Kcic front bid to buy club (29 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Perhaps a rent free offer to Sisu for the next 50 years might do the trick?
It seems a few souls on here think they should get pretty much everything else for free.
After all, they're such nice people aren't they. Least we could do.
A few of us could pop round to Tim's and wash his car for him.

I'll walk his dog if you like.

I do it anyway as a volunteer for a charity that helps old and terminally ill people look after their dogs so they don't have to give them up but fuck them freeloaders, clearly an employee of a hedge fund in full health and a sizable bank account is much more deserving.

 

---

[chiefdave]

If the deal was kcic pay rent and match day costs. Sisu got all match day revenue, it would be hard to turn down and no paying back when the crowd is a certain attendance clause either.

So you're basically saying someone else should pay all the costs and SISU should get the income from everything? Even on a 3 year deal there's a, admittedly very slim, chance we could be back in the prem with our owners not paying anything out and the ground sold out every week at PL ticket prices!

I don't think you can reasonably expect any third party to agree to that but if SISU were to suggest sticking a couple of quid surcharge on every ticket to cover the rent I would happily pay that.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Originally Posted by Nick
Why is that?

Is WUM the new thing to say when people don't have any other sort of answer to replies?


Still waiting on any sort of answer from Michael about the plans, how can this be fronted when simple
questions can't be answered?

Ask sisu about that

Actually, thats a fair point.

Nick, if you want to know all the details why don't you contact ML, he's made himself available when he wanted to arrange meetings. Perhaps he'll fill you in.

 

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Nick
Why is that?

Is WUM the new thing to say when people don't have any other sort of answer to replies?


Still waiting on any sort of answer from Michael about the plans, how can this be fronted when simple
questions can't be answered?



Actually, thats a fair point.

Nick, if you want to know all the details why don't you contact ML, he's made himself available when he wanted to arrange meetings. Perhaps he'll fill you in.

So sisu have been given more information?

The irony meter is off the scale wit h this thread.

 

[Nick]

So you're basically saying someone else should pay all the costs and SISU should get the income from everything? Even on a 3 year deal there's a, admittedly very slim, chance we could be back in the prem with our owners not paying anything out and the ground sold out every week at PL ticket prices!

I don't think you can reasonably expect any third party to agree to that but if SISU were to suggest sticking a couple of quid surcharge on every ticket to cover the rent I would happily pay that.

I agree, the club should pay it's way

 

[Grendel]

So you're basically saying someone else should pay all the costs and SISU should get the income from everything? Even on a 3 year deal there's a, admittedly very slim, chance we could be back in the prem with our owners not paying anything out and the ground sold out every week at PL ticket prices!

I don't think you can reasonably expect any third party to agree to that but if SISU were to suggest sticking a couple of quid surcharge on every ticket to cover the rent I would happily pay that.

I thought it was free if only 4,999 turn up? The article says local businessmen have commited one million pounds to the rent. Will 3 years cost more than a million? Will they be paying one penny if its 5,001 attending?

 

[chiefdave]

I thought it was free if only 4,999 turn up? The article says local businessmen have commited one million pounds to the rent. Will 3 years cost more than a million? Will they be paying one penny if its 5,001 attending?

It is indeed free for under 5000 but my reply was to Bennets Afro's post suggesting KCIC should pay all rent and matchday costs regardless of attendance and SISU should get all matchday revenues in addition to ticket revenues.

If the deal was kcic pay rent and match day costs. Sisu got all match day revenue, it would be hard to turn down and no paying back when the crowd is a certain attendance clause either.

We won't need 3 years anyway, there's only 2 years until our new stadium opens so a million will be plenty to cover that. Personally I think the offer KCIC have made is a great one for the club. If SISU accept it is impossible for the club to be worse off financially than playing at Northampton. It gives them the prospect of retaining the fan base while they build our new ground and if the deal falls over at any point due to issues caused by KCIC, ACL, FL or any other non-SISU party it gives them a huge PR coup. They can honestly say they were prepared to return the club to Coventry but another party is now to blame for that not happening.

The only reason I can see for SISU not accepting this deal would be if the reasons they have been telling us we have been forced to move us to Northampton were not actually truthful.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It is indeed free for under 5000 but my reply was to Bennets Afro's post suggesting KCIC should pay all rent and matchday costs regardless of attendance and SISU should get all matchday revenues in addition to ticket revenues.

I think the offer from KCIC is a very good one and I can see why they have made the offer with the reimbursement over the 5,000 attendance, however if you take our home attendance from the 12/13 season the average was 10,9.. or pretty close to that figure.

Now baring in mind the Club wants to maximise it's revenue, there is no reason why the Club would accept a deal that allows them to share 50% in gate revenue with another party, especially one that has funded ACL..

Another way to look at it is:

For arguments sake (it has been much debated on here in the past) let's say that the average ticket price at the Ricoh is £15, let's also take into account the 12/13 season attendance figures (again very reasonable but I am sure there might be a slight decrease should we come back) to work out the monies paid back to KCIC in this deal.

(£15 x 5,000 x 25 x 3 = £5,625,000)

Even at £10 the overall figure back to KCIC and it's partners over three years would be £3,750,000. For this reason I don't think the Club will accept it.

I think it would have been pretty hard to reject the offer (and as of yet it hasn't been rejected..) but more so than originally if the threshold would have been between 7,500 - 8,500 for any reimbursement of ticket sales above that figure..

Again another simple sum to show the contrast:

KCIC
(£10 x 2,500 x 25 x 3 = £1,875,000)
(£15 x 2,500 x 25 x 3 = £2,812,500)

Again it is a return on investment but it may swing the ticket percentage sale back to the Clubs favour making it harder to resist:

CCFC
(£10 x 7,500 x 25 x 3 = £5,625,000)
(£15 x 7,500 x 25 x 3 = £8,437,000)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

So sisu have been given more information?

The irony meter is off the scale wit h this thread.

The irony meter broke the moment that the same posters who brush aside the fact that we have no idea what a sisu owned stadium will actually mean for the club as 12+months ago sisu said it's too early to work those details out and we still don't know and the same posters are still brushing it aside while championing sisu ownership of a stadium while having no idea what it means for the club now demand immediate answers from Michael so they can decide if they can get on board or not.

Michaels offer if taken up can only benefit not only the club but the fan base but details are a must. A sisu owned stadium could potentially be the worst thing ever to happen to the club but we'll worry about that when it happens. THAT'S IRONY.

Michael has made his offer and it's pretty much a given that they'll turn it down so the current details don't really matter. All the real fans can do is find ways to add to that offer so we can go back to sisu with a second improved offer. The new season is just around the corner and unless you want to start next season at suxfields now is the time to get on board and add something. Your current line of "I need to know the details" is doing just the opposite.

I have made several suggestions on how to add to what Michael has already done, from getting ACL to agree to start next season on a deposit only giving us the chance to fund raise the rent. Suggesting that we could do that with the obvious collection buckets at the gate, I'll happily put a fiver in every time I walk through the gate if we're playing at the ricoh and I'm sure that I won't be alone. We could approach the sponsors that dumped the club because of the move to make donations in place of that sponsorship the only limit is your imagination, something you're not currently showing a lot of.

Tell me Nick, when someone approaches you with a charity tin do you put your loose change in or do you ask them what there running total is before you can decide if you can get on board. Surely the cause is what's important to you not what's currently in the pot?

 

[Mr T - Sukka!]

NOGM - not one game more.

Until SISU are out of our club.
Even if we did the impossible and moved back to the Ricoh i would not go with SISU as owners.

Away games are out too.

If they think they can can stab me in the back after moving CCFC away then they can fook right off!

Im not going to crawl back like a little nodding dog.

Guess there is many like me.

 

[Bennets Afro]

Then it can't be classed as the club coming back to the Ricoh rent free then can it?

So you're basically saying someone else should pay all the costs and SISU should get the income from everything? Even on a 3 year deal there's a, admittedly very slim, chance we could be back in the prem with our owners not paying anything out and the ground sold out every week at PL ticket prices!

I don't think you can reasonably expect any third party to agree to that but if SISU were to suggest sticking a couple of quid surcharge on every ticket to cover the rent I would happily pay that.

 

[Grendel]

NOGM - not one game more.

Until SISU are out of our club.
Even if we did the impossible and moved back to the Ricoh i would not go with SISU as owners.

Away games are out too.

If they think they can can stab me in the back after moving CCFC away then they can fook right off!

Im not going to crawl back like a little nodding dog.

Guess there is many like me.

Guess there is.

Fans who turn their back on the club in times of adversity.

Guess that's why we are where we are.

Well done.

 

[rupert_bear]

This is obviously the opening shot in any deal to buy back our club and/or solve this rent and Ricoh dispute and I believe has put SISU behind the blackball. Negotiations have to start somewhere and need to if we are to see our football club survive. Those on here who talk this idea down are beyond me, do you think this football club will just carry on leaking money, it will be wound up eventually if nothing changes. Big institutions like Woolworths have been closed down with the flick of a finger so lets not think a piddling little football club won't be and those who think someone will ride in on a white charger to rescue us at the eleventh hour think again, yes there will be another club rise from the ashes but will be so far down the league pyramid it will take years to get into the conference and will not be called Coventry City

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I think the offer from KCIC is a very good one and I can see why they have made the offer with the reimbursement over the 5,000 attendance, however if you take our home attendance from the 12/13 season the average was 10,9.. or pretty close to that figure.

Now baring in mind the Club wants to maximise it's revenue, there is no reason why the Club would accept a deal that allows them to share 50% in gate revenue with another party, especially one that has funded ACL..

Another way to look at it is:

For arguments sake (it has been much debated on here in the past) let's say that the average ticket price at the Ricoh is £15, let's also take into account the 12/13 season attendance figures (again very reasonable but I am sure there might be a slight decrease should we come back) to work out the monies paid back to KCIC in this deal.

(£15 x 5,000 x 25 x 3 = £5,625,000)

Even at £10 the overall figure back to KCIC and it's partners over three years would be £3,750,000. For this reason I don't think the Club will accept it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't the deal though is it? There hasn't been any mention of KCIC taking a share of the gate money, only that some/all costs of the rent will be paid by the club if the crowd is over 5,000.

 

[Grendel]

This isn't the deal though is it? There hasn't been any mention of KCIC taking a share of the gate money, only that some/all costs of the rent will be paid by the club if the crowd is over 5,000.

There hasn't been a suggestion the club won't lay all the rent with gates over 5,000 has there?

 

[Astute]

I think the offer from KCIC is a very good one and I can see why they have made the offer with the reimbursement over the 5,000 attendance, however if you take our home attendance from the 12/13 season the average was 10,9.. or pretty close to that figure.

Now baring in mind the Club wants to maximise it's revenue, there is no reason why the Club would accept a deal that allows them to share 50% in gate revenue with another party, especially one that has funded ACL..

Another way to look at it is:

For arguments sake (it has been much debated on here in the past) let's say that the average ticket price at the Ricoh is £15, let's also take into account the 12/13 season attendance figures (again very reasonable but I am sure there might be a slight decrease should we come back) to work out the monies paid back to KCIC in this deal.

(£15 x 5,000 x 25 x 3 = £5,625,000)

Even at £10 the overall figure back to KCIC and it's partners over three years would be £3,750,000. For this reason I don't think the Club will accept it.

I think it would have been pretty hard to reject the offer (and as of yet it hasn't been rejected..) but more so than originally if the threshold would have been between 7,500 - 8,500 for any reimbursement of ticket sales above that figure..

Again another simple sum to show the contrast:

KCIC
(£10 x 2,500 x 25 x 3 = £1,875,000)
(£15 x 2,500 x 25 x 3 = £2,812,500)

Again it is a return on investment but it may swing the ticket percentage sale back to the Clubs favour making it harder to resist:

CCFC
(£10 x 7,500 x 25 x 3 = £5,625,000)
(£15 x 7,500 x 25 x 3 = £8,437,000)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I need to wake up.

So what is this all about with shared gate receipts?

And why does anyone think that SISU would accept this offer when they refused others and didn't bother negotiating a return for our club? No need to make excuses for them turning this one down.

The only chance we have of a quick return for our club is if the JR judgement is a resounding win for one side. We need the judge to exonerate one side and put the pressure on the other side. I don't think Joy woud bring our club home on free rent and the pie money if the JR is seen to be a draw. To me a draw would be that the loan was seen to be unlawful, but their hand was forced by the actions of SISU like unlawfully withholding the rent. And with CCC securing the future a property there could be no comeback. They might have to refinance again, but there would be enough time given to sort everything out. Whilst Joy thinks she has a chance of getting the freehold and CCC don't want to give it to her there will be stalemate. And local councils rarely sell freeholds. The only normal freeholds ever sold is for land not built on where they don't want to build.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

This isn't the deal though is it? There hasn't been any mention of KCIC taking a share of the gate money, only that some/all costs of the rent will be paid by the club if the crowd is over 5,000.

"We only expect reimbursement if and when the attendance at the Ricoh is above 5,000."

The point of my post was to highlight that the 5,000 mark will more than likely easily be reached so why not up the attendance limit to 7,500?

I maybe did look at shared gate receipts slightly but hell it was 07:00 in the morning and I am knackered.. Forgive me!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bennets Afro]

It is indeed free for under 5000 but my reply was to Bennets Afro's post suggesting KCIC should pay all rent and matchday costs regardless of attendance and SISU should get all matchday revenues in addition to ticket revenues.

I wasn't suggesting that KCIC pay all these. I was merely saying that while there is a clause in there for SISU to pay back KCIC if a certain condition is met, then it will probably be rejected and to back sisu into a corner then the "free" rent offer would need to be water tight so that they couldn't turn it down.

If gates are over 5k which they probably would be, then why wouldn't they do their own deal with ACL to come back? I think we all know the reasons why

 

[Mr T - Sukka!]

Guess there is.

Fans who turn their back on the club in times of adversity.

Guess that's why we are where we are.

Well done.

Hang on a minute. I was a regular up the Ricoh and some away games.

You dont look at it the other way do you?

Clubs who turn their back on the fans in times of adversity.

Guess thats why we are where we are.

Well done indeed!

 

[skybluetony176]

This isn't the deal though is it? There hasn't been any mention of KCIC taking a share of the gate money, only that some/all costs of the rent will be paid by the club if the crowd is over 5,000.

That's the part some people are choosing not to get. The offer is calling sisu's it's all about FFP rules bluff. If the crowd is lower than 5000 sisu could still use the argument that suxfields offers the best return where FFP rules are concerned. This offer denies sisu that excuse, if the crowds exceed 5000 then the excuse is never there to be used.

I think they'll turn it down anyway with no explanation which is why we ALL have to get on board and make the return happen for ourselves. If that means that we have to pay the rent ourselves then let's aim for that. Michael has started the ball rolling, let's make it snowball. Michael can't do that on his own.

 

[Astute]

Guess there is.

Fans who turn their back on the club in times of adversity.

Guess that's why we are where we are.

Well done.

Most of us are getting the same way Grendel. I only went to 2 games last season. I normally make 10 or more. Shift work and distance makes it a little difficult. when I am away on main holiday I normally fly back for a game. It is usually about the same cost or cheaper than travelling from my house. The wife knew something was wrong at the start of last season when I had no thoughts of getting a game in whilst we were away.

How many years were you a STH for and how many games did you go to last season Grendel? You are one of the most vocal on here on not turning your back on our club but hardly went yourself. A round trip of 70 miles isn't that much. So what else stopped you?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

There hasn't been a suggestion the club won't lay all the rent with gates over 5,000 has there?

There is a lack of clarity with pretty much all the offer. There isn't any part of it the club can agree to unless far more detail is revealed.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Why?

Because it shows he help people are trying to give sisu of playing on Coventry. If they turn it down the the football league should ask serious questions. Of course the football league having a spine is another debate.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

That's the part some people are choosing not to get. The offer is calling sisu's it's all about FFP rules bluff. If the crowd is lower than 5000 sisu could still use the argument that suxfields offers the best return where FFP rules are concerned. This offer denies sisu that excuse, if the crowds exceed 5000 then the excuse is never there to be used.

I think they'll turn it down anyway with no explanation which is why we ALL have to get on board and make the return happen for ourselves. If that means that we have to pay the rent ourselves then let's aim for that. Michael has started the ball rolling, let's make it snowball. Michael can't do that on his own.

No business would accept the offer as it stands.

The crowd will always be over 5,000, so how much rent will the club pay?

The ball that Michael has started rolling needs to be stopped, and then another ball, one with details on it, can be rolled.

 

[mrtrench]

The offer to buy is clearly just symbolic and pretty pointless. I'm sure that SISU has already received better offers than £50k + no debt.

The offer to pay for the ground, which is similar in style to the Hoffman offer some months ago, is interesting as a piss take. Here is my thinking - and apologies if this has already been mooted in this thread already. I got to the page where everyone was squabbling with each other and gave up reading.

First though let me say that I am much happier with the CET's reporting on the issues now. Andy Turner's piece on this is great and I also like the stuff from Simon Gilbert. Hated the other SISUpuppetegoist (just fancied creating a compound noun like the Germans do). I hope that the Telegraph interprets the events that follow correctly and point out the logical conclusions. Ideally a National will pick up the story too when SISU rejects it.

The offer to pay the rent, once rejected, will prove that SISU's objective is to bankrupt ACL. There can be no more apologies for them after this, pretending that they have any concern for the club - or indeed the club's long term profitability. This is all about a massive one-off gain so that they can exit stage left, pockets stuffed with cash. Here's why:

SISU has said they are building a new stadium within 3 years - and here is an offer to make more money over those three years, effectively paying less rent than they are in Northampton but also getting far more income. It would also be welcomed by the local community and Coventry fans everywhere. It would get all the negative vibes off their back for a spell. What possible reason could they have for declining it? Unless of course they don't actually care about either of those things?

What if they don't want anyone to pay the rent, because that would provide income to ACL? What if their strategy is really to starve ACL until they can somehow get the arena for a song? What if this were actually just a land and property deal all the time for SISU? Then of course any offer to pay the rent would be abhorrent and hence declined. I can think of no other logical explanation. Can anyone else?

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Only thing to report this morning is there's nothing to report. At the risking of offending people, the only response that matters is sisu's. Everyone has their own opinion and everyone can have a go at double-guessing what sisu will say. But that is just opinions and guessing, nothing more. What will move things forward is sisu's reply. Probably not likely to hear anything over a weekend (?) but fingers crossed for something positive on Monday.

 

[mrtrench]

One more comment on this. If this were really a property deal, it would also be of course an attempt to make a profit at the expense of the people of Coventry - the ratepayers. Would a hedge fund do something like that?

Well the answer is: of course they would. Indeed, deals to take the piss out of taxpayers is pretty much modus operandi for Hedge Funds and other structured financial vehicles (typically called SPVs - Special Purpose Vehicles). I'm not going to offer any proof of that statement for my own reasons but if you believe I'm not just a random bullshitter then trust me that it is true.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Only thing to report this morning is there's nothing to report. At the risking of offending people, the only response that matters is sisu's. Everyone has their own opinion and everyone can have a go at double-guessing what sisu will say. But that is just opinions and guessing, nothing more. What will move things forward is sisu's reply. Probably not likely to hear anything over a weekend (?) but fingers crossed for something positive on Monday.

Rent offer - As I see it you haven't offered them anything that they couldn't get from ACL themselves, so what am I missing that makes your offer more attractive?

 

[mrtrench]

Rent offer - As I see it you haven't offered them anything that they couldn't get from ACL themselves, so what am I missing that makes your offer more attractive?

What has been offered is an insurance policy known as a collar or a floor - whilst paying a peppercorn rent, SISU still runs the, granted negligible, risk that attendances are low and they lose money. By saying that the rent is free whilst attendance is lower than 5k SISU no longer has any risk at all - it is a wonderful offer.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Only thing to report this morning is there's nothing to report. At the risking of offending people, the only response that matters is sisu's. Everyone has their own opinion and everyone can have a go at double-guessing what sisu will say. But that is just opinions and guessing, nothing more. What will move things forward is sisu's reply. Probably not likely to hear anything over a weekend (?) but fingers crossed for something positive on Monday.

Michael, have you seen the statement from sisu that's been on the club website since last night?

Interesting they have stated the club is not for sale but no mention of the rental offer.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Coventry City Football Club issue response to reports in today's local media

While Coventry City Football Club acknowledges receipt of a letter, the club wishes to make clear that it is not for sale.

 

[Kingokings204]

2 points from me I would like to know.

1. Surely the results of the JR are dependant on any movement so I am baffled to the timing of the offer so why not of waited or did KCIC think it wasn't relevant?

2. We all know sisu are trying to distress and bankrupt ACL (which won't happen) so what difference is renting year by year with a third party paying or shared paying whatever it is going to do to increase value to ACL. It won't add any value to them at all as the rent is not 1.3pa. What it does do it give time for sisu and ACL to talk their way out of this ugly hole and figure out a permante solution whilst ACL is still worthless.

I've said all alone ccfc and ACL need eachother and the fact both have gone it alone per se if why both companies are worthless and the we have a shit football team to support which has lost many fans and more by the day. Both need eachother to survive.

 

[Kingokings204]

Coventry City Football Club issue response to reports in today's local media

While Coventry City Football Club acknowledges receipt of a letter, the club wishes to make clear that it is not for sale.

Any club is always for sale so that's crap. It always translates to someone hasn't offered enough yet. Bit like with callum Wilson. He isn't for sale means the right amount hasn't been offered yet.

Nothing will happen til after the JR. Apart from then it's hope time as Coventry in Northampton for another season is financial suicide.

Tim fisher told simon gilbert yesterday he won't give an answer to which Simon asked why? And he didn't get a response. Why? Because sisu need time to think how to reject the deal that makes common sense.

 

[Matty_CCFC]

Rent offer - As I see it you haven't offered them anything that they couldn't get from ACL themselves, so what am I missing that makes your offer more attractive?

Why do some people but a negative stance on this? Nothing good has been said or done in months and this gives us a little glimmer of hope.
All Michael has done (and fair play to him) has sent a letter that should at the very least get a conversation started. Its so obvious that SISU are on the back foot and this might, just might make them as least discuss other options. They will not pick up the phone to CCC or ACL but they may via fans.
We all know someone who has met with Fisher, Labovitch or Sappala they all talk crap, nothing was achieved except bullshit, they say they have plans and want to listen to the fans.
Well fecking listen you Twats and get us home.

 

[Matty_CCFC]

That's the part some people are choosing not to get. The offer is calling sisu's it's all about FFP rules bluff. If the crowd is lower than 5000 sisu could still use the argument that suxfields offers the best return where FFP rules are concerned. This offer denies sisu that excuse, if the crowds exceed 5000 then the excuse is never there to be used.

I think they'll turn it down anyway with no explanation which is why we ALL have to get on board and make the return happen for ourselves. If that means that we have to pay the rent ourselves then let's aim for that. Michael has started the ball rolling, let's make it snowball. Michael can't do that on his own.

Exactly. Michael has got the ball rolling.
Lets get behind this concept