Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
But what happens to the lease?
Simon Gilbert, has there been an FL response? (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluetony176
- Start date
But what happens to the lease?
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
Who would have paid for the other options though? If you remember the money from Higgs kept our club afloat. This was after the money from the sale of HR had run out. No ground. No money. And by the look of it no means of raising funds to buy HR back. Admin wouldn't have raised cash. Just got away with some debts most probably. What an absolute fuckup.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think £6m from the AEHT could have bought HR back from the developers. AEHT would then have had a proper asset to hold in trust and could've given the club a long term lease.
Instead they got 50% of a worthless company on a short term lease.
Anybody with an IQ higher than -2 can figure out the better deal.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
It is easy to say that in hindsight. I don't think it was anything like as simple & obvious as you make out or that option would have been taken.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think it's more that it was probably never considered. From 1998 onwards the Arena was presented as the only option.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And I seriously (and I do mean seriously) don't know anyone who actually wanted to move to away from HR. I don't think there was a great appetite for it.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Indeed.. so like I say it wasn't obvious, everyone was looking ahead. Still never mind, Joy & her minions are going to make a similar mistake, apparently, LOL
duffer
Well-Known Member
In all honesty mate, I think I'd more or less bought into it - the club seemed determined to sell it as the way forward and I trusted them more then than I do now!
Looking back, of course, it's turned out to be an epic disaster. When I see clubs like West Ham, seemingly set to embark on a similar course, I want to try to warn them. But in fairness, you've got to assume that they've done their homework and they've got a bit of money behind them. By the time we moved to the Ricoh we didn't have a pot to p*ss in, which is where all of the current mess started (imho).
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The mess started because of the deal offered - it could and should have worked. It did mean bigger gates. Like or not the deal offered should never have even been offered as it always would break the club. At the very least a Swansea style model should have been encouraged. They hasn't a pot to piss in either. You glibly overlook the potential if foresight had been applied from the council .
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
How much financially better off would we be? Maybe £15m if no rent paid and if we also had access to revenue, the club would still be broken.
I agree though that the Council has lacked foresight in this, but even if the rent was zero now do you think SISU would bring the club back?
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
I was definitely against moving away from HR, it was still fit for purpose for the size of crowds we were getting,a bit of updating was needed. I loved that place and the atmosphere when full was fantastic and going back to the 70/80's it was a great place to watch football.
I like the Ricoh and no doubt will grow to love it, if we go back I just don't think it was needed.
But I am an old fuddy duddy , I do not like many new stadiums, no character and they all look the same. I would have loved them to make the Ricoh stand out from other new builds once the decision to build it was made, like the new grounds in Germany for instance
I like the Ricoh and no doubt will grow to love it, if we go back I just don't think it was needed.
But I am an old fuddy duddy , I do not like many new stadiums, no character and they all look the same. I would have loved them to make the Ricoh stand out from other new builds once the decision to build it was made, like the new grounds in Germany for instance
Last edited:
WestEndAgro
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the New Stadium in the Coventry area will be the stadium of your dreams ? Go and see Sandra Garlic give her some input.
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
I would rather stick knitting needles in my eyes than attend one of those meetings.
If you read my post I do like the Ricoh and it could become a great stadium in the future, but for us oldies we have so many great memories of HR ,Beckanbaur and the great Bayern Munich team playing there in 1970 is by far my best, and with the mess we are in sometimes we would love to turn the clock back.
And this new stadium has more chance of being built than I have running non stop across the Sahara desert, without stopping and with no refreshments
If you read my post I do like the Ricoh and it could become a great stadium in the future, but for us oldies we have so many great memories of HR ,Beckanbaur and the great Bayern Munich team playing there in 1970 is by far my best, and with the mess we are in sometimes we would love to turn the clock back.
And this new stadium has more chance of being built than I have running non stop across the Sahara desert, without stopping and with no refreshments
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest, I wasn't particularly against moving. Don't get me wrong I loved HR but apart from the East Stand a lot of the facilities left a little to be desired and I was excited about moving to a new ground. I went to some sort of forum (can't remember what it was, there was only a handful of people there - maybe it was a secret meeting!) with BR and he explained the plan and it all seemed very viable. I think if what he said had actually happened the move to the Ricoh would have been good for us.
The theory he put forward was that HR was pretty much only used on matchdays and it was difficult to generate other revenues as the facilities were somewhat limited and outdated and due to location there was little room to improve things. The way it was presented was through the sale of HR and the resale of parts of what become the Ricoh complex (Tesco etc) we would get a new ground and have no mortgage on it - essentially a new ground for free. With a site that could generate addional revenues there would be more money coming into the club, an obvious benefit.
I remember it was questioned why we needed more capacity when HR was not full for most games, the answer given was that the additional capacity was relatively cheap and worth having for those handful of games (Man Utd etc) that did sell out. Of course that was when we were in the PL and I don't think it crossed anyone's mind that we might not be in that league by the time we moved to the new ground.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and as much as I don't think anyone was clamouring for a new ground before the plans were first announced or anyone particularly desperate to leave HR equally I don't recall that many people being hostile to the idea of a new stadium.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Was he suggesting that club owned the area that the ground and Tesco's is on then?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
HR unfortunately was a spent force. It needed rebuilding and was difficult to build other revenue streams around.
We were no different to countless other football clubs with stadiums that be developed from a Victorian era.
Whether the project was handled correctly or sensibly is another matter.
We were no different to countless other football clubs with stadiums that be developed from a Victorian era.
Whether the project was handled correctly or sensibly is another matter.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I can imagine him talking like he did, but ultimately there was never enough money in the (CCFC) pot to buy the land, never mind build a stadium and ground investigations were inadequate as the cost of decontamination was woefully underestimated.
I believe he or the club had an option to buy the land that was never taken up. Eventually CCC paid ~£24M for the land, which strangely enough is why they have the freehold.
Obviously the man was a good salesmen, but like most salesman the actuality never lived up to the pitch.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
To be honest it was a long time ago and I struggle to remember what happened last week let alone years ago! from memory it was presented as the club owning the whole thing and using the money that generated, presumably things like the lease to Tesco, to fund everything. Certainly the impression I got was that we'd own the stadium, conference facilities etc and wouldn't be in debt to anyone for building a new ground. In those days I didn't think I had to give the figures too much scrutiny. Somewhat naively assumed that those in charge of the club knew what they were doing and were operating in our best interests!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Snozz_is_god
New Member
At least Labovich will be at home there, he's very gobby
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Sure i heard somewhere that Richardson made alot of money out the land for himself by selling it before actually owning it or something?
Didn't the club pay for the decontamination of the Gas works land though? Sure we paid for that, but was all very murky.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Have put up the figures a few times. No our club never bought the land or paid for the decontamination. CCC bought it directly from the gas board. Our club put in about 700k IIRC. For that they were given the 50% share in ACL that they sold
Tescos paid for the decontamination and then paid cash on top.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Have put up the figures a few times. No our club never bought the land or paid for the decontamination. CCC bought it directly from the gas board. Our club put in about 700k IIRC. For that they were given the 50% share in ACL that they sold
Tescos paid for the decontamination and then paid cash on top.
Actual spend by club or council very little then.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The problem is, it's the short term influx of cash to stave off the loss of huge figures sunk into the club with the intention of making profit.
Who would have paid for it? Astute asks. Well... whoever bought us out of the administration brought upon us when we had the option to buy back HR/when we held the Ricoh site as an asset, that's who!
But of course it didn't suit our board at the time to present them as options... because it was self interest not to do so.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There was indeed a rationale to begin with.
Once it got downscaled however, there was no point.
Apart from the fact the sale of HR, the buying it back under option (that was done) only to sell it straight back for a profit (about enough to pay a year's rent at the Ricoh) allowed the powers that be at the time to cling on in the hope of that lucky promotion... or selling to someone with more money than sense.
And it did (partially) regenerate an area of Coventry that needed it... so the political, rather than sporting, decision made it viable too. Two sets of disinterested parties, not thinking about what was good for the football club... only with interests that coincided in one obvious action.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Have put up the figures a few times. No our club never bought the land or paid for the decontamination. CCC bought it directly from the gas board. Our club put in about 700k IIRC. For that they were given the 50% share in ACL that they sold
Tescos paid for the decontamination and then paid cash on top.
I just don't understand some of the timescales, work started on the decontamination back in 1999, something that Richardson said would cost the club £18million at the time.
When exactly did work start on the stadium, and when did the council take over the project? Really can't remember, but if we had started work on it and then subsequently didn't have enough money to finish it, then surely we would have owned it in the first place rather than lashing out money on council owned land for a stadium we were supposedly to own?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Correct.
IIRC they needed finance of 24m IIRC. This is where ACL come into it. The freehold isn't worth much whilst there is a lot of the leasehold remaining. The value is in the leasehold. The freehold gains in value as the lease runs down. This is why we are playing in Northampton. Joy is just after trying to devalue the leasehold with the thought of making the whole arena valueless.
The problem is that CCC don't have to sell the freehold. Councils rarely do sell them. If they do it is normally for landnot built on where they don't want to build themselves. And Joy hasn't done herself any favours with the lack of negotiations so far.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Why would they have started work on land they didn't own?
Having a soak in the bath after a hot day at work. Will find out the details for you later if I get the chance.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
These are important points whether you agree with them or not. But they deserve some pondering rather than just being dismissed with a knee jerk reaction.
And they shouldn't.
There is no need for the club - or the owners of the club - to own the freehold.
Astute
Well-Known Member
CCC put 10m in cash into the build. Tescos paid 17m for decontamination and paid an extra £42,420,000 into the build costs. Our club paid £1,758,000 towards the build.Total build cost was £115,729,000. Loan needed was 21m.
Go to the last page bottom half for the full details
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
Go to the last page bottom half for the full details
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
That can't be right. Joy said every football financial expert in the universe said so.