How Much Of The Ricoh Is For Sale? (1 Viewer)

[RegTheDonk]

I'm a bit confused as to what part of the Ricoh could actually be sold to the club (presumably PH4 as the council won't sell to SISU). I keep hearing about a "half share" which I assume is the stake the Higgs has got in the stadium.

Am I right in thinking that the club would own 50% (ie. the Higgs share) but ACL would still own 50% (ACL in reality being cov council)?

I don't want to sound naive, but seems to me the council would be holding us back if they didn’t sell up. Would just 50% of the stadium be enough to sustain us, under fair play rules, income streams etc.

Much as I do not want SISU involved, their idea of building a new ground which would ultimately be 100% owned by the club makes sense from a business point of view, because of the fair play rules as above. So, would ACL/Council be willing to sell the whole of the Ricoh to the club (PH4) and forego any money coming in - for the benefit of the club?

 

---

[Godiva]

The Higgs shares in ACL are for sale - They own 50% of ACL.
If the club (under any owner) buys those shares the club would own 50% of ACL - with ccc owning the remaing 50%.

ACL are a management company - they do not own the stadium as a physical unit. The bricks and mortar is owned solely by the council.
So becoming part of ACL does not mean owning part of the stadium, but owning part of a company operating the stadium.

 

[hutch1972]

The Higgs shares in ACL are for sale - They own 50% of ACL.
If the club (under any owner) buys those shares the club would own 50% of ACL - with ccc owning the remaing 50%.

ACL are a management company - they do not own the stadium as a physical unit. The bricks and mortar is owned solely by the council.
So becoming part of ACL does not mean owning part of the stadium, but owning part of a company operating the stadium.

Still beats the s..t out of me how the council can put in such a small sum and end up owning the whole thing.

 

[Waldorf]

They may have put in a relatively small amount themselves, but other contributions, from Advantage West Midland and the EU for example, could only be got through the council's involvement, and they guaranteed the £21m loan that completed the funding.

 

[bigfatronssba]

All parties put in a lot more than ccfc.

 

[WillieStanley]

All parties put in a lot more than ccfc.

Monetary yes, but if it wasn't for CCFC, that part of the city would look a whole lot different. The Olympics wouldn't have come, Oasis, Take That, England U21s, Ladies FA Cup Final etc - There'd have been no where in Coventry for those events. So, financially, CCFC didn't make as big a contribution but they were instumental in facilitating the build.

 

[covlad1986]

I'm a bit confused as to what part of the Ricoh could actually be sold to the club (presumably PH4 as the council won't sell to SISU). I keep hearing about a "half share" which I assume is the stake the Higgs has got in the stadium.

Am I right in thinking that the club would own 50% (ie. the Higgs share) but ACL would still own 50% (ACL in reality being cov council)?

I don't want to sound naive, but seems to me the council would be holding us back if they didn’t sell up. Would just 50% of the stadium be enough to sustain us, under fair play rules, income streams etc.

Much as I do not want SISU involved, their idea of building a new ground which would ultimately be 100% owned by the club makes sense from a business point of view, because of the fair play rules as above. So, would ACL/Council be willing to sell the whole of the Ricoh to the club (PH4) and forego any money coming in - for the benefit of the club?

Do you really think sisu would follow through on there plans to build a new ground because I dont.

 

[Baginton]

All parties put in a lot more than ccfc.

yeah, but the problem is, all parties want a hell of a lot more to sell then they actually stumped up in the first place!


The club should should own the ground, end of, the council should sell 100% at the going rate

 

[bigfatronssba]

<p>

yeah, but the problem is, all parties want a hell of a lot more to sell then they actually stumped up in the first place!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The club should should own the ground, end of, the council should sell 100% at the going rate

I would have no problem with the club buying it for what it cost (adjusting for inflation of course).

 

[fernandopartridge]

They may have put in a relatively small amount themselves, but other contributions, from Advantage West Midland and the EU for example, could only be got through the council's involvement, and they guaranteed the £21m loan that completed the funding.

Not necessarily. Advantage West Midlands could have been the recipient of the ERDF grant as the regional development agency.

That said, as the investment from Coventry City Council and AWM was equal, I suspect Coventry City Council match funded the ERDF, i.e. the ERDF investment is conditional on the council providing the same level of investment.

 

[hutch1972]

Monetary yes, but if it wasn't for CCFC, that part of the city would look a whole lot different. The Olympics wouldn't have come, Oasis, Take That, England U21s, Ladies FA Cup Final etc - There'd have been no where in Coventry for those events. So, financially, CCFC didn't make as big a contribution but they were instumental in facilitating the build.

In fact there would still be great feckin gas towers standing in that area and it would still be a shithole !

 

[hutch1972]

Monetary yes, but if it wasn't for CCFC, that part of the city would look a whole lot different. The Olympics wouldn't have come, Oasis, Take That, England U21s, Ladies FA Cup Final etc - There'd have been no where in Coventry for those events. So, financially, CCFC didn't make as big a contribution but they were instumental in facilitating the build.

In fact there would still be great feckin gas towers standing in that area and it would still be a shithole !

 

[luwalla]

All parties put in a lot more than ccfc.

id love to see some proof of that statement.. i thought it was totally the opposite. where did you get this idea from ?

 

[Tank Top]

"A Limited amount"

 

[bigfatronssba]

<p>

id love to see some proof of that statement.. i thought it was totally the opposite. where did you get this idea from ?

Oldskyblue58 posted his analysis on here. Showed who put what in.

 

[luwalla]

can you repost please.. i did see an analysis someone posted on here a while back.. but again, it showed totally the opposite to what you claim, it showed the club had put the most into the stadium project

 

[RegTheDonk]

The Higgs shares in ACL are for sale - They own 50% of ACL.
If the club (under any owner) buys those shares the club would own 50% of ACL - with ccc owning the remaing 50%.

ACL are a management company - they do not own the stadium as a physical unit. The bricks and mortar is owned solely by the council.
So becoming part of ACL does not mean owning part of the stadium, but owning part of a company operating the stadium.

Thanks for clearing that up Godiva :claping hands:

Do you really think sisu would follow through on there plans to build a new ground because I dont.

No I don't either, and apologies I didn't word that correctly: I was trying to make the point that it makes sense for the club to own their own ground 100% Preferably and logically that would be the Ricoh.

 

[wingy]

can you repost please.. i did see an analysis someone posted on here a while back.. but again, it showed totally the opposite to what you claim, it showed the club had put the most into the stadium project

PDF]
Arena Construction Completion Report - Coventry City Council

moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/.../08%20-%20Arena%20Construction%20...‎http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...na+completion+document+Coventry+City+Council#

• Cached

Jun 27, 2006 – Arena Construction Completion Report. 1. Purpose of the Report. 1.1 The Ricoh Arena achieved practical completion on 19 August 2005.



hopefully this link works ,everything is in there Luwella.

 

[bigfatronssba]

can you repost please.. i did see an analysis someone posted on here a while back.. but again, it showed totally the opposite to what you claim, it showed the club had put the most into the stadium project

Think he has also posted this more recently but I couldn't find it.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17194-Paul-Fletchers-comments?highlight=higgs

According to the 2003 accounts CCFC Holdings accounts the club had a net investment of £4.8m in the joint venture with the Council. This was made up of the costs spent (£17.8m) less the loans against those costs (£13m). During the 2003 accounts the club paid in a further £2m making a total net investment of £6.8m.

December 2003 (stadium was not built not even sure the gas towers on the site were down by then?) the club couldn't pay its debts and sold its share in the joint venture for £6.5m to the Charity. They received £2m in cash, existing loans from the charity of £2.5m (at 5% interest)were waived and the charity paid off £2m to certain directors who had made loans (those directors immediately re loaned the club £2m)

There was a loss on the investment of £308K. I think there is an implication that the Charity took advantage of the club and that is simply not true - CCFC got over 95% of their money back and reduced their exposure to 5% interest on an original loan. They had had an interest in a stadium that was not even half built, with contracts signed and therefore commitments to funding they could not match - to say it was worth £37m at that point is a stretch by Fletcher.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

sisu had the rights to buy the half share when they brought the club this was one of the first things they were going to do.
They knew what it would cost them before hand but apparently never had the money.
If they had done so then we would now not be in this situation.
They now have the money to build a new stadium at over 10 times the price this beggars belief.
To be fair who would now sell them any % of the Ricoh for any money sorry but they have burnt their bridges and deserve NOTHING


:blue:

 

[Jack Griffin]

can you repost please.. i did see an analysis someone posted on here a while back.. but again, it showed totally the opposite to what you claim, it showed the club had put the most into the stadium project

Nonsense, the club put in about £6M then sold it to the Higgs charity for about £6M (and an option to repurchase by agreed formula before 2015).. net result they put in virtually no finance.

 

[Grendel]

Nonsense, the club put in about £6M then sold it to the Higgs charity for about £6M (and an option to repurchase by agreed formula before 2015).. net result they put in virtually no finance.

Net including the land sale how much did the council put in?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Doesn't really matter they are the owners and therefore have the right to sell it for what they see as a reasonable price just like you and me who own houses or anything else. even at 100 :blue::blue:million would give sisu my spit.
As for a new owner that is for them to negotiate.

Net including the land sale how much did the council put in?

 

[Johnnythespider]

In fact there would still be great feckin gas towers standing in that area and it would still be a shithole !

True, and we would have had to go cap in hand to groundshare somewhere at that point becuase we'd sold our ground and would have had nowhere to play.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

True, and we would have had to go cap in hand to groundshare somewhere at that point becuase we'd sold our ground and would have had nowhere to play.

Exactly but some on here just cannot see that :thinking about::thinking about:

 

[covcity4life]

council are pricks

 

[Grendel]

Doesn't really matter they are the owners and therefore have the right to sell it for what they see as a reasonable price just like you and me who own houses or anything else. even at 100 :blue::blue:million would give sisu my spit.
As for a new owner that is for them to negotiate.

I see do council can act like a private organisation and maximise revenue however they wish.

So I assume of sisu develop a business model that they believe will work you will not have a problem if they execute the plan?

After all if a council needs to focus on commercial Interest above community responsibility would you seriously expect a Mayfair based hedge fund to behave any differently!