Mark Robins knew the score..... (7 Viewers)

[theferret]

All fair enough, but please don't buy this myth that there's no taxpayers' money in the stadium. Cov CC put £10m in as a grant, and now hold £14m as a mortgage. Higgs trust paid £6.5m for CCFC's 50% share, part cash, part debt write-off.

What grant? That never happened.

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

All fair enough, but please don't buy this myth that there's no taxpayers' money in the stadium. Cov CC put £10m in as a grant, and now hold £14m as a mortgage. Higgs trust paid £6.5m for CCFC's 50% share, part cash, part debt write-off.

The council also paid £17M to buy the land from British Gas and put in another £2M to seed ACL, see appendix 2.
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
The figures show amounts in £1000, 2nd column is forcast & 3rd column is actual figure, 4th column the difference, 5th column refers to notes in report.

What grant? That never happened.

The £10M CCC put in is listed as 'council equity investment' in the report.

theferret is misrepresenting the facts.. the reality is that the council put most of the money in.. the fact that a lot of cash was made from selling land to Tesco does not mean that Tesco bought it, it means that the profit the council made from a land deal was invested in the Arena, they could have used it for other things, but chose to invest it in building the Arena.

theferrett is grossly misrepresenting the facts, the council/ACL put in or backed about £95M at peak, and AWM/ERDF/Casino put up the rest, where is the contribution from CCFC? well there isn't one is there..

 

[theferret]

What the frig?? I haven't been on here since Saturday where I was witness to the biggest display of unity from Sky Blues Fans for as long as I can remember. Proud to be apart of that unity through adversity. A few days on and we've regressed a year. He said, she did, labelling. What matters is saving our club, not mud slinging, not who predicted what and not who is to blame. Let's be proactive not reactive and build on what Saturday achieved.

To be honest, I've gone beyond caring as to whether it's Sisu's fault, ACL's fault, Richardsons fault or whoever. I just want this sorted. The time for bringing those to account is for after we've pulled this club away from the raging storm of the abyss.

Yeah, I get that. The nature of internet message boards is that they go off on tangents though. No harm in it and this is just your standard fans forum fayre I guess. You're right though, no point picking over the past.

 

[duffer]

What grant? That never happened.

It did happen, I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your perspective on this, but it did.

See official report and cost breakdown. linked by JG above.

 

[Seyeclops666]

All fair enough, but please don't buy this myth that there's no taxpayers' money in the stadium. Cov CC put £10m in as a grant, and now hold £14m as a mortgage. Higgs trust paid £6.5m for CCFC's 50% share, part cash, part debt write-off.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Stevec189]

Why are you all insistant that it is all about the stadium or the team - it isn't. It's all about the redevelopment of the surrounding area and land. i.e. about making money and creating a sustainable regenerated environment (depending who you work for!).

All parties have a degree of culpability. All I want is for them to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and say - lets start again. Item 1 Playing in Coventry Item 2 .......

PUSB

 

[Seyeclops666]

I am sure that on an individual level, what you say is true. The council's biggest errors date back to when SISU took control. The club was on its knees at that point, but I don't ever recall the council - or more specifically ACL - offering to help the club by revisiting the terms of the agreement (at a time when the arena was probably at its most profitable). What they did instead (and this was more the council) was throw their weight behind SISU, and they effectively insisted that the club only deal with them, this at a time when GR had concerns and was trying to open negotiations with other interested parties. Their actions at that time were more about preserving their income from the club than they were about saving the club (imo), perhaps that and just a little bit of poor judgement thrown in as well. To a certain extent though, I blame GR for allowing himself to be bullied by the council.

All water under the bridge though I guess. We are where we are, and I've no doubt that now the council (probably more so than ACL) just want to see the club survive. None of those individuals want to be able to say in years to come that the city lost its football club under their watch. I think any talk now of ACL/council self-interest is misplaced.

I am glad that you said that - I certainly believe that whatever happened in the past they do want the best for the club (and City). Interestingly one of the discussions that happened when the rent was initially agreed was to have a sliding scale depending on whether we were in the premiership or down in League 3 but the club (before SISU's time - can't remember iof this was Richardson's decision or not) didnt go for it - expecting to be playing top flight football in a stadium but at League 1 prices - unfortunately it has gone the very opposite way!!

 

[philmcc]

Despite MR's pro SISU quote when he jumped ship even Tim Fisher recently quoted Mark Robins as saying that Huddersfield had made him "an offer he couldn't refuse" and "that his family comes first". Leads me to believe he left primarily for the money.

 

[Seyeclops666]

Why are you all insistant that it is all about the stadium or the team - it isn't. It's all about the redevelopment of the surrounding area and land. i.e. about making money and creating a sustainable regenerated environment (depending who you work for!).

All parties have a degree of culpability. All I want is for them to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and say - lets start again. Item 1 Playing in Coventry Item 2 .......

PUSB

SISU don't 'build' or develop anything - (allegedly) all the evidence from every deal they have done demonstrates that they asset strip and destroy whilst making money from extortionate management fees and loading companies with false debt before liquidating them or selling them off. I dont want them involved in CCFC and our stadium for one minute more and certainly not in the medium term - as there wouldnt be a longer term if they did.

 

[Grendel]

Against the council there's a bit of conjecture, some complaints that the rent was a bit high.

Did you type the "bit high" with a straight face?

 

[theferret]

The council also paid £17M to buy the land from British Gas and put in another £2M to seed ACL, see appendix 2.
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
The figures show amounts in £1000, 2nd column is forcast & 3rd column is actual figure, 4th column the difference, 5th column refers to notes in report.

The £10M CCC put in is listed as 'council equity investment' in the report.

theferret is misrepresenting the facts.. the reality is that the council put most of the money in.. the fact that a lot of cash was made from selling land to Tesco does not mean that Tesco bought it, it means that the profit the council made from a land deal was invested in the Arena, they could have used it for other things, but chose to invest it in building the Arena.

theferrett is grossly misrepresenting the facts, the council/ACL put in or backed about £95M at peak, and AWM/ERDF/Casino put up the rest, where is the contribution from CCFC? well there isn't one is there..

Yet again, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts on the Tesco deal. That you have managed to reach a figure of '£95m' and kept a straight face is staggering. The equity investment represents pretty much the sum total of the council's actual contribution.

You have a very hazy recollection of the chronology of events that led up to the construction of the arena - all you have is this one document which you keep on standby every time you want try and peddle this nonsense about the Tesco money somehow belonging to the council.

Let's take you back a few years. That site was derelict and contaminated. Developers did not want to touch it. Then the football club came along with their proposal and the council came on board to help the club leverage a deal to first buy and then sell on some of the land (having been decontaminated) to Tesco - this was a deal brokered by the football club, for the benefit of the football club but which clearly would have knock-on benefits for the council. All of this happened when the club had total ownership of the project. The suggestion you make therefore that the council 'could have used it for other things' is simply untrue - it was the club's deal which they helped facilitate (this sort of thing happens all the time and I am sure they will have leveraged similar land deals in the past at Walsgrave Triangle, Pro Logis and other locations - because to do so has kick-backs for the city in terms of job creation and business rates etc.).

This deal was done very early on in the process. We then had delays, the National Stadium bid, and eventually the new scaled down version of the project - which was all good to go until Leicester went into administration and the building contractor pulled out. The project went out to tender again, while all the time the club was getting into deeper financial woes and the council gradually became more involved, culminating in the decision to secure the £21 million loan, and then Higgs purchased the 50% stake the club were to have in the stadium management company. The bulk of the money came from Tesco (that was the club's deal), grants and loans.

The £10 million 'equity investment' was a no risk investment by the council, which they were going to make anyway (even when the club were driving the project) because they were always going to retain ownership of the freehold. It is no risk, because even if the business fails, the building and associated land will always be worth substantially more than £10 million (consider that the contaminated land cost £17 million - and that was a knock-down price nearly 10 years ago) - and the stadium still occupies nearly half of that original land.

This world where developers are queuing up to buy brownfield sites in and around Coventry that will net the council millions 'to do what they want with' is pure fiction. The whole project was driven by the football club, and while that land may have been developed eventually, there was certainly nobody else queuing up to buy back then (at the height of a property boom). You can spin it whatever way you like, the truth is the council now have full ownership of something worth many tens of millions, all for an equity investment totalling £10 million. They could not have dreamed of such an outcome when Bryan Richardson first knocked on their door.

 

[torchomatic]

Seems like you were party to whatever was said too.

Robins only knew what Tim told him

 

[Nick]

Despite MR's pro SISU quote when he jumped ship even Tim Fisher recently quoted Mark Robins as saying that Huddersfield had made him "an offer he couldn't refuse" and "that his family comes first". Leads me to believe he left primarily for the money.

Wasn't it 3 or 4 times what he was on here? In a league above, with more money to spend, closer to his family?

 

[duffer]

Did you type the "bit high" with a straight face?

Absolutely. Because of the cost of the stadium, it seemed a reasonable enough figure at the time the deal was signed. It also seemed a reasonable enough figure to SISU when they took over, and indeed was reasonable enough to them for a few years after that. In fact, it only seemed to get a "bit high" after they'd mismanaged us into League One, and couldn't get their hands on the stadium for nothing.

I can't stop you holding your opinion, though how your type some of your stuff with a straight face is utterly beyond me too.

 

[hatchett87]

Here we go the Council apologists....

Edgy,

I've read many of your posts on here and on GMK, and regard you as one of the better, more intelligent posters. However, you've got me baffled at the moment, as you seem to coming out in favour of SISU. I saw your post about not turning out on Saturday in case someone said 'SISU out'.

I'm not looking for a fight, but could you just explain what your view is? Are you seriously suggesting that you are pro-SISU? I totally agree that they're not the only ones to blame, but how anyone could be in favour of owners, who have presided over the worst period (at least in my memory) in the club's history, bewilders me.

Cheers,
Hatchett

 

[fernandopartridge]

the council are trying to take account of the other 300K+ residents too.

Exactly - so why interfere with the running of a football club?

 

[duffer]

Yet again, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts on the Tesco deal. That you have managed to reach a figure of '£95m' and kept a straight face is staggering. The equity investment represents pretty much the sum total of the council's actual contribution.

You have a very hazy recollection of the chronology of events that led up to the construction of the arena - all you have is this one document which you keep on standby every time you want try and peddle this nonsense about the Tesco money somehow belonging to the council.

Let's take you back a few years. That site was derelict and contaminated. Developers did not want to touch it. Then the football club came along with their proposal and the council came on board to help the club leverage a deal to first buy and then sell on some of the land (having been decontaminated) to Tesco - this was a deal brokered by the football club, for the benefit of the football club but which clearly would have knock-on benefits for the council. All of this happened when the club had total ownership of the project. The suggestion you make therefore that the council 'could have used it for other things' is simply untrue - it was the club's deal which they helped facilitate (this sort of thing happens all the time and I am sure they will have leveraged similar land deals in the past at Walsgrave Triangle, Pro Logis and other locations - because to do so has kick-backs for the city in terms of job creation and business rates etc.).

This deal was done very early on in the process. We then had delays, the National Stadium bid, and eventually the new scaled down version of the project - which was all good to go until Leicester went into administration and the building contractor pulled out. The project went out to tender again, while all the time the club was getting into deeper financial woes and the council gradually became more involved, culminating in the decision to secure the £21 million loan, and then Higgs purchased the 50% stake the club were to have in the stadium management company. The bulk of the money came from Tesco (that was the club's deal), grants and loans.

The £10 million 'equity investment' was a no risk investment by the council, which they were going to make anyway (even when the club were driving the project) because they were always going to retain ownership of the freehold. It is no risk, because even if the business fails, the building and associated land will always be worth substantially more than £10 million (consider that the contaminated land cost £17 million - and that was a knock-down price nearly 10 years ago) - and the stadium still occupies nearly half of that original land.

This world where developers are queuing up to buy brownfield sites in and around Coventry that will net the council millions 'to do what they want with' is pure fiction. The whole project was driven by the football club, and while that land may have been developed eventually, there was certainly nobody else queuing up to buy back then (at the height of a property boom). You can spin it whatever way you like, the truth is the council now have full ownership of something worth many tens of millions, all for an equity investment totalling £10 million. They could not have dreamed of such an outcome when Bryan Richardson first knocked on their door.

And you can stack it any way you want, but the simple fact is that that document represents the money paid into the final build, and that without the council it simply doesn't get built.

I've got a very clear memory of this too, and the Council investment very nearly didn't happen - in fact it came down to a single vote. By that point the club neither owned the land the Ricoh sits on, nor Highfield Rd. CCFC, of course, never actually owned the land. Moving on, the Council now has the £10m original investment and the £14m mortgage hanging off them, and yet there's this repeated mantra that they've got no stake in the arena. Frankly, that's rubbish.

It's not the Council's fault that CCFC was run so badly prior to and since the building of the Arena. That they are somehow seen as the bad guys in this is beyond belief to me.

(And once again I've got drawn into this utterly pointless argument...)

 

[Jack Griffin]

Yet again, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts on the Tesco deal. That you have managed to reach a figure of '£95m' and kept a straight face is staggering. The equity investment represents pretty much the sum total of the council's actual contribution.

A few hours ago you said the council didn't invest much more than £2M, and now you admit the £10M sum and drop (the entirely separate & additional £2M they put in).. your spin continues..
* Yes, I think the £10M was put in to match the AWM/EDRF grants

It is true the club came up with the concept & Tesco put money in to get themselves a large & lucrative shopping complex, but it doesn't alter the fact that the council supported the deal financially & the club didn't.

the truth is the council now have full ownership of something worth many tens of millions,

Well in that case then SISU should be prepared to pay tens of millions to acquire it, either that or give it to Tesco.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The council also paid £17M to buy the land from British Gas and put in another £2M to seed ACL, see appendix 2.
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
The figures show amounts in £1000, 2nd column is forcast & 3rd column is actual figure, 4th column the difference, 5th column refers to notes in report.

The £10M CCC put in is listed as 'council equity investment' in the report.

theferret is misrepresenting the facts.. the reality is that the council put most of the money in.. the fact that a lot of cash was made from selling land to Tesco does not mean that Tesco bought it, it means that the profit the council made from a land deal was invested in the Arena, they could have used it for other things, but chose to invest it in building the Arena.

theferrett is grossly misrepresenting the facts, the council/ACL put in or backed about £95M at peak, and AWM/ERDF/Casino put up the rest, where is the contribution from CCFC? well there isn't one is there..

The investment mostly came from other sources but was channelled through the council. They even borrowed money for the fit out which the club has helped repay through the ridiculous rental agreement.

Please read the 'Income' part of the table. £10m from the council. The £10m equity investment is most likely to be match funding for the contribution from AWM and ERDF of £9.2m (AWM are likely to have used European Structural Funds themselves to finance their contribution).

 

[fernandopartridge]

A few hours ago you said the council didn't invest much more than £2M, and not you admit the £10M sum and drop (the entirely separate & additional £2M they put in).. your spin continues..

It is true the club came up with the concept & Tesco put money in to get themselves a large & lucrative shopping complex, but it doesn't alter the fact that the council supported the deal financially & the club didn't.



Well in that case then SISU should be prepared to pay tens of millions to acquire it, either that or give it to Tesco.

The club have supported it through a completely unfair rent agreement for a number of years.

Why did the council have to borrow money to fit out the stadium if they were such willing benefactors?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Did the club pay full rent for this period? Just a question.....

As a result of the commercial consequences to the ACL business plan of the delay to the full completion of certain parts of the Arena, CNR granted a rent abatement period between 19 August 2005 and 31 January 2006 to ACL (approved by the Council on 17 January 2006).

 

[duffer]

The club have supported it through a completely unfair rent agreement for a number of years.

Why did the council have to borrow money to fit out the stadium if they were such willing benefactors?

Just out of interest, what would be a fair rent for stadium costing £30m - £60m? If it's so unfair, where has all of the egregious profit made from it gone?

If it was so unfair, why did CCFC sign up for it without complaint, and why did they only push for a reduction in the last year or so?

 

[Jack Griffin]

The investment mostly came from other sources but was channelled through the council. They even borrowed money for the fit out which the club has helped repay through the ridiculous rental agreement.

Please read the 'Income' part of the table. £10m from the council. The £10m equity investment is most likely to be match funding for the contribution from AWM and ERDF of £9.2m (AWM are likely to have used European Structural Funds themselves to finance their contribution).

I think that the rental agreement should have been designed as a way of buying back as percentage of the lost interest over a period of time. Blame Mr Fletcher for that one, he negotiated it.
However it still doesn't solve the problem of the Higgs charity having £6M tied up in the Arena.. that is a serious serious problem.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just out of interest, what would be a fair rent for stadium costing £30m - £60m? If it's so unfair, where has all of the egregious profit made from it gone?

If it was so unfair, why did CCFC sign up for it without complaint, and why did they only push for a reduction in the last year or so?

How much do Hull or Swansea pay? If we're talking market rents than lets compare it to other recently built stadia....

CCFC signed up to it with a gun to their head, not forgetting that the CCFC that signed then is not the CCFC that won't sign now.

Circumstances change, it appears to me that the Council were willing to offer a rent abatement to a company due to a change of circumstances, only that company would not afford the same to another who were also subject to a change in circumstance.

 

[theferret]

And you can stack it any way you want, but the simple fact is that that document represents the money paid into the final build, and that without the council it simply doesn't get built.

I've got a very clear memory of this too, and the Council investment very nearly didn't happen - in fact it came down to a single vote. By that point the club neither owned the land the Ricoh sits on, nor Highfield Rd. CCFC, of course, never actually owned the land. Moving on, the Council now has the £10m original investment and the £14m mortgage hanging off them, and yet there's this repeated mantra that they've got no stake in the arena. Frankly, that's rubbish.

It's not the Council's fault that CCFC was run so badly prior to and since the building of the Arena. That they are somehow seen as the bad guys in this is beyond belief to me.

(And once again I've got drawn into this utterly pointless argument...)

The council saved the project by securing a £21 million back loan that has been paid back by ACL, that is a matter of documented fact. It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for that - nobody is seeking to deny that (I am sure we all wish now that they hadn't done it, especially as we now know the club had the option to buy back HR - and would have done so according to GR).

The issue is that people often grossly overstate the level of investment, belittle the role of the club in driving the project as far as they did, and underestimate the extent to which the council have benefited from the whole thing. But then, some may argue that they took the risk and so deserve those rewards.

Also, who has said they have no stake in the arena? On the contrary, they own the entire site (every last brick and square yard of it, and essentially run the business that operate the facility). It is theirs. Lock, stock and barrel.

They are seen as the bad guys not because they ultimately made it happen, but because of the terms they imposed on the club at a time when the club was desperate and potless - and yet still with real ambitions of returning to the top flight (those couple of years following the move were crucial - and yet for a lot of reasons we failed to capitalise). The rent was far higher than it ever needed to be and you do wonder if they had followed the lead from Swansea council (Swansea remember moved into their new ground on the same day we did), you wonder if the fortunes of the club might have been different. Maybe, maybe not (the club was very badly run as it was) - but had they, the benefits to the city (and council) would have been far greater than anything received from the CCFC rent agreement. The mere idea of charging the football club rent to play in a stadium built for them seems pretty self-defeating anyway. If having a top flight team is worth many tens of millions to the local economy (as we are told it is), why would you hinder their chances of getting there? Makes no sense.

I do agree though - it is a pointless argument. Just going round in circles.

 

[No future with SISU]

It cost £118,677 (Million/Thousand) to build the Ricoh including buying the land(£24 Million the council paid to aquire the land). Decontaminate the site cost £17 Million.The council put in £10 million, they also attracted £10 million of external Grants(e.u.,advantage west midlands and other bodies) also £9.2 of external funding from the goverment. Also if you looked at the accounts their is a sum of £21 Million pounds the council arranged. This is all much more than the £2 million some ill informed people on here say the council spent to build the Ricoh.The question they need to ask is who received the £24 million for waste land(the club maybe)

 

[Jack Griffin]

The club have supported it through a completely unfair rent agreement for a number of years.

Why did the council have to borrow money to fit out the stadium if they were such willing benefactors?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3198884.stm

 

[Jack Griffin]

It cost £118,677 (Million/Thousand) to build the Ricoh including buying the land(£24 Million the council paid to aquire the land). Decontaminate the site cost £17 Million.The council put in £10 million, they also attracted £10 million of external Grants(e.u.,advantage west midlands and other bodies) also £9.2 of external funding from the goverment. Also if you looked at the accounts their is a sum of £21 Million pounds the council arranged. This is all much more than the £2 million some ill informed people on here say the council spent to build the Ricoh.The question they need to ask is who received the £24 million for waste land(the club maybe)

I think they paid £17M for the land to British Gas, I don't understand where £24M comes into it?
One thing is for sure Bryan Richardson got a handsome fee out of it.

 

[theferret]

A few hours ago you said the council didn't invest much more than £2M, and now you admit the £10M sum and drop (the entirely separate & additional £2M they put in).. your spin continues..
* Yes, I think the £10M was put in to match the AWM/EDRF grants

It is true the club came up with the concept & Tesco put money in to get themselves a large & lucrative shopping complex, but it doesn't alter the fact that the council supported the deal financially & the club didn't.



Well in that case then SISU should be prepared to pay tens of millions to acquire it, either that or give it to Tesco.

The combined value of the land, bricks and mortar, and the business that operates the facility is worth many tens of millions - but there is no prospect of the council ever selling the freehold. What is the value of the business that owns the lease? Your guess is as good as mine. It turns over circa £8 million, makes a small profit. I don't know what the market value of a leisure business like that would be to be honest. £25-£35 million perhaps?

 

[James Smith]

I guess he was going on what he has been told by Fisher & never had access or knowledge of negotiations.

Timmy has been seen to be economical with the truth time after time.

Personally I want to see the truth exposed in court.. we'll only be expressing our opinions & feelings otherwise.

Roll on the judicial review we'll see if councils can loan money to companies they are part owners in and who is to blame for what in all this mess.

 

[Otis]

Roll on the judicial review we'll see if councils can loan money to companies they are part owners in and who is to blame for what in all this mess.

Bit bizarre really cos I lend money to myself all the time and I own all that and no-one's said a word to me.

 

[olderskyblue]

Seems like you were party to whatever was said too.

Damn, my covers blown, I am Tim....

 

[James Smith]

I can only speak for myself, but the reason that I didn't "rally behind the club when the rent dispute first started" was because of the appalling way SISU handled the "negotiations".

At the time, when others were praising SISU's tough negotiating stance, I predicted that it would all end very badly.

I am very unhappy to have been proven correct on this.

I thought their initial negotiations with ACL where they didn't talk to ACL and just boycotted the rent was brilliant(ly stupid).

 

[theferret]

I think they paid £17M for the land to British Gas, I don't understand where £24M comes into it?
One thing is for sure Bryan Richardson got a handsome fee out of it.

£24 million was the cost of acquiring the land - a portion of which was sold on for £59.5 million to Tesco. 'Bryan Richardson's finest hour' I think it was called at the time :thinking about:. It was a good deal no matter how you view it. £17 million was the cost of decontamination.

 

[James Smith]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the council have the club's best interests at heart

There is no evidence whatsoever that the owners have the club's best interests at heart either, moving to Sixfields being a case in point.