PH4 to buy Ricoh (18 Viewers)

[@richh87]

We haven't got enough fans for 1 team let alone 2.

We've certainly got enough for 1 big team population-wise, it's just the public have been served up crap football for decade after decade.

Every now and then we prove that there's a lot of people just itching to see City succeed.

I think it could support 2 teams, but small-ish league 1 type size. (Not that we'll end up with 2 teams anyhow).

 

---

[dick turpin]

Means nothing unless SISU want to sell, Haskell isn't going to risk buying a share in the Ricoh and then not being able to deal with SISU and ending up with an empty stadium.

Well there was me thinking that any buyer for ACL would also have to BUY a PRIME PIECE of land as well.
Someone posted some were about, the Land would pay for the RICOH when built on.
would love to find this POST again.

If i were PH4 i would be ALL IN on 50% of ACL and 100% LAND ownership
and the GREAT HIGGS TRUST get their FUNDS back,to pump back into other Great
COVENTRY projects.

happydays

 

[Paxman II]

Are you sure this statement isn't simply one to make Hoffman and Elliott look like less failures again? I think Haskell would be foolish to consider such a deal. I also though the 50% share in ACL and to buy back the Higgs charity share is still with the football club?

I don't think we will be seeing Mr Haskell any time soon....

 

[mark82]

what about the scenario I put forward the other week .... they start again with new co team at the bottom of the league ....
That leaves sizu ...stumped
They either knock down the door of ph4 .. to do a deal ....or ...
Watch new co skate up the league's ...and see they're investments go down the plug hole ???

If a new team were to be created it would be better off being fan owned. 51% fan owned like in Germany bare minimum.

Projects like FC United, Chester FC, AFC Wimbledon and others have proved this model works.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !

 

[lordsummerisle]

It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !

Unfortunately with ACL's "deal" with the club, the more fans we get in the more it costs us.

 

[deanocity3]

It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !

when we got promoted in 1967 we had the 15th best attendances in the country.with average of 34,000

 

[ccfctommy]

The part of me that hates SISU would love to see this; however we would have to start very low down, and it would take several years to make it back to professional football.

All it would take is for SISU to bring back the real CCFC and it would all be for nothing.

If people want to do this then I'm right behind it. I'd love it to become a 2 team City as it creates a rivalry that generates interest and boosts attendances, but I don't see it happening.

That would be a new team with nothing to do with Coventry City.

Probably will have to play at Nuneaton aswell.

 

[deanocity3]

rowleys green rovers

 

[Porkchophill]

Diversify into what?

Britains largest car boot sale venue

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We've certainly got enough for 1 big team population-wise, it's just the public have been served up crap football for decade after decade.

Every now and then we prove that there's a lot of people just itching to see City succeed.

I think it could support 2 teams, but small-ish league 1 type size. (Not that we'll end up with 2 teams anyhow).

Agree with this 100%. Very rarely has there been a team on the pitch worthy of a full house.

 

[Sisued]

but at least we had a house

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

but at least we had a house

We always have done, it's just SISU won't rest until ACL fold.

 

[georgehudson]

& the suggestion that sisu will not rest until ACL fold, begs the question,
what are their (Otiums) real intentions ?

 

[James Smith]

If PH4 can buy the Higgs Share, and I hold no illusions that SISU would ever take that lying down, then that would be very good news as it might help rid us of SISU for ever. It also puts ACL in a better position in any negotiations with SISU as they would be dealing with a new, and I assume harder nosed, people than before (with no offence meant to the Higgs representatives on the ACL board) who won't take any sh1t.

Can just imagine PH4 posting on the "SISU - OUT... what have you done to help rid CCFC Ltd of them ?" thread with the words Bought the Higgs Charity Share of ACL.

Really Hope This Happens

 

[dongonzalos]

it doesn't solve any problems, they wouldn't sell to phv now and won't in the future

So they would build a new 30 million pound stadium

 

[@richh87]

& the suggestion that sisu will not rest until ACL fold, begs the question,
what are their (Otiums) real intentions ?

I think their real intentions have been clear for a while now. They want to drive ACL into administration and acquire the Ricoh.

Hardly honourable intentions are they. Scum, sub-human scum.

 

[Hobo]

I think their real intentions have been clear for a while now. They want to drive ACL into administration and acquire the Ricoh.

Hardly honourable intentions are they. Scum, sub-human scum.

Also SISU are making money out of the club debt to them, it's the club that is loosing money not them. They can also use this non profit making venture to off set tax due on profits elsewhere. People on here who thought they were desperate to leave have been mistaken. They have a long term strategy, not good for the club, but good for them!

 

[Otis]

If PH4 can buy the Higgs Share, and I hold no illusions that SISU would ever take that lying down, then that would be very good news as it might help rid us of SISU for ever. It also puts ACL in a better position in any negotiations with SISU as they would be dealing with a new, and I assume harder nosed, people than before (with no offence meant to the Higgs representatives on the ACL board) who won't take any sh1t.

Can just imagine PH4 posting on the "SISU - OUT... what have you done to help rid CCFC Ltd of them ?" thread with the words Bought the Higgs Charity Share of ACL.

Or 'Sailed my yacht up the Thames Estuary just to tie a Sisu out balloon on Tim Fisher's car.'

 

[torchomatic]

Scum, sub-human scum? Murderers and paedophiles perhaps.

I think their real intentions have been clear for a while now. They want to drive ACL into administration and acquire the Ricoh.

Hardly honourable intentions are they. Scum, sub-human scum.

 

[Sky Blue Sheepy]

Scum, sub-human scum? Murderers and paedophiles perhaps.

Conmen doesn't sound quite as good though

 

[Houchens Head]

It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !

I remember those heady days, VoR! :claping hands:

 

[Spionkop]

VOR, good to read someone who talks the team up, too many on here talk us down. Potentially we are a pretty big club. Youngsters on here have no knowledge of what we once were before the rot set in. Very sad at times. Wolves, Sunderland, Man U in 1963, beating Millwall to go up to top division for first time. Getting into Europe. Big crowds. That Wolves game in 1967, I reckon there were at least 60,000 in the ground, on the floodlights, roof of the West End, round the touchlines. Loads got in free when the gates were locked. Etc etc.
Now, Jeez, somebody wake me up from this nightmare.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Unfortunately with ACL's "deal" with the club, the more fans we get in the more it costs us.

In what way?

 

[wingy]

In what way?

Think its a reference to money made on a matchday By ACL/Compass.

 

[skybluesam66]

I think re AcL -they are as guilty as sisu -

SISU want to use ccfc to get hold of the ricoh
ACL want to use ccfc as a cash cow

Neither have the football club at heart

old pkwh has gone very quiet in recent weeks, now that ACL have been exposed

we really somehow need a new start without Sisu, without ACL and without Cov council

not sure how this is achieved

"Take me home, highfield Road"

 

[lordsummerisle]

In what way?

Something posted on GMK, not exactly sure of the source though.

"1). Agreement of exra payments to ACL from CCFC of £3 per spectatover over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Prem was central to contestation in HOT deal of January 2013.
(2). Lease agreement from council to ACL has Super-rent agreement whereby ACL have to pay CNR/Cov City Council "super-rent" (between 10 and 50% increases) if ACL profits exceed £3.75m per annum."

I know that point (2) is from the construction report, so has veracity, though it seems that point (1) is far more recent.

If point one is correct it seems madness commericially from both sides,

Would have thought that reducing the rent the larger the crowds would be a better way, more income from food/drink.parking etc, would also encourage the club to reduce ticket prices to entice more fans.

If it is correct, don't think that anybody could logically agree with it.

 

[chiefdave]

old pkwh has gone very quiet in recent weeks, now that ACL have been exposed

he'll be busy as he needs to get some Otium out ballons made to repalce the SISU out ones

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think re AcL -they are as guilty as sisu -

SISU want to use ccfc to get hold of the ricoh
ACL want to use ccfc as a cash cow

Neither have the football club at heart

old pkwh has gone very quiet in recent weeks, now that ACL have been exposed

we really somehow need a new start without Sisu, without ACL and without Cov council

not sure how this is achieved

"Take me home, highfield Road"

PWKH? Last I heard he was busy securing a year's supply of tuna for his cat in order to boost his 'like' count.

 

[lordsummerisle]

PWKH? Last I heard he was busy securing a year's supply of tuna for his cat in order to boost his 'like' count.

He'll be up a ladder sorting out the guttering, didn't get the chance to finish it last time as Stuart Linnel called part-way through.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He'll be up a ladder sorting out the guttering, didn't get the chance to finish it last time as Stuart Linnel called part-way through.

To be fair at least he can't be accused of not fixing the roof while the sun was shining.

 

[lordsummerisle]

To be fair at least he can't be accused of not fixing the roof while the sun was shining.

psgm1 will have him building a roof over the Ricoh.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Something posted on GMK, not exactly sure of the source though.

"1). Agreement of exra payments to ACL from CCFC of £3 per spectatover over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Prem was central to contestation in HOT deal of January 2013.
(2). Lease agreement from council to ACL has Super-rent agreement whereby ACL have to pay CNR/Cov City Council "super-rent" (between 10 and 50% increases) if ACL profits exceed £3.75m per annum."

I know that point (2) is from the construction report, so has veracity, though it seems that point (1) is far more recent.

If point one is correct it seems madness commericially from both sides,

Would have thought that reducing the rent the larger the crowds would be a better way, more income from food/drink.parking etc, would also encourage the club to reduce ticket prices to entice more fans.

If it is correct, don't think that anybody could logically agree with it.

Those terms were dropped as posted this forum & SBT site.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28898-Full-Q-and-A-s?p=408828&viewfull=1#post408828

8: Have rents for Championship and Premiership been offered and agreed?
ACL: Yes, all part of the HOT verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. Requirement for extra spectator payments subsequently withdrawn verbally.
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I'm sure those terms were dropped & PKWH has posted that on this forum.

So they do not exist in the ACL final offer.

I thought that the HOT agreed in January was the last time that they spoke and ACL said soon after that there would be no more negotiation?

"30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?

ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."

"

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Something posted on GMK, not exactly sure of the source though.

"1). Agreement of exra payments to ACL from CCFC of £3 per spectatover over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Prem was central to contestation in HOT deal of January 2013.
(2). Lease agreement from council to ACL has Super-rent agreement whereby ACL have to pay CNR/Cov City Council "super-rent" (between 10 and 50% increases) if ACL profits exceed £3.75m per annum."

I know that point (2) is from the construction report, so has veracity, though it seems that point (1) is far more recent.

If point one is correct it seems madness commericially from both sides,

Would have thought that reducing the rent the larger the crowds would be a better way, more income from food/drink.parking etc, would also encourage the club to reduce ticket prices to entice more fans.

If it is correct, don't think that anybody could logically agree with it.

I agree, on first analysis it seems crazed. However, quotes and figures are all about context.

If, for example, that was proposed as a way of clearing the rent arrears over time, it would be a valid proposition; wouldn't it?