call the rent 750k and with the other agreements and incomes it is not difficult to get to 48m of the first valuation
In those circumstances then the under valuation at date of sale is? Just because the value changes under different ownership doesn't mean the sale was under valued. Especially if new sub leases are created after the date of sale. And no you do not include the effect of being under wasps ownership in the sale value... no one would pay a third party for their own brand, for anyone to suggest they should or would is complete nonsense
Last edited:
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Why was the Sisu offer for the Higgs share refused then? ACL was worthless without CCFC. Sisu offered 2 million, a little less than the share was sold for. Why were the club being told to pay more than a London rugby club? Why after paying circa 10 million in rent, were we told to pay more?
People will say there was a formula price but surely we should have paid what it’s worth?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Between a rock & hard place.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Annoyimg people come on and say so and so fact proves validity of such and such claim when the original claims have been through the courts and examined in great detail by High Court Judges an dismissed. Purely emotional responses to a legal matter. You may reasoably think it is not fair or right but it isn't contrary to civil & commercial law.
It is also annoying that this or that action that took place in the past gets dragged up. Currently the situation that exists needs to be solved, that can only happen by agreement between Wasps and SISU.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Another area where SISU's court cases do damage to public opinion. The narrow points if law don't necessarily say who's 'right' or 'wrong' in a subjective sense... but they do influence it by offering some thing to point to.
Adge
Well-Known Member
I was with Moz (and no I’m not a SBT member and never have been) yesterday and I can say that those of us that know him will know that he is a genuine City fan like the rest of us who is trying to do his bit, that’s all. I can tell you he is sick of it like the rest of us and just wants to support his team. There is no agenda. I don’t know CJ or any of the others so cannot/will not comment on them.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Most of that stuff comes from Nick, he sees stuff on the internet, puts 2 & 2 together and makes 9.
Its somewhat ridiculous, if there was a far reaching campaign like he thinks do you think it would be so ham fisted.
I'm sure there is still a Hoffman consortium out there but all the interested parties with real money are awaiting developments and hoping SISU trigger an exit strategy game sooner rather than later.
Its just that the fans have become polarized because there are issues that threaten the continuing existance of the club.You get strong views expressed pithily on social media, its so easy to do.
Roll on the day we can all get back to arguing about little but team selection and whether the manager should be replaced.
Nick
Administrator
Ha if I was making 9 you wouldn't be so desperate all the time and wouldn't have tried to make another account to back yourself up.
If you read what I say, I often point out moz and CJ are decent blokes and their love for ccfc is never questioned.
Try reading what I say
there's more people than just them. The ones who won't come on here because they get made to look silly at every turn. Don't try and say "we", your version of "we" is your cov United circle. The ones with no interest in ccfc. The same ones who all seem a bit desperate.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure how any of that changes why the lease value can change under different ownership. The lease value to acl under ccc/charity can easily be increased in a short period of time in the hands of wasps simply by creating new long term lease tenants
But to answer your points
Why did Sisu get turned down? Because it wasn't good enough for the charity trustees it had too many conditions attached apparently.
ACL was worthless without Ccfc ? Yet the last balance sheet before the sale showed net assets of £6m without Ccfc being there
Sisu offered 2m ? Which was rejected in 2012 and both sides walked away. They offered 2.8m in 2014 with conditions the charity trustees did not like. They are entitled to reject an offer if in its entirety it is not in their judgement not in the best interests of the charity. They have no legal duty to consider what is best for Ccfc in making their judgement.The offer was not significantly more money to test that resolve.
The club was told to pay more than wasps? The club was offered the opportunity to bid that could be seen as manufactured. What they bid was up to them. Clearly they used the CCC deal already done as a basis. The deal with wasps was on the table how do you beat it if you don't make a better offer ?
Why after paying 10m in rent etc ? Previous rent paid is a revenue cost not relevant to the capital value of the sale. Are you saying if we had received a under value rent the capital cost would have to be more than worth? That doesn't work either but it's the same logic Not to mention, technically that rent belonged to a lease that was buried by the Sisu plan to break the lease which included not being at the stadium at all for a period. Was the original rent too high yes probably but then the whole set up was wrong.... it should have been a long lease that would have permitted cheaper financing and lower rents to Ccfc from the start..... quite possibly we wouldn't be in this mess now then
Should pay what it's worth? Well yes that should have been the case. But that's the capital worth of the shares, which does not include things like previous rent paid. Still comes down to the shareholders accepting the offer that best suits them ..... CCC should consider the needs of the club balanced first and foremost by its own needs but the charity doesn't have to.
Just for clarity - I am just explaining not offering an opinion on the above. My opinion is that Sisu are by far the biggest creators of this mess and must as custodians of Ccfc shoulder most of the responsibility but CCC isn't far behind because of the short sighted way they have dealt with Ccfc from the beginning
Last edited:
AStonesThrow
Well-Known Member
A couple of days ago, I was talking to a friends son, who works in London for a hedge fund (not sisu). He told me a few things that stood out.
-He knows Tim Fisher, he's actually not a bad guy just being used as a face for SISU's abuse.
-SISU actually have no money, they're really struggling and need any money they can get, likely to sell up very soon
-Within London, sisu are nothing but an extremely small business, a tiny office and no reputation. A large amount of people involved in hedge funds in London don't even know sisu exist.
- When sisu wanted to buy the Ricoh pre-wasps , they offered £2.5million as that's all the could realistically spend and they thought noone else was making an offer
-He knows Tim Fisher, he's actually not a bad guy just being used as a face for SISU's abuse.
-SISU actually have no money, they're really struggling and need any money they can get, likely to sell up very soon
-Within London, sisu are nothing but an extremely small business, a tiny office and no reputation. A large amount of people involved in hedge funds in London don't even know sisu exist.
- When sisu wanted to buy the Ricoh pre-wasps , they offered £2.5million as that's all the could realistically spend and they thought noone else was making an offer
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
Something I don't fully understand (not a comment on your previous explanations!) is that the stadium was sold at a value and with a lease of 50 years (or whatever was left of 50 years was it?). Not too long after that sale the lease was extended massively, which then enabled Wasps to add value to the overall asset. What I'm not sure of is why the initial deal for the stadium wasn't on the basis of the extended lease? Did Wasps pay for the extended lease?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Yes, but only £1m.
They were also expected to build facilities at Allard way but fortunately that fell through.
Wasps' £20m Ricoh Arena takeover deal approved unanimously by CCC
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Should have been on an extended lease from the start. I think that would have added some value but the sale would still have been a stadium with no anchor sports tenant. It would not have meant adding 29m to the potential sale value. As explained above the increase in ACL lease value is almost certainly due to the creation of leases within the group.
Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I think the fact that it wasn't handled that way in the initial deal has helped make it look suspicious when it probably didn't need to be.
