New CCFC signing hint over Ricoh Arena deal

[Rossm]

Coventry City Football Club would like to update its supporters, following yesterday’s statement (15 May) made by Wasps.

There is no European Commission complaint against Wasps. The complaint, made by our Owners SISU in February, is against Coventry City Council only.

In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena, in order to allow talks about extending our agreement at the Ricoh Arena to take place.

Wasps stated their position publicly yesterday, reiterating their previous opposition to legal action and now adding their opposition to any other action around the sale of the stadium in 2014, and their opinions surrounding the EU complaint.

Nick Eastwood said yesterday: “Regrettably, this means that the condition set out above for us to enter or continue discussions with CCFC has not been met.” The condition referenced yesterday by Nick has not been broken, but instead yet more onerous and undeliverable conditions have been added by Wasps to their pre-existing conditions to enter talks.

Last Friday in our update to fans, we spoke of ‘hurdles’ and this is one of those hurdles that we alluded to. As a result, we are unfortunately accelerating our back-up groundshare plans.

Further details of discussions with Wasps Holdings Limited remain confidential, due to mutually signed confidentiality agreements.

[Neils]

Well that will stir the hoards up.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

Complete semantic bullshit.

[Neils]

Excellent post.

[RBB]

It seems to me that CCFC are missing the point, SISU's actions are designed to be punitive towards Wasps, albeit indirectly. Their short-sightedness and driven obsession is damaging their own asset immeasurably, a local authority who are working hard to regenerate a city and a rugby club that is bring income and top level sport to Coventry. I am starting to think that SISU are hell bent on destroying everything because they have not got their own way. I genuinely feel for CCFC fans, as a proud football club with a strong heritage is being dragged down by greed and misguided actions. We are still in for a long wait until any conclusion is reached.

[Hymenoptera]

Isn't it the case that they aren't pursuing legal action against Wasps at all, as they well know, so to plead ignorance is embarrassing.

[Heathen]

I am no legal eagle, but as someone who trained as an analytical scientist, I am struggling to understand as to why Wasps should be at risk from the latest episode. The facts do not stack up to support SISU's interpretation.

Surely the perceived grievance that SISU have is with the Council.

The Council negotiated the deal with Wasps at values that their advisors deemed commercial, given the fact that the Arena was being massively underutilised after CCFCs absence for the preceding seasons.

What state aid were Wasps given???

The English courts have seen fit to throw it out at every hurdle. Surely the EU has to take note of these decisions.

[Marlovian]

I think this explains it: https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-wasps-european-commission-16280776. Potentially very damaging.

The timescales are a bit mind boggling. If the EC do decide to complete a full investigation it could take years for them to come to a conclusion. Some of their recent rulings go back to complaints raised in 2012!

[westwaleswasp]

Complete semantic bullshit.

Yes, totally agree.

[InBetweenWasp]

Late to the party on perhaps fully understanding the premise of the Legals (and still may be), but am I right in thinking that the fundamental issue/case that SISU are bringing is that they believe that the extended leasehold was anti-competitive.

i.e. There’s no disagreement of the sale valuation of the Ricoh and it’s associated entities (which tots up to somewhere around the £38 million including liabilities taken on.  But it’s that a 250 year lease was granted at £1 million when there have been several valuations (used to report on ratios of debt-to-assets) between £40-60 million and therefore, SISU are claiming that State Aid was essentially given by underselling the lease and it was anti-competitive?

Presumably, as there is only one owner of the Stadium the anti-competitive bit is a moot point as you couldn’t, say, allow SISU/CCFC to bid for the lease whilst ‘Wasps’ own the Ricoh?

Or are SISU claiming that the purchase of the Ricoh was done with a view to deliberately allowing them an extended leasehold at a nominal rate to ensure SISU/CCFC couldn’t end up as an owner in a meaningful timeframe and therefore anti-competitive?

[Marlovian]

Hard to say without seeing the actual complaint made. Simplistically, JR1 concerned the loan from the council to ACL which SISU claimed was state aid. JR2 concerned the valuation of the Ricoh when it was sold with a 47(??) year lease compared to the valuation with a 250 year lease - hence the apples and pears arguments in court. I presume SISU consider the sale of the extended lease immediately after selling the original lease to be state aid. SISU lost both.

SISU are now playing the EC - they can sit back and watch european bureaucrats do their dirty work. A positive outcome (for them) makes the UK justice system look silly and moves them closer to what they want; a negative outcome costs nothing. I could almost admire this move as the ultimate in duplicity given the recent failed talks. I just hope the commission look at SISU's history in court where they have been accused of misleading the court and distorting the truth ("...defendants would call it lying...").