Some basic ricoh questions (9 Viewers)

[shy_tall_knight]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Who gets the money from the new naming rights for the stadium - CCC or ACL

CCC have no outstanding loans on the Ricoh, they are all with ACL - CCC have an asset that was cost free

 

---

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I don't think they pay rent do they? I think ACL payed the council a one off payment at the beginning rather than a yearly rent?

 

[RFC]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Who gets the money from the new naming rights for the stadium - CCC or ACL

CCC have no outstanding loans on the Ricoh, they are all with ACL - CCC have an asset that was cost free

Glad your asking, mostly legal BUT suggest you follow the main guy on top of it, @lesreidpolitics

Hope I got that right? Main man Coventry Observer - PUSB!

 

[Godiva]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Who gets the money from the new naming rights for the stadium - CCC or ACL

CCC have no outstanding loans on the Ricoh, they are all with ACL - CCC have an asset that was cost free

I don't think