Rob S
Well-Known Member
There's parallel conversation going on in the original Vote Them Out campaign launch thread so here's part of a reply I gave there which might add some more info.
Feature on central news tonight (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter wingy
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Rob S is trying to have a sensible discussion. He is one mother most sensible and astute people we have had on here and who recognises what has to be done.
If you can't engage in a sensible way why not just leave the stupid comments eh?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So Coventry city football club is worth millions to the council?! Ha ha ha ha!!'
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I think Deering said SISU didn't complete due diligence. The £2m was the charitable donation, they valued the Higgs share at zero.
Rob - have you had any confirmation from any proposed buyer that they want to buy the Ricoh and/or ACL?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
As did a PwC report according to the court.
Good question. The way we look at it is this:
Sisu etc. are convinced that there is no deal to be done with ACL / CCC following what has gone on over the past 18 months so have to build a new stadium... but … would never turn down an option for a Ricoh deal if one arises before things are too far advanced with the new place.
Most business, and most individuals, will have multiple plans in place as a fallback (e.g. you don't just apply for one job at a time when you are looking) so I still think there is a deal to be done.
For those of us who see a Ricoh return as a priority (i.e. the vast majority) time will start running out for a Ricoh deal to be done and our club will be playing away for at least 2–3 more seasons so we need to force the issue.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Sorry! Trying to keep up with the match commentary, four threads here, various other matches around the country and agreed Saturday chores for my wife. On top of campaign duties.
I'd draw a line between the Ranson/Dulieu/Onye Igwe era and the current one. If we had Waggott, Pressley & co. at the Ricoh we'd be very well set up at the Ricoh.
And recent disclosures have shown that ACL / CCC are hardly geniuses at stadium management (e.g. losing your key tenant in a botched takeover bid, having to pay full wack to take over a mortgage, etc.).
Part of the original Higgs share takeover included bringing in AEG to manage the stadium which would be a smart move.
That would depend on the deal negotiated for the Ricoh. No new owner will or would touch the club without the stadium attached in a meaningful way so if they want out, they'd need to offer a decent package.
All that said, the key thing is to have realised that all parties have got us into this mess and it will take all parties to get us out. Blaming one side gets us another 3 years on our Sixfields sentence.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
So you've been talking to SISU have you. Otherwise how would you know what their reaction would be.
Appreciate you getting back to me
Ok, Waggott & Pressley are not the club owners, they have nothing to do with this.
Your fellow campaigner Stuart Cosgrove, from the Get Cov Back To The Ricoh campaign, said:
“It could also be an exit strategy for the owners who, it can be said, are the worst owners we have ever had.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/any-sky-blues-return-must-6353243
Not considering ACL/CCC genii is hardly the basis to allow "The worst owners we have ever had" to have ownership of the stadium just to get them to leave! They might not exit early even if they had the stadium!
The "couldn't do any worse than CCC argument" is flawed; they could do much, much worse, sisu's stewardship of the club is all the evidence required!
CCC are ultimately answerable to us, the voter, sisu are not!
CCC Could bring in AEG, it doesn't take sisu to do it. Other threads on here have commented that AEG have a high regard for ACL's event organisational ability (I think chiefdave mentioned this before).
And if sisu want out; they could just walk away. If they are entitled to ROI, surely the current owners are?
And, you can't say with any certainty what would happen to stadium after sisu go? Surely any new stadium owner is also going to want ROI also? Where will that ROI come from?
Whatever happens to the club post sisu, we need a stadium to play in, there are no guarantees with sisu!
I think most of us apportion percentages of blame for the situation to all parties, but there is only one party who moved us away, and only one party who can make the decision to bring us back!
It seems to me, that your campaign strategy is ultimately about getting sisu to leave, so why don't you just campaign for sisu to leave?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too. Bit like a 50p piece
Anyhow, the 'Sisu view' is that the new stadium is the way to go because they don't see how a deal can be done with the Council the way things are as they are only offering a rental deal (i.e. less than was in negotiation in 2012) and they need something more substantial to work with.
From that we're making the assumption that if things changed then maybe there's an opening and that's where we see a chance to have an effect. However, there will come a time when we are too far down the new stadium route to make a difference and that's when we will have to pull the plug on our campaign.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The PwC report said that IF certain events occurred then there would be HIGH RISK of the value being nil. That is not the same as it having a nil value.
And as Deering said SISU were still prepared to pay £5.5m despite their view of the valuation being nil.
If the real value was nil I'd have paid over the odds and bought the shares myself for £5, and I would have been prepared to show proof of funds.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
When do you think they will make a start on the new stadium route?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's good he has isn't it as they own the club? You are starting to sound panic stricken Jack what's the matter - council HQ going to not pay your propaganda bonus this year?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
It was £2m after due dil. Apparently cash flow and the Compass contracts were major problems. (I haven't seen anything in writing but have head that Compass get a guaranteed income. If that is true it is completely nuts.) Don't forget that they were going to be paying off the mortgage leaving ACL debt-free too.
Well, they already have. I know there's been a lot of 'show us the plans' but I can see that a lot of prelim. work has been done and there really are two sites in play.
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Deering said they didn't finish due diligence, are you saying they did? Where have you heard about the Compass deal from? So you know where the sites are then?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Starting to panic? He's a lot more effective than the kcic bunch isn't he?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Not panicking at all thanks, how are you? I see Grendel the film is on Skyfi tonight.
My query is because Rob comes across as an intelligent guy, he knows as well as you and me that a few drawings and a forum group don't amount to anything, but not only does he believe it, he knows the sites are real.
As a City fan I'm interested where they are, and how he knows. You don't believe the sites are real do you?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I would like to know why they didn't pay the 5.5m in one go instead of 1.5m down and 4m over ten years if it was the deal breaker or why didn't they show proof of funds for the ten year deal if that was the deal breaker?
IMHO they either don't have the funds to build a stadium or they would have tried to get away with not paying Higgs the last 4m. And that seems like the reason Higgs never went for the 10 year offer.
IMHO they either don't have the funds to build a stadium or they would have tried to get away with not paying Higgs the last 4m. And that seems like the reason Higgs never went for the 10 year offer.
L
limoncello
Guest
I ask again, what harm does this approach do? If you don't agree with it that's fine but many of these criticisms seem a bit off. Didn't David Davis successfully stand on a one-issue basis? And that bloke with the white suit? It does no harm to challenge all the parties as far as I can see. Best of luck Rob.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Excellent, I just wish they'd hurry up about it.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I suppose it keeps the fans arguing amongst themselves rather than keeping constant pressure on SISU.
Rob is campaigning for SISU to pay a fair price for the Ricoh and/or ACL, I'm not sure which. The Council can't sell ACL on their own, the freehold isn't worth anything to the club as it doesn't generate revenue. If SISU were prepared to pay a fair price then it wouldn't need a campaign. So it seems confusing to me.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
i wish they would tell us what the arrangements with residency of the club will be either at the Ricoh or imagination land. a lot of people are assuming sisu owning the ground will be the answer to our prayers. the problem i have is that they could easily inform us before anything is built or taken over as to what playing at these venues means for the club in terms of rent and access to revenues. a simple statement could put a lot of minds at ease and even win them support from the fans, something they have failed to do to such an extent it must be deliberate.
how do they expect us to get on board when we don't know what we are being asked to get on board off? like i said it would be such a simple exercise, probably easier than commissioning an artist impression of what imagination land could look like. the fact that the only comments i have heard is that the final arrangements are yet to be finalised sets alarm bells of in my head.
L
limoncello
Guest
But what harm does it do?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I suppose it keeps the fans arguing amongst themselves rather than keeping constant pressure on SISU.
Astute
Well-Known Member
What harm does what do? Do you mean putting pressure on the side that has left the door open for negotiations?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
.... and this is your contribution ?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I have already endorsed the idea. I also see you now concur with sisu's view that ACL and the Ricoh are worth substantially less with no football club.
Rob S said in post #80:
"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too".
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too".
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Rob - After this from PWKH please could you go back over the things you've said in the last couple of days and just clarify which bits are true.
Thanks.
The Prefect
Active Member
We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too. Bit like a 50p piece
Anyhow, the 'Sisu view' is that the new stadium is the way to go because they don't see how a deal can be done with the Council the way things are as they are only offering a rental deal (i.e. less than was in negotiation in 2012) and they need something more substantial to work with.
From that we're making the assumption that if things changed then maybe there's an opening and that's where we see a chance to have an effect. However, there will come a time when we are too far down the new stadium route to make a difference and that's when we will have to pull the plug on our campaign.
Two things need to happen to resolve this mess. Unfortunately, given the fact that ACL have a long lease on the Ricoh the only deal available to SISU is a rental deal. In order for that to change SISU (the club) need to acquire ACL. ACL are a major player in this saga and that needs to be respected by everyone.
From comments made by the club and SISU it seems that they want CCC and Higgs to hand over the freehold of the stadium and remove ACL without SISU having to pay proper compensation. We shouldn't forget that the club sold its rights to matchday income so in the real world they need to buy them back. The owners of ACL don't need to sell so the club have to broker a proper deal in order to move things forward.
The recent court case values ACL somewhere between £18m and £25m - being the £14m mortgage plus the cost of acquisition of ACL's shares. It may be a little lower now as some of the mortgage will have been paid back. There's no need for independent valuations as ACL's shareholders don't need to sell.
Considering the benefit the Ricoh would bring the club I struggle with owners that 'invest' over £40m to go backwards but won't invest £25m to leap forward. Our owners scream returns for their investors while denying CCC and Higgs any return on theirs. It tells me that making this deal is far beyond SISU's skill set and therefore won't happen. SISU have to press for this deal as it's in their commercial interest - not the owners of ACL. The fact that talks just stopped with Higgs without being broken off shows how disinterested in the club and its future SiSU really are. If they have access to "tens of millions," to support the club in Sixfields as we were lead to believe why don't they just put £25m down and resolve things quickly. Surely this is in everyone's interest including SISU's investors?
This is where I struggle with SISU. They have a massive desire to waste their investor's money and seemingly no desire to invest it to improve things for the club. Their agenda is wrong and until it changes the club will continue to fail.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Have you seen something the rest of us haven't (and if so how have you had access to it?) as from what I've seen there is zero evidence of any work being done and the two sites actually existing. We were told last year we were down to two sites and HOT had been agreed and nothing has moved forward. A year in and all we've got is a picture of a ground Brentford rejected as unambitious with the seat colour changed to blue!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Rob mate, there's a lot of (understandable) suspicion here. I'd advise letting the fans know the details before going onto Central News to be perfectly honest.
The problem all sides have had here is not keeping fans informed and not being transparent. If you have knowledge others don't or if you refuse to answer certain questions it won't help your point.
I'd suggest a clear manifesto and openness about your current contact with the club at the very least if you're asking people to vote you in as their representative, otherwise it looks (like everything else you've done TBH) like another partisan, secretive campaign, rather than an honest attempt at engagement and resolution.
Say what you want about the other fans groups, but they've all stated their aims clearly and canvassed opinion on their actions. I'm not saying not doing that means anything, but you can understand people's concerns.
The problem all sides have had here is not keeping fans informed and not being transparent. If you have knowledge others don't or if you refuse to answer certain questions it won't help your point.
I'd suggest a clear manifesto and openness about your current contact with the club at the very least if you're asking people to vote you in as their representative, otherwise it looks (like everything else you've done TBH) like another partisan, secretive campaign, rather than an honest attempt at engagement and resolution.
Say what you want about the other fans groups, but they've all stated their aims clearly and canvassed opinion on their actions. I'm not saying not doing that means anything, but you can understand people's concerns.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Really? Ok then from your perception describe the mission statement for the sky blues trust and kcic - their 3 most important objectives and the strategy deployed to successfully achieve these objectives.
thelookout
New Member
Its bullshit. Its just a ploy to whip the fans into a frenzy and to put more pressure on the council to hand over the arena because none of us want to move.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the childish whataboutery.
SBT - Gain fan representation on the board of CCFC. Get Coventry back to Coventry. Have reached out publicly to all sides and been open in all correspondence recieved and meetings taken, with full notes available online. Had leadership elected by paid, registered members and regular open meetings and email shots about strategy. Have most of the board regularly posting on here and GMK with updates and questions.
KCIC - Get Coventry back to Coventry by pressuring all sides. Have clear website with updates on, regularly send emails and post on here and GMK asking for feedback, including specifically asking for feedback from detractors. Have publicly pressured all sides in statements and lead several protests of varying success. AFAIK, being mainly a protest group, haven't met with any of the key players, but have been instrumental in getting our issue raised in parliament it seems.
That's my impression. But also, they have it online: http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/about-the-trust http://keepcovincov.weebly.com/kcic-strategy-and-vision.html
Compare that to: http://getcovbacktoricoh.wordpress.com/about/
Edit of my edit: beaten.
Last edited: