Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Yes totally agree and our pain would have been over by now as well!
Private Eye Todays Issue (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bennets Afro
- Start date
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I can't disagree with that.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The £14M didn't come from the council tax coffers. However if you really are concerned about your mother loosing £14M of council tax then you best be praying that ACL survive for the duration of the mortgage. If they default it will be the council tax payers of Coventry picking up the bill.
WiganSkyBlue
Member
Are any Northampton Borough Council taxpayers concerned at their money being invested in a football stadium?
http://www.northampton.gov.uk/news/article/1602/redevelopment_for_sixfields_stadium
Are Otium content in using a facility that is being built using public funds?
http://www.northampton.gov.uk/news/article/1602/redevelopment_for_sixfields_stadium
Are Otium content in using a facility that is being built using public funds?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying anything. I couldn't give a flying fuck how things are financed.
Sisu are saying that in the JR application.
Edit: We're into I don't know territory here again. I don't know what the implications of the deal were. I don't know how much power that would've given Sisu over the arena. And (I assume, otherwise you'd enlighten us) neither do you. For all we know the two are intrinsically linked, or they're not.
I'm just reading from Sisu's argument for the JR and it rests on those two things: ACL knew about the rent and the deal was in the best interests for all. But considering it also states that Sisu have improved the club and heavily invested in it, I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
The only argument you've heard is Sisu saying "Trust me man, we'd be awesome" it's a bit silly to take it as read without knowing the details.
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
Take your point entirely, although I'm sure that the Council would have been slaughtered here and elsewhere for not helping the club had they taken that decision, (probably by many of those here who clearly believe that the council are actively working against the club).
It also sticks in my craw that the club (under whatever owners) may well end up taking the charity for a ride too, especially when you consider the kind of money they've handed over to players over the last ten years (and are likely to do over the next ten). That's just plain wrong, imho.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I wish this had happened too.
I also remember the season when Leicester were relegated instead of us, and thinking as much as I was happy - we should have gone down. We may well have been in a much better place now.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Amount of times NBC have bailed out Sixfields complex....... Zero
stupot07
Well-Known Member
True, but that's ignoring the fact that CCC and the city have benefited greatly from the build in terms of sparking regeneration off in the arena, including the arena, the arena shopping complex and some additional housing. In that respect the build was a strategic priority and one that in cash terms has cost them very little and they own the freehold and 50% leasehold. When you consider that it was not in their interest to show 'tough love'. Higgs on the other hand...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
duffer
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, they're not bailing it out, they're just building it for them.
Wait a sec, didn't our council do just this for the Ricoh. And there you are above, seemingly saying you wished they hadn't.
Which way do you want it Ian? Do you want the council to subsidise football teams by, say, building or giving them football grounds on the cheap, or do you want "tough love" where football clubs have to take responsibility for their own actions?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I never said there was an issue about council building Ricoh. Loads of councils build stadia for their sporting team, and in the case of Sixfields it is a community asset owned by the council. The difference is that all the others make it work because there are sensible plans in terms of revenue streams, the council are not left out of pocket, but the sporting organisation also has the opportunity to develop and be sustainable.
That's why it didn't work in Coventry. That's why it will never work in Coventry until that balance is planned for and implemented properly.
That's why it didn't work in Coventry. That's why it will never work in Coventry until that balance is planned for and implemented properly.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You misrepresent the situuation Ian, the council did put in money in addition to the ~£22M they borrowed, I think about £12M & another £10M was raised from 2 other development funds/bodies (a European fund & a West Midlands fund).
Accounting for inflation that is £22M, pretty much the same as Timmy baby is saying the new stadium will cost (bearing in mind that cost not a statement of fact it is a projected cost). So public bodies did subsidise a new stadium to that amount, they haven't exactly been scrooge like.
duffer
Well-Known Member
The club had access to the revenue streams via the half-share in ACL. The one that they had to sell to the AEHC because they were going bust.
The one that SISU didn't bother trying to buy back until years after they'd arrived on the scene, and even then on buy-now, pay-later terms. If it was so key to the club, why did it take them so long, one wonders.
Once again, forgive me, but it seems you're blaming the Council for the club's failures. The Council didn't force them to sell their share in ACL, or even stop them buying it back. Anyway, I'll lay off mate, you can come to your own conclusions...
lift tower
Member
One or two yes, (even though its at no cost to the taxpayer anyway) as the original plans mentioned there have been changed at the last minute. We aren't getting the 10,000 seater stadium Cardoza has been promising for all these years anymore. Were getting extra corporate boxes (that apparently overlook tgi friday). The council website obviously needs updating.
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
Jack G Wrote:
"I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted)."
Don't often agree with you but this part is pretty much spot on.
I also wish we'd gone into administration instead of being 'saved' by sisu. Obviously wasn't in Robinson's & McGinnity's interest for that to happen.
"I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted)."
Don't often agree with you but this part is pretty much spot on.
I also wish we'd gone into administration instead of being 'saved' by sisu. Obviously wasn't in Robinson's & McGinnity's interest for that to happen.
How does that work LT ,where do the funds come from and get paid back?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of due diligence done initially - another SISU failing.
I'd like to know why for £4M. over ten years or even one ,It was'nt worth It to get the 50% of total turnover over 100 yr leaseterm .
M&B Stand
Well-Known Member
Another one is:
Why didn't sisu wait for us to go bust and pick up the pieces, without clauses and pay offs to the previous owners???
lift tower
Member
From what I can work out the Council and club as a private company in a joint venture, apply for a loan from the Homes and Communities Agency. The club then pays the Council back the money by developing the land around sixfields for housing etc. The club will make money from their hotel/conference facilities/boxes/gym and offices and guess who owns the company thats got the contract to do the building work? David Cardoza.
Many similarities then ,up to the point where our club lost control of it's 50% and the subsequent development around Sixfields pays back the loan,rather than the rent generated from the club paying back the loan .So maybe not so similar at all ,but I'd Imagine our Councils exposure due to the scale of the project was probably 4-5 times that of Sixfields ,and the Development Income was poured In at the front end of the Construct rather than after.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
From what I've read on here (and am happy to be corrected) we've always had the option to buy back the share off the Higgs, the previous non Sisu board could have done it if they'd had the funds. The price was to be calculated by a formula that stopped either side from getting stuffed if the value rose or fell dramatically. I would guess that the price would have been cheaper when Sisu acquired us than it would be now, although that is a total guess. That was one of the reasons I was enthusiastic about Sisu coming in, I assumed they would buy back the share asap. Even to me as someone who knows very little about accounting/finance* cutting the costs and maximising the revenue seems like the obvious thing to do. The share would also have given us two seats on the ACL board and the ability to influence things at the Ricoh.
* until recently the only double entry I'd ever heard of was something you didn't discuss in polite company, not an accountancy term.
Last edited:
Was somewhere Ranson just did'nt want to go,wish I knew why .