Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon
Well-Known Member
The link there states that the £20m deal includes a 250 year lease....I'm now confused! I think I probably need to do some background reading again.
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
That's the point though isn't it, the dependencies set up were essentially pre agreed formalities.Deal was agreed but dependent on the sale of the charity shares to wasps. If that didn't happen wasps would have walked away. The lease was signed in January 2015
Of course they were, pwkh's nonsense about conditions has already been disproved.That's the point though isn't it, the dependencies set up were essentially pre agreed formalities.
Isn't it the point that in a few weeks if the court rules against Sisu , that bargaining chip will disappearIt’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
Of course they were, pwkh's nonsense about conditions has already been disproved.
True but they might decide to pursue another case.Isn't it the point that in a few weeks if the court rules against Sisu , that bargaining chip will disappear
Yes, unless the council were lying in courtHas it? I have maintained from the start that there was a plan and order to events so I agree with fp's comment.
However no one has seen the offer document so we don't actually know. I assume the proof you are relying on is the comment in the latest Sisu statement about no conditions? A statement full of provable errors, half truths, selective snippets of history, disputable history and diversion..... not a statement I would rely on personally to prove anything.
Yes, unless the council were lying in court
Not unfair. I'd also add that my opinion is that given the Higgs family's involvement in CCFC (and arguably it's demise) it would have been nice of the charity to remember how and why they ended up involved with CCFC in the first place.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
'Might'?True but they might decide to pursue another case.
No, they said he had no intention of selling any shares to ccfc / sisu and tried to persuade them not to either. He was only ever going to sell to wasps.Explain ? Did they see the offer letter from sisu to the charity?
Didn't they have veto rights? I'd imagine part of that right would involve seeing the actual offerExplain ? Did they see the offer letter from sisu to the charity?
True but by then we could be playing away at someone else's ground , we know the cost implications of that from last time , I know we have said it before but there must come a time when sisu stop toughing money down a hole , having no where to play for me becomes a game changer , hence joy braking here silence for the first time in three yearsTrue but they might decide to pursue another case.
Fair points guys but that doesn't actually prove there were not conditions in the offer letter from the administrator made by sisu. I don't doubt there was probably never any intention to sell to sisu or that wasps by then had a veto.
Could not agree with this more. The way the charity has been hijacked by the likes of PWKH, no doubt paying themselves a decent wage in the process, I find very distasteful.Not unfair. I'd also add that my opinion is that given the Higgs family's involvement in CCFC (and arguably it's demise) it would have been nice of the charity to remember how and why they ended up involved with CCFC in the first place.
But if there's no intention to sell to SISU and / or Wasps had a veto then the conditions on any offer from SISU become irrelevant and any indication from Higgs that the conditions were the reason for rejecting a bid are false.Fair points guys but that doesn't actually prove there were not conditions in the offer letter from the administrator made by sisu. I don't doubt there was probably never any intention to sell to sisu or that wasps by then had a veto.
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?