Why Did The Council Sell To Wasps? (2 Viewers)

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Answer the question. What should they have done. Wait for Sisu FFS ?

Wasn't aimed at me but I'll answer. Very simply CCC should have first and foremost been honest and transparent. We ask that of SISU, not that we get it, but if you ask it of CCC, a body answerable to the public, you get accused of being a SISU lover.

For me if, as now seems to be the case, there was a need or desire to offload ACL then it shoud have been put on the market. An open sales process with everyone able to bid on the same thing.

As soon as CCC started talking to Wasps then CRFC should have been consulted. Similarly if an offer had come in from anyone else that could impact a local organisation I would have expected them to be consulted.

Two key points for me, firstly that the council have misled the public, and secondly it was all done in secret. Have they done anything illegal, doubtful as you would expect them to ensure they are covered in that respect, but that does not in any way mean that they have not acted incorrectly. Any enquiry needs to be in depth and detail the process the council went through, not some box ticking exercise.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
in my opinion, you saying "it isn't relevant to Sisu" is almost letting them off the hook for not buying it.

Can't both be worthy of questioning?

Along the lines of... many things contributed to the club bogging off to Northampton, but only one entity actually did it... so many things may have contributed to ACL's sale, but only one group sold it.

So... can't it be worth asking why the club have moved on, won't interfere, but sue everyone in site... but also ask why a council protests about maintaining cultural assets for the city of coventry, but seems happy to flog said assets off to anything but the city of coventry?

I don't understand the binaries that turn up on here so much.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Wasn't aimed at me but I'll answer. Very simply CCC should have first and foremost been honest and transparent. We ask that of SISU, not that we get it, but if you ask it of CCC, a body answerable to the public, you get accused of being a SISU lover.

For me if, as now seems to be the case, there was a need or desire to offload ACL then it shoud have been put on the market. An open sales process with everyone able to bid on the same thing.

As soon as CCC started talking to Wasps then CRFC should have been consulted. Similarly if an offer had come in from anyone else that could impact a local organisation I would have expected them to be consulted.

Two key points for me, firstly that the council have misled the public, and secondly it was all done in secret. Have they done anything illegal, doubtful as you would expect them to ensure they are covered in that respect, but that does not in any way mean that they have not acted incorrectly. Any enquiry needs to be in depth and detail the process the council went through, not some box ticking exercise.

... add that two potential buyers could have pushed the price up a bit.
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
Can't both be worthy of questioning?

Along the lines of... many things contributed to the club bogging off to Northampton, but only one entity actually did it... so many things may have contributed to ACL's sale, but only one group sold it.

So... can't it be worth asking why the club have moved on, won't interfere, but sue everyone in site... but also ask why a council protests about maintaining cultural assets for the city of coventry, but seems happy to flog said assets off to anything but the city of coventry?

I don't understand the binaries that turn up on here so much.

Couldn't have put it any better NW
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Fact or your opinion? To me they are relevant and to thousands of other people who wanted CCFC to own the Ricoh.

The way the story comes across is a balance to questions and answers, how people interpret them is another matter but in the interests of balance why do you always jump on these but not the 'other' threads? You see, in my opinion, you saying "it isn't relevant to Sisu" is almost letting them off the hook for not buying it.

The question the story is asking is "Why did the council sell to Wasps?"
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
Sisu are relevant to this - they were putting the financial pressure on CCC. Who then found a buyer (or Wasps found them, who knows), Sisu didn't want the stadium as they plan to build their own etc.... And the ones that suffer are CCFC fans and (probably) CRFC fans. It's all about the money (there is a song in there somewhere I'm sure)
 

The Gentleman

Well-Known Member
Can't both be worthy of questioning?

Along the lines of... many things contributed to the club bogging off to Northampton, but only one entity actually did it... so many things may have contributed to ACL's sale, but only one group sold it.

So... can't it be worth asking why the club have moved on, won't interfere, but sue everyone in site... but also ask why a council protests about maintaining cultural assets for the city of coventry, but seems happy to flog said assets off to anything but the city of coventry?

I don't understand the binaries that turn up on here so much.

I've never said that the Council shouldn't also be asked, but this piece is asking the council and people saying including Sisu in it isn't relevant when in my eyes it is. I'm glad that you want questions of Sisu too. Problem is we don't seem to be getting them or even a push for them.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Sisu are relevant to this - they were putting the financial pressure on CCC. Who then found a buyer (or Wasps found them, who knows), Sisu didn't want the stadium as they plan to build their own etc.... And the ones that suffer are CCFC fans and (probably) CRFC fans. It's all about the money (there is a song in there somewhere I'm sure)

CCFC don't have to suffer if they get the best deal they can at the Ricoh IMHO.
That will not happen while Sisu are here.
It remains to be seen what effect it has on CRFC but currently they are on a high on their own back and therefore no noticeable effect.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
I've never said that the Council shouldn't also be asked, but this piece is asking the council and people saying including Sisu in it isn't relevant when in my eyes it is. I'm glad that you want questions of Sisu too. Problem is we don't seem to be getting them or even a push for them.

I think we do. You can't move for people asking 'where are the plans' ;)

And the club do respond... it's just the responses are bollocks! Even Ms. Garlick appears to have a certain exasperation in her own responses mind you, and seems keen to distance herself from the decision makers, so the frustration of every fan is clear.

Yes, maybe there should be a more concerted follow-up. Now there's a thought where Wasps could actually be handy - with less need for stories from CCFC, so less of a threat if access to players etc. is withdrawn, perhaps the Telegraph could go old skool and actually do some investigating...
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Sisu are relevant to this - they were putting the financial pressure on CCC. Who then found a buyer (or Wasps found them, who knows), Sisu didn't want the stadium as they plan to build their own etc.... And the ones that suffer are CCFC fans and (probably) CRFC fans. It's all about the money (there is a song in there somewhere I'm sure)
Haha you big Jessie;-)
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
You're suggesting Wasps overpaid?

In which case, Fisher's right about the risk being too great, isn't he.

If the only other bidder can't make a business case, other than building a new stadium, and the bidding starts at zero then yes.
Hence CCC would avoid a bidding process with essentially one bidder. Well done CCC if that is the case. Great business.

ADVICE : Don't believe everything TF says. :)
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
How about.....I've had enough crap from my tenant not paying the contracted rent(Which the tenant signed) He is trying to steal my property of which I paid a lot of money for. It is my property, and I can sell it to who ever I F**king like.(Taking into account the aforementioned who would you sell too?)
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
How about.....I've had enough crap from my tenant not paying the contracted rent(Which the tenant signed) He is trying to steal my property of which I paid a lot of money for. It is my property, and I can sell it to who ever I F**king like.(Taking into account the aforementioned who would you sell too?)

Where did you get a copy of the Council minutes from? Did you hack in?
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
Can't both be worthy of questioning?

Along the lines of... many things contributed to the club bogging off to Northampton, but only one entity actually did it... so many things may have contributed to ACL's sale, but only one group sold it.

So... can't it be worth asking why the club have moved on, won't interfere, but sue everyone in site... but also ask why a council protests about maintaining cultural assets for the city of coventry, but seems happy to flog said assets off to anything but the city of coventry?

I don't understand the binaries that turn up on here so much.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

As I have said before whilst all parties have done wrong to each other, only sisu are responsible for ccfc , and only CCC/Higgs (now wasps) are responsible for acl.

Each may have influenced the other, but neither can be held responsible for the others problems.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
How about.....I've had enough crap from my tenant not paying the contracted rent(Which the tenant signed) He is trying to steal my property of which I paid a lot of money for. It is my property, and I can sell it to who ever I F**king like.(Taking into account the aforementioned who would you sell too?)

Though at the time of the sale said tenant had been wound up and a new company had agreed a rental deal, which, as far as we know, has been honoured.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I think we do. You can't move for people asking 'where are the plans' ;)

And the club do respond... it's just the responses are bollocks! Even Ms. Garlick appears to have a certain exasperation in her own responses mind you, and seems keen to distance herself from the decision makers, so the frustration of every fan is clear.

Yes, maybe there should be a more concerted follow-up. Now there's a thought where Wasps could actually be handy - with less need for stories from CCFC, so less of a threat if access to players etc. is withdrawn, perhaps the Telegraph could go old skool and actually do some investigating...

So do want an inquiry or investigative journalism and the truth

Like many I don't see any recourse other than words should it go to litigation/inquiry whatever as all will have their arses covered

There could be some political fall out sure but I'm not sure how big the audience to it all is
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
So do want an inquiry or investigative journalism and the truth

I'd love some proper investigation into it all. proper old-style, dirty old perverts in macs meeting in car parks to exchange wads of papers with dynamite confessions on them; smoking a fag outside the Golden Cross with the former lover of key parties, to get the dirt dished - build up some cases.

You're right, I suspect legality is a red herring. Councils tend to cover themselves well, so do litigious investment companies. That doesn't stop there being a story there though, with all sides as the baddies.

Lars von Trier or Sam Peckinpah would be the director!

It needs Tom Bower to do it properly, interrogate *all* sides... or maybe the Davids, Yallop or Conn.
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
@ NW......Let me put it another mate, SISU have tried to shaft me more than once. They can f**king do one....Is that a good enough reason for ya?
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why the CET felt the need to step up and answer the questions when really it was for the council to answer.
 

Thenose

New Member
I'd love some proper investigation into it all. proper old-style, dirty old perverts in macs meeting in car parks to exchange wads of papers with dynamite confessions on them; smoking a fag outside the Golden Cross with the former lover of key parties, to get the dirt dished - build up some cases.

You're right, I suspect legality is a red herring. Councils tend to cover themselves well, so do litigious investment companies. That doesn't stop there being a story there though, with all sides as the baddies.

Lars von Trier or Sam Peckinpah would be the director!

It needs Tom Bower to do it properly, interrogate *all* sides... or maybe the Davids, Yallop or Conn.

Id like to see Gene Hunt on the case...
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member

Ashdown

Well-Known Member
The absolute thing you can be pretty sure of with all this is that every time your average Joe tunes into a 'Sky Blues' forum and reads yet more of this piffle and he was a bit undecided about taking the kids up the City for the next home match is he probably thinks 'What a mess, no cohesion even between supporters, continual wrangling over decided events, a bent Labour council putting the boot in to a football club owned by a bunch of fortune seeking sharks from London'..............Nah, fuck it kids, let's do something else with the cash !
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I love how hindsight is a reason for not doing something in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why the CET felt the need to step up and answer the questions when really it was for the council to answer.

Expect the counterpoint in the Observer tomorrow or Thursday
Expect it fizzle out by mid May
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top