Grendel
Well-Known Member
Only obtuse facts matter to obtuse.
Only obtuse facts matter to obtuse.
Otis
Well-Known Member
I stopped watching that after Larry King retired.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What you are looking at isn't a legal document it's a construction report - what makes you believe what you are looking at has any legal credibility.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Just perusing the planning portal for the previous application by Cov.
'strewth there were literally hundreds of objections! 4 files and the first one has ~170 letters against and less than a dozen for.
http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=5218
The permission lapsed in 2008, that for...
Interestingly Bryant Homes had previously submitted a request to replace the Rugby ground with house which was later withdrawn. Anyway that does rather show how limited the site is.
'strewth there were literally hundreds of objections! 4 files and the first one has ~170 letters against and less than a dozen for.
http://planning.coventry.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=5218
The permission lapsed in 2008, that for...
Interestingly Bryant Homes had previously submitted a request to replace the Rugby ground with house which was later withdrawn. Anyway that does rather show how limited the site is.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So they could put any old numbers on it and have no comeback?
It is different rules for councils than sporting teams. They have to give factually correct accounts on reports. SISU would tell you in 3 weeks.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its a report not audited accounts.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So if SISU got less people complain would that mean that they would get planning permission?
Astute
Well-Known Member
But they can't display incorrect figures. They are not allowed.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
LOL, are you actually saying you think the figures are wrong. What a numpty.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What they have to give factually accurate statements more than a companies official accounts filed at companies house?
Are you absolutely certain of that?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is he ignoring facts or have Astute and FP between them actually cleared something up? From what I've understood FP has pointed out that £6.8m has left CCFC for the stadium project and Astute has pointed out that it went neither into land purchase or building costs. They could both be 100% correct. There was a lot of consultancy, producing of glossy brochures and so on before IIRC a land purchase was signed and anything was torn down, decontaminated blah blah blah.
As far as authorities being involved it could all be "legitimate" expenditure and no law had been broken. However, what I do find unlikely is that if CCFC had have genuinely contributed to either the land purchase or construction costs in any way shape or form that TF or any previous members of the board haven't claimed it as the basis of having a stake in either the freehold, leasehold or even the fabric of building as it stands today. The ramblings of BR aside which seem very easily dismissed.
I'd still like to know where, what and when the £6.8m was spent though.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Doesn't mean it's inaccurate though. Someone wrote when hell freezes over on a scrap of paper with AL on it. Does that have any legal credibility? Presumably you dismiss that as fabricated BS then and exonerate CCC of any claim that they wouldn't sell to SISU?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's a report that shows allocation of construction costs.
If anyone is really that interested then on the trust website there is a timeline that shows actual expenditure by year - some debt in the original arena company.
The council took the project on in 2002 and you can clearly see the impact financially from there.
If the question is how much did the club spend it was £6.8 million and its shows by year accumulated spend though why this is of interest to anyone I really don't know.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No I am not saying they are wrong.
Although I'm not sure I would agree that everything contained in council reports can be taken as 100% fact. For example the council report on travel to the Ricoh stated that the train station, and a matchday service, would be running 12 months after the stadium opened at the absolute latest and that until it was open a free bus service would be in operation.
What I am saying is that the councils construction completion report is exactly that. It is a report, from a council perspective, on the construction of the stadium. At no point does it state that it covers all costs involved in the project from its conception.
On the other hand the accounts of the various companies involved show the football club with a net spend of £6,808,425 prior to the sale of their share in ACL to Higgs. Don't think that includes the £1.8m CCFC paid to ACL as that was after the sale to Higgs.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
To me it just highlights how screwed we were from the start. If you compare the amount into the project by CCFC and CCC they aren't too far apart yet CCC ended up with the freehold and 50% of ACL. We got 50% of ACL and £1.3m a year bill for rent.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Most people want to know where the money went. The few people who backed him don't want to know though. Do you Grendel......
Come on guys don't waste it being personal.
Pretty sure in those documents is the structure.
Both CCC and CCFC formed CNR.
Out of which spawned the lovechild ACL..
Fairly confident that would have required equivalent investment.
Whether the Club spent money on it prior to the formation I don't know, but at the back of my mind is a total figure of around £13 M. total investment from the council(uncertain).
We know the CCC made a top up of £10M which would if correct mean they put £3M into CNR,possibly the same as CCFC (if accurate) but taking no account of City's prior input.
If true unfair.
Memory is poor, but CCC got their Ten back at the point ACL took on the lease.
That lease was harsh on both ACL and the Club, why not double it and the same with the loan term, yes would attract more interest but we were going to pay it.
