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
Racist, he is chinese!
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?
No. The fact being you can't read. Or type seemingly
And what was the behavior of Swansea's owners during this period? Did it involve litigation, rent strikes, moving the club 30 odd miles away, threatening to build their own ground, agreeing deals and then reneging on them? Or was it something more constructive?
But you said the club rejected a lease arrangement? They actually stated publically they would take a lease of 125 years.
Furthermore there is no evidence they ever actually asked for unincumbered freehold is there? The only person who said that is someone who often seems to misinterpret facts (you know like when profit actually is loss).
So they would take a 125 lease and they would have looked at freehold and the council would sell but as the note said not to the football club.
All the above is correct isn't it?
We didn't go on rent strike then you idiot. We bent over backwards and paid everything! That's why we are screwed now!
Please tell me that's a joke
And strangely it suddenly didn't matter that Higgs weren't getting lots of cash for their shares. Not a peep about "poor orphans" or "ripping off a charity" then.
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?
That's his forte MMM. Tries to twist words, but ultimately fails lol.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
I thought it was the Higgs match not the JR one where Joy's 'appetite' was brought up. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
I thought it was the Higgs match not the JR one where Joy's 'appetite' was brought up. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
I thought it was the Higgs match not the JR one where Joy's 'appetite' was brought up. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Wasn't that when he said that all parties had no 'appetite' hence why higgs weren't awarded costs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sorry yes thats the one! Same thing, both wear a wig!
Wasn't that when he said that all parties had no 'appetite' hence why higgs weren't awarded costs?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Those offers reverted back to £1.3 million the following season.
The "unencumbered" claim has never been substantiated has it?
The letter states: "In any scenario we need a freehold or clean restriction-free long lease."
- extract from a letter from Seppala to the Council, as reported by Les Reid in The Observer.
I've never seen or heard about a restriction free long lease being in operation, do they exist? So really, despite SISU and the Council agreeing a 125 year lease in principle as part of the original failed Higgs purchase, this Seppala statement goes back to freehold or nothing (or something that doesn't exist).
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
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
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.
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
Yes. Being given something for nothing is always the rough end of the deal.
It was to me when I met Our Joy on my own then repeated when I and a few others met her Labo and Tim,some of the people there come on here and can confim cant remember their names.
They told me they'd take a long lease as it's the same as freehold
You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.
You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.
I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.
True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.
So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:
Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.
We didn't go on rent strike then you idiot. We bent over backwards and paid everything! That's why we are screwed now!
You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.
You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.
I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.
True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.
So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:
Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you joking? I mean really? I am perfectly aware of the difference between exclusivity and confidentiality. We all do. And I'm accused of bring arrogant. Bloody hell.
Looking at the Wasps perspective, a statement released by the club at the beginning of September*read: “We can confirm the search for a permanent home is continuing. However, all discussions are subject to confidentiality requirements and are therefore commercially sensitive; as such they have to remain confidential for the time being and we cannot make any further comment.”
So you're saying that if Wasps raised the spectre of the long lease, CCC could then approach SISU and ask them match or better it and not breach the terms of the agreement with Wasps? Are you really trying to say that?
To be honest MMM your trying to have your cake and eat it. If we agree that wasps were already in advanced talks with ccc before we came back, and are likely to have an exclusivity agreement, so therefore CCC couldn't make the offer to ccfc or even listen to offers from ccfc. Then TF'a remarks made no difference to the deal going through.
To be honest MMM your trying to have your cake and eat it. If we agree that wasps were already in advanced talks with ccc before we came back, and are likely to have an exclusivity agreement, so therefore CCC couldn't make the offer to ccfc or even listen to offers from ccfc. Then TF'a remarks made no difference to the deal going through.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So you're saying that if Wasps raised the spectre of the long lease, CCC could then approach SISU and ask them match or better it and not breach the terms of the agreement with Wasps? Are you really trying to say that?
We are screwed because Richardson sold HR without a replacement in place and had been spending 125% of our income on players wages. But you try to make out that he is innocent and put all the blame on CCC.
No what I am saying is unless Wasps had exclusivity CCC could very easily say to SISU we will consider offers for ACL and as part of any sale we will consider extending the lease. That would in no way breach confidentiality. If there was no exclusivity they could have made it generally known ACL was for sale and a 250 year lease was on offer.
And come on, live in the real world, is it really that unthinkable that someone in the council could tip SISU off about Wasps and what they were up to. Happens all the time in business confidentiality clause or not.
Wasps have a confidentiality agreement, but no exclusivity as far as I'm aware. That means CCC can't take commercially sensitive aspects of any discussions and tout them for others to match.
Joy was aware of the discussions, and decided - despite the seeming absence of exclusivity that she wouldn't 'stand in the way' of any deal. And Fisher latterly insinuated the price paid by Wasps too generous
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?