This Situation.. (5 Viewers)

[RoboCCFC90]

It has to be said like the rest of you who post on this forum I am sick to the back teeth of the tit for tat statements, lack of clarity and general idiocy shown on both sides of this petty war over the Ricoh Arena.

Why can’t things be simple?

Yesterday Ann Lucas was quoted saying words that would insinuate she might of been interested in a sale, but then this morning on the Shane O’Connor Breakfast show on BBC CWR the Freehold isn’t for sale and then a few minutes later on the same show Ann Lucas says the “Higgs are not prepared to sell and this is the stumbling block”, all the while Council Leader Lucas has stated that she would look to get “the best deal for the people of Coventry and it’s Taxpayers”.

There are so many inconsistencies at foot it could tear a whole in time itself!

To balance this though Sisu/CCFC Directors have been just as shockingly inconsistent. Tim Fisher and Mark Labotivich have not provided the fans (the core of any Football Club) with any such hope at all, Tim Fisher stated a while back that he was in talks with “Two Councils” regarding land for a new Stadium now while Rugby Borough and Nuneaton and Bedworth Councils have both admitted to having talks with CCFC the talks have been of no real substance (in the case of Nuneaton and Bedworth) and Rugby have insisted that the Club discussed the potential to put a training centre on purchased land, not a new Stadium.

Then we come back to the Ricoh Arena, Tim Fisher has stated consistently that the Ricoh Arena in his eyes is Plan B and that they will build a new stadium and move on, yet Mark Labotivich stated in an interview to the Coventry Telegraph this morning that the Ricoh Arena is the “preferred option” for the Club.
However while these individuals continue to be inconsistent in this manner and with their demands the Club is suffering, 8000 fans thousands have not been able to support their team at ‘home’ games this season and potentially these fans could be lost forever if the Club doesn’t return to the Ricoh, in arguably a season which has produced some terrific games and heart stopping action, not to mention the playing staff and first team managerial staff who have provided a shining light which fans can happily discuss and be proud of.

The problem is with playing at Sixfields for possibly another four seasons is that the team is likely to suffer, the Football Club is not going to be able to attract any players that may have wanted to play for the Club at the Ricoh, current players may become disheartened and leave and I cannot see much progression in terms of progress through the Football League (If Leon does leave we will not make play-offs in my opinion) the longer this goes on.
What we need is a mediator who can come in and find out what is on offer, what a suitable offer is for what is on offer, who to make that offer to, aiding each party on how negotiations can be efficiently established and concluded, maintain a fair and balanced opinion while also trying to get the best deal for all parties so that we return home to the Ricoh.

If as all parties insist that they want the Club back in Coventry, back at the Stadium that was built purposely for it then they will stop this childish, adolescent and idiotic situation and do what is right for the fans, the taxpayers of the City and local businesses by bringing the Sky Blues home.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

---

[Noggin]

There were no inconsistencies with Ann Lucas.

She said they don't want to sell but we would listen to offers for the freehold, they however are unable to sell the freehold without any leases attached which is what sisu want. No inconsistencies, just reporting that wasn't clear along with the medias lack of understanding.

CCC can sell the freehold but ACL would continue to own the lease.
ACL can sell the leasehold.

SISU want the freehold without ACL and want CCC to sort this, this isn't a reasonable suggestion in the slightest, suggesting it is unbelievable in its stupidity.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I am sorry Noggin but I disagree.. Ann Lucas has been hugely inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hobo]

I am sorry Noggin but I disagree.. Ann Lucas has been hugely inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only if you listen to Labotivich who was confused about it. The Bbc presenter got it and Noggin has got it.

SISU have no reason why they can't open negotiations, they are the ones who want a stadium. The only reason for not doing this in my eyes is they haven't got the money. Also ACL have not been as distressed by the clubs absence as they thought they would be.

I think SISU have backed themselves into a corner?

 

[Ashdown1]

Reading between all the lines I'd say no-one involved wants to sell to the hated and incompetent hedge fund. I'm sure if a genuine buyer came along who would legally guarantee attachments to the club and redevelop the area to the benefit of Coventry they would sell................................anyone out there !?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Only if you listen to Labotivich who was confused about it. The Bbc presenter got it and Noggin has got it.

SISU have no reason why they can't open negotiations, they are the ones who want a stadium. The only reason for not doing this in my eyes is they haven't got the money. Also ACL have not been as distressed by the clubs absence as they thought they would be.

I think SISU have backed themselves into a corner?

I am sorry Hobo but I can't see the consistency maybe I am wrong and perhaps I am not looking at in the right way, Ann Lucas has never clarified in my eyes what aspect of the Arena is for sale to anyone, yet immediately states that she will get the best deal for the "Taxpayers of Coventry" something I can applaud from a political point of view and respect.

 

[Grendel]

Of course she is inconsistent. She said it can't be sold freehold without breaking the contract with ACL as they have a 40 year lease. That's rubbish as Shane o'connor said especially as half of ACL is effectively owned by the company selling the freehold.
That is why she burbled on about Higgs not being preloaded to sell because if they were her whole statement about freehold would have looked nonsense (which it was). No one would be prepared to buy freehold that gets no revenue - its absurd. Everything has a price and I'm sure if old Yankee Preston was in town the arrangement would be very different.

That's the problem when pipsqueak politicians have to make big decisions - they always are found lacking.

 

[chiefdave]

That's rubbish as Shane o'connor said especially as half of ACL is effectively owned by the company selling the freehold.

Can you explain how the council, who only own 50% of ACL can cancel the lease ACL hold and also cancel all the contracts between ACL and third parties without paying millions in compensation?

 

[Grendel]

Can you explain how the council, who only own 50% of ACL can cancel the lease ACL hold and also cancel all the contracts between ACL and third parties without paying millions in compensation?

Er they don't they sell their share of ACL to sisu.

 

[chiefdave]

I don't know why SISU and some others find it so complicated or inconsistent.

50% of ACL is owned by Higgs, they are the only ones who can sell it, CCC have no power to sell their share, but CCC have veto power. Higgs have previously agreed to sell their share to SISU, at below the formula price only for SISU to walk away. Higgs will not deal with SISU until they have cleared the bill for legal fees they committed to pay when last discussing purchasing the Higgs share. Higgs are not actively looking for a buyer for their share.

50% of ACL is owned by CCC, this is available to sale at the right price but they are not actively seeking a sale as they have no need to sell. I think Higgs have a veto over this share.

100% of the freehold is owned by CCC. This can be sold but with the existing lease with ACL in place. They are not actively seeking buyers as they have no need to sell.

That is it, it's really not complicated.

 

[chiefdave]

Er they don't they sell their share of ACL to sisu.

They could do this however SISU want to purchase the freehold with ACL no longer having a lease so that's not something SISU are interested in purchasing.

That's not breaking the lease as SISU require.

 

[Grendel]

They could do this however SISU want to purchase the freehold with ACL no longer having a lease so that's not something SISU are interested in purchasing.

That's not breaking the lease as SISU require.

Please. It could very easily be packaged in the same price. The issue of course then is that they want to introduce another company to run it. I really fail to see that ultimately this is an issue.

The real issue is the council will not sell, fair enough bit why pretend they do?

 

[Tonylinc]

Er they don't they sell their share of ACL to sisu.

But that does not get Shitzu what they want does it?

 

[chiefdave]

Please. It could very easily be packaged in the same price. The issue of course then is that they want to introduce another company to run it. I really fail to see that ultimately this is an issue.

The real issue is the council will not sell, fair enough bit why pretend they do?

If SISU are prepared to cover the cost of cancelling all the contracts what difference does it make if the council do it or SISU do it. Surely SISU could buy the freehold from the council, buy both stakes in ACL and then sort out the other businesses at the Ricoh for themselves. Why would they insist this is all done before they make a purchase unless they are expecting the council to bear the cost?

 

[Tonylinc]

Please. It could very easily be packaged in the same price. The issue of course then is that they want to introduce another company to run it. I really fail to see that ultimately this is an issue.

The real issue is the council will not sell, fair enough bit why pretend they do?

Absolute and total rubbish!

 

[Grendel]

If SISU are prepared to cover the cost of cancelling all the contracts what difference does it make if the council do it or SISU do it. Surely SISU could buy the freehold from the council, buy both stakes in ACL and then sort out the other businesses at the Ricoh for themselves. Why would they insist this is all done before they make a purchase unless they are expecting the council to bear the cost?

Lucas stressed that ACL cannot be sold as Higgs will not sell to sisu. Listen to her interview - that was the main stumbling block.

 

[Grendel]

Absolute and total rubbish!

What is rubbish exactly?

 

[chiefdave]

Lucas stressed that ACL cannot be sold as Higgs will not sell to sisu. Listen to her interview - that was the main stumbling block.

SISU don't want to buy ACL, SISU want to purchase the freehold with ACL no longer in existence and all the contracts at the Ricoh (hotel, casino, compass etc) cancelled. You've said that's easy to do so who would cover the cost of it?

 

[Grendel]

SISU don't want to buy ACL, SISU want to purchase the freehold with ACL no longer in existence and all the contracts at the Ricoh (hotel, casino, compass etc) cancelled. You've said that's easy to do so who would cover the cost of it?

The cost of any such occurance would be factored into the deal price. Everything has a price and anything can be achieved. The 40 year lease though is a red herring as the tenant is the landlord. Even Lucas admits that

 

[chiefdave]

The cost of any such occurance would be factored into the deal price. Everything has a price and anything can be achieved. The 40 year lease though is a red herring as the tenant is the landlord. Even Lucas admits that

Do you really think that the price SISU will pay will cover all those costs?

 

[Tonylinc]

What is rubbish exactly?

Point me to where the Council have said that they will sell.

 

[dongonzalos]

Of course she is inconsistent. She said it can't be sold freehold without breaking the contract with ACL as they have a 40 year lease. That's rubbish as Shane o'connor said especially as half of ACL is effectively owned by the company selling the freehold.
That is why she burbled on about Higgs not being preloaded to sell because if they were her whole statement about freehold would have looked nonsense (which it was). No one would be prepared to buy freehold that gets no revenue - its absurd. Everything has a price and I'm sure if old Yankee Preston was in town the arrangement would be very different.

That's the problem when pipsqueak politicians have to make big decisions - they always are found lacking.

Yes because hopefully he would agree a deal then not change the goal posts at every opportunity to see it through.

 

[Grendel]

Yes because hopefully he would agree a deal then not change the goal posts at every opportunity to see it through.

Both sides are equally guilty

 

[Grendel]

Point me to where the Council have said that they will sell.

Lucas said they would sell the freehold. Why don't you leave this thread for the grown ups?

 

[shmmeee]

Of course she is inconsistent. Lets see shall we?

She said it can't be sold freehold without breaking the contract with ACL as they have a 40 year lease. OK makes sense.

That's rubbish as Shane o'connor said especially as half of ACL is effectively owned by the company selling the freehold. Yes but a controlling stake. The point is "ACL" cannot sell/dissolve/whatever without BOTH halves agreeing. They AFAIK can't even sell their shares without the other agreeing. This arrangement was set up to benefit the club it seems as much as anyone else. After all, wouldn't want the nasty Council doing something that would harm the club would we?

That is why she burbled on about Higgs not being preloaded to sell because if they were her whole statement about freehold would have looked nonsense (which it was). I have no idea what being preloaded to sell means. But surely if you accept that A) No half of ACL can make business changing decisions without the OK of the other and B) That the Higgs have previously stated that they are unwilling to deal with Sisu until debts are paid then you have to accept C) That CCC can't force ACL to break the lease and Higgs are the stumbling block.

No one would be prepared to buy freehold that gets no revenue - its absurd. Isn't it? Almost as absurd as requesting that when you do buy it the selling party spends tens of millions paying off the leaseholders so that you can do what you want with it.

Everything has a price and I'm sure if old Yankee Preston was in town the arrangement would be very different. Not sure what he's got to do with things, but I imagine his tactics would also have been different. If he did what Sisu have done I imagine CCC and the whole of Coventry would be against him. Yes everything has it's price, but it seems Sisu aren't willing to pay it.

That's the problem when pipsqueak politicians have to make big decisions - they always are found lacking. Much like your arguments it seems.

 

[Grendel]

Seems very protective of the council....why I wonder?

 

[Grendel]

Do you really think that the price SISU will pay will cover all those costs?

Well if they don't then at least we know there has been an attempt to buy and sell rather than a Cold War stance. If they don't then that is that.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Seems very protective of the council....why I wonder?

Seemed like a well reasoned response to me, which bits do you disagree with?

 

[chiefdave]

Well if they don't then at least we know there has been an attempt to buy and sell rather than a Cold War stance. If they don't then that is that.

And what then? ACL no longer exists, no events of any sort at the Ricoh, all the businesses at the Ricoh have been kicked out and CCFC are still playing in Northampton - brilliant plan.

 

[Noggin]

I am sorry Hobo but I can't see the consistency maybe I am wrong and perhaps I am not looking at in the right way, Ann Lucas has never clarified in my eyes what aspect of the Arena is for sale to anyone, yet immediately states that she will get the best deal for the "Taxpayers of Coventry" something I can applaud from a political point of view and respect.

It really isn't complicated, just poor reporting and the other side intent on spreading confusion.

The only thing the council on their own can sell is the freehold, this freehold HAS! to come with all the leases attached, to a certain extent in the short/medium term this means owning the freehold does nothing for you at all (other than any payments that are coming in from the current leaseholders), the council do not want to sell this, they have said they don't normally sell freeholds but have said they would listen to an offer for it. They aren't going to be getting any offers for this though and this isn't how sisu wants it. In 40 years time once the ACL lease expires the person owning the freehold could then issue a new lease to someone or use it themselves, sisu have said they would accept a 99 year lease but the council can't offer that for another 40 years unless acl give up what they have paid for.

All the talk about independent valuations from well meaning people, and from the sisu manipulators is meaningless, the council CAN NOT!!!! sell what sisu want to buy which is a freehold with no leases attached to it.

 

[skybluefred]

Reading between all the lines I'd say no-one involved wants to sell to the hated and incompetent hedge fund. I'm sure if a genuine buyer came along who would legally guarantee attachments to the club and redevelop the area to the benefit of Coventry they would sell................................anyone out there !?

Well times are hard but i can spare half a crown if that's enough.

 

[runner]

I don't know why SISU and some others find it so complicated or inconsistent.

50% of ACL is owned by Higgs, they are the only ones who can sell it, CCC have no power to sell their share, but CCC have veto power. Higgs have previously agreed to sell their share to SISU, at below the formula price only for SISU to walk away. Higgs will not deal with SISU until they have cleared the bill for legal fees they committed to pay when last discussing purchasing the Higgs share. Higgs are not actively looking for a buyer for their share.

50% of ACL is owned by CCC, this is available to sale at the right price but they are not actively seeking a sale as they have no need to sell. I think Higgs have a veto over this share.

100% of the freehold is owned by CCC. This can be sold but with the existing lease with ACL in place. They are not actively seeking buyers as they have no need to sell.

That is it, it's really not complicated.

Thanks for this ... the most useful post I've read for a while ... very simple after all !

 

[Godiva]

And what then? ACL no longer exists, no events of any sort at the Ricoh, all the businesses at the Ricoh have been kicked out and CCFC are still playing in Northampton - brilliant plan.

Fisher has said a few times they would bring in another stadium management company. They would probably take over the staff and run the business going forward. The difference being that the lease and contracts would be owned by SBS&L while the staff would be employed by this other stadium management company.

The people who will lose something in such a deal would be a few politicians and current ACL management.

 

[shmmeee]

Fisher has said a few times they would bring in another stadium management company. They would probably take over the staff and run the business going forward. The difference being that the lease and contracts would be owned by SBS&L while the staff would be employed by this other stadium management company.

The people who will lose something in such a deal would be a few politicians and current ACL management.

And the people of Coventry who no longer have a say in how a key part of their regeneration strategy plays out.

And CCFC who no longer have a landlord with a direct, democratic link to the city.

And who knows what else.

Sisu have to make a case that they are better for the city than CCC, I don't think they've made that case well, do you?

 

[Astute]

Please. It could very easily be packaged in the same price. The issue of course then is that they want to introduce another company to run it. I really fail to see that ultimately this is an issue.

The real issue is the council will not sell, fair enough bit why pretend they do?

You are right. It could easily be packaged in for the same price. But what costs would be involved including giving Higgs their money back, repaying the outstanding loan and paying to break contracts that are already in place as they don't do things the SISUE way.

The problem is that all this would cost much more than SISUE would be willing to pay. So the council would lose millions to sell to SISUE. This is a good enough reason not to sell to them. And that is before thinking of what has gone on before which is why all trust is lost in SISUE. They won't even pay the charity the money they owe them.

I was at work all day reading all of what was going on today on my phone whilst working. How come I can understand the majority of it whilst not being able to think about it whilst you don't seem to understand any of it Grendull?