ceetee
Well-Known Member
Yes, but they can use the stadium for other events, because it's effectively theirs
The never ending court story (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter lapsed_skyblue
- Start date
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We use the stadium what, 25 days a year? Plus a handful of U23 games that could be moved to any day and time or played at Higgs (you know the regulation regarding a number of games needing to be played at the clubs main ground would go out the window in favour of fulfilling fixtures).
What are all these events that our 25 days a year use are preventing the Ricoh from staging? They have other events in the halls the same day we play and our games have been moved to make way for other events when required so with 340 non CCFC match days I can't see how us being there is stopping anything else happening.
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
It's not...
The problem is, the stadium owners are constantly getting sued and can do what they like!
I can never find their attendances online. What are they getting these days?
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
FYI.. just reading it now.
Coventry City face homeless future after Sisu’s litigious aggression | David Conn
Nothing new really but a not unreasonable summary as far as i'm concerned.
One clear error was stating Wasps regularly fill the Ricoh, they don't its about 1/2 full and then only because they give away lots of free tickets.
Coventry City face homeless future after Sisu’s litigious aggression | David Conn
Nothing new really but a not unreasonable summary as far as i'm concerned.
One clear error was stating Wasps regularly fill the Ricoh, they don't its about 1/2 full and then only because they give away lots of free tickets.
Last edited:
edgy
Well-Known Member
I was at the Wasp v Sale match the other weekend. There was never 15k there in a million years. I'd guess no more than 10K. And a lot were free school tickets.
Colin Steins Smile
Well-Known Member
There a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration, as ChiefDave has already pointed out having CCFC as a tenant does not incur an "opportunity cost" to Wasps. Therefore, CCFC provides some additional direct and indirect funding streams. However, if the ongoing litigation costs exceed the benefit of having CCFC in place, then our landlords will obviously take a harder line and may decide enough is enough.
If they take that decision, then they will have factored that the litigation costs will continue, as SISU are hardly likely to desist just because CCFC have been denied access to the Ricoh. They then have three obvious mechanisms to use:
a] can they either grow revenues significantly to cover the loss of CCFC [unlikely IMO].
b] make cost savings to reduce the scope of their operations [possible].
c] Retain CCFC and project the costs of litigation NOT covered by insurances and add those to any rental agreement offered to CCFC.
Option C could be a win - win for Wasps, as they are due being refunded their costs from the recent case & if they then can front end retrieve costs from CCFC then they double dip for any future costs!
The club will need to be very careful, as their position is not a strong one.
If they take that decision, then they will have factored that the litigation costs will continue, as SISU are hardly likely to desist just because CCFC have been denied access to the Ricoh. They then have three obvious mechanisms to use:
a] can they either grow revenues significantly to cover the loss of CCFC [unlikely IMO].
b] make cost savings to reduce the scope of their operations [possible].
c] Retain CCFC and project the costs of litigation NOT covered by insurances and add those to any rental agreement offered to CCFC.
Option C could be a win - win for Wasps, as they are due being refunded their costs from the recent case & if they then can front end retrieve costs from CCFC then they double dip for any future costs!
The club will need to be very careful, as their position is not a strong one.
Sbarcher
Well-Known Member
Just going to post this article and you beat me to it.
A well written chronological statement of events. Makes me even angrier when I read it, when will it end?
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with your view, however it is whatever Wasps are inclined to do that worries me. All of our cards are on Wasps being benevolent and if they choose to be as obstinate as our owners then we are in trouble.
It was said on here that an increase in rent would only work if we got back:
Catering revenue
Parking revenue
A pitch that was at an appropriate standard for the whole season
Priority over fixtures in line with EFL rules
Share of the club shop etc/etc
We have lost any bargaining tools(if we had any) and Wasps can tell us get lost, bend over or say yes you can stay but it will cost you and we have no viable alternative to any of those demands.
We are painting ourselves in to the same corner which took us to Northampton and without doubt we are relying on Wasps to step back from their statement that without a halt to legal proceedings we are out.
ceetee
Well-Known Member
I think you have misunderstood me.
I was reacting to what I thought to be an implication that CCFC used the stadium more than Wasps.
I was pointing out that , as effective owners of the stadium, Wasps could, and do host other events.
In no way was I implying that CCFC games inhibited Wasps ability to host other events
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Why should ccfc pay more if the terms are the same? What would we be getting for the extra rent?
ceetee
Well-Known Member
We don't have to get anything for the extra rent/
Wasps are in a position where they can say take it or leave it
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Weren't they in that position last year? Won't they be in that position every year? Is that not why the councils decision to sell to wasps is absurd and ridiculous? That our club is now beholden to a London rugby club.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Somewhere to play football next season (P.S. Can't stand Wasps and what has happened - but we have few cards to play, We can pretend we'll walk away, which would damage Wasps, but ultimately it will be us who will have to blink first - gutted as I am to think it)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Risky putting a link up to a David Conn article on our owners. You’ll be getting a letter from their solicitors if you’re not careful.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
What date do CCFC have to confirm ground arrangements for 2019-20 by?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Then can I sue Nick for releasing PII to a 3rd party?
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
There would be some backlash and moral outrage if WASP refused us for them to think about. But revenue streams by having us there are hugely important.
An increase in the rent from them is not unreasonable too. CCFC have shown they can afford £500k and £300k on two players.
CCFC are an improving football club and genuinely look like a second promotion is possible. With that in mind WASP would be foolish not to offer us a continuation.
They back the football club and it pays off for them. They as indeed CCFC need to park SISU out of the thinking process. Let SISU continue their foolhardy legal drive if they wish. Should anything ever come of it in SISU's favour, deal with it then. Meantime reap the benefit and the goodwill of the City by keeping the club at the Ricoh.
It's a win win for WASP.
An increase in the rent from them is not unreasonable too. CCFC have shown they can afford £500k and £300k on two players.
CCFC are an improving football club and genuinely look like a second promotion is possible. With that in mind WASP would be foolish not to offer us a continuation.
They back the football club and it pays off for them. They as indeed CCFC need to park SISU out of the thinking process. Let SISU continue their foolhardy legal drive if they wish. Should anything ever come of it in SISU's favour, deal with it then. Meantime reap the benefit and the goodwill of the City by keeping the club at the Ricoh.
It's a win win for WASP.
fatso
Well-Known Member
If I were wasps I’d offer sisu a rent of 1 million pounds a year, with no access to parking or food and drink revenues, which I believe was the original deal that sisu reneged on, I’d then tell them to take it or leave it, which would be kind of poetic justice as the whole sorry saga would of then gone full circle.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Commercial rents increase, it doesn't guarantee that you get more benefit to your business. Many tenancies or leases have a clause in them stating "an upwards only review". The argument that we should have more because we pay more, has merits for CCFC certainly but is likely to fall on deaf ears elsewhere, and is actually weak. I think CCFC has to emphasise the harm of not having us there.
It costs CCFC around £100k per season or just over £4000 per game for the use of the parts of the stadium they choose to utilise in terms of rent. Like it or not that is not a high day rent. Go check how much it costs to hire a stadium daily
Wasps are in control of this part of the saga, the one lever CCFC have is the footfall a successful CCFC brings. However because CCFC have made it clear in public utterances that there is nowhere else for them to go then that lever is weakened. Wasps are short of cash flow, increasing rentals offer a regular increased income flow with little additional cost. CCFC are relying on the landlord relenting in some way - the only things i get hope from are poor Wasps finances, and the damage to reputation that refusing CCFC would bring.
Thats not backing Wasps over CCFC - its the cold hard and uncomfortable reality for CCFC brought about by many participants in this saga but mainly our owners and council.
It costs CCFC around £100k per season or just over £4000 per game for the use of the parts of the stadium they choose to utilise in terms of rent. Like it or not that is not a high day rent. Go check how much it costs to hire a stadium daily
Wasps are in control of this part of the saga, the one lever CCFC have is the footfall a successful CCFC brings. However because CCFC have made it clear in public utterances that there is nowhere else for them to go then that lever is weakened. Wasps are short of cash flow, increasing rentals offer a regular increased income flow with little additional cost. CCFC are relying on the landlord relenting in some way - the only things i get hope from are poor Wasps finances, and the damage to reputation that refusing CCFC would bring.
Thats not backing Wasps over CCFC - its the cold hard and uncomfortable reality for CCFC brought about by many participants in this saga but mainly our owners and council.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Really?
Nick
Administrator
Aren't there matchday costs as well on top of that rather than just the flat rent?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Can't find anything concrete about dates but regulation 13.11 states the club have to notify the EFL of any changes to "circumstances relating to the occupation of its ground" and regulation 13.9 states a Club shall either own its ground or have a legally enforceable agreement with its ground’s owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season.
So when the current agreement runs out the EFL has to be told & an agreement has to be in place by the time the new season starts. In between there is a grey area...
fatso
Well-Known Member
Too right, why would wasps offer preferential terms to a hedge fund who has involved itself in lengthy litigation with everyone it has encountered.
Any rental income received by wasps from sisu would have to be offset against any future legal cases, of which there will almost certainly be many.
Sisu have proved themselves to be untrustworthy tenants, and who could blame wasps if they decided to distance themselves.
Nick
Administrator
Who said anything about preferential terms?
What would SISU be doing with the Ricoh? Are they going to beat up solicitors in the centre circle or something?
A bit random. It looks like it is go go brush under the carpet, pair that up with Wasps board members going on about their "healthy" finance.
Called it a few weeks ago (along with others) that people will be on overdrive justifying a rent increase / being kicked out. It is far too obvious nowadays.
I'd have no issue with Wasps and SISU fighting until the death. You seem to think Wasps hitting CCFC somehow bothers / damages SISU?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Which might explain why Dallagio has stuck his oar in today.. however that's just his words, what is in the accounts carries all the weight.
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Too right? I would blame all the parties but my wrath would come down on Wasps.
Your message seems to be wanting Coventry City to suffer for the sins of Sisu, say it aint so?
Nick
Administrator
Pretty much sums it up and why it is so strange.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Which ever way you look at it, a new rental agreement will almost certainly be loaded in wasps favour (and why wouldn’t it as they now hold all the cards)
As I have already stated, sisu are unreliable, and come with a history of withholding rental payments and renaging on contracts.
Who in their right minds would want them as tenants?
Whether wasps can afford to continue in buisiness without ccfc, is another debate altogether, and one which I’m unable to comment on.
I’d be gutted to leave the Ricoh for a second time, but I certainly wouldn’t point the finger of blame at wasps.
As I have already stated, sisu are unreliable, and come with a history of withholding rental payments and renaging on contracts.
Who in their right minds would want them as tenants?
Whether wasps can afford to continue in buisiness without ccfc, is another debate altogether, and one which I’m unable to comment on.
I’d be gutted to leave the Ricoh for a second time, but I certainly wouldn’t point the finger of blame at wasps.
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
There will be a deal on offer - I'm sure of it.
Whether that deal is fair for CCFC/Wasps, and whether SISU will accept it, is another matter though.
Wasps would like, and want, the cash flow from additional rental at the Ricoh. The rent to be charged will be entirely dependant on whether legal proceedings are stopped.
If SISU want to keep Coventry at the Ricoh, they will, for the right price. Although alternatively, they may reject the offer as too expensive which will either be true, or will be an attempt at PR / blame shifting.
Overall, the ball is entirely in the court of SISU.
Nick
Administrator
To be fair, if Wasps demanded a million a year in rent I think a lot of people should be asking them questions as that is mental. It's a good job the PR machine would try it's best to twist it round if that was the case. It's already begun anyway.
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
fatso
Well-Known Member
There is of course one obvious solution, And that is for sisu to sell ccfc to any interested party, the new owners would then be free to negotiate a future tenancy agreement without the bad blood and negative history that will follow sisu.
I’m sure that would be acceptable to all, and I really can’t see what sisu would have to gain from hanging on to the club, now that the legal circus has ground to a halt.
I’m sure that would be acceptable to all, and I really can’t see what sisu would have to gain from hanging on to the club, now that the legal circus has ground to a halt.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
surely an untrustworthy tenant is better than none in a time when you need cash? You can then cast them aside when you are in a position where you don't need them?? Better the devil and all that...