CET: The deal turned down by sisu revealed (5 Viewers)

skyblu3sk

Well-Known Member
rent slashed by two-thirds to £400,000 10 years to pay off £1.1million debt chance to keep food & drink revenue
COVENTRY CITY chiefs were offered a cut-price rent deal AND the chance to keep revenue from food and drinks sold on matchdays at the Ricoh Arena, the Telegraph can reveal.

But club owner Sisu turned down the deal, which would have seen a rent reduction of 67 PER CENT ­ down to £400,000-a-year from £1.2million.
The deal offered by stadium company ACL ­ owned jointly by Coventry City Council and the Higgs charity ­ also offered to fix the rent for the next three years, and give the club as much as ten years to pay back the £1.1million in rent arrears. But after the 11th-hour deal was turned down, ACL this week issued the club with a statutory demand to pay up within 21 days ­ or face being wound up.
The Telegraph has learned that the offer tabled by ACL included pegging any future increases in rent to promotion, and improved match attendances, as well as the chance to take what ACL makes from match day food and beverage sales.
It was also claimed yesterday that two of the three board directors reportedly accepted the terms of the deal but this has since been denied by the club.
The Sky Blues denied claims made by the Alan Edward Higgs Charity ­ which owns the other half of stadium company Arena Coventry Limited ­ that two of its directors had wanted to accept ACL's latest vastly reduced rent offer. The Sky Blues said the decision was “unanimous“.
Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen, clerk of trustees for the Higgs charity ­ which had wanted to sell its 50 per cent ACL shares to Sisu before talks broke down ­ alleged the Sky Blues boardroom was split on the latest rent offer, described as “excellent“ by ACL.
He accused the Sky Blues of misleading people that lowered rent was vital to its financial viability, when most of its budget was spent on players' wages, vastly exceeding income.
He appealed to the Sky Blues to come back to the table over the rent and “become responsible“. He accused Sisu of “blustering and bullying“ and putting at risk the Ricoh project for jobs and leisure development around the stadium.
Referring specifically to the details of the offer made by ACL, the club said last night: “When we received ACL's letter, we very much appreciated the spirit in which their offer was made.
“We believed it provided a sound basis for negotiation which we felt would get both parties concerned to arrive at an agreed position to allow us to get on with the really important issue of running our respective organisations in a more positive and productive atmosphere. We therefore immediately asked that we all got round the table to work towards this.
“ACL has, to date, refused to meet with us and went on to issue the statutory demand.
“Somewhat surprisingly we now find our communications being leaked to the press.
“We really want to negotiate with ACL to resolve this matter in a professional manner and not conduct arguments in public.
“We have remained consistent in that all we are seeking to do is to bring about a state of commercial normality so that CCFC is not put at a severe disadvantage to the other clubs it competes with. This means having a rent in line with what other League One clubs pay (with an agreed automatic increase in the rent when the cub is promoted), and having access to the same additional football revenues that other clubs have. A rent of £400,000 is still way in excess of the League One norm.“The club will never reach its ultimate goal of being financially stable along with having a strong competitive squad under the new manager Mark Robins unless the rent is brought in line with other League One Clubs that allows us to make further investment in improving performances on the pitch and giving the fans (and the city in general) the success they seek and deserve.“
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
While the rent is still more than double that paid by any other L1 club, it was a start and I think SISU should have gone with that. However, the club are correct; ACL shouldn't be leaking the deal to the press. Their way of getting people on their side, I guess.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Would guess TF got caught on the hop by these details coming out.

Lets be honest ACL have made a very reasonable offer - a final offer by the looks - which CCFC have turned down.

btw £400k no longer us the highest rent payers in L1 - want proof just ask a Walsall supporter today.

Real question is do TF and SISU really want to do a deal .......... or is there another motive to this :whistle::thinking about:
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
“We believed it provided a sound basis for negotiation which we felt would get both parties concerned to arrive at an agreed position to allow us to get on with the really important issue of running our respective organisations in a more positive and productive atmosphere.

So ACL have already moved 67% in the direction of CCFC and yet Sisu, who have moved 0%, believe this only brings them to the starting position for negotiation?!
Which will come first, peace in the Middle East or a rent agreement?! :slap:
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
While the rent is still more than double that paid by any other L1 club, it was a start and I think SISU should have gone with that. However, the club are correct; ACL shouldn't be leaking the deal to the press. Their way of getting people on their side, I guess.

not telling the press ? ................. errrr pot calling kettle black Torch Club havent got a leg to stand on complaining about that
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
While the rent is still more than double that paid by any other L1 club, it was a start and I think SISU should have gone with that. However, the club are correct; ACL shouldn't be leaking the deal to the press. Their way of getting people on their side, I guess.

Jesus Torch pot and kettle ,they have to defend themselves against all the negative pr thats been lapped by the media peddled from his office.Thank god they're showing some balls !!
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
Who was it that claimed ACL was going bust? Who claimed the bank was threatening ACL? Who reveled ACL's mortgage payment levels? etc etc Don't throw stones if you are just as guilty. Whilst both sides have behaved unprofessionally at least as fans we are actually getting some real facts and can judge for ourselves who is being intransigent in this whole matter. Is it the one who have cut the rent offer by 67% and offered their share of the match day revenue and offered to schedule the back rent over 10 years or the one who hasn't moved one inch.

People should start asking why the club won't now come to an agreement over the rent.
 

Black6Osprey

New Member
I think the offer seems about right and we should have taken it.

£400k is comparable to signing Barton every season.

Putting it like that and it seems a bargain.

If it's true that ACL wouldn't meet then I don't understand this. All business is better carried out face to face especially of this magnitude.
 
Last edited:

Sky Blues

Active Member
While the rent is still more than double that paid by any other L1 club, it was a start and I think SISU should have gone with that. However, the club are correct; ACL shouldn't be leaking the deal to the press. Their way of getting people on their side, I guess.

To quote PWKH when he was being kind enough to tell us, the fans, what was going on from his perspective the other day:

"This wasn’t something meant for public consumption. The Board took its decision with a heavy heart and would have preferred it to remain a confidential business matter between ACL and CCFC. There is little to be gained from playing these dramas out in public. Sadly it seems, certain other parties do not share this view."
 
Last edited:

Sub

Well-Known Member
are they taking the piss when they say "Somewhat surprisingly we now find our communications being leaked to the press" Do they not remember what they did when we had people intrested in buying the club!!!:jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
 

BigadamL

Well-Known Member
I live in walsall and they pay around 400,000 a year to rent the stadium with is a dive. I think SISU have turned down the offer because they can't afford it :s worrying times
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
£400K or not, I guess we need to know what their break-even figure is. Remember when it was 23K a match or something? So you are probably right Biga, even that 67% reduction is unaffordable.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
When they associated themselves with our club, did SISU not complete due diligence on the commitments of the club, primary of which would be rental payable?

How amateurish then, that they never factored in the seemingly devastating effect relegation would have on their financial position. It's actually more than amateurish not to factor this 'what if' into the broader thinking; and to make sure the overall plan was sufficiently robust to withstand this.

For them now to realise their error, I repeat their error, and watch the other contracting party more than reach out to accommodate their foolishness and to still reject such flexibility is shocking. Truly shocking.

In fact it makes me genuinely angry
 

Black6Osprey

New Member
£400K or not, I guess we need to know what their break-even figure is. Remember when it was 23K a match or something? So you are probably right Biga, even that 67% reduction is unaffordable.

Yeah but Torchy, come on, Barton or a stadium? Which one would you pick?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
I'd rather know the Club is paying a fair rent and able to bolster the squad with decent players. Surely, that's what we all want.

I like Barton.

Yeah but Torchy, come on, Barton or a stadium? Which one would you pick?
 

The CableGuy

Well-Known Member
Both sides need to compromise.

ACL have been willing. More than willing by the look of it.

SISU? :jerkit:

This isn't about the rent, I suspect it never has been. This is about SISU getting the Arena at a knock down price, and their willing to put local jobs within ACL, AND a local charity, at risk to do so.

Don't kid yourselves that they give a shit about CCFC or what's good for Coventry and its citizens.
 

Waldorf

New Member
And they still can't afford that after Kilbane's retirement? I reckon the food/drink takings must be in the region of £100k, so even if Kilbane's was only earning £2,000 a week, that covers the gap between what they've been offered and what they've always said they wanted to pay.
This has never been about the rent. It's about SISU getting their filthy mitts on the Ricoh. If I was ACL I'd say, "That's our last offer. Take it or sod off."
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
not telling the press ? ................. errrr pot calling kettle black Torch Club havent got a leg to stand on complaining about that


Exactly.

This would seem like retaliation to Fisher coming out and mouthing off.

The club have to accept this. Then can then go on to argue the toss all day long after and continue negotiating!
 

Sky Blues

Active Member
And they still can't afford that after Kilbane's retirement? I reckon the food/drink takings must be in the region of £100k, so even if Kilbane's was only earning £2,000 a week, that covers the gap between what they've been offered and what they've always said they wanted to pay.
This has never been about the rent. It's about SISU getting their filthy mitts on the Ricoh. If I was ACL I'd say, "That's our last offer. Take it or sod off."

I think ACL did and that's why they issued the statutory demand!
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
£400K or not, I guess we need to know what their break-even figure is. Remember when it was 23K a match or something? So you are probably right Biga, even that 67% reduction is unaffordable.

To a very great degree CCFC choose their own break even point by the level of wages that they pay. TF apparently wants league average at £170k (was £200K then £150K now £170k if you believe his statements). For a ground that is way above L1 average. So that would be in his terms £230k required to make the club viable ....... with 37 players signed on, TF confirmed they would be maximising FFP at £4.2m. You tell me at £400k whether it is the rent that is the tipping point or whether the club choose to portray it as such ?

They have been offered rent fixed for 3 years, dependent on success, debt restructured over 10 years......... thats certainty of cost and cashflow ...... the opportunity to have all match day income streams. Say the profit on catering was £100k that the club get - just how far apart are they ..... and that is ACL bending over backwards

And their response is to complain about it all being leaked :thinking about: to say ACL havent come to the table...... the offer was 11th hour final one - it could have been accepted as a heads of agreement with fine details to be ironed out but SISU/TF only called it a start? To basically say it isnt acceptable

They do not want a deal on the rent they want a far bigger prize.
 
Last edited:

The CableGuy

Well-Known Member
I'd rather know the Club is paying a fair rent and able to bolster the squad with decent players. Surely, that's what we all want.

What I want is for the club to accept ACL's latest offer, without bitching to the press (again) about ACL's finances, which are at risk because of the club.

How you (or any one else) can complain about ACL leaking details to the press, given SISU's past history, is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

CarpyCov84

New Member
Pretty obvious Sisu are gonna end this football club who in their right mind would turn that offer down its more than fair.Serioulsly fearing the worst for us
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
And the club is at risk because of the high rent. What's the difference?

What I want is for the club to accept ACL's latest offer, without bitching to the press (again) about ACL's finances, which are at risk because of the club.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Pretty obvious Sisu are gonna end this football club who in their right mind would turn that offer down its more than fair.Serioulsly fearing the worst for us

Don't be affraid,Its only fear that is keeping people onside with these Shisters.
 

The CableGuy

Well-Known Member
And the club is at risk because of the high rent. What's the difference?

Bullshit.

I say again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RENT! Certainly not after this latest offer.

That's what SISU want people to believe.

SISU have to meet ACL halfway - or at least make some attempt to do so - when have they done that?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
To be fair we only know the £400k bit, we have no idea what the rent attached to promotion and attemdance offer was. It could be £1m in championship, £1.5m in the premier league for all we know.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Ah, I see. I obviously haven't been wearing my tin foil hat.

Bullshit.

I say again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RENT! Certainly not after this latest offer.

That's what SISU want people to believe.

SISU have to meet ACL halfway - or at least make some attempt to do so - when have they done that?
 

Black6Osprey

New Member
To be fair we only know the £400k bit, we have no idea what the rent attached to promotion and attemdance offer was. It could be £1m in championship, £1.5m in the premier league for all we know.

I still want to know whether rent includes all match day costs?
 

TalkSkyBlue

New Member
Torch I can see where you're coming from, but- it's not about the rent.

By the way, OSB you're doing a fantastic job. Thanks
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I'm not scared of them getting the Ricoh cos they won't .

I'm not scared about the situation now either ,if it goes tits it won't be because they can't find £400k.,it'll be becuase they won't find £400k.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
It's clearly not about the rent.

Sisu were never in this for the long haul.

The only thing of any value is the stadium and the land surrounding it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top