Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
Can't see the U word - where is it?

The use of the word doesn't exist there; but the ambition is clearly shown. It's freehold. The presumption would be that she didn't want the freehold with revenues still going to people like the Compass venture. Are you telling me you think she was just after freehold, but would have allowed all existing contracts to be novated and revenues still 'lost to the new freehold' owner? Are you saying that?

If not, her expectation is for the freehold deal to be unencumbered. It's either one, or the other. Which one?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

chiefdave said:
At the time ACL had a relatively short lease, something like 45 years left to run. So the pertinent question would be at the meeting mentioned did Lucas make any mention of a 250 year lease being available? A 250 year lease is, to all intents and purposes, the same as freehold.

Hey, let's be honest, a 40+-year lease isn't short. Maybe a longer lease wasn't on the council's minds at that point? More pertinently, did SISU ask for this, or pursue the 'freehold hard line?

If the latter, and Wasps then subsequently came along and proposed a compromise deal that was agreeable to the council, under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement with the council, who's fault is it now?

Have you and proof or word SISU ever requested a long lease - akin to the Wasps arrangement?

torchomatic · Apr 23, 2015

And do you have proof to the contrary?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Have you and proof or word SISU ever requested a long lease - akin to the Wasps arrangement?

chiefdave · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Hey, let's be honest, a 40+-year lease isn't short. Maybe a longer lease wasn't on the council's minds at that point? More pertinently, did SISU ask for this, or pursue the 'freehold hard line?

If the latter, and Wasps then subsequently came along and proposed a compromise deal that was agreeable to the council, under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement with the council, who's fault is it now?

Have you and proof or word SISU ever requested a long lease - akin to the Wasps arrangement?

A 40 year lease is very much a lease, a 250 year lease is pretty much the same as owning the freehold. We know SISU repeatedly stated they were interested in the freehold. If the freehold wasn't available but a 250 year lease was the onus is very much on CCC to make that known, it would be the most obvious response 'we can't offer you the freehold but we can offer you a 250 year lease'.

As I've said all along if ACL was available for sale with adjusted terms relating to the freehold, or even just for sale generally, it should have been put on the market for all interested parties to bid, not a shady deal done in secret and hidden behind a wall of confidentiality.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

torchomatic said:
And do you have proof to the contrary?

The burden isn't on me. I've already posted above the stance from Sepalla that she wanted the freehold. It could be no clear. That's on record. So, until you can prove that there was ever any point when they would have accepted less, thats their stated position

torchomatic · Apr 23, 2015

And it could have been so different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-19674004

skybluetony176 · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
Swansea were given the stadium to play in and a free share in the management company. There is even a suggestion that the profit from a subsequent sale of some of the land was given to the club.

The council also paid for ground replenishment wiping loans given to the management company.

If we could have done a council swap then we'd be a lot better off now.

It's also being looked into by the EU I believe for state funding. How much of the management company were they given by the way? Was it as much as the 50% CCFC were given?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

chiefdave said:
A 40 year lease is very much a lease, a 250 year lease is pretty much the same as owning the freehold. We know SISU repeatedly stated they were interested in the freehold. If the freehold wasn't available but a 250 year lease was the onus is very much on CCC to make that known, it would be the most obvious response 'we can't offer you the freehold but we can offer you a 250 year lease'.

As I've said all along if ACL was available for sale with adjusted terms relating to the freehold, or even just for sale generally, it should have been put on the market for all interested parties to bid, not a shady deal done in secret and hidden behind a wall of confidentiality.

I disagree. The onus isn't on the council to hawk deals around.

I suggest Wasps watched all this history; realised a freehold wasn't on the cards, but negotiated for the next best thing. I agree with you on one thing, a 250-year lease is a freehold in all but name. But if that's what Wasps subsequently pitched for - and again, I remind you under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement - I don't see the council would have been right to break that agreement with a potential high-profile and candid purchaser to offer the same confidential terms to a party who has repeatedly stated their intention is to build anew.

Imagine, CCC broke the terms of the Wasps agreement to go lip-flapping to Fisher and the rugby club goes elsewhere. SISU do what the CEO asserts us they're doing - building a new stadium and moves; and the council is left with an unused white elephant. There would be uproar. Absolute mayhem

chiefdave · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The burden isn't on me. I've already posted above the stance from Sepalla that she wanted the freehold. It could be no clear. That's on record. So, until you can prove that there was ever any point when they would have accepted less, thats their stated position

MMM that is complete and utter rubbish. A 250 year lease is to all intents and purposes the same as owning the freehold. If someone says they want to buy the freehold and you would happily sell them a 250 years lease it is absolute insanity to suggest that its for the purchase to request that exact same thing you would be prepared to sell. You, as the seller, simply respond and say the freehold isn't available but a 250 years lease is, would you be interested in that.

chiefdave · Apr 23, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
It's also being looked into by the EU I believe for state funding. How much of the management company were they given by the way? Was it as much as the 50% CCFC were given?

The original agreement was for CCFC to own 50% of the freehold with CCC owning the other 50%. Late in the day CCC grabbed 100% of the freehold and the football club were left with 50% of ACL. And of course ACL had to pay £20m + for the lease so we definitely got the rough end of that deal!

It wasn't quite a straight 50% I don't think as our part included all matchday revenues, not sure if that was offset elsewhere.

torchomatic · Apr 23, 2015

Didn't they coincidently use the phrase "state aid" themselves. I remember Paul Fletcher talking about it.

chiefdave said:
The original agreement was for CCFC to own 50% of the freehold with CCC owning the other 50%. Late in the day CCC grabbed 100% of the freehold and the football club were left with 50% of ACL. And of course ACL had to pay £20m + for the lease so we definitely got the rough end of that deal!

It wasn't quite a straight 50% I don't think as our part included all matchday revenues, not sure if that was offset elsewhere.

chiefdave · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I remind you under the auspices of a confidentiality agreement - I don't see the council would have been right to break that agreement with a potential high-profile and candid purchaser to offer the same confidential terms to a party who has repeatedly stated their intention is to build anew.

Imagine, CCC broke the terms of the Wasps agreement to go lip-flapping to Fisher and the rugby club goes elsewhere. SISU do what the CEO asserts us they're doing - building a new stadium and moves; and the council is left with an unused white elephant. There would be uproar. Absolute mayhem

A confidentiality agreement needs two parties to sign it. Wasps didn't just thrust it on CCC. They should never have agreed to it and the whole thing should have been out in public. As much as it would give other interested parties to bid it would also have given anyone likely to be adversely affected, such as CRFC, a chance to object. Might Wasps have pulled out, I doubt it, I can only see upside. A fair transparent process and of course if there is more than one interested party the price may well increase meaning a decreased loss for CCC and therefore the taxpayer.

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
It's also being looked into by the EU I believe for state funding. How much of the management company were they given by the way? Was it as much as the 50% CCFC were given?

Still - after 2 years? Don't think that is going anywhere.

What was given was --

33% management company
A ground with no rent
A loan for ground improvements to the management company that they the wiped off in the clubs favour

The notion that their council would have behaved in a manner ours have given their track record of help and support is laughable in the extreme

shy_tall_knight · Apr 23, 2015

Freehold allows you to sell the asset
250 year leases can be sold on but subject to constraints laid down by the owner

SISU wanted freehold IMO to sell on

chiefdave · Apr 23, 2015

shy_tall_knight said:
Freehold allows you to sell the asset
250 year leases can be sold on but subject to constraints laid down by the owner

SISU wanted freehold IMO to sell on

To me if that is the case then it was in the best interest of CCC and Higgs to offer the same deal to the club. Then they could come out and say 'we offered SISU a 250 year lease for under £6m and they weren't interested so we sold it to someone who was'.

Not ideal as its still not really a transparent process but better than what actually happened.

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

shy_tall_knight said:
Freehold allows you to sell the asset
250 year leases can be sold on but subject to constraints laid down by the owner

SISU wanted freehold IMO to sell on

The land itself is worthless without the lease and you don't know what constraints exist

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

chiefdave said:
MMM that is complete and utter rubbish. A 250 year lease is to all intents and purposes the same as owning the freehold. If someone says they want to buy the freehold and you would happily sell them a 250 years lease it is absolute insanity to suggest that its for the purchase to request that exact same thing you would be prepared to sell. You, as the seller, simply respond and say the freehold isn't available but a 250 years lease is, would you be interested in that.

Im sorry - but it's not rubish. You are ignoring history as it suits you to do so.

The JR judge said of the Higgs share purchase that neither side, including SISU, had 'an appetite' for the deal on the table. I suggest to you that this behaviour may have prevailed at the time Lucus met with Sepalla. Namely, there was 'no appetite' for a deal, as the distressing process of ACL was an ongoing (and successful, let's be frank) process. So, Sepalla tows the hard-line she eludes to in the Reid piece I linked, and plays the long game thinking the're the only gigg in town.

CCC may even have offered a long lease? We have no knowledge in either direction. But what we do know is that Sepalla had the stance she did - it's on record, and CCC had a stance. If after this impasse, and SISU's continued insistence they were moving on, Wasps come along and offer the 250-year lease - which gives the council the 'out' it needs; then CCC are not best served by breaking a confidentiality agreement by hawking those terms back to SISU

Nick · Apr 23, 2015

Wasn't the judge in the JR talking about a different deal to the one that Wasps got? You can have an appetite for one deal but not another if one deal is better surely?

Didn't CCC have the stance that they wouldn't deal with SISU until hell was frozen over?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

chiefdave said:
A confidentiality agreement needs two parties to sign it. Wasps didn't just thrust it on CCC. They should never have agreed to it and the whole thing should have been out in public. As much as it would give other interested parties to bid it would also have given anyone likely to be adversely affected, such as CRFC, a chance to object. Might Wasps have pulled out, I doubt it, I can only see upside. A fair transparent process and of course if there is more than one interested party the price may well increase meaning a decreased loss for CCC and therefore the taxpayer.

Again, retrospective wisdom as you, personally, don't like the outcome. Maybe Wasps - understandably - didn't want to be the make-weight in a deal between SISU and CCC; to invest all that time and money in Due Diligence merely for CCC to offer a SISU a 'better Wasps offer and it's yours deal'. As a businessman, I'd have sought the same.

And again, what if CCC had turned down Wasps overtures and they'd have gone elsewhere and stated publicly that CCC turned them down? The 95%+ of the city's population who don't go regularly to football games would be up in arms; if SISU's CEO had done what had been claimed and built fresh, leaving The Ricoh as a disused piece of grass - and a potential tenant spurned

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Im sorry - but it's not rubish. You are ignoring history as it suits you to do so.

The JR judge said of the Higgs share purchase that neither side, including SISU, had 'an appetite' for the deal on the table. I suggest to you that this behaviour may have prevailed at the time Lucus met with Sepalla. Namely, there was 'no appetite' for a deal, as the distressing process of ACL was an ongoing (and successful, let's be frank) process. So, Sepalla tows the hard-line she eludes to in the Reid piece I linked, and plays the long game thinking the're the only gigg in town.

CCC may even have offered a long lease? We have no knowledge in either direction. But what we do know is that Sepalla had the stance she did - it's on record, and CCC had a stance. If after this impasse, and SISU's continued insistence they were moving on, Wasps come along and offer the 250-year lease - which gives the council the 'out' it needs; then CCC are not best served by breaking a confidentiality agreement by hawking those terms back to SISU

The club have, of course, gone on record to say a 125 year lease would have been an acceptable alternative did they not?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Nick said:
Wasn't the judge in the JR talking about a different deal to the one that Wasps got? You can have an appetite for one deal but not another if one deal is better surely?

Didn't CCC have the stance that they wouldn't deal with SISU until hell was frozen over?

Yes. I was referring to the mindset. In other words, it's on record that SISU weren't negotiating as candidly with regards the aquisuation of the Higgs share as they stated in public they were

Nick · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
The club have, of course, gone on record to say a 125 year lease would have been an acceptable alternative did they not?

There were 42 years remaining on the ACL lease in 2012 at the Ricoh Arena and Sisu wanted it extended to 125 years.

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Yes. I was referring to the mindset. In other words, it's on record that SISU weren't negotiating as candidly with regards the aquisuation of the Higgs share as they stated in public they were

Really?Next you will be telling us that they "need to build bridges" before they thought about buying.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
The club have, of course, gone on record to say a 125 year lease would have been an acceptable alternative did they not?

Sepalla also said: "“Plan A is building a new stadium. There is something very exciting about building something that is a new beginning. It feels like the club is at a new beginning. The business side is operationally in a good place. Tim Fisher’s done a good job. The football side is going well. What’s exciting is being involved in the beginning to the end of building something like that, from purchasing land to planning permission to the designs for the stadium. Building it is exciting, different and new"

That's September 2013. How much of that are you comfortable with now?

shy_tall_knight · Apr 23, 2015

But we are all talking about this as if it was a normal business transaction, it involved local politicians, it had got very personal, both sides had been to court, its hardly surprising that if CCC could strike a deal with WASPs without having any negotiations with SISU then they would. The CCC senior management and the councillors were battered and bruised by the whole SISU / ACL debacle and this offered them a way out, do we honestly expect them to act in a fair and open way with SISU after all the history. CCC seem to have acted underhand but as much as CCFC fans will lose out I understand why - this is not justifying it just being realistic.

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Sepalla also said: "“Plan A is building a new stadium. There is something very exciting about building something that is a new beginning. It feels like the club is at a new beginning. The business side is operationally in a good place. Tim Fisher’s done a good job. The football side is going well. What’s exciting is being involved in the beginning to the end of building something like that, from purchasing land to planning permission to the designs for the stadium. Building it is exciting, different and new"

That's September 2013. How much of that are you comfortable with now?

But you said earlier they had rejected the notion of a long lease - do you now admit that was up for consideration - after all the infamous Lucas note was not conducive to good relations was it?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
Really?Next you will be telling us that they "need to build bridges" before they thought about buying.

Do you know, you'd be able to debate a bit better if you could do something more constructive than to throw a quote back at me I've already stated was wrong. Unless that's all you've got.

Because after that stupid statement, Fisher continued his 'we're still building a new stadium' crap. Which maybe was the last straw for CCC, who decided no bridges were being built

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
But you said earlier they had rejected the notion of a long lease - do you now admit that was up for consideration - after all the infamous Lucas note was not conducive to good relations was it?

I didn't say that. Show me where.

And you mean the Lucas note upon which she spelt her own name wrong?

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The burden isn't on me. I've already posted above the stance from Sepalla that she wanted the freehold. It could be no clear. That's on record. So, until you can prove that there was ever any point when they would have accepted less, thats their stated position

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I didn't say that. Show me where.

And you mean the Lucas note upon which she spelt her own name wrong?

You seem to be having memory issues

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
You seem to be having memory issues

No I don't. I stated the freehold quote was on record. I followed that up by saying that the burden to prove the existence of any other deal wasn't mine. It was Torchy's to make if he wanted to debate the point. Otherwise you're debating fact against opinion

Grendel · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No I don't. I stated the freehold quote was on record. I followed that up by saying that the burden to prove the existence of any other deal wasn't mine. It was Torchy's to make if he wanted to debate the point. Otherwise you're debating fact against opinion

So the fact is you wrong,

skybluetony176 · Apr 23, 2015

chiefdave said:
The original agreement was for CCFC to own 50% of the freehold with CCC owning the other 50%. Late in the day CCC grabbed 100% of the freehold and the football club were left with 50% of ACL. And of course ACL had to pay £20m + for the lease so we definitely got the rough end of that deal!

It wasn't quite a straight 50% I don't think as our part included all matchday revenues, not sure if that was offset elsewhere.

Yes. Being given something for nothing is always the rough end of the deal.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 23, 2015

Grendel said:
So the fact is you wrong,

No. The fact being you can't read. Or type seemingly

Nick · Apr 23, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Yes. Being given something for nothing is always the rough end of the deal.

Did CCFC put any money into the design and build of the Ricoh?

Nick · Apr 23, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No. The fact being you can't read. Or type seemingly

Racist, he is chinese!

Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency