italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I am talking about when we were at the Ricoh when numbers dropped from day one. Some will argue that non attendance at Sixfields is also a problem but then again if we all went there would not be room.
Legal action dropped (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
I am talking about when we were at the Ricoh when numbers dropped from day one. Some will argue that non attendance at Sixfields is also a problem but then again if we all went there would not be room.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's how I read it anyway, this season doesn't count in the attendance debate at all for me as it's a totally different situation to any other season.
People this season are staying away for a genuine reason, whether I agree that it will work or not.
That's not the same as people not going to the Ricoh because "It's too hard to get to" or "I don't like the style of play" etc.
I've been at the Ricoh when we had 9000 on a tuesday night. Where were all the distraught 'bring us home' people then?
Edited to remove some colourful language
Last edited:
slyblue57
Well-Known Member
Lived in Coventry, Wyken for many years before moving. Very anti CCC for not doing enough to bring the team back. They insisted previously that they will not sell the Ricoh to anyone. They along will many other Councils continue to cut funding to numerous areas whilst holding on to a Stadium which is losing money or maybe breaking even if you believe ACL, (I do nt). Selling the Ricoh to anyone will bring funds that the Council could use. I do nt support selling it to SiSu or any one else cheaply but I do nt see how they can justify not selling it. What are they actually getting out of it ? I m pretty sure that an extra 20 ,30, 40 million pounds or more raised by its sale could be put to better use that tied up in a white elephant of a Stadium. Only my opinion of course and a bit political.
SISU/ACL/CCC out.
Pusb
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The question is ... would they sell to Sisu if they offered them what it is worth?
I suspect they would.
However what we don't know is what Sisu have offered, if anything, or whether ACL have rejected a fair offer.
Until they tell us what offers have been made or refused we are going round in circles with the blame game.
Not sure whether the JR silences the council/ACL or maybe stops any bids being made/accepted.
I look forward to the campaign - how about "Fickle Fans Out" or "Keep Cov For The Real Fans" or even "Not One Glory Hunter More".
hill83
Well-Known Member
Fill your boots, if people don't want to go they don't have to. Just take a bit of responsibilty for their actions.
It's the equivalent of moaning about 'another pub closing down' when you haven't been to the fucker for 6 years.
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Okay so as OSB58 and me reckon Joy/SISU made a derisory bid of £10m or lower at the ownership meeting earlier in the year. The actual value is probably far more than that just as development land let alone with the ricoh complex on it (I know nothing about land values and am guessing here but working on the £60m Tesco paid). What may be causing problems is that the ricoh is doubtless worth more, with our club as tenants to any potential purchaser. The council won't sell cheaply and would have to factor ACL into the price so would like the club back even if only to boost the value. Joy won't allow the club to come back to the ricoh unless she owns it and she might not want to pay anything like the council want or need to satisfy any rules/regulations. So it appears to be a bit of a difficult situation, with no obvious solution that doesn't disadvantaged the council or mean Joy has to compromise her stated position.
Oh and the legal action possibly wouldn't have worked but then I'm not a lawyer and don't have all the fact, so not sure I'd be the best person to comment.
The pubs near me that have shut down are mostly the ones that served crap beer and couldn't give a damn about customer service.
And no matter how good it was, if my local pub decided to move itself 35 miles away, then I would stop using it.
hill83
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about this season, which I've already stated. I'm taking about the last 4 to 5 years. You weapon.
Selective quoting by you and then forgetting what you've left out and arguing against nothing. Top forumming.
Last edited:
I suggest you read my reply a bit more carefully.
And if my method of "forumming" is not to your taste, then I apologise but I will leave gratuitous abuse to you and the forum idiot.
hill83
Well-Known Member
What else is there to read, I'm not taking about this season, so the 'if my pub moved 35 miles away' is irrelevant.
The first of my posts you quoted you missed out:
I didn't mention your first line because I agree with it.
mrtickle
Member
More like 60/40.
Didn't Seppala say she wanted set a price on the freehold based on the average of the valuation from both CCC's and sisu's chosen experts?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I bet she does. And I bet it'll make the Taylor WImpey evaluation of my house look positively generous.
"What's that CCC? You say it's worth £120m? My man thinks £0, let's split the difference and call it £60m eh?"
How about if she wants it she pays the asking price, or she goes elsewhere? Why is this even a discussion, I thought we'd "moved on" and were building our own stadium, with blackjack and hookers.
What is the asking price?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Isn't that nonwhitejack and women asking for it in your speak?
Surely you mean Hooters?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
She isn't quoted as saying it in the interview
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912Les Reid Interview said:
It also ignore the fact that ACL have a lease. She repeated the "We've moved on" mantra and talks about a new stadium
Joy Seppala via Les Reid Interview said:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912
If Plan A isn't what's planned to happen and she's hoping for a return to the Ricoh then she and Tim and Mark shouldn't be saying we've moved on. By dropping the legal action it almost feels like ACL have "moved on" and will do something without our club, could be a long time in Northampton if that's the case.
Nick
Administrator
Does that not depend if the asking price is realistic? I'd much rather independent people value it it get 3 and do the average, can't say much fairer can they?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Like I say, my experience with this is Taylor Wimpey who agreed to part-ex my house with "an independent valuation". I had three other estate agents in in case the part-ex didn't work out (it didn't) and all valued it a full %40 higher than the "independent" guy sent round by Taylor Wimpey.
Taking the average is a terrible way to agree anything, as proved it's so easy for one biased party to skew the outcome.
Either we want it or we don't all this "we don't want it" then "but maybe they should lower the price" is boring.
Oh and: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-going-to-build-my-own-theme-park-with-blackjack-and-hookers
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
SISU would value it without a football team in residence.
ACL would value it with a football team in residence.
The average would be about right but ACL would have to take a loss on this basis.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
AH, but there's fair and there's fair in the eyes of those who don't want the club to get the stadium. And I do mean club.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I agree that a third party or two would be better but why get ones done by the choice of either side? If it was set up by some truly independent person, who picks the firms, who in turn aren't getting paid directly by either party (maybe the money goes into an escrow account first) and no-one knows who has been chosen until the reports are done. Less chance of what shmmeee thinks might happen occurring then.
Nick
Administrator
But they don't have a club do they? If the market price is a lot less than what they paid then it will be a loss.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Ah but we're talking about the freehold here which the council own so do we add £12m or whatever the value of the lease is to the freehold valuation to pay off ACL (i.e. the Higgs and CCC)?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No there's no such thing as a "fair price" there's what it's worth to the club and what it's worth to the council and if those two don't match up then it makes no sense for the club to try and buy it. In fact it makes no fucking sense anyway, but let's all ignore that and argue that a football club absolutely must own property.
Seppala is coming across like a melodramatic teenager "I'm going to kill myself!" "OK then" "I mean it!". Alright love, do it or don't but stop talking about it.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
What worries me about this dropping of the legals is that ACL might have decided they've had enough of this, wasted too much time/money and "Move on" without us. Suppose they do find another club or tenant to use the pitch as unlikely as it sounds? I thought we'd never move to Sixfields and that happened, so I wouldn't be surpriised.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Where does market value come into it? Obviously something is only worth what people will pay but people will be able to work out a realistic value.
I'd much rather the club owned it then the council to be fair.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
As has been stated before the Club don't really need to own the freehold to benefit from being at the Ricoh. They just need the revenue from the activities that ACL currently get year round.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
That's the point. In theory it should be valued with the club because that is where its going.
ACL should however let it go to the "club" at a knock down value.
Can't see it but I hope ACL don't move on.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Markets dictate prices. Apart from CCFC, who is in the market to play at the Ricoh?
Indeed they do, but who apart from ACL, is in the market to provide a ground anywhere near the city where the club should be playing?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So really ACL ultimately are the issue aren't they? So really what the offer should be is to hand ACL to sisu including payment of the outstanding mortgage.
This would then force sisu into a corner. They either accept to run the management company and not get entitlement to the freehold or they refuse and admit owning the freehold property is the only way forward for them. We are I think the only club that has not got ownership (or part ownership) of the management company that runs the ground of all council owned stadiums.
Before you start blabbering on about the club selling its rights to this and sisu knowing the score remember you claim to be a Coventry supporter so want the club back in town. Most council owned stadiums have allowed the club shares in the management company without charge - yes without charge. Stoke went one step further and have the stadium to the club for payment of the outstanding mortgage. Oh and stokes ground had assistance in construction from a regeneration charity.
So for once get your head out of your backside and agree the club has to own ACL and there is no precedent from any club in the country that has a council built stadium that it pays for it.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Why don't you get your head out of your arse and work out that CCFC wouldn't own the ground but a hedge fund that do dodgy deals and do not stick to the law would. For example when did they last have their books up to date like they should?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Another own goal from the council. Idiots