Who Votes Sell the stadium to SISU (10 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

if the sale had aclause where the areana belonged to the club and had to remain that way, ie if shitsu sold the Ricoh they would have to sell the club with it as a package and vice versa, i could live with that. with regards to the surrounding development sites although i believe morraly shitsu shouldn't be allowed to buy that as well, considering the way they have used the club as leverage, but i feel its a price worth paying if ultimatly it gets rid of them.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Looks like there is a vote at the bottom of the article

"Should the council sell the Ricoh Arena to Sisu so Sky Blues can play in Coventry? "

CCFC playing in Coventry is not dependant on the Council selling the Ricoh to SISU

Not a balanced question at all, designed in isolation to get a particular answer, (although it may not actually do that) you could equally ask

Should SISU accept a rent deal at the Ricoh to bring CCFC back to Coventry?

That would be quicker and easier to achieve imo

The important thing above all, to the fans, is to get our club back to Coventry ............ that requires compromise ............ on all sides.

That may include selling the site but it could just as easily mean giving up claims to needing the freehold and accepting a rent deal with access to greater income.

The only things certain are that the club needs more income and it needs to be in Coventry.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I don't think SISU does "fair"?

Get a mediator in to oversee negotiations Fisher has called for one in the past, if CCC are looking at getting a fair deal then they won't have any qualms about a mediator.

 

[Astute]

Astute............yes it was a poor offer from the take it or leave from JS that ACL/CCC left but then why are we still talking about it then?

Because some people think they should have it at whatever price.

My biggest problem is if one part of SISU get it they would then liquidate our club. The stadium would then become theirs. If we have a stadium to play in we always have some kind of future even if liquidated. I don't even want to think about no club and no stadium.

 

[Astute]

Get a mediator in to oversee negotiations Fisher has called for one in the past, if CCC are looking at getting a fair deal then they won't have any qualms about a mediator.

An unbiased one like Appleton was an unbiased part of the present fiasco?

 

[duffer]

Outstanding post, OSB.

My personal opinion is this:

Wait for at least a year before panicking about the loss of CCFC, to determine both SISU's true determination to hold onto the club in the face of mounting losses, and whether ACL actually can return a profit. Either a change of ownership, or a profitable ACL might make the need to sell the Ricoh redundant.

If it turns out that ACL are losing money, and SISU are truly determined to hold onto CCFC, then the council should listen to offers to all comers for their share in ACL as a business, and their interest in the Ricoh. If there's an offer that allows them to recover their investment, I'd want them to take it, but the Council should not treat SISU as either a preferential bidder, or refuse to entertain offers from them. The best way to determine the market value of something is to offer it to the market.

If however there isn't an offer that allows them to recover their investment in this way, then the Council should reconsider the site in total - and see whether knocking it all down and developing it as housing and/or commercial makes more sense for the city. The one thing I don't want is for the Council to subsidise CCFC (again) because of the club's continued mismanagement.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Outstanding post, OSB.

My personal opinion is this:

Wait for at least a year before panicking about the loss of CCFC, to determine both SISU's true determination to hold onto the club in the face of mounting losses, and whether ACL actually can return a profit. Either a change of ownership, or a profitable ACL might make the need to sell the Ricoh redundant.

If it turns out that ACL are losing money, and SISU are truly determined to hold onto CCFC, then the council should listen to offers to all comers for their share in ACL as a business, and their interest in the Ricoh. If there's an offer that allows them to recover their investment, I'd want them to take it, but the Council should not treat SISU as either a preferential bidder, or refuse to entertain offers from them. The best way to determine the market value of something is to offer it to the market.

If however there isn't an offer that allows them to recover their investment in this way, then the Council should reconsider the site in total - and see whether knocking it all down and developing it as housing and/or commercial makes more sense for the city. The one thing I don't want is for the Council to subsidise CCFC (again) because of the club's continued mismanagement.

I hope your not forgetting Duffer that the stadium isn't the only part of the business that sits up there and I am pointing out the Casino and the Hotel, they are part of the complex indeed, however there is more to consider than just the stadia.

 

[sky blue john]

Maybe Sisu aren't worried about Acl's and Compass having long leases if they pick up the freehold for 7million. Remember Sisu are master tacticians when it comes to breaking leases !!!!

 

[valiant15]

Nobody agrees or likes what's happening but there is not a knight in shining Armour going to solve this problem - We have potentially our club playing 5 years away from our city, Financial fair play rules going to kick in shortly which on the face of it will break even this young team up as our income against wages props a lower league side up at best
Is it the worst thing in the world to sell the stadium to SISU who obviously are not everyone's cup of tea but cannily they were the knights in shining Armour 8 years ago when they took the reins they have shown quite ruthless resolve in turning the club upside down and sorting it out and still putting a team on the field to compete in this league at wages which if playing at the Ricoh and owned would make the club profitable and sale-able which is probably their future aim as that is what they do for a living
Would they be any worse than all the owners previously who somehow managed to give up our beloved Highfield road for peanuts and showered us with debt that SISU took on as there was nobody else
I do not attend Northampton for the sole reason that out of principal i am not watching home games in someone else's town but is it time that everyone got behind the idea of SISU buying the stadium under some type of agreement drawn up on a sale that somehow ensures the clubs future security and clauses that keep the team playing in our City
Could 'Sell to SISU' be the new phrase that would give us all a glimmer of hope that we have been looking for

No.

 

[duffer]

I hope your not forgetting Duffer that the stadium isn't the only part of the business that sits up there and I am pointing out the Casino and the Hotel, they are part of the complex indeed, however there is more to consider than just the stadia.

Absolutely. It's another reason to make sure that true market value is obtained, and all aspects are considered before coming to any deal.

Personally, as I've said, I'd sit tight. I'm not buying the SISU line, but regardless the more they lose, the more amenable they might become to a deal that suits everyone rather than just their interests.

 

[mds]

I voted yes, simply because i see selling to them is probably the quickest way to get City home !

I asked this before, ask again, what is to stop the sale of the stadium only and nothing else? leasehold freehold, either way, but just the stadium, the footballing side of the complex, ACL/HIGGS keep hold of everything else, the club gets the stadium the land it sits on and imediate parking and nothing else?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

"Should the council sell the Ricoh Arena to Sisu so Sky Blues can play in Coventry? "

...

you could equally ask

Should SISU accept a rent deal at the Ricoh to bring CCFC back to Coventry?

How about both?

 

[oldskyblue58]

The article today includes the following
Property consultant CBRE – hired by Otium to seek a new stadium site and develop plans – confirmed it is also valuing the Ricoh site.
The Telegraph understands it is producing two valuations – for a “trading asset” and a “land asset”.

Apparently CBRE also valued the ACL business, which was secured by a mortgage charge in favour of Yorkshire bank. It is usual in these circumstances that the valuation is on bank instructions, the report made to the bank, but that the bank client pays the bill. It would be therefore based on the banks instructions a year ago for the purposes of valuing the security value of the assets. That is not the same as the open market value. Valuers will usually discount the value down to reflect a situation whereby the assets have to be sold in a short time span (ie it tends more towards a distressed value but would usually be more than say a liquidation value) The discount can be more than 30%

the Clydesdale Bank/Yorkshire Bank wrote to ACL quoting the CBRE Ricoh valuation.
It added: “...In our reasonable opinion the security that we hold is not longer sufficient to cover our exposure in respect of the facility (loan).”

All that however was around a year ago. It was based on the original structure of the ACL group and at a time that Banks were even more risk averse than they are now, indeed Banks like the Yorkshire were taking decisions to reduce their risk and to remove loans from their loan book.

Since then ACL have restructured, cutting not only the finance costs but also staffing and overhead costs. They have a lender that is stable, unlikely to call the loan in and that charges a low rate of interest. The Group is set up differently in that IEC Experience Ltd handles the day to day events, catering, conferencing, exhibitions etc. Clearly a certain amount of information is available however detailed financial information is not. There is no information on IEC Experience trading, there is no detail as to whether any of the leases have changed or not (casino, hotel) There is no available information as to the arrangements & costs that exist with Compass etc etc ...........

So just how exactly are CBRE able to value the business today on a "trading asset" basis? ............ ACL are hardly likely to be giving them access to their records..... so how can CBRE possibly be valuing the trading position? none of the information they can possibly have is now accurate or current. As for "land asset" surely SISU want to buy the stadium as it is..... if they knocked it down to build another then that still leaves the club in Northampton doesnt it? Surely the valuation has to be existing use doesnt it? - even then a large part of the valuation would be based on information CBRE no longer have or information that they have no right to disclose to a third party.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

tbf, an informed guesstimate is at least a start for a debate on value?

As it stands (as you've often said yourself) how the hell can any of us even come close to knowing what a stadium is actually 'worth'? CBRE may not answer that question, but it at least starts off the chain to finding out, and moves things forward...

 

[oldskyblue58]

I voted yes, simply because i see selling to them is probably the quickest way to get City home !

I asked this before, ask again, what is to stop the sale of the stadium only and nothing else? leasehold freehold, either way, but just the stadium, the footballing side of the complex, ACL/HIGGS keep hold of everything else, the club gets the stadium the land it sits on and imediate parking and nothing else?

So what about the the lounges eg e-on or yorkshire, who would they belong to? they have dual usage. How many car parking spaces? who has rights of way? If the club gets the lounges how do they get entry? etc etc ............. i know what you are saying and it would seem a simple thing but not sure it is.

 

[oldskyblue58]

tbf, an informed guesstimate is at least a start for a debate on value?

As it stands (as you've often said yourself) how the hell can any of us even come close to knowing what a stadium is actually 'worth'? CBRE may not answer that question, but it at least starts off the chain to finding out, and moves things forward...

Thats a way of looking at it certainly but .....

Does it though because unless it is somewhere close to the CCC or ACL expectations then they will simply say no thanks. Taking any bets on it being a high valuation?

and as to how about both ............ well yes why not, might get a slightly more informed reaction/conclusion

 

[chiefdave]

So what about the the lounges eg e-on or yorkshire, who would they belong to? they have dual usage. How many car parking spaces? who has rights of way? If the club gets the lounges how do they get entry? etc etc ............. i know what you are saying and it would seem a simple thing but not sure it is.

would you not also have a potential issue with date clashes and who gets preference?

there must be events that could be on at the non stadium part of the Ricoh where the organisers request not to clash with a match, given the date the fixtures are released and the lead time on these sort of events CCFC need a hold on every Saturday and Tuesday throughout the season. How would a deal to split the stadium from the rest of the complex make allowances for that?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Does it though because unless it is somewhere close to the CCC or ACL expectations then they will simply say no thanks. Taking any bets on it being a high valuation?

Of course not, but isn't the curse of literalism what stops this progressing all the time?

Aren't all the best haggles achieved by something poles apart that then gradually come closer together? Why are we even taking the 'no to a lease' literally, and why aren't ACL offering them a fantastic deal for 4 years from next season while they build a new ground, for example?

What happens in this whole charade however is one side says something, the other side chooses (because it suits their entrenched position to do so) to throw their hands in the air, say it's out of the question... and the opportunity for dialogue that presents itself from that initial statement, however ludicrous that statement appears on the surface, dissipates.

And that happens both ways, because it suits both sides to not talk to each other. Well shouldn't the basis for talking be grasped when it comes up, each time it does come up, rather than a flat rebuttal and maintaining the status quo?

 

[duffer]

It's pretty obvious how this will play out, isn't it?

CBRE, paid by SISU, will come (or have already come) to a low valuation to validate an under-market bid by SISU.

SISU will ramp up the PR to put pressure on the Council to sell at this price. They've already started on this, or so it would seem.

 

[cw36]

Anything to get us back. Is not that simple. So who flamin knows ?.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I guess what i am saying is there is a lot of words said in the article, a lot of statements made by various parties, and i have no issue in Mr Reids right to express it as he has, he is only reporting what has been said or reported previously. However when you scratch at the surface of those statements made by the people concerned what is the substance, the supporting evidence.

The valuation is being done by CBRE.... on whose instructions, based on what information, what access have they been granted, who is paying the bill and what outcome are they looking for etc. I would hope that client confidentiality has been observed (no reason to think it hasnt they are a respected professional firm) so any information gathered before can that be used? I would guess SISU saw their report last year so probably ok on that basis. Can they come up with anything meaningful given the changes and lack of info that encourages all parties to be interested

Where did this figure of £7m actually come from, what is its basis, is it anything like a good estimate. It is afterall in the headline.

Got to look deeper and ask why

and yes NW got to get all sides talking again with open minds I totally agree

 

[duffer]

Of course not, but isn't the curse of literalism what stops this progressing all the time?

Aren't all the best haggles achieved by something poles apart that then gradually come closer together? Why are we even taking the 'no to a lease' literally, and why aren't ACL offering them a fantastic deal for 4 years from next season while they build a new ground, for example?

What happens in this whole charade however is one side says something, the other side chooses (because it suits their entrenched position to do so) to throw their hands in the air, say it's out of the question... and the opportunity for dialogue that presents itself from that initial statement, however ludicrous that statement appears on the surface, dissipates.

And that happens both ways, because it suits both sides to not talk to each other. Well shouldn't the basis for talking be grasped when it comes up, each time it does come up, rather than a flat rebuttal and maintaining the status quo?

It's a very fair point this, but the problem is exactly that both sides are so far apart. On one side a rental offer for a tenant that doesn't want to rent, on the other a purchase offer for a seller who doesn't want to sell.

Haggling usually starts with a willing seller and an interested buyer - that doesn't seem to be close to the situation here.

I am, inevitably, reminded of this:

Burt! This bloke won't haggle.

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/LOB-hagglescene.php

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Got to look deeper and ask why

Inded. Applies full stop for everything doesn't it? And obviously any valuation is designed to force an agenda that way.

But I don't think being open minded to the idea of a sale either means a sale must happen, or that a sale must happen on those terms. I do however think that as long as both sides dig their feet in full-stop it helps either... and both sides can either look at the other, thumb their nose and say nah nah na na nahhh or they can accept some movement, and actually engage on those terms.

The skirmish doesn't have to mean submission, after all.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Inded. Applies full stop for everything doesn't it? And obviously any valuation is designed to force an agenda that way.

But I don't think being open minded to the idea of a sale either means a sale must happen, or that a sale must happen on those terms. I do however think that as long as both sides dig their feet in full-stop it helps either... and both sides can either look at the other, thumb their nose and say nah nah na na nahhh or they can accept some movement, and actually engage on those terms.

The skirmish doesn't have to mean submission, after all.

Agreed.

The feeling I get from this is that in the past any offer made by ACL and negotiated with SISU as their(ACLs) bottom line has been viewed as SISU's starting point to get a better deal. I think what the CCC and ACL have now done is said we wont keep doing that, if you want it, come to us with an offer, we will look at it and respond to it. People can make their own minds up as to whether thats a good stance or not but I do think it is part of where we are

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Agreed.

The feeling I get from this is that in the past any offer made by ACL and negotiated with SISU as their(ACLs) bottom line has been viewed as SISU's starting point to get a better deal. I think what the CCC and ACL have now done is said we wont keep doing that, if you want it, come to us with an offer, we will look at it and respond to it. People can make their own minds up as to whether thats a good stance or not but I do think it is part of where we are

Hence CBRE coming up with a valuation then.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Hence CBRE coming up with a valuation then.

Lets hope they create a basis for a reasonable and tempting offer then. Councils do not usually sell freehold. Do they have a mind to sell this one at this time. It is ok saying the club should buy it, but is it actually on the market ? If it is the freehold SISU want

 

[fernandopartridge]

It's pretty obvious how this will play out, isn't it?

CBRE, paid by SISU, will come (or have already come) to a low valuation to validate an under-market bid by SISU.

SISU will ramp up the PR to put pressure on the Council to sell at this price. They've already started on this, or so it would seem.

It'd be interesting to see what the VOA values it at.

Interesting, ACL has appealed against the RV for the Ricoh - must be trying to reduce their Business Rates. Ironic really as one partner in ACL is the recipient of business rates anyway (although I think they mostly go back to central government anyway).

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Lets hope they create a basis for a reasonable and tempting offer then. Councils do not usually sell freehold. If it is the freehold SISU want

Unfortunately, the tendency to compare to other councils opens up Grendel to point out other clubs' rental agreements etc

I'd have hopes that the current leadership of the council are more flexible than Mutton (who frankly was a liability to the whole discussion) but we wait and see...

 

[duffer]

It'd be interesting to see what the VOA values it at.

Interesting, ACL has appealed against the RV for the Ricoh - must be trying to reduce their Business Rates. Ironic really as one partner in ACL is the recipient of business rates anyway (although I think they mostly go back to central government anyway).

I see your point, but I'd contend that the VOA valuation is probably about as relevant to the market price as the CBRE valuation. I'd still argue that the only way to find the true value of the site/business is to put it on the open market.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Got a feeling the CBRE valuation is more likely to be the basis of a PR campaign that says professional valuers have valued it at this much, we will pay that but the CCC wont do a deal, could be wrong but time will tell I guess..............

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Got a feeling the CBRE valuation is more likely to be the basis of a PR campaign that says professional valuers have valued it at this much, we will pay that but the CCC wont do a deal, could be wrong but time will tell I guess..............

Which is where if CCC had anything about them, they'd embrace a valuation as an opportunity to talk to them. If a strategy was really that obvious, it's not difficult to head off either.

I suspect what we will see, however, is nothing of the kind.

 

[duffer]

Got a feeling the CBRE valuation is more likely to be the basis of a PR campaign that says professional valuers have valued it at this much, we will pay that but the CCC wont do a deal, could be wrong but time will tell I guess..............

That PR campaign, it's already started. They've got the CET putting out a vote on it already!

Much as it irks me, coming as I do from a bitterly anti-SISU perspective, it does make me think that they're already starting to feel a bit of pressure. It can't be long now until the new stadium plan is shown for the rubbish it is. What effect will that have I wonder?

 

[sky blue john]

I see this as positive that Sisu want to deal, they obviously realize that they can't go down the new stadium route without having us fans on side.
Now it seems they are working a charm offensive.
It really depends on what the council are open to negotiation on !!!

 

[duffer]

Which is where if CCC had anything about them, they'd embrace a valuation as an opportunity to talk to them. If a strategy was really that obvious, it's not difficult to head off either.

I suspect what we will see, however, is nothing of the kind.

Can I offer the alternate argument though. If SISU were serious about playing in the City rather than entirely focussed on destroying ACL, wouldn't they try to at least sort out out some sort of five-to-ten year deal based on the offer to the administrator? Financially, for the club, it would actually seem to make more sense even without F & B. It doesn't say much about them, does it?

The fact (as I see it) is that the Council isn't currently under any great financial pressure to sell, and certainly not to sell at a loss. If SISU's only offer is to buy the freehold for a silly price, then there's really no discussion to be had.

Maybe things will change if SISU tire of getting hammered financially at Sixfields, or if it turns out that ACL is actually a huge drain on finances.

 

[RPHunt]

Here's a thought:

If the council were anywhere close to selling the Ricoh to SISU at a knockdown price, it would surely encourage all sorts of entrepreneurs to look for a way to muscle in. What is to stop a wealthy backer of, say Coventry RFC, making a similar bid? How could the council refuse to entertain any other offer - they couldn’t claim that the deal was to an existing tenant?