So where do we play until this stadium is built ? I would guess from finding the land, planning and eventually building it would be a minimum 3 years thats if it was started tomorrow.
It is unrealistic but... Own the Ricoh (at least half of it at least) or Build a new stadium at Warwick Uni? (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter TwistAndShoutCCFC1987
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Ricoh then new stadium for me but I have no expectation of the new ground ever getting passed theplanning stage
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Only the Ricoh for me but under shared ownership and common sense being applied all round. Anything else is folly for us, for Wasps and for the City of Coventry.
I was going to write for us to progress but actually we have done very well out of playing in Birmingham so that won't fly. For us to rebuild after Covid-19, being in the championship in our own city and to have any sort of identity for our future support we need to have a place to call home and frankly if Wasps share the burden and grow then I am not going to begrudge them as that time has passed.
I dread to think what would happen if we reached the thirties in the same situation as we are now.
I was going to write for us to progress but actually we have done very well out of playing in Birmingham so that won't fly. For us to rebuild after Covid-19, being in the championship in our own city and to have any sort of identity for our future support we need to have a place to call home and frankly if Wasps share the burden and grow then I am not going to begrudge them as that time has passed.
I dread to think what would happen if we reached the thirties in the same situation as we are now.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Why is/would the Uni be a worse location?
Do you have some inside knowledge on where they're thinking.of putting it or what any plans may be? Or are you from Holbrooks?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
Location, Ricoh Arena is near a motorway junction, has a train station, and served by regular buses( I know buses go to Warwick uni but maybe not as fast as going up Foleshill road/Holbrook lane).
Inside knowledge? no not at all. I live in North Manchester . Based on where I grew up, it really isn't that far for people on on East side of Coventry. When I lived in Coventry I used to always walk to games.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
And there’s just the small issue that it’s not actually our stadium.
mark82
Super Moderator
It is busy round there, but assuming access to the stadium would be via the new link road rather than using the current infrastructure.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
The uni land is serviced by the A45, A46 and to an extent the M40.
The ricoh has a train station but as its virtually useless for football fans and concert goers I think we can void it in this peticular argument.
As for buses, I dont get them to the ricoh and doubt I'd get them to the uni so I couldn't honestly say which would be better/faster/easier.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Still not convinced UoW would be either.
He’s right. Two stadia because you’re salty about one is a bit silly. And I’m all for building our own ground if we need to, but it would be very petty to leave a ground because “i HaTe WaSpS”. I know all the performative nonsense on here but in the real world people would look at you a bit gone out if you spoke like some on here do.
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
I've actually used the train station for most of my recent visits travelling down from Manchester. You can get to it via Coventry or Nuneaton.
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Tbf the thread has unrealistic in the title. In an unrealistic world I want a new stadium while Wasps and the Ricoh crumble. In the real world we're probably going to have to sort something out with the cunts aren't we.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Fair play, and for people outside of the city making a day of it, the station could be quite useful. However, within the city, it only runs 2 carriages once an hour and the first train after the game is 1 hour after the final whistle. So, like I said originally, its pretty much useless for football fans and concert goers so still void.
W**ps I believe trialled using it to ferry londoners from cov Station and it failed. I think they canned it in the end.
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
TwistAndShoutCCFC1987
Well-Known Member
Is handy when coming to games /to cov in general from up north yeah
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Let me say from the start i would love to see CCFC with its own stadium, not because of the financial sense it makes (have seen little to convince me it does) but above that because of the sense of identity and belonging it brings
BUT to address this thread
- to return to Coventry we need to strike a deal at the Ricoh, either for short term whilst new stadium built or long term if it isn't. To think that Wasps are going to let CCFC control the stadium either long term or short term is a nonsense. It just is not going to happen, they own it, are responsible for it 365 days a year why would they roll over and let CCFC do what they like, not going to happen. Especially in a short term deal - so forget major changes to stadium appearance to reflect CCFC home ground - anything would likely need to be paid for by CCFC.
ACL own the lease - they then lease the premises to various parties including, the Casino, other trading companies and Wasps Rugby. You would expect a similar arrangement for CCFC if they return. 50%+ of the "Ricoh" is not on the market
- Own 50% or more of the "Ricoh" - what is meant by that?
50% of the freehold ? - Council own the freehold and have leased it to ACL (owned 100% by Wasps Holdings) for 250 years. The freehold has little value at the moment because it doesn't get you access to anything other than ground rent.
50% of ACL ? Wasps bought the shares of ACL for £5.7m (thats all the assets of ACL less all its liabilities) ACL is subject to a guarantee on the Wasps bond which means that by buying into ACL then the new shareholder would be subject to the same guarantee. Why would CCFC take on that risk and liability. What would be paid for 50% of ACL certainly would not allow Wasps to clear the bond down (or any subsequent refinancing)
50% of the lease? The lease is owned by ACL and controlled by Wasps was worth circa £51m in the last financials (they paid circa £18m for the lease itself as part of the ACL share deal). 50% does not get you control of the lease but who knows the current value. for sake of example say it was still £51m then its going to cost £25m+ to control nothing. Why would you do that? The extra 1% to get control is going to be costly and is not going to greatly increase amount of income available. The leases currently given to Casino & Wasps are already set, CCFC would have to pay a rent and a percentage of that would be available to Wasps - assuming that ACL could distribute any profits in the first place (currently due to years of losses, lack of cash, refurb costs etc there isn't anything available I would think). The lease is charged against the Bond so any sale that doesn't clear in full that finance or subsequent financing is going to leave a charge in place. I also believe the Wasps owner has a secondary charge on the lease which i suspect he would not forego for CCFC to have free rein.
What CCFC need is access to income not part ownership. Those needs have to be built in to a lease (long or short term) to allow access to any surplus that CCFC generates. But to be clear that surplus net of VAT would be after deduction of costs, either direct (goods purchased, wages etc) or overheads (utilities, maintenance, insurance, etc) What CCFC get out of the deal either at the Ricoh or St Andrews is not the gross turnover, so the figures are not as big as people shout about. The real benefit to CCFC of being back at the Ricoh is the crowd sizes available - (CCFC takes 100% of ticket income, prize money etc always have done) plus the commercial income they can tag on to that attendance based income. What they dont get is a greater share of net hospitality (because BCFC & Wasps take a cut) and of course ground sponsorship (do they get any share of that at St Andrews?). Commercially speaking the more income you want access to that you don't currently own the greater the cost to obtain it.
But Wasps need us back - yes quite probably, but CCFC need to be back after lock down at least short term to survive long term - Our owners, our fans, wasps know that too
CCFC need for a time at least to be back at the Ricoh with fair access to income CCFC generates but they don't need to own any part of freehold, ACL or Lease
Build and own our stadium. Like I said from an identity or belonging view point this has to be the preferred option
- No one has yet explained how the finances of doing this stack up. Yes it would in theory bring ground sponsorship (the market is not great), a better share of net hospitality income (if we already get much of this then it is percentage improvement) What other income sources are we going to get?
- on the other side of income comes the costs. How would the build be financed. Rotherham's ground cost a reported £20m a few years back with a capacity of 12k Brentford cost a reported £71m with a capacity of 18k - both were based on selling an existing ground i believe. Where do we get the finance from ? What is the cost of that finance annually (either directly as interest payments or rent to a holding company) because that affects CCFC profitability and cash flow for the team
- But we were told in the past that other things could be included - housing, shops, offices - The land at the Uni would be on a lease we are told so control of the site revolves around the Uni not CCFC. Would planning permission be given for enough commercial or residential be for the area? Not to mention who is to build it? Why couldn't the Uni build those additional facets and keep the money - any capital cost looks to increase the finance cost for CCFC surely? Is there enough there after build to pay for the whole project?
- the time it takes to build adds to finance costs simply because all of the money has to be borrowed and during build no income available, roll up those costs and interest then it adds to what needs to be recovered from CCFC if other items do not cover it
- any extra costs bites in to the amount available for the team financing because of greater rent or interest payments required to cover it, any shortfall needs more borrowing or player sales perhaps
- if the financing cant be met then that could put the club at risk - there are of course some mitigations to that i understand that
- what happens to the existing interest bearing debt? to which the build finance would be added
It is not a straight choice at all other than by looking at it in terms of identity. The rest says there is no good choice on what we know financially, the damage was done by CCC and CCFC directors/owners decades ago and since - which leaves us between rock and hard place now.
For now a return to the Ricoh on a 5 to 10 year deal with fair access to CCFC based incomes would do
just my opinion
BUT to address this thread
- to return to Coventry we need to strike a deal at the Ricoh, either for short term whilst new stadium built or long term if it isn't. To think that Wasps are going to let CCFC control the stadium either long term or short term is a nonsense. It just is not going to happen, they own it, are responsible for it 365 days a year why would they roll over and let CCFC do what they like, not going to happen. Especially in a short term deal - so forget major changes to stadium appearance to reflect CCFC home ground - anything would likely need to be paid for by CCFC.
ACL own the lease - they then lease the premises to various parties including, the Casino, other trading companies and Wasps Rugby. You would expect a similar arrangement for CCFC if they return. 50%+ of the "Ricoh" is not on the market
- Own 50% or more of the "Ricoh" - what is meant by that?
50% of the freehold ? - Council own the freehold and have leased it to ACL (owned 100% by Wasps Holdings) for 250 years. The freehold has little value at the moment because it doesn't get you access to anything other than ground rent.
50% of ACL ? Wasps bought the shares of ACL for £5.7m (thats all the assets of ACL less all its liabilities) ACL is subject to a guarantee on the Wasps bond which means that by buying into ACL then the new shareholder would be subject to the same guarantee. Why would CCFC take on that risk and liability. What would be paid for 50% of ACL certainly would not allow Wasps to clear the bond down (or any subsequent refinancing)
50% of the lease? The lease is owned by ACL and controlled by Wasps was worth circa £51m in the last financials (they paid circa £18m for the lease itself as part of the ACL share deal). 50% does not get you control of the lease but who knows the current value. for sake of example say it was still £51m then its going to cost £25m+ to control nothing. Why would you do that? The extra 1% to get control is going to be costly and is not going to greatly increase amount of income available. The leases currently given to Casino & Wasps are already set, CCFC would have to pay a rent and a percentage of that would be available to Wasps - assuming that ACL could distribute any profits in the first place (currently due to years of losses, lack of cash, refurb costs etc there isn't anything available I would think). The lease is charged against the Bond so any sale that doesn't clear in full that finance or subsequent financing is going to leave a charge in place. I also believe the Wasps owner has a secondary charge on the lease which i suspect he would not forego for CCFC to have free rein.
What CCFC need is access to income not part ownership. Those needs have to be built in to a lease (long or short term) to allow access to any surplus that CCFC generates. But to be clear that surplus net of VAT would be after deduction of costs, either direct (goods purchased, wages etc) or overheads (utilities, maintenance, insurance, etc) What CCFC get out of the deal either at the Ricoh or St Andrews is not the gross turnover, so the figures are not as big as people shout about. The real benefit to CCFC of being back at the Ricoh is the crowd sizes available - (CCFC takes 100% of ticket income, prize money etc always have done) plus the commercial income they can tag on to that attendance based income. What they dont get is a greater share of net hospitality (because BCFC & Wasps take a cut) and of course ground sponsorship (do they get any share of that at St Andrews?). Commercially speaking the more income you want access to that you don't currently own the greater the cost to obtain it.
But Wasps need us back - yes quite probably, but CCFC need to be back after lock down at least short term to survive long term - Our owners, our fans, wasps know that too
CCFC need for a time at least to be back at the Ricoh with fair access to income CCFC generates but they don't need to own any part of freehold, ACL or Lease
Build and own our stadium. Like I said from an identity or belonging view point this has to be the preferred option
- No one has yet explained how the finances of doing this stack up. Yes it would in theory bring ground sponsorship (the market is not great), a better share of net hospitality income (if we already get much of this then it is percentage improvement) What other income sources are we going to get?
- on the other side of income comes the costs. How would the build be financed. Rotherham's ground cost a reported £20m a few years back with a capacity of 12k Brentford cost a reported £71m with a capacity of 18k - both were based on selling an existing ground i believe. Where do we get the finance from ? What is the cost of that finance annually (either directly as interest payments or rent to a holding company) because that affects CCFC profitability and cash flow for the team
- But we were told in the past that other things could be included - housing, shops, offices - The land at the Uni would be on a lease we are told so control of the site revolves around the Uni not CCFC. Would planning permission be given for enough commercial or residential be for the area? Not to mention who is to build it? Why couldn't the Uni build those additional facets and keep the money - any capital cost looks to increase the finance cost for CCFC surely? Is there enough there after build to pay for the whole project?
- the time it takes to build adds to finance costs simply because all of the money has to be borrowed and during build no income available, roll up those costs and interest then it adds to what needs to be recovered from CCFC if other items do not cover it
- any extra costs bites in to the amount available for the team financing because of greater rent or interest payments required to cover it, any shortfall needs more borrowing or player sales perhaps
- if the financing cant be met then that could put the club at risk - there are of course some mitigations to that i understand that
- what happens to the existing interest bearing debt? to which the build finance would be added
It is not a straight choice at all other than by looking at it in terms of identity. The rest says there is no good choice on what we know financially, the damage was done by CCC and CCFC directors/owners decades ago and since - which leaves us between rock and hard place now.
For now a return to the Ricoh on a 5 to 10 year deal with fair access to CCFC based incomes would do
just my opinion
TwistAndShoutCCFC1987
Well-Known Member
Agree but we need a long term solution from somewhere. We’ll have to see. It is in wasp’s and sisu’s interest for us to return to the ricoh in the short term. But is in the club’s interest to find a long term home.
PUSB-We_are_going_up
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes the club needs a long term solution I agree ............... but do the parties involved? that is far less clear.
The considerations between the two choices in the thread are no different. It all comes back to the choice that gives the club the most net income and least debt long term
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
I have seen quite a few fans from Nuneaton using the train as well and straight through now from Kenilworth and Leamington etc all are signifcant Coventry City catchment areas.. I'm sure if attendances at whole Ricoh Arena went up and improvements capacity would increase, wheres there's a will there a way etc.
You can get to Warwick uni by train to Tile Hill and Canley, I've done both! . Quite a walk from Canley and bus from Tile Hill was not convenient and actually went past the stop I should have got off at.
Cov kid 55
Well-Known Member
I can’t stand the thought of being beholden to the stripey bastards in any way. For me personally, the only thing that would slightly ease the pain of Highfield Road, is if we were to build and own our own ground in the City, or outskirts. Of course, this is based purely on emotion, and is probably totally unrealistic.
PUSB-We_are_going_up
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t wish this on any club rugby or football but Wasps on the other hand I wish would just go bust
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
We just need to get back home. Anything is possible after that.
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
I am surprised why there are so many people who are not keen on Ricoh Arena. Its a great stadium, 32 000+ capacity with perfect views. Should Coventry City get back to the higher echelons of English football again its much more suitable and also actually exists rather than some idea that may not happen and if it ever did would be much smaller and likely too small and years away.
When I speak to other people who have been from other clubs they think its a great stadium as do I. Once (if) we have the right owners and doing better as a team , it will be fine and money will talk (football is massive compared to rugby). Seems to me a lot of people have forgotten who have been the problem . I honestly don't want to start a massive thread on why's and who's top blame thread that we have gone through so much before.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yeah the 50% thing is ridiculous.
I can see no business case for building a ground whatsoever so it’s really one option and that’s go back on a long term deal but one that works for the club
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That's where I am. Highlyimprobable we have the owners willing to do that, alas.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think part of the problem is as you say the new ground exists in peoples heads. Parking is easy, pubs are plentiful, the pitch is smooth, the ground has “soul”.
In reality the train station could have the same problems the Ricoh one has, no pubs get built and the SU doesn’t open up to fans, green travel planning requirements mean there’s no parking, the whole thing comes out looking like a corporate bowl, etc etc. We aren’t really capable not comparison until there’s more details.
If you fancy a tinfoil hat explanation that’s how “they” want it so theres no pressure on a Ricoh deal. But either way that’s how it is.
I've got to say, the UOW location is no better (and possibly even slightly worse) than the Ricoh.
And as people have stated above, transport and parking issues are likely to feature just as heavily.
I understand the appeal (and personally i'd be all for it)..... it is a potential chance to "start again" and feel like a proper club. I personally think we'll end up back at the Ricoh permanently... but whether that takes 10/20/etc years, and probably happens only as and when Wasps go bust or relocate... so i think for our generation of fans at least, the Ricoh is pretty soured.
And as people have stated above, transport and parking issues are likely to feature just as heavily.
I understand the appeal (and personally i'd be all for it)..... it is a potential chance to "start again" and feel like a proper club. I personally think we'll end up back at the Ricoh permanently... but whether that takes 10/20/etc years, and probably happens only as and when Wasps go bust or relocate... so i think for our generation of fans at least, the Ricoh is pretty soured.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
It's shit isn't it. Why would anyone plant a bloody stadium somewhere like that?
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
I just hope you are right. The Wasps can play anywhere else.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don't think its a matter of Wasps letting CCFC control the stadium, it just needs everyone to act like grown ups. What we're really talking about is not wanting to go a stadium plastered in Wasps branding where every bar has been made to look like a rugby clubhouse.
Other clubs coexist without these issues. Does anyone really think Inter fans turn up to home games to see AC Milan branding everywhere? I went to a Rangers game at Madison Square Garden and you wouldn't have known it was also the Knicks home arena.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The only business case for a new ground is if Wasps refuse to let us play at the Ricoh. Of course we hear different things from different sides so who knows where on the scale the truth lies. As I keep saying even if you do believe there will be a new stadium, and that can't be many people, we still need to be at the Ricoh in the short to mid term, there's simply no other viable option.
Past that its more a case of wanting you own stadium which seems something we're hung up on in this country. In other places bitter rivals happily co-exist at the same ground. Pretty sure the pitch issues can be resolved, other teams seem to share without the problems we've seen at the Ricoh. Again needs people to act like grown ups. Shouldn't be too hard for the EFL and Premiership Rugby to arrange things so both teams haven't got home fixtures the same weekend.
Oh for an Ian Gibson.
Well-Known Member
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Ricoh, 32,000 capacity, great motorway connections and not a bad seat in the house. To those that site it as having no atmosphere I would say that moving to the Ricoh coincided with our fall down the divisions, we’ve never had momentous games there with big crowds but that’s not the fault of the arena. Just imagine if we’d got back to the Premier league the year after the Ricoh was built, we’d have more great memories and would love the place. Look at our neighbours along the M69 and ask them if they regret the move from Filbert Street.
If a new ground were to be built at Warwick Uni I would think it would probably be smaller in size and would presumably be owned by Sisu/Uni so our club would still be renting.
If a new ground were to be built at Warwick Uni I would think it would probably be smaller in size and would presumably be owned by Sisu/Uni so our club would still be renting.