Coventry City owners invite council to talks over Sky Blues returning to Ricoh Arena (8 Viewers)

Sub

Well-Known Member
Coventry City owners invite council to talks over Sky Blues returning to Ricoh Arena
30 Oct 2013 07:00Sisu calls on Coventry City Council to make it clear if is willing to sell stadium





Share on printShare on email



</body>






Cov-plus-Ricoh-4292344.jpg
Ricoh Arena
Coventry City have today issued a public invitation to council leader Ann Lucas to “sit down and talk” urgently about returning to the Ricoh Arena.
The message, issued exclusively in the Telegraph, warns time is running out.
It calls on Coventry City Council to finally make clear if it is prepared to sell the Ricoh freehold to club owners Sisu/Otium.
The statement says: “We have repeatedly asked the council to discuss a sale of the Ricoh Arena to the club.
“The senior council officers (Chris West and Martin Reeves) who also serve as directors of Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) have told us that they have no authority to discuss this with us, only the council leadership can do so.

“So it is a very simple question for Cllr Lucas: is she prepared to discuss a freehold sale of the Ricoh?
“If so, we will sit down and talk. If not, we will build a new stadium on the outskirts of Coventry.
“We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.”
The club’s statement says Sisu boss Joy Seppala will write “shortly” to Coun Lucas requesting she clarifies the council’s position.
The statement says fans had asked the club to respond to a speech by Coun Lucas made in the council chamber last Tuesday – after protesting fans outside handed in a petition with 800 names gathered in four days, calling for action to bring the club home.

PM2945120DJ160513MAYO_23-3862014.jpg
Leader of Coventry City Council Ann Lucas It adds the club is “disappointed” Coun Lucas was using Sisu companies’ forthcoming renewed judicial review application into the council’s £14million taxpayer bail-out of ACL as “ an excuse not to answer questions” from fans.
The statement also asks why Coun Lucas “authorised” ACL’s rejection of a Company Voluntary Arrangement which led to manager Steven Pressley’s high-performing young team losing ten League One points.
Coun Lucas, while not clarifying if the stadium was for sale, said last week she would meet any party willing to discuss the “long term future” of the club and stadium, adding, “Let’s bring the club home for Christmas.”
The statement in full...

STATEMENT BY COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB
We generally try to avoid tit-for-tat press releases and hadn’t intended to respond to the statement rushed out by Cllr Lucas following the demonstration by fans outside the council house. Like many of the statements drafted by ACL’s London-based PR consultants, it contains more generalisations than specific action points. However, many fans have asked us to issue a response. In particular, they have asked us to cut through the spin and focus on specifics.
Most sensible people agree that a football club, any football club, needs to own its stadium in order to be financially viable on a long-term basis. There can be no return to the old landlord-tenant relationship with ACL, which since 2005 saddled the club with an excessive rent and inflated service charges and deprived it of matchday revenues.
We have repeatedly asked the council to discuss a sale of the Ricoh Arena to the club. The senior council officers who also serve as directors of ACL have told us that they have no authority to discuss this with us, only the council leadership can do so. So it is a very simple question for Cllr Lucas: is she prepared to discuss a freehold sale of the Ricoh?
If so, we will sit down and talk. If not, we will build a new stadium on the outskirts of Coventry. We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site. Joy Seppala will be writing privately to Cllr Lucas shortly in order to find out exactly what the council’s position is.
Cllr Lucas has not so far confirmed that she will discuss a sale and does not appear to have commissioned an independent valuation to get the ball rolling. We are of course disappointed with this stance, as it was clear that the Council were prepared to sell the Ricoh to other parties, just not to the club’s owners. We believe that Cllr Lucas’ predecessor as leader, Cllr John Mutton, met with her very recently to confirm that he had been prepared to discuss stadium ownership with other parties and urged her to negotiate with us.

We are also disappointed that Cllr Lucas is using the Judicial Review application as an excuse not to answer questions. The application relates to a very specific area of the law and need not prevent the council from answering many of the perfectly sensible questions which fans are asking. During the initial stages of this process, the council, ACL and Walker Morris continued to make media statements and appearances. There is never any legal bar on the truth. We cannot believe that the council’s lawyers would ever advise Cllr Lucas that speaking the truth could prejudice any legal process.
And we’d still like to know the real reason why Cllr Lucas authorised ACL’s rejection of the CVA which cost “my beloved Sky Blues” another 10 points.
 

Jim

Well-Known Member
It adds the club is “disappointed” Coun Lucas was using Sisu companies’ forthcoming renewed judicial review application into the council’s £14million taxpayer bail-out of ACL as “ an excuse not to answer questions” from fans.

SISU the champion of providing information to the fans..... Pfffft!
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
So SISU want clarification on whether the Council are willing to sell, this sounds fair as Ann Lucas' last statement didn't really make that clear. If the Council say yes then an independent evaluation should be done of the business or even just an independent evaluation of the Stadium bowl to ensure a fair price, SISU sit down with Ann Lucas and discuss it to make sure both sides agree and Presto! We are back in Coventry playing 12,000+ crowds enjoying watching a young and well performing side.

Then I woke up!
 

Sub

Well-Known Member
We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.:thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about: i thought they wernt waiting around and that boat had already sailed according to fisher ??
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.:thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about::thinking about: i thought they wernt waiting around and that boat had already sailed according to fisher ??

Fisher may have said that, but Seppala said they would talk regarding the Ricoh if they were able to purchase it, I prefer Seppala's word over Fisher's.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
So, sell them the freehold.

What is then to stop acl insisting the club pays £1.2m a year rent to play there, and not a penny less?
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
i dont believe either of them !!

To an extent I agree with you, but Seppala holds the cards so I want to believe her if that makes sense.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Again; why do they need the freehold? They can achieve all the revenues they need with a long, fairly-priced leasehold; with access to all football-related incomes.

They don't need to own the soil to drive incomes from what sits atop it?!?
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Again; why do they need the freehold? They can achieve all the revenues they need with a long, fairly-priced leasehold; with access to all football-related incomes.

They don't need to own the soil to drive incomes from what sits atop it?!?

I would hazard a guess at development..
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
Again; why do they need the freehold? They can achieve all the revenues they need with a long, fairly-priced leasehold; with access to all football-related incomes.

They don't need to own the soil to drive incomes from what sits atop it?!?

I agree.

I've actually changed my mind on this now. The council should call their bluff.

Agree to sell them the freehold but not acl. The freehold on its own is worthless for the next 50 years anyway.

Sisu owning the freehold will do nothing to adversely affect acl or the councils involvement in the Ricoh.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
I would hazard a guess at development..

But why should they be given that? ACL - seemingly - have shown they can drive non-football revenues from the site. What credentials have SISU evidenced in Coventry that the council should take on board as confidence that the future of that site - and jobs in Coventry - are best served by giving SISU a free hand? Or worse still, sell on immediately, at profit, to a party not of our choosing?
 

Snozz_is_god

New Member
Again; why do they need the freehold? They can achieve all the revenues they need with a long, fairly-priced leasehold; with access to all football-related incomes.

They don't need to own the soil to drive incomes from what sits atop it?!?

And this of course is the real reason they want the Ricoh, it's nothing to do with football, it's all about making a fast buck
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
I would hazard a guess at development..

That article specifically says freehold to the stadium. Not the land around it.

Simple answer is the council sell the freehold of the stadium and surrounding car parks, whilst retaining the land on the other side of the railway and a444
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
two points Nopm is working fact !!!!
Sisu are the masters are they not of breaking contracts agreements ?
They only need the freehold then they will get rid of acl.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
That article specifically says freehold to the stadium. Not the land around it.

Simple answer is the council sell the freehold of the stadium and surrounding car parks, whilst retaining the land on the other side of the railway and a444

Again; sorry - why? ACL have had their accounts signed off by auditors, who obviously think they have a viable business moving forward. They are now projecting turnovers in the parish of £14m, and employ the people of Coventry in delivering much of this. What role to SISU then play, as hypothetical freeholders of the venue without surrounding land have in this?

Do they become ACL's landlord? If so, with what rent assurances? Do they simple 'take' all of the non-football related revenues ACL have nurtured? If so; why?

What have you seen from them which gives you confidence they can move any of this forward?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
following lengthy conversations with my new best pal Godiva ;). i too am convinced that they only need to own the leasehold, i.e. ACL. which as Godiva pointed out is something that joy diversion had said in her Les Reid interview more or less, so why only talk about the freehold in the statement.

has joy changed her mind again? or was the Les Reid interview a big bluff in a game of poker? the ricoh being the stake!

they also state that they have talked to ACL board members about the purchase of the ricoh before and been rebuffed. like you pointed out the reply was you need to talk to council leaders, which clearly you didn't. so there is no point moaning about the council not willing to talk to you about the purchase of the ricoh when you haven't tried to talk to the relevant people. just to clear that up that's not members of the board of ACL, Nikki Sinclair or Les Reid, that would be Ann Lucas. the Person you have rebuffed on 3 separate occasions.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
Again; sorry - why? ACL have had their accounts signed off by auditors, who obviously think they have a viable business moving forward. They are now projecting turnovers in the parish of £14m, and employ the people of Coventry in delivering much of this. What role to SISU then play, as hypothetical freeholders of the venue without surrounding land have in this?

Do they become ACL's landlord? If so, with what rent assurances? Do they simple 'take' all of the non-football related revenues ACL have nurtured? If so; why?

What have you seen from them which gives you confidence they can move any of this forward?

Basically because all of the money is in acl. This will stitch sisu up good and proper. It is my belief that they want both the freehold and acl.

Sisu are just trying to look reasonable, when we all know their real agenda.

The freehold makes no money, the leasehold does. Acl pays nothing to the freeholders.

Acl could still manage the development of the adjoining land, charge the club a rent to play there, keep all the revenues, rent from the casino and hotel. Whilst sisu would be left with a building that generates no income.

From a business point of view I can't see what they get out of it. Call their bluff, and they will back down. Acl and the freehold is what they really want.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Basically because all of the money is in acl. This will stitch sisu up good and proper. It is my belief that they want both the freehold and acl.

Sisu are just trying to look reasonable, when we all know their real agenda.

The freehold makes no money, the leasehold does. Acl pays nothing to the freeholders.

Acl could still manage the development of the adjoining land, charge the club a rent to play there, keep all the revenues, rent from the casino and hotel. Whilst sisu would be left with a building that generates no income.

From a business point of view I can't see what they get out of it. Call their bluff, and they will back down. Acl and the freehold is what they really want.


I have to say I totally agree. Why talk about the freehold and not the leasehold - it makes no sense to me.
So, I must be missing some vital information.

Would it be too much to ask Les Reid to follow up on this and have sisu explain slowly and in terms even I can understand what good owning the freehold will do for the club?
 

skybluelee

Well-Known Member
“So it is a very simple question for Cllr Lucas: is she prepared to discuss a freehold sale of the Ricoh?
“If so, we will sit down and talk. If not, we will build a new stadium on the outskirts of Coventry.
“We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.”


Of course you will build a new stadium, SISU. Of course you will.:jerkit:
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
But why should they be given that? ACL - seemingly - have shown they can drive non-football revenues from the site. What credentials have SISU evidenced in Coventry that the council should take on board as confidence that the future of that site - and jobs in Coventry - are best served by giving SISU a free hand? Or worse still, sell on immediately, at profit, to a party not of our choosing?

I understand your sentiment on the trust MMM, SISU haven't really shown that can be trusted with that trust and responsibility which comes with owning the Ricoh, however there is no guarantee that ACL can drive things forward and as you said it's 'seemingly' possible, not guaranteed.

The future of the site can be best helped with a successful Football team playing at the Ricoh whether that be under SISU ownership or a another then that may help jobs and confidence.

There is no proof that SISU would sell it on, but if they were to sell I reckon they would sell the whole lot inclduing the club.
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
That article specifically says freehold to the stadium. Not the land around it.

Simple answer is the council sell the freehold of the stadium and surrounding car parks, whilst retaining the land on the other side of the railway and a444

I'd be most happy with that.
 
i dont want sisu to own any of the ricoh. i wouldnt trust them with it. if in their 6 years here they invested in the team for at least 4 of them years that would be different. but they havent and to be honest dont look as they ever will. they have destroyed this club and split the fans more than ever. true that we may be playing the best football for years but that is steven pressley and the teams doing and nobody elses doing.

"my beloved city" at the ricoh yes. sisu to own the ricoh or club NO!
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
More propaganda I see.

So they have repeatedly asked about buying the Ricoh. Is that what they mean by legal action like the JR where they wanted a distressed mortgage buyout? Does this include the take it or leave it offer from Joy? Is this including talking to people with nothing to do with the matter? Why not reply to requests previously to have talks......with people that can decide something.

I have a house. It is not for sale but would sell it for the right price. I have 3 cars. They are not for sale but would sell them at the right price. The Ricoh isn't up for sale as far as we can see but would be sold at the right price. The difference is that if you bought my house or a car off me it would be yours. Nobody else has any sort of hold on them. The Ricoh is different.

What I can see happening is a stupid offer coming in for the freehold and also wanting the leasehold cancelling. This is all that would make sense getting the freehold. And when this is turned down SISU will blame CCC/ACL for us being in Northampton. But I expect they were hoping to have more of us on their side at this stage. 800 signed the petition.....including obviously fake ones. Les could only organise a small crowd outside the council office. He seems to be trying his best on their behalf.

On the plus side at least it looks like they are willing to talk to someone that can do something. Just a shame about the JR getting in the way. They will have worked out by now that being in Northampton is hurting them more than they had planned. Building a ground does not add up in a financial way.
 

The Gentleman

Well-Known Member
I think pretty much all of us want something to happen and if this is a case of someone blinking first in the game of poker that is the Ricoh Arena, hopefully that is a good thing. I just won't be holding my breath for it to happen anytime soon. However, does this now mean that with the possibility of a return to the Ricoh, will RFC now start yet another campaign group NOPM2 to keep us at Sixfields ;)
 

mark82

Super Moderator
Surely Sisu saying they want talks is a good thing? There are now no excuses on either side for this not to happen. How difficult can it be.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
However, does this now mean that with the possibility of a return to the Ricoh, will RFC now start yet another campaign group NOPM2 to keep us at Sixfields ;)

Of course it does it's better then the Ricoh there is no pressure on the team, no name calling the atmosphere is electric and you can get in for a Tenner. No wonder they are the ultimate fans.:)
 

Nick

Administrator
So, sell them the freehold.

What is then to stop acl insisting the club pays £1.2m a year rent to play there, and not a penny less?

Why would you want them to over charge us for rent? I don't get it? You could then cheer when ACL's accounts are released like a true fan!
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Surely Sisu saying they want talks is a good thing? There are now no excuses on either side for this not to happen. How difficult can it be.

Having talks is a start. Both sides having serious negotiations is what is needed though. That is what we need to hope for.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top