Getting us back to the Ricoh remains simple (3 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

According to a post by PWKH from last year the Pie Money was included in at least one offer to Sisu and it was rejected. Now assuming that is correct you have to wonder what it was that they didn't like in the rest of the offer. He also seems to be suggesting that buying the Higgs share would get the matchday revenues back. Would be nice to see details of past offers in full.

It would, my understanding was that the share came with the revenues. And another potential route back is to resurrect that deal maybe?

I was just wondering if we simplify everything to "pie money" too much and there are other important revenue streams that it hinges on.

 

---

[shmmeee]

But seriously, the key is it's actually a detailed offer laid out without a headline positioning one way or another. We've had too many things that haven't been as advertised, from both sides, so it's a binding offer if in public domain, but let's not have the bits picked out to suit a certain position and skew the impression of it before serious talks even begin. At the moment it's too easy for SISU to say 'ah but we'd love to come back, if only there were a proper offer' and too easy for t'other view to bang on about Hoffman paying the rent, £400k up to monster monster levels, £150k via football league ad infnitum.

Removal of as much doubt as possible, please. corner off as many places to run as possible, call out Robert Robinson(?) for a nice little game of Call My Bluff.

I think at first a nice easy way to get that would be for ACL to offer identical terms to Sixfields in the short term. Even if it means they get free ball boys and all the pies they can eat. Surely even a CCFC there earning them no money is better than a CCFC not there earning them no money? Obviously it's not a long term solution, but baby steps.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think at first a nice easy way to get that would be for ACL to offer identical terms to Sixfields in the short term. Even if it means they get free ball boys and all the pies they can eat. Surely even a CCFC there earning them no money is better than a CCFC not there earning them no money? Obviously it's not a long term solution, but baby steps.

Well yes, it's old ground but you'd think so, wouldn't you. And if they do want to (yes yes, I know!) build their own stadium, then off they can go and do it!

The problem of course with that offer is that if ACL were indeed on the verge of going under, then for the club to come in and by their existence deny them the opportunity of more streaking contests to save their business... such an offer's then unlikely to happen.

Until we move away from the needs of business anyway...

Although you could justify it as short term 'investment' by ACL, for the long term gain of the club being there.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It would, my understanding was that the share came with the revenues. And another potential route back is to resurrect that deal maybe?

I was just wondering if we simplify everything to "pie money" too much and there are other important revenue streams that it hinges on.

It's important to clarify here that 50% of ACL entitles you to 50% of their share in IEC which is where the revenue actually goes. Since ACL is in debt to CCC to the tune of £14m (a bit less now), you can't start to profit from this ownership until the loan plus interest is fully paid.

I may be mistaken but buying the share would at least elevate the club to joint landlords with the council and nullify the need to pay rent.

 

[stupot07]

According to a post by PWKH from last year the Pie Money was included in at least one offer to Sisu and it was rejected. Now assuming that is correct you have to wonder what it was that they didn't like in the rest of the offer. He also seems to be suggesting that buying the Higgs share would get the matchday revenues back. Would be nice to see details of past offers in full.

Pretty sure that was just cross invoicing of F&B's, not actually access to them. Interesting PWKH (and other parties) never mentioned the rent deal returned to £1.3m after 3 years (yes I know we have had other offers, and yes Sixfields makes no financial sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[shmmeee]

It's important to clarify here that 50% of ACL entitles you to 50% of their share in IEC which is where the revenue actually goes. Since ACL is in debt to CCC to the tune of £14m (a bit less now), you can't start to profit from this ownership until the loan plus interest is fully paid.

I may be mistaken but buying the share would at least elevate the club to joint landlords with the council and nullify the need to pay rent.

That was my point with "maybe ACL can't give that Sisu want". IIRC the original deal (before the club sold to Higgs) was for all the matchday income as well as a share in the rest, but it seems that's changed now. That's why I wondered if the contract applied to new tenants at the Ricoh as well. Or could some special deal for City games be worked out outside of that contract?

 

[sky blue john]

Yes we can all say what about this what about that. But at the end of the day lets be realistic Sisu don't want a rental deal.
They want match day and non-match day revenue and this is why they will never agree a deal !!

 

[James Smith]

Pretty sure that was just cross invoicing of F&B's, not actually access to them. Interesting PWKH (and other parties) never mentioned the rent deal returned to £1.3m after 3 years (yes I know we have had other offers, and yes Sixfields makes no financial sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

In the post he says this:

It is clear that the Club needs more income and ACL had offered to give up some income: the food and beverage revenues everyone refers to.
I fear that just as that offer is now withdrawn the possibility of the Club now buying back into ACL has receded.

Which to me means actual money not just cross invoicing, but I could be wrong.

 

[skybluetony176]

Pretty sure that was just cross invoicing of F&B's, not actually access to them. Interesting PWKH (and other parties) never mentioned the rent deal returned to £1.3m after 3 years (yes I know we have had other offers, and yes Sixfields makes no financial sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[fernandopartridge]

In the post he says this:



Which to me means actual money not just cross invoicing, but I could be wrong.

He's talking about that in the context of buying the Higgs share though isn't he?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yes we can all say what about this what about that. But at the end of the day lets be realistic Sisu don't want a rental deal.
They want match day and non-match day revenue and this is why they will never agree a deal !!

Seeing as the club was paying rates for non matchdays as well from the start of the tenancy then would be reasonable to expect the revenues from those too I'd have thought.

 

[James Smith]

He's talking about that in the context of buying the Higgs share though isn't he?

Not 100% sure about that either way given the people who have been saying that the Higgs share wouldn't be able to get Pie Money until the ACL debt is paid. Would giving (the F&B) revenue to a tenant be more acceptable legally than the apparent no-no of paying a dividend before the debt is paid off?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Was it clear that the rent reverted to 1.3m or was it if no further negotiations were done in the 3 years that it would? It read to me like it could be renegotiated so it might actually never revert to 1.3m

What that 3 years does do is allow time to build a working relationship and trust. If a partnering of the two businesses was to prosper then would the £1.3m happen. Could they have negotiated this proposed rent deal to avoid a return to £1.3m?

 

[Sick Boy]

Seeing as the club was paying rates for non matchdays as well from the start of the tenancy then would be reasonable to expect the revenues from those too I'd have thought.

As would anyone else looking to buy the club.

 

[torchomatic]

That's a no then.

Was it clear that the rent reverted to 1.3m or was it if no further negotiations were done in the 3 years that it would? It read to me like it could be renegotiated so it might actually never revert to 1.3m

 

[Samo]

Yes we can all say what about this what about that. But at the end of the day lets be realistic Sisu don't want a rental deal.
They want match day and non-match day revenue and this is why they will never agree a deal !!

That's a fact is it John?

 

[chiefdave]

Was it clear that the rent reverted to 1.3m or was it if no further negotiations were done in the 3 years that it would? It read to me like it could be renegotiated so it might actually never revert to 1.3m

Is the offer being referred to the one made directly to SISU by ACL which I thought came after the refinancing and therefore after the timeframe being discussed in the JR?

There was also mention in the JR of a deal put forward by YB for restructuring of ACLs loan which included a lowering of rent wasn't there? Was that for £400K a year or a different amount?

 

[Matty_CCFC]

No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?

Why are you such a dick and so Anti the average Coventry City fan?

Michael starts a thread in a positive manner and prompts other to make comments which we hope and pray our owners might read and all you do is throw a negative response.

I agree that all it takes is a phone call.

 

[Ian1779]

Why are you such a dick and so Anti the average Coventry City fan?

Michael starts a thread in a positive manner and prompts other to make comments which we hope and pray our owners might read and all you do is throw a negative response.

I agree that all it takes is a phone call.

TBF Michael made an unnecessary dig at a relevant point Grendel made.

That aside - any previous offer needs to be ignored and full clarity going forward on what each side wants and will accept.

 

[Ian1779]

What do people think is the right level of revenue streams in the first instance? Obviously SISU would eventually want the lot - maybe they could achieve that by buying out ACL in the future, which may be the best way to circumvent other contracts and the like.

I think as a starting point maybe ALL matchday revenues including sponsorship within stadium/pitch area, hospitality etc.

 

[Rob S]

Maybe I'm being a bit obvious here but doesn't the fact that Sisu don't want ACL to exist preclude any hope of a rental deal, which would ensure ACL's survival by giving them some much needed cash-flow?

Why not go back a few steps and have the parties start negotiating on a more open basis to find out what kind of stadium occupation deal they can try and work out?

Sticking to only having a rental deal offer just seems to be trotting out the same Council-favoured deal that Sisu aren't going even consider.

I completely agree that accepting a rent deal would be the quickest way to get us back to the Ricoh but it does not, based on all of the recent history and available evidence as to motives, seem remotely likely to happen

It's an interesting conversation & intellectual exercise to go over various deal scenarios & possibilities but ultimately it is just a bit of role play. Getting all of the parties who can actually cut a deal round the table has to be the priority.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

What do people think is the right level of revenue streams in the first instance? Obviously SISU would eventually want the lot - maybe they could achieve that by buying out ACL in the future, which may be the best way to circumvent other contracts and the like.

I think as a starting point maybe ALL matchday revenues including sponsorship within stadium/pitch area, hospitality etc.

To get back to the OP, the thrust of the point is let's get back to the Ricoh and then the detailed negotiations can start. Don's post on this is really interesting where he says "In the meeting with JS, TF and ML I asked why they don't make a temporary public rent offer via the papers that matches what they are paying at Northampton. If rejected they start to turn the PR battle...I got no sensible response why this was not possible". So again returning to the OP, the questions remain: aren't sisu putting their own financial gain ahead of the team and fans? And isn't the reality that the only way we will get back to the ricoh is by saying to sisu 'ok, you can have the ricoh on whatever basis you want' (because no one has provided any evidence that sisu will return to the ricoh on any other basis)?

 

[skybluetony176]

Maybe I'm being a bit obvious here but doesn't the fact that Sisu don't want ACL to exist preclude any hope of a rental deal, which would ensure ACL's survival by giving them some much needed cash-flow?

Why not go back a few steps and have the parties start negotiating on a more open basis to find out what kind of stadium occupation deal they can try and work out?

Sticking to only having a rental deal offer just seems to be trotting out the same Council-favoured deal that Sisu aren't going even consider.

I completely agree that accepting a rent deal would be the quickest way to get us back to the Ricoh but it does not, based on all of the recent history and available evidence as to motives, seem remotely likely to happen

It's an interesting conversation & intellectual exercise to go over various deal scenarios & possibilities but ultimately it is just a bit of role play. Getting all of the parties who can actually cut a deal round the table has to be the priority.

Sisu won't rent and CCC won't sell. That only leaves one option, sisu will have to put the club up for sale. There's nothing here for them.

I think I might start a new fans group STSCCFCTTHB.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Sisu won't rent and CCC won't sell.

Probably a bit simplistic though. Don't ask me to go find it again, but Labovitch at least hasn't ruled out a long lease option.

In an ideal world, if the council are obsessed with property redevelopment, then ACL can continue to exist as responsible for the complex bar the stadium itself. The stadium reverts back to the council, who can then lease it to Fisher's prop co. under a wider umbrella group at a nominal rent. Club gets benefits from ground, ACL/CCC/whoever get benefits from having life breathed into the built environment and can develop the area however they feel... or sell to others to do so, depending on their mood.

But it takes away the need for the football club to be tied up in the land development... unless the owners choose to be. Club can be club and do what a club is supposed to; CCC can (arguably) do what it's supposed to, and help the built environment around the bowl itself develop.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

To get back to the OP, the thrust of the point is let's get back to the Ricoh and then the detailed negotiations can start.

You need the base on what you're negotiating for however, be it nothing whatsoever (and the club bog off to their brand spanking new ground made of oak), be it a complete sale to the club, be it a revised lease wrt ACL, be it a process to split ground from ACL and offer to club yadda yadda yadda,

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe I'm being a bit obvious here but doesn't the fact that Sisu don't want ACL to exist preclude any hope of a rental deal, which would ensure ACL's survival by giving them some much needed cash-flow?

Well, yes, and CCC don't want to sell the free hold. Best we'd all better give up and build a new ground/get new owners.

No-one is talking about a permanent deal, frankly I think the trust is too broken for a long term deal to be agreed first off anyway, but instead a show by both sides to fans (remember them) so that the "club" doesn't get hurt when the businessmen are playing I've watched more episodes of The Good Wife than you have.

To state "we can't do that Sisu don't want it" without accepting the opposite is just silly.

@Ian1779: I think that's a fair start. I think CCFC deserve any revenue they generate by being there, though by contrast if that's the case I'd expect some rent to ACL, otherwise I'd be happy for rent free.

I've said for a while that the original deal of all matchday revenues and a share of everything else with 50% of ACL. Without the 50% just the matchday stuff seems fair.

But "matchday" does need to take into account the Casino has built up a significant footfall on it's own, so I wouldn't expect anyone to argue that CCFC should get all the proceeds from a poker tournament held the same night as a game. How you work that out, I'm not sure.

 

[Rob S]

Sisu won't rent and CCC won't sell. That only leaves one option, sisu will have to put the club up for sale. There's nothing here for them.

I think I might start a new fans group STSCCFCTTHB.

Make sure you use an ultra-compressed font for your signs

Being serious for a second, as someone who has a decent amount of experience in seemingly impossible & intransigent negotiations, there are always more options. (Just make sure you keep the accountants out of the way in the early stages .)

All sides in the dispute have smart people and have easy access to more of the same so no problem with coming up with options. The main problem seems to be getting the fuckers in the same room for the right reason and keeping them coming back until they're done.

 

[Rob S]

Well, yes, and CCC don't want to sell the free hold. Best we'd all better give up and build a new ground/get new owners.

Repeating myself here but there are many options in between 'rent only' & 'freehold'. (And 'new ground & 'new owners' for that matter.) Exploration by negotiation or some such trite phrase

 

[skybluetony176]

The main problem seems to be getting the fuckers in the same room for the right reason and keeping them coming back until they're done.

Don't worry about that I'm one step ahead of you. I have some cousins in Northern Ireland who are willing to help get them all in a room. I say room, it's more of a fishing boat in the middle of the irish channel, everyone will be treated to a nice new pair of wellies fashioned from concrete on arrival and any fucker unwilling to talk will be taking a trip over the side. ;-)

 

[shmmeee]

Repeating myself here but there are many options in between 'rent only' & 'freehold'. (And 'new ground & 'new owners' for that matter.) Exploration by negotiation or some such trite phrase

Indeed. Sorry, it's a trigger phrase for me so apologies if it wasn't appropriate for you. But starting off with one sides wishes as a base isn't conducive to healthy negotiations.

But surely any tenancy has to be either leasehold or freehold, no? What's the third option (other than new owners/new ground)?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Indeed. Sorry, it's a trigger phrase for me so apologies if it wasn't appropriate for you. But starting off with one sides wishes as a base isn't conducive to healthy negotiations.

But surely any tenancy has to be either leasehold or freehold, no? What's the third option (other than new owners/new ground)?

Squatting!

 

[shmmeee]

Squatting!

I thought Cameron made it illegal?

 

[skybluetony176]

I thought Cameron made it illegal?

How's a woman supposed to go for a wee in the woods then?

 

[Rob S]

Indeed. Sorry, it's a trigger phrase for me so apologies if it wasn't appropriate for you. But starting off with one sides wishes as a base isn't conducive to healthy negotiations.

But surely any tenancy has to be either leasehold or freehold, no? What's the third option (other than new owners/new ground)?

Well, there's...(cue Lyle Lanley-style music)

• Rent-only
• Rent with benefits (pies and parking!)
• Rent-to-lease (e.g. rental period converting into leasehold purchase over time if certain conditions are met)
• Short lease (50-99 years)
• Long lease (100+)
• Freehold
• (Plus a few variations of the above)
• Plus variations of the above with Sisu selling the club to a third party on completion of one of the above deals
• One of us wins EuroMillions and spunks it all on buying everything

 

[shmmeee]

Well, there's...(cue Lyle Lanley-style music)

• Rent-only
• Rent with benefits (pies and parking!)
• Rent-to-lease (e.g. rental period converting into leasehold purchase over time if certain conditions are met)
• Short lease (50-99 years)
• Long lease (100+)
• Freehold
• (Plus a few variations of the above)
• Plus variations of the above with Sisu selling the club to a third party on completion of one of the above deals
• One of us wins EuroMillions and spunks it all on buying everything

I'm confused, I thought the first 5 would all involved ACL existing, which your OP said was unacceptable to Sisu.

Or are we talking about leasing/renting/freehold of the entire shebang, casino, hotel and all and effectively replacing ACL?