Or given that the shortfall pretty much equated to the addition of the exhibition space, which would to a large extent have been a CCC initiative, why couldn't they leave their Ten mill in and ACL only need to borrow £11M over fifty years.
Didn't they grab a bit of the spare land out of it somewhere in the process too and extract it again out of ACL at the point of refinancing selling it to Wasps for £1M??
They're hard partners for sure, no better than any of the other parties in this Horlix.
The Club made itself weak and open to being exploited.
Fate conspired in a large part, Delays getting it going, the Spanish bank pulling out, contractors pulling out after Leicester shafted them.
To top it off "Fucking relegation.
There were ways we could have helped ourselves.
We didn't!
Pretty sure in those documents is the structure.
Both CCC and CCFC formed CNR.
Out of which spawned the lovechild ACL..
Fairly confident that would have required equivalent investment.
Whether the Club spent money on it prior to the formation I don't know, but at the back of my mind is a total figure of around £13 M. total investment from the council(uncertain).
We know the CCC made a top up of £10M which would if correct mean they put £3M into CNR,possibly the same as CCFC (if accurate) but taking no account of City's prior input.
If true unfair.
Memory is poor, but CCC got their Ten back at the point ACL took on the lease.
That lease was harsh on both ACL and the Club, why not double it and the same with the loan term, yes would attract more interest but we were going to pay it.
Or given that the shortfall pretty much equated to the addition of the exhibition space, which would to a large extent have been a CCC initiative, why couldn't they leave their Ten mill in and ACL only need to borrow £11M over fifty years.
Didn't they grab a bit of the spare land out of it somewhere in the process too and extract it again out of ACL at the point of refinancing selling it to Wasps for £1M??
They're hard partners for sure, no better than any of the other parties in this Horlix.
The Club made itself weak and open to being exploited.
Fate conspired in a large part, Delays getting it going, the Spanish bank pulling out, contractors pulling out after Leicester shafted them.
To top it off "Fucking relegation.
There were ways we could have helped ourselves.
We didn't!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Before YB were involved there was a different loan proposed I seem to recall that was rejected by the council as they were asked to guarantee it. Obviously they weren't as confident in the viability of ACL as they liked to make out.
They took back car park C didn't they? At one point they also tried to take some other land back (or it might have been a prior attempt at getting car park C). Was to do with the second hotel that ACL wanted. They couldn't get anyone to sign up as they could only offer a 50 year lease as that's all they had. Rather than extend the lease the council wanted to take some of the land back and lease it to the hotel themselves.
I think That £1.8M you may be referring to is possibly down to an oversight by the Club or particularly Graham Hover (does he know where the skeletons are?) re final fit out and Screen etc.
By the way shouldn't Wasps or CCC pay us back for all of that (some of the fabric must be ours)?
Soz about that!!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That all?!?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No they don't - this has been in the public domain for 14 years. It's hardly new is it. I'd have thought the greater interest is the extortionate cost vs other stadiums.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Exactly Tony. Not disputing that question. What the fuck did happen or what did the investment pay for? Clearly a lot of consultancy around 97/98 including architects but god knows what else.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So how much did it cost to build and what did the cost involve.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I must say, I'm glad I started this thread.
It's cos you left it to roll
and now tagged on the death of it Norman.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Didn't even make a judgement, did I.
Anyway, I find it interesting he agrees with Fisher. Whatever peoples' views of Fisher/CCFC, it's surely... interesting that a non CCFC protagonist breaks cover, isn't it?
Anyway, I find it interesting he agrees with Fisher. Whatever peoples' views of Fisher/CCFC, it's surely... interesting that a non CCFC protagonist breaks cover, isn't it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's all here - it's hardly a secret;
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/club-information/timeline/357-ricoh-arena-timeline?showall=1
Astute
Well-Known Member
How much were the build costs and what got built for the price then?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Projections & justifications are usually bollocks, but a completion report like that will be based on hard information.
Build costs for the project probably come from Quantity Surveyors final figures.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You can see exactly what got built on the attachment - I'm not copying and pasting it - what is impossible to determine is the k stall spend. You can see initial fees incurred by the club and you can also see the construction fees afterwards. What is impossible to see if what happened to the assigned debt from arena 2001 Ltd and the overlap costs that may have occurred in the council report to previous funding.
I assume arena 2001 when would ho had it's associate debt appear on the report. If not then the costs are huge. Even with it compared to similar stadiums at the time the costs are huge.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Tbh, I don't know how you go do something so bespoke, and such a sensitive subject, and in such a built up area without political backing. You would just waste time and money pursuing it without.
So yes, interesting (regardless of the viability of thr stadium) that CRFC are mirroring Fishers stance re: the barrier of the current political stance on this.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk