A few thoughts on recent statements (11 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

Just a few thoughts that come to mind about recent statements CCFC/FL/ACL

Harping back to the old agreement is not useful (although I will make reference to them below). CCFC has no legal right to be at the Ricoh. Aside from a sign that has been left up and the hopes of the fans there is no connection any more. So any agreement that could be reached will be completely new. As such it can be tailored and compromised if the will is there

- The ball should not be in any bodies court, they should both be keen to do business, to compromise to get a deal done. It should not be about one side improving their image or taking the moral high ground. sadly it is

- I do not think ACL will move from their preconditions to talk. The £590k is out of their control and as such is not the most important precondition. It will be whatever the FL decides. The legal situation regarding the JR is key because ACL are fully involved in that. Fisher says it isn't the club it is SISU. That's not right. The action is brought by ARVO, SBS&L and CCFCH owners present and past of CCFC. In fact SISU can not themselves bring about any appeals as they are not party to the claim.

- What is a L1 average rent? Has anyone seen a calculation of such a thing? Who keeps promoting the £170k (or so) as the right figure? The right figure for CCFC and ACL is the one they can agree on surely? That said then if £170k is the average rent logic says it should be for the average ground in L1. That average ground has a current capacity of 15706 and average match day usage of 49% ...................is that the Ricoh? Whose responsibility is it to maximise the usage (and therefore revenues) of the stadium?

- F&B's. A lot is made of this. A lot of figures bandied about. Firstly it is not true to say that the club never got any F&B income - the club sold matchday hospitality direct to its supporters. Didn't get the concourse no. Figures regarding Highfield Rd are being put out - in 2003 and 2004 the club received £79k and £85k respectively because they subcontracted it out and in 2005 £911k (crowds being 14.8k, 14.8k and 16.2k respectively). In the scheme of things then F&B's probably equate to 10% of Turnover well worth having

- F&B's and the SCMP calculation. A lot is made of SP will get 60p in the £ of all F&B turnover. It is not true. SCMP first deducts the direct costs so if the club make 30% on say 600k turnover that means only £108k is included in the SCMP budget (600 x 30% x 60%). Or probably 4% of the budget for SCMP - is it really a deal breaker to a return? Surely a deal can be done?

- Car parking. Under the old lease CCFC had 900 spaces on match days. They lost that revenue when they stopped paying the rent I believe. So they had the revenue at one time. But how many average L1 grounds have 2000 car park spaces? Deal to be done but there is calculation of cost to be included I would think

- A key problem is who takes operational responsibility on match days. In all honesty I do not see the Safety Advisory Group or ACL letting responsibility bounce around from week to week. If ACL retain the safety certificate then CCFC will have match the ACL procedures or not be allowed access

- Compass. Usual misdirection here. Compass have a contract to man the stadium with IEC Experience. IEC Experience has purchased the rights off ACL to operate the Ricoh for the next 13 years. Compass own 23% of IEC ACL 77%. The turnover of the Ricoh is firstly declared in IEC and then the ACL Group accounts. The right to income is IEC's not Compass's.

- does having match days at the Ricoh make that much difference to De Vere Hotels & G Casino. Certainly the Hotel would lose some occupancy due to rooms being used as boxes. How hard is it to get a room now? Does the Casino rely on beer sales on match days or is their core income elsewhere?

Will be interesting to see if a deal can be done. I really hope it can. The club needs it but more importantly the fans do.

Cant help thinking that the process has a built in self destruct......

 

---

[shmmeee]

I expect the casino made a bit from the football club when Kevin Kyle was here to be fair...

Good post OSB, some interesting points on F&B.

Is that £911k made in 2005 a profit? That'd suggest £2 profit per head per game, which I'd be surprised at, though I suppose the corporate stuff makes money. Prawn sandwiches aren't cheap I guess.

 

[wingy]

I expect the casino made a bit from the football club when Kevin Kyle was here to be fair...

Good post OSB, some interesting points on F&B.

Is that £911k made in 2005 a profit? That'd suggest £2 profit per head per game, which I'd be surprised at, though I suppose the corporate stuff makes money. Prawn sandwiches aren't cheap I guess.

Maybe the Elton John concert skewed things ?

 

[Otis]

Very good post OSB.

As per usual, there are still as many unanswered questions as there are answers and it's not as clear cut as some will have us believe.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I know Elton is the diva but his love of cucumber sandwiches surely wouldn't have fetched 900k.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I know Elton is the diva but his love of cucumber sandwiches surely wouldn't have fetched 900k.

Apparently he is partial to a battered sausage.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I expect the casino made a bit from the football club when Kevin Kyle was here to be fair...

Good post OSB, some interesting points on F&B.

Is that £911k made in 2005 a profit? That'd suggest £2 profit per head per game, which I'd be surprised at, though I suppose the corporate stuff makes money. Prawn sandwiches aren't cheap I guess.

no shmmee it is the sales net of VAT. That year had a lot of special events because of leaving Highfield Rd so is not a good reflection of normal trade I would suggest.

 

[oldskyblue58]

a few more thoughts

- The proposal apparently put forward is for three years. Would ACL want to be tied in with SISU/CCFC that long or would they look for a one year rolling contract? Would such an arrangement suit CCFC better? Of course the FL want a 10 year security of tenure but seemingly SISU are making it clear that this is only short term - they need to be held to the time limits of the other side of that. Going to build a stadium get on with it.

- Will ACL be prepared to give CCFC priority or will CCFC have to work round ACL's plans that are in place? That could be important in terms of access to TV money or cup game. Don't the FL require that Football is given priority at any stadium. Will ACL offer as much because they know it is only short term? Would you feel obliged to if you knew the tenant leaving in 36 months

- what about a rental deposit? or penalties for non payment or late payment surely those will have to be in place and contractually water tight after what has gone on? Why should CCFC or SISU object if the intention is pay their contractual debts on time?

- Will CCFC also have to accept that other parts of the complex are in use on match days. Will that restrict for example the access to all of the car park spaces or access to the Atrium?

- Surely match day costs need to be defined and costed to the nth degree in order to avoid future disputes. ACL will not want to give any excuses for non payment and CCFC will want to know what they are paying for. All that will take a lot of time to get right - which will mean delays to HOT's being drawn up which will then be followed contracts and lawyers. If we are back before end of September I will be surprised but happy. That of course relies the pre conditions being solved - like it or not ACL I think will stick to them, because they believe that's best for their business. I don't think it is a bargaining position, it isn't PR - in much the same way as happened at the Alan Higgs Centre it is a case of pay up stop hurting us and we look at doing a deal, if not there will be no deal.

- I get the feeling that the JR appeal and the CCFC return are being separated for a reason. As explained above in the first post I just do not see how you can do it in reality, you can say it but the reality is different isn't it? Just guesswork but I think you have those who are solely involved at CCFC trying their best to get a team out and to work within what they have ........ at the other extreme you have JS who is saying no more money and we continue to take legal action...... somewhere in the middle of that is Fisher. To be honest if that's true it is not a great start to successful negotiations, JS has the last word is the decision maker and her decisions affect the opportunity to talk.

- As I understand it ACL or IEC now employ many of the stewards CCFC used to have. They are experience of the stadium and its procedures. Would it not make sense to use them rather than the club source their own as has been suggested.

- footfall of 250,000 There is a trade off here. There are going to be events affected by the return of CCFC. There is going to be an affect on the Hotel where rooms cannot be used for attendees at other events (a problem at the Ricoh has been the lack of hotel rooms on site this restricts it further). Other events have footfall too. So if those events lost then so is that footfall so it is the net increase in footfall that is important not just saying its 23 games x 10000 people. That creates at least two issues, other events being lost and going elsewhere which is lost income to ACL is that matched by the return of CCFC, and secondly events ACL already has booked in for several years ahead stops CCFC using the stadium on those days. The one thing ACL will not want to be ever again is reliant on CCFC they were before and from their viewpoint it bit them hard. In much the same way CCFC will not want to feel trapped financially by ACL

- bottom line is that if it costs ACL money (ie they are worse off for doing it ) then there will be no deal. If they only break even then why do it. Yes the rest of Coventry and the affect it has on the community is important but first and foremost (as with the directors of CCFC) the directors of ACL have to do what is best for ACL. We all know it is in theory the right thing for CCFC - but not if the cost is too great. CCFC have got the cost base of the football side well down they can not afford to let go of the financial reins.

- If I had to give advice to both sides then it would be this. When you finally get to sit round a table to discuss this, draw a line under what has gone on, be prepared to listen and compromise, then have the real authority to make a decision


-

 

[AndreasB]

Just a few thoughts that come to mind about recent statements CCFC/FL/ACL

Harping back to the old agreement is not useful (although I will make reference to them below). CCFC has no legal right to be at the Ricoh. Aside from a sign that has been left up and the hopes of the fans there is no connection any more. So any agreement that could be reached will be completely new. As such it can be tailored and compromised if the will is there

- The ball should not be in any bodies court, they should both be keen to do business, to compromise to get a deal done. It should not be about one side improving their image or taking the moral high ground. sadly it is

- I do not think ACL will move from their preconditions to talk. The £590k is out of their control and as such is not the most important precondition. It will be whatever the FL decides. The legal situation regarding the JR is key because ACL are fully involved in that. Fisher says it isn't the club it is SISU. That's not right. The action is brought by ARVO, SBS&L and CCFCH owners present and past of CCFC. In fact SISU can not themselves bring about any appeals as they are not party to the claim.

- What is a L1 average rent? Has anyone seen a calculation of such a thing? Who keeps promoting the £170k (or so) as the right figure? The right figure for CCFC and ACL is the one they can agree on surely? That said then if £170k is the average rent logic says it should be for the average ground in L1. That average ground has a current capacity of 15706 and average match day usage of 49% ...................is that the Ricoh? Whose responsibility is it to maximise the usage (and therefore revenues) of the stadium?

- F&B's. A lot is made of this. A lot of figures bandied about. Firstly it is not true to say that the club never got any F&B income - the club sold matchday hospitality direct to its supporters. Didn't get the concourse no. Figures regarding Highfield Rd are being put out - in 2003 and 2004 the club received £79k and £85k respectively because they subcontracted it out and in 2005 £911k (crowds being 14.8k, 14.8k and 16.2k respectively). In the scheme of things then F&B's probably equate to 10% of Turnover well worth having

- F&B's and the SCMP calculation. A lot is made of SP will get 60p in the £ of all F&B turnover. It is not true. SCMP first deducts the direct costs so if the club make 30% on say 600k turnover that means only £108k is included in the SCMP budget (600 x 30% x 60%). Or probably 4% of the budget for SCMP - is it really a deal breaker to a return? Surely a deal can be done?

- Car parking. Under the old lease CCFC had 900 spaces on match days. They lost that revenue when they stopped paying the rent I believe. So they had the revenue at one time. But how many average L1 grounds have 2000 car park spaces? Deal to be done but there is calculation of cost to be included I would think

- A key problem is who takes operational responsibility on match days. In all honesty I do not see the Safety Advisory Group or ACL letting responsibility bounce around from week to week. If ACL retain the safety certificate then CCFC will have match the ACL procedures or not be allowed access

- Compass. Usual misdirection here. Compass have a contract to man the stadium with IEC Experience. IEC Experience has purchased the rights off ACL to operate the Ricoh for the next 13 years. Compass own 23% of IEC ACL 77%. The turnover of the Ricoh is firstly declared in IEC and then the ACL Group accounts. The right to income is IEC's not Compass's.

- does having match days at the Ricoh make that much difference to De Vere Hotels & G Casino. Certainly the Hotel would lose some occupancy due to rooms being used as boxes. How hard is it to get a room now? Does the Casino rely on beer sales on match days or is their core income elsewhere?

Will be interesting to see if a deal can be done. I really hope it can. The club needs it but more importantly the fans do.

Cant help thinking that the process has a built in self destruct......

Perhaps you should offer to do the negotiating for ACL as you only seem to have their best interests at heart.

 

[covcity4life]

Perhaps you should offer to do the negotiating for ACL as you only seem to have their best interests at heart.

Glad someone has said it. OSB your a good guy but so pro acl you could be their employee.

I'm in las Vegas and felt need tonlog in and post this. That's how bias you are OSB!

 

[skybluetony176]

Perhaps you should offer to do the negotiating for ACL as you only seem to have their best interests at heart.

I think he's just pointing out that ACL's business could potentially be better off without the club. If that was to be the case then sisu really have fcuked up.

He's not saying in any shape or form he has ACL's best interests at heart. You've done that all by yourself.

 

[oldskyblue58]

It isn't about ACL's best interests............. if CCFC do not address not only their interests but also the interests of ACL then I have a real fear that discussions will take ages or even just break down if they happen at all .

What I have done is point out what the problem areas are and what needs to be solved to bring the team home. CCFC cant simply go there the deal take it or leave it. strangely in the real world that wont work for either side

But you carry on being helpful :facepalm:

 

[Grendel]

It isn't about ACL's best interests............. if CCFC do not address not only their interests but also the interests of ACL then I have a real fear that discussions will take ages or even just break down if they happen at all .

What I have done is point out what the problem areas are and what needs to be solved to bring the team home. CCFC cant simply go there the deal take it or leave it. strangely in the real world that wont work for either side

But you carry on being helpful :facepalm:

If they never do come home do you seriously think funding the maintenance of a non sponsored stadium is really viable for the next 4 decades?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Glad someone has said it. OSB your a good guy but so pro acl you could be their employee.

I'm in las Vegas and felt need tonlog in and post this. That's how bias you are OSB!

make your mind up ..... I thought I worked for CCC or is that your job now?

Enjoy Las Vegas

 

[wingy]

footfall of 250,000 There is a trade off here. There are going to be events affected by the return of CCFC. There is going to be an affect on the Hotel where rooms cannot be used for attendees at other events (a problem at the Ricoh has been the lack of hotel rooms on site this restricts it further). Other events have footfall too. So if those events lost then so is that footfall so it is the net increase in footfall that is important not just saying its 23 games x 10000 people. That creates at least two issues, other events being lost and going elsewhere which is lost income to ACL is that matched by the return of CCFC, and secondly events ACL already has booked in for several years ahead stops CCFC using the stadium on those days. The one thing ACL will not want to be ever again is reliant on CCFC they were before and from their viewpoint it bit them hard. QUOTE]



Something I highlighted early In the rent dispute .

that there probably has to be a Premium due to exclusivity ,a problem possibly of having several ventures going on whoever owns It.

 

[shmmeee]

I think he's just pointing out that ACL's business could potentially be better off without the club. If that was to be the case then sisu really have fcuked up.

He's not saying in any shape or form he has ACL's best interests at heart. You've done that all by yourself.

This is what worries me. I can understand Grendel and the like's desperation for ACL to go bust as it might provide a potential route home (though far from certain). But so far all the signs are ACL are a going concern. YB thought so when selling the loan, CCC thought so when buying it, the ACL account auditors thought so, the high court judge thought so. So far I've not seen much compelling evidence to the contrary from the anti-ACL lobby. As I say, more like wishful thinking.

As soon as there is no chance of CCFC returning, ACL can't really go full bore looking to replace them. It really would be political suicide for CCC and I can't see AEHC shutting the door for sentimental reasons. You can't really talk about their failure to bring in a replacement until then IMO.

 

[Grendel]

This is what worries me. I can understand Grendel and the like's desperation for ACL to go bust as it might provide a potential route home (though far from certain). But so far all the signs are ACL are a going concern. YB thought so when selling the loan, CCC thought so when buying it, the ACL account auditors thought so, the high court judge thought so. So far I've not seen much compelling evidence to the contrary from the anti-ACL lobby. As I say, more like wishful thinking.

As soon as there is no chance of CCFC returning, ACL can't really go full bore looking to replace them. It really would be political suicide for CCC and I can't see AEHC shutting the door for sentimental reasons. You can't really talk about their failure to bring in a replacement until then IMO.

All statistical evidence suggests the contrary. This suggests they lose the sponsor and they fail to get a tenant. It's a White City type of scenario that ultimately will have to be funded by the council until it's bulldozed down. It's silly to say its a viable asset without CCFC.

 

[will am i]

All statistical evidence suggests the contrary. This suggests they lose the sponsor and they fail to get a tenant. It's a White City type of scenario that ultimately will have to be funded by the council until it's bulldozed down. It's silly to say its a viable asset without CCFC.

and unfortunately CCFC isnt viable without the Ricoh - or do you think it is? So compromise is required on both sides.

 

[skybluetony176]

All statistical evidence suggests the contrary. This suggests they lose the sponsor and they fail to get a tenant. It's a White City type of scenario that ultimately will have to be funded by the council until it's bulldozed down. It's silly to say its a viable asset without CCFC.

You're talking about the stadium itself Everyone else is talking about ACL and the complex as a whole.
How difficult would it be to turn the stadium part into a hotel extension and further exhibition halls or a large concert hall? It is largely pre fabricated after all.

I don't think anyone in Coventry and further afield who supports the club want this but it's easy to see that this could end up being the corner sisu push them into.

What then? Sisu build their own ground?

 

[No future with SISU]

Perhaps you should offer to do the negotiating for ACL as you only seem to have their best interests at heart.

And are you doing it for SISU?

 

[No future with SISU]

If they never do come home do you seriously think funding the maintenance of a non sponsored stadium is really viable for the next 4 decades?

That is a massive IF.

 

[will am i]

Glad someone has said it. OSB your a good guy but so pro acl you could be their employee.

I'm in las Vegas and felt need tonlog in and post this. That's how bias you are OSB!

So why dont you explain what part of his analysis is wrong and why. its a forum so why not discuss?

 

[blueflint]

Perhaps you should offer to do the negotiating for ACL as you only seem to have their best interests at heart.

truth hurts then does it tough

 

[blueflint]

All statistical evidence suggests the contrary. This suggests they lose the sponsor and they fail to get a tenant. It's a White City type of scenario that ultimately will have to be funded by the council until it's bulldozed down. It's silly to say its a viable asset without CCFC.

why they have books that show differently when will you wise up

 

[Limey]

Informative but seriously depressing post for me OSB. Just where do CCFC fit in (and prosper) with the Ricoh, which after all is a football stadium?!

 

[shmmeee]

All statistical evidence suggests the contrary. This suggests they lose the sponsor and they fail to get a tenant. It's a White City type of scenario that ultimately will have to be funded by the council until it's bulldozed down. It's silly to say its a viable asset without CCFC.

Even without a sponsor, they've only got to find £1m/year to replace that and the current accounts show they're doing OK without the club. As I said, proper scouting of a new tenant can't and won't happen until CCFC are 100% not coming back, regardless of what ACL say in the press. FFS, they've still got the club badge up, they obviously hold out for a return.

Not sure who you're quoting saying it's a "valuable asset", I'm simply making the point that, as a CCFC fan, I wouldn't want to hang my hat on it going bust for us to come back to Cov. As an interested citizen, or a city planning geek, you might have a point, you might not, I don't know. But as a CCFC fan, I don't want to risk the future of my club on it.

 

[skybluefred]

Apparently he is partial to a battered sausage.

OooH you are awful--but I like you.

 

[skybluericoh]

no shmmee it is the sales net of VAT. That year had a lot of special events because of leaving Highfield Rd so is not a good reflection of normal trade I would suggest.

Well maybe SISU are thinking we could have a lot of Leaving do's planned in every 3 months to co-inside with a new ground announcement that they could then say 'sorry not quite ready to announce it yet' lets have another one in 3 months....

 

[fernandopartridge]

Even without a sponsor, they've only got to find £1m/year to replace that and the current accounts show they're doing OK without the club. As I said, proper scouting of a new tenant can't and won't happen until CCFC are 100% not coming back, regardless of what ACL say in the press. FFS, they've still got the club badge up, they obviously hold out for a return.

Not sure who you're quoting saying it's a "valuable asset", I'm simply making the point that, as a CCFC fan, I wouldn't want to hang my hat on it going bust for us to come back to Cov. As an interested citizen, or a city planning geek, you might have a point, you might not, I don't know. But as a CCFC fan, I don't want to risk the future of my club on it.

They're yet to publish post CCFC accounts aren't they? I thought the last set were to mid 2013?
Mrs KH said turnover had increased massively but didn't say much more iirc.

 

[Como]

If they never do come home do you seriously think funding the maintenance of a non sponsored stadium is really viable for the next 4 decades?

This is a crux point.

If CCFC do come back for a few years, let us say 3, then there is still 40-3 = 37 years to go.

ACL's focus should surely be on the medium/long term, seems they can deal with the short term. What are they going to do with the Ricoh in the long term?

I am not aware of any other sporting entity, and anyway what is a League 1 club going to pay long term?

There has been talk of the naming rights, just wondering how much a League 1 club that is only going to be there short term adds to this.

You could reasonably expect ACL have been working on re purposing the Stadium, wonder what that could be, not that I expect them to announce what their plans may be.

 

[shmmeee]

They're yet to publish post CCFC accounts aren't they? I thought the last set were to mid 2013?
Mrs KH said turnover had increased massively but didn't say much more iirc.

My mistake. That was no rent, but obviously included matchday stuff, etc.

As I said, you may have a point about ACL going bust or you may not, I'm not going to claim to be an expert in company finance (although I know a man who does, and he seems to think they'll be OK). I just know politically that a) I'd still be reserving space for CCFC and that b) I would neither let such a high profile decision (the loan) be in vain, nor if the worst comes to the worst, allow the current owners of CCFC first refusal. As such, I worry about hanging our hat for the survival of the club on the chance that you and others who claim to know more are right.

As alluded to in the post above, ACL can't wait around forever. If you are right in that an anchor sports tenant is vital, maybe it'd be better for them to refuse a short term deal so that they can get on with a replacement. I'm not sure they would for political and sentimental reasons, but how much sway do the Council and Higgs have compared to the Chief Exec for example (honest question). Wouldn't he have to do what's best for the business?

I'm really worried Joy's bitten off more than she can chew here, and we'll be the ones left to pick up the pieces.

 

[Como]

Perhaps ACL should buy the Club?

 

[shmmeee]

Perhaps ACL should buy the Club?

Something something turkeys and eagles.

 

[covcity4life]

So why dont you explain what part of his analysis is wrong and why. its a forum so why not discuss?

Already established he's only looking at it from acl POV. Also I'm in Vegas so can't be assed

P.s remember when u said big man small man is the only centre back partnership that works? Lol! Still makes me chuckle that one. Poor reda johnson

 

[AndreasB]

truth hurts then does it tough

been on the cider again?