Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (11 Viewers)

Mild-Mannered Janitor · Nov 14, 2022

Reeves interview is one of the worst I have seen him give, not his normal self, I think he has been good for the city and it’s revival/development more so than any of his predecessors but this is messy and worryingly exposed.
As for Duggins, have faced his lies plenty of times before in relation to schools as a governor and I find it hard to trust a word he says.
lots of complexities with the situation though with holding companies and the administrators duties.

steve cooper · Nov 14, 2022

hill83 said:
View attachment 27234

Anyone noticed all the bonking going on in the background?

Sky Blue Harry H · Nov 14, 2022

jordan210 said:
Dint Reeves say the council had 4 pillars for a potential owner.

Us playing at the CBS
Wasps playing at the CBS
Regeneration of the arena
some other thing.

Sisu would not pass theses if they dint want wasps paying at the CBS. Ultimately no one would pass unless they are willing to pump money in to wasps or subsides the insets playing at the cbs

robbiethemole · Nov 14, 2022

You can tell he’s lying, his mouth is moving

Senior Vick from Alicante · Nov 14, 2022

Once again the club we all love is a pawn in a game played by politicians and financier's. If SISU don't get the offer they want for the club we will be stuck in limbo with owners that only pull money out. I can see Robins walking if they sell one of our stars in January, he's achieved so much in spite of them and is as bigger asset as any of the playing staff. One suspects even he is getting towards the end of his tether. The issue for any one that secures the CBS and wants the club is that they will have to give SISU a reason to sell as they are stubborn bastards. Sad thing is that we are not that far away from being a great team, everything is coming together at the minute and a small investment could turn us into automatic promotion candidates. It always feels that we are always on the edge of having the rug pulled from under us by our owners. I feel who ever gets the stadium we will still be stuck with owners that if truth be known, can't afford us. Hope I am wrong and this doesn't turn into a who can piss the highest contest between Ashley or whoever own the stadium and SISU.

shmmeee · Nov 14, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
I would think wow that’s brillaint we may have a chance of uniting the ground and the club

Im not bothered about that. I just want whatever gets us an owner who can afford to run the club at this level. If that’s Sisu + investor then fine, if that’s Ashley, fine. Even if it’s a consortium of Dhinsa, Dale Evans, and Byng then fine. The clock is ticking before Robins goes and we sink back to the level Sisu dragged us to before he arrived.

Fergusons_Beard · Nov 14, 2022

shmmeee said:
Can you explain how?

Because unlike any council in the whole of England they just can’t give the stadium to the Football Club it was built for.

(When I mean ‘give’-I mean do everything in their power to support the Football club gaining ownership of a football stadium in the very city it represents)

It’s that fucking simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

shmmeee · Nov 14, 2022

Fergusons_Beard said:
Because unlike any council in the whole of England they just can’t give the stadium to the Football Club it was built for.

(When I mean ‘give’-I mean do everything in their power to support the Football club gaining ownership of a football stadium in the very city it represents)

It’s that fucking simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I get that we think that as City fans, but there’s no actual logical reason to. The arena isn’t just “for the football club” it became more than that once the club needed support to finish it. It’s a council regeneration project and normal council objectives like increased jobs and investment will (and have to) come before sentimental stuff like “it should be owned by the club because I think arenas should be owned by clubs”.
We’d all love as fans for them to hand the ground over for nowt or hold their thumb on the scale during a bidding process, but that opens the council up to legal action and charges of not getting value for the tax payer.

As I keep saying, it wouldn’t take much for Sisu to take those objections away. A planning app for a hotel here, a new training ground there, we know what it looks like. It’s not rocket science to wow some councillors with a bit of photoshop and PowerPoint.

Personally I think the stadium should be owned by the fans, but I think the same about the golden share, the badge and the name, but I’m a grown up who understands why the owners of those things won’t just hand them over no matter how much we cry and stomp our feet.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 14, 2022

shmmeee said:
I get that we think that as City fans, but there’s no actual logical reason to. The arena isn’t just “for the football club” it became more than that once the club needed support to finish it. It’s a council regeneration project and normal council objectives like increased jobs and investment will (and have to) come before sentimental stuff like “it should be owned by the club because I think arenas should be owned by clubs”.
We’d all love as fans for them to hand the ground over for nowt or hold their thumb on the scale during a bidding process, but that opens the council up to legal action and charges of not getting value for the tax payer.

As I keep saying, it wouldn’t take much for Sisu to take those objections away. A planning app for a hotel here, a new training ground there, we know what it looks like. It’s not rocket science to wow some councillors with a bit of photoshop and PowerPoint.

Personally I think the stadium should be owned by the fans, but I think the same about the golden share, the badge and the name, but I’m a grown up who understands why the owners of those things won’t just hand them over no matter how much we cry and stomp our feet.

Well look who they did gift it to. And I suppose that’s always going to be the gripe-that back in 2014 they did all they could to help bring a rugby franchise to the city, knowing they were going to load the stadium with debt, out of personal spite towards the club’s ownership.

shmmeee · Nov 14, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Well look who they did gift it to. And I suppose that’s always going to be the gripe-that back in 2014 they did all they could to help bring a rugby franchise to the city, knowing they were going to load the stadium with debt, out of personal spite towards the club’s ownership.

But that was Sisu playing their hand badly as well. They went out of their way to piss off the owners of something they wanted, repeatedly said they didn’t want it, left it saying they’re never coming back and banked on there being no other major sports team available.

Theyve approached it from day one like a distressed company and not a key piece of local infrastructure owned by a local authority.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Nov 14, 2022

RegTheDonk said:
And screw over bondholders/creditors/local businesses in the process.

Move over Linekar, we're the new Leicester.

Let’s not pretend if we end up with the arena we’ll be disgusted we got it as a result of the above.

Calista · Nov 14, 2022

steve cooper said:
Anyone noticed all the bonking going on in the background?

Pretty vigorous in the back of that car

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · Nov 15, 2022

duffer said:
I've already been throwing tomato soup at a picture of Duggins, but the missus told me that I was being silly and I should just grow up and finish my dinner.

Better than jizzing on it like some of the apologists on here...

tisza · Nov 15, 2022

jordan210 said:
I guess they want it so it's an open market sale not a closed one.

Odd that ACL wanted money from the bond holders to market the sale yet was clearly already being sorted with Ashley

Was that ACL or the trustee that asked for money to advertise a sale?

tisza · Nov 15, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
The bondholders challenge has a number of problems when it goes to court Thursday

The bondholders are not acting as one body though which is a problem. It doesn't even look like it is the majority of bondholders at the moment opposing.

They do not have a lot of funding to challenge the administration. 15k is not going to buy much legal time i was once told that sort of sum gets you to the court steps. Could they pay upfront for an alternative administration?

The trustee has already said they will not challenge the proposal, there must an informed reason for making that decision. A judge will weigh that against bondholders who are upset because they won't get all of their money back. Of course the administrators have to comply with the law as do the trustees

Say the decision goes against MA, or actually the administrators would be more accurate, then everything fails and the bondholders could end up with even less or even nothing.

A judge will need to be persuaded that other options are better than what is presented to him. The administrators who are agents of the court must show that this is the best deal available the bondholders without the benefit of the data have to show it is not. So long as the administrators have acted legally I am not sure how they could found to be at fault

Clearly the preferred bidder is funding the administration from the information released. The bondholders will need to show they can fund an alternative.

Other potential buyers including sisu have indicated they want a more aggressive administration with a new lease. Bondholders would have no security on any new lease. A more aggressive administration would almost certainly provide bondholders less of a return.

If the application fails then it will be liquidation and that will bring all sorts of time issues together with the biggest problem..... keeping the stadium open. No value as not a going concern

From the rumours going round, which no doubt some bondholders are aware of, other potential buyers are waiting in the wings to pay less or even do way with the asset secured.

Other than a seat it court and perhaps a chance to speak I am not sure the bondholders complaining will get much more.

That's my take on it from what I know. Not an insolvency practitioner so there may well be other considerations that changes things. The administrators have worked on this for 2 or 3 months at least surely they will have considered the possibility of objections?

The other thing to bear in mind is this is about ACLs liabilities not the wasps group ones. what other liabilities does ACL have ? Certainly compass and Delaware.

One final thought could there be a cap on the ACL guarantee limited to the amount actually borrowed from wasps finance, not sure if that could be done but that would change things wouldn't it ?

Surely key will be can the bondholders show how the companies can operate until an alternative buyer is found? If they can't then it's either the preferred bidder or liquidation.

HMRC ( for one) still waiting to get paid and they will push for liquidation if they can't see their money soon.
Did ACL get COVID loans or just Wasps? That was a significant amount.

Philosoraptor · Nov 15, 2022

I think after yesterday's shenanigans I think I have lost any remaining doubt that we need to go in another direction at the Council House.

Wonder what the odds are on both Duggins and Baldemort resigning today?

Fergusons_Beard · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
I get that we think that as City fans, but there’s no actual logical reason to. The arena isn’t just “for the football club” it became more than that once the club needed support to finish it. It’s a council regeneration project and normal council objectives like increased jobs and investment will (and have to) come before sentimental stuff like “it should be owned by the club because I think arenas should be owned by clubs”.
We’d all love as fans for them to hand the ground over for nowt or hold their thumb on the scale during a bidding process, but that opens the council up to legal action and charges of not getting value for the tax payer.

As I keep saying, it wouldn’t take much for Sisu to take those objections away. A planning app for a hotel here, a new training ground there, we know what it looks like. It’s not rocket science to wow some councillors with a bit of photoshop and PowerPoint.

Personally I think the stadium should be owned by the fans, but I think the same about the golden share, the badge and the name, but I’m a grown up who understands why the owners of those things won’t just hand them over no matter how much we cry and stomp our feet.

The ground that the council sold to a rugby club from London was a decision based on regeneration?

Happy to be corrected but fail to see the what w*sps did in that respect in all the time they had it. I most definitely don’t count ‘playing rugby or ‘promoting rugby’ as regeneration.

Being a grown up it’s as clear as day that the decision to accept Ashley as a preferred bidder has also nothing to do with regeneration either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Fergusons_Beard said:
The ground that the council sold to a rugby club from London was a decision based on regeneration?

Happy to be corrected but fail to see the what w*sps did in that respect in all the time they had it. I most definitely don’t count ‘playing rugby or ‘promoting rugby’ as regeneration.

Being a grown up it’s as clear as day that the decision to accept Ashley as a preferred bidder has also nothing to do with regeneration either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Its really not. Come on. Wasps promised to redevelop the land around the arena, a key council priority they keep mentioning. More importantly they promised a use for the bowl and outreach work. All that was new investment into the city. We know it didn’t happen, but that’s not the point.

And yes the bloke who wants to, wait for it, develop the land around the arena, is the preferred bidder. But crucially, he’s also the bloke that actually put a fucking bid in.

rexo87 · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Its really not. Come on. Wasps promised to redevelop the land around the arena, a key council priority they keep mentioning. More importantly they promised a use for the bowl and outreach work. All that was new investment into the city. We know it didn’t happen, but that’s not the point.

And yes the bloke who wants to, wait for it, develop the land around the arena, is the preferred bidder. But crucially, he’s also the bloke that actually put a fucking bid in.

Shmmeee, please take a day off defending these crooks today

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

Flying Fokker · Nov 15, 2022

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Let’s not pretend if we end up with the arena we’ll be disgusted we got it as a result of the above.

I will spare a thought for the money men, speculators and fans of wasps of course. The biggest ’victims’ In the arena saga are the fans of both CCFC. I have to draw a line at that point. Please, no way back for Wasps in Coventry, even if it means giving The Legends the goal posts to send them off. The pitch should be for football. CRFC is the Coventry team now.

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
I get that we think that as City fans, but there’s no actual logical reason to. The arena isn’t just “for the football club” it became more than that once the club needed support to finish it. It’s a council regeneration project and normal council objectives like increased jobs and investment will (and have to) come before sentimental stuff like “it should be owned by the club because I think arenas should be owned by clubs”.
We’d all love as fans for them to hand the ground over for nowt or hold their thumb on the scale during a bidding process, but that opens the council up to legal action and charges of not getting value for the tax payer.

As I keep saying, it wouldn’t take much for Sisu to take those objections away. A planning app for a hotel here, a new training ground there, we know what it looks like. It’s not rocket science to wow some councillors with a bit of photoshop and PowerPoint.

Personally I think the stadium should be owned by the fans, but I think the same about the golden share, the badge and the name, but I’m a grown up who understands why the owners of those things won’t just hand them over no matter how much we cry and stomp our feet.

This says the stadium was built for Coventry City Football Club.

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

tisza said:
Was that ACL or the trustee that asked for money to advertise a sale?

The people who were ACL administrators in waiting.

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

jordan210 said:
I guess they want it so it's an open market sale not a closed one.

Odd that ACL wanted money from the bond holders to market the sale yet was clearly already being sorted with Ashley

Not odd, they had an offer that they could have tested by marketing if they had the funds. Bondholders didn’t cough up, so the offer became the best available and the bondholders are now squealing about it have been sold undervalue.

Gynnsthetonic · Nov 15, 2022

Why is it the priority according to the CCC that any potential football club owners should also be regenerating the land around the stadium. No other club owners in the country have this problem. This should surely be done by other external investment while the football club owners concentrate on running the club whilst owning the stadium only. None of this building hotels etc

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

Gynnsthetonic said:
Why is it the priority according to the CCC that any potential football club owners should also be regenerating the land around the stadium. No other club owners in the country have this problem. This should surely be done by other external investment while the football club owners concentrate on running the club whilst owning the stadium only. None of this building hotels etc

Very true. Wasps have shown there are enough issues trying to run the arena at a profit without the distraction and added complexity of being property developers.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

MalcSB said:
View attachment 27244

This says the stadium was built for Coventry City Football Club.

Keep reading.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Gynnsthetonic said:
Why is it the priority according to the CCC that any potential football club owners should also be regenerating the land around the stadium. No other club owners in the country have this problem. This should surely be done by other external investment while the football club owners concentrate on running the club whilst owning the stadium only. None of this building hotels etc

Because that was what was needed to get it built. As NW said the requirement was added by Nellist at the vote stage.

Other projects have a different history and this is ours. Why can’t our owners fund the club like other teams at this level? Because they’re other clubs.

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Keep reading.

It says it is another chapter in the city’s regeneration - it says nothing about future owners having a responsibility for further regeneration. It says nothing about southern rugby clubs either,

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

MalcSB said:
It says it is another chapter in the city’s regeneration - it says nothing about future owners having a responsibility for further regeneration. It says nothing about southern rugby clubs either,

It doesnt mention the 2-0 win over QPR either

MalcSB · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Because that was what was needed to get it built. As NW said the requirement was added by Nellist at the vote stage.

Other projects have a different history and this is ours. Why can’t our owners fund the club like other teams at this level? Because they’re other clubs.

The arena and shopping centre development was, in itself, a self contained regeneration project bringing jobs and facilities to that part of Coventry. It presented an opportunity for other regeneration projects to develop around that new landmark. There is precious little evidence of that having happened so presumably Commerce in general does not see the required investment as being profitable. Is it that failure that makes the council adopt the position that the arena owners should take on the regeneration burden?

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

MalcSB said:
The arena and shopping centre development was, in itself, a self contained regeneration project bringing jobs and facilities to that part of country. It presented an opportunity for other regeneration projects to develop around that new landmark. There is precious little evidence of that having happened so presumably Commerce in general does not see the required investment as being profitable. Is it that failure that makes the council adopt the position that the arena owners should take on the regeneration burden?

Wail and gnash all you like. The facts of the matter are those are what the freeholder wants and several people are offering it, but not Sisu.

Gynnsthetonic · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Because that was what was needed to get it built. As NW said the requirement was added by Nellist at the vote stage.

Other projects have a different history and this is ours. Why can’t our owners fund the club like other teams at this level? Because they’re other clubs.

You could say they won't fund it without stadium ownership, still not responsible whoever owns the ground to do CCC work for them in building hotels, hospitals, warehouses etc, this should be nothing to do with the football club

Gynnsthetonic · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Wail and gnash all you like. The facts of the matter are those are what the freeholder wants and several people are offering it, but not Sisu.

It shouldn't be down to the football club though, I don't know any other club in the country where the local council want the club to carry out regeneration, its not their responsibility.

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

"yeah but sisu won't do as the council say,"

It's like the trust are back.

djr8369 · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Its really not. Come on. Wasps promised to redevelop the land around the arena, a key council priority they keep mentioning. More importantly they promised a use for the bowl and outreach work. All that was new investment into the city. We know it didn’t happen, but that’s not the point.

And yes the bloke who wants to, wait for it, develop the land around the arena, is the preferred bidder. But crucially, he’s also the bloke that actually put a fucking bid in.

If a successful local football team played there wouldn’t the regeneration kind of happen naturally rather than say building a hotel that isn’t needed on a car park that is needed?

You keep acting as if people are too dumb to understand the idea of the council wanting some regeneration but it’s really not that difficult a concept. The dumb idea is that the council would still fall for anyone wooing then with some ‘PowerPoint and photoshop’.

It’s quite plain that anyone who wants the arena wants it for their own ends and isn’t going to regenerate north Cov and it’s quite plain the council don’t want to work with SISU (understandable) but ultimately virtually every issue falls away if the ground and team are united and there aren’t all these other interested parties and investors arguing over it.

Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (11 Viewers)

Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency