skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
I never asked you to, get off your high horse.
Read your previous post then my reply again.
Don't keep us in suspense, Joy! (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter MichaelCCFC
- Start date
I never asked you to, get off your high horse.
Read your previous post then my reply again.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
its amazing that sisu didn't see the benefit of purchasing the higgs share so the club not only recieved 100% of match day revenues but also 50% of all other revenues. if the revenue is so valuable to the club and we're now being told that this is why sisu cant return to the Ricoh they could have bought the higgs share with 2 seasons of the losses from playing at suxfields yet we're facing 4 more seasons at suxfields until never never land gets built. how many times over could they have purchased the higgs share by then?
its not the fans who are the stumbling block in the club benefitting from the income it generates is it? so who has and is the problem?
Last edited:
Every club needs to be generating revenue in order to maximize their potential, their paying the charges now, just like wages and overheads peoples wages at the club.
The club needs revenues, having said that, a return to the ricoh at a reduced rate and 50% minimum of income surely benefits all parties involved from a business perspective.
However, heard all the same talk from both sides last year before and after a march.... nothing changed.
If nothing else it would contribute to FFP, but isn't the point to get the club playing back in Coventry?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
As I said it's amazing how many people don't want CCFC to benefit from money spent by Coventry City fans at the Ricoh. It's almost as if people are more interested in ACL and the "poor" taxpayers than the club they support. Nah, that can't be true.
As for interest charges. They are high, there is no getting away from that, but so was the rent. And no doubt if we ever get over by a new lot then they will do exactly the same. Whatever way you look at it our club is being shafted. The only thing that will change will be the shafters.
As for interest charges. They are high, there is no getting away from that, but so was the rent. And no doubt if we ever get over by a new lot then they will do exactly the same. Whatever way you look at it our club is being shafted. The only thing that will change will be the shafters.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Given that they have never made a serious attempt to obtain the rights to matchday revenue do you class sisu as some of the people who dont want CCFC to benefit from matchday revenue.
They've talked the talk but have never walked the walk.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with any of that its just common sense.
But you have skirted around the question like a politician !
Even back at the Ricoh with all the match day revenue do you think CCFC will benefit, considering they have interest payments to be be made to Arvo currently at 1.8 million per year?
Also people need to realize that this 1.8 million is required from profit. For example it would take a turnover of 6 million to generate 1.8million at 30% profit margin !
Yep, still makes no sense. Try dealing with the content not the sentiment
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So every owner will be exactly the same then ?
So you think we should just roll over and except the situation ?
You bring everything around to the rent that ccfc used to pay which at 1.3 million everybody agrees was to much. But that is long dead and the rent now would be nothing like that on a return to the Ricoh.
Even with a low rent and all the Ricoh match day revenue the 1.8million yearly Arvo interest would never be sustainable.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
people can mention the old rent now as much as they like. Its not about the rent, TF and Joy said so.
so any talk about what rent they should be paying or what they did pay are no longer a real argument.
spider_ricoh
New Member
It's not that I don't want the club to benefit from F&B etc - quite the opposite. I just don't support the club in trying to crowbar it away from another organisation for free, when this is clearly unreasonable. Just because something benefits CCFC doesn't mean we have to support it by default - SISU are happy to use any excuse to justify their actions in essentially trying to get a stadium for free. Yes it would help the club in theory, but it's unethical.
The rent was actually perfectly reasonable given the cost to the council to fund the Ricoh completion - £1m per year for a £30m provided isn't that steep - no private investor would touch that so CCC stepped in as lender of last resort. Didn't see any club officials complaining about "unlawful state aid" back then? Club also were vying for the Prem at the time so £1m rent would ahve been a drop in the ocean - who was to blame for that dream going sour, surely not CCFC owners?
I can't believe any owners would screw us more than SISU - 10% interest charges on loans, management fees, saddling debt onto the club for a needless new stadium, decimating the fanbase by moving to Northampton for their own ends - it beggars belief.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Joy Seppala is the only one who can decide the future of ccfc imo. The council, acl and football league cant change anything, it is all down to JS and her beliefs and opinions.
TF imo isn't the problem, I think deep down he is on the side on the fans and he surely thinks ccfc should be playing at the ricoh but he says what JS tells him and his job requires. TF isn't the problem JS is the problem.
I reiterate the only person who can decide the future is JS and that is that.
TF imo isn't the problem, I think deep down he is on the side on the fans and he surely thinks ccfc should be playing at the ricoh but he says what JS tells him and his job requires. TF isn't the problem JS is the problem.
I reiterate the only person who can decide the future is JS and that is that.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yes, I do think every owner will be the same. People don't invest millions of pounds just for the sake of it. No one is going to take us over if they don't recoup some of their investment. This is why ACL need to look at their whole business model. Even if SISU left by lunch the new lot wouldn't stand for such a poor deal, would they?
Ultimately, what we all want is for CCFC to prosper. So we want a fair deal not only from our owners (who ever they are) but also from our landlords.
Ultimately, what we all want is for CCFC to prosper. So we want a fair deal not only from our owners (who ever they are) but also from our landlords.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I want a fair deal. I'm willing to support a new ground if that is genuinely what is needed for the long term health of the club. I'm willing to wait while a deal is negotiated for the Ricoh.
I don't support taking the club out of Coventry as a negotiating tactic. That IMO is totally outside of any other issues and needs to be resolved. If that means that CCFC don't get the Ricoh on the cheap by distressing ACL and have to build a new ground, then that is sad but understandable. If that means that CCFC don't get revenues that they didn't get before the move, even on the old rental deal, (and aren't getting at Sixfields) for the 3-4 years it takes to build a new place, then so be it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Higgs share does not entitle the club to any of these revenues.
Its not as if CCC didn't get anything out of there act of charity! to CCFC. I.E. the regeneration of an eyesore in that part of the city which had stood contaminated and of no use to man nor beast for years, and at the end of it by spending less than one tenth of the overall cost of the development ending up the sole owner, and then getting back the £20M loan through ACL for the lease.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How did they spend less than one tenth of the cost?
No body gets the loan back ,It's a mortgage.
There is still around £14M outstanding on It.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Isn't this just common sense? Why else would you get involved?
If you review the minuets of the council meeting that agreed the £20M loan to cover the shortfall, when CCFC's financial partner pulled out it gives a breakdown of all the investment that made up the total costs for the building of the Arena, CCC contribution to this cost was £10M.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
According to PWKH an offer was made at one point which included some or all of the F&B but it was rejected. I'd be interested as would I suspect a lot of others to know, what the terms in it were and which ones Sisu objected to + why.
Any new owner I would hope would be offered a deal including F&B or they could offer to buy the Higgs share.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Have you got a link? I've got a severe allergy to finding information on government websites.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The SBT Q&A (which I keep going back to, but only because it's the most complete set of answers we've got from either side) seems to suggest that what made the previous deal fall apart (before Sixfields) was the catering in the hospitality suites and the other F&B revenue. They argue that ACL aren't making anything like enough profit and claim Swindon make something like £1.9m compared to the £100k ACL make (though that's nearly twice the entire turnover, so something has to be off).
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
CCC also contributed £60m worth of land.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Why not?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
(found it) That's £10m equity investment. But the land sold to Tesco was theirs to sell, so add another £59.4m on. Plus they sold land for £5m, and accessed a development fund that wouldn't have been there if they weren't involved for another £4.4m, plus the £1.3m they contributed in interest they gained from sticking the Tesco money in the bank.
It's still their money. If you part exchange your car for £1000 and pay £1000 cash, you still paid £2000 for your new car.
Last edited:
It's widely quoted that CCC input was £10M cash.
We dont. Getting back to the Ricoh with a sensible rent and purchasing the Higgs share would generate more revenue for CCFC than staying at Sixfields.
spider_ricoh
New Member
Sure, but as the judge pointed out - playing at Sixfields is not the long term plan. It causes short term pain in terms of CCFC revenue dropping, but as times goes on ACL gets weaker, meaning that the price of the Higgs share will keep getting lower, to SISU's advantage. Playing at Sixfields benefits the club in the long-term by meaning that Ricoh can be bought at a lower price, with the benefits flowing from there.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
That's a hell of a large profit, nearly £2m over a season. Is that just from the match days or does that include concerts etc. They make in profit per match almost as much as is generated at the Ricoh over an entire season. Have Swindon got any published accounts we (or OSB58 in my case) can look at to see how this all breaks down?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The revenues stay with ACL obviously and ACL take no dividends.
I fail to see what the club has to gain from buying the share - no change to rent and no access to revenues generated.
Sorry had to go out. In reply to your statement above, I think you will find the land was owned by the Gas board and CCFC had already negotiated the price for and the agreement to buy the land they had also been in contact with Tesco to purchase the part of the land that the council subsequently sold, when there financial backer pulled out.
chickentikkamasala
Well-Known Member
Did I mention Haskell or Hoffman? I am not interested in these people, they are nothing to do with Sisu, of course ACL's value will increase, nothing like stating the obvious, that is why Sisu moved in the first instance it had nothing to do with rent but all to do with ACL and the value of it.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
The club were also going to plug the shortfall of £20M with a loan from a Portugese bank. The bank pulled out, the Council stepped in. The rest, as they say, is (horrible) history.
spider_ricoh
New Member
Yep, and nobody complained about CCC offering state aid then, even though they were a lender of last resort when no private entity would touch us.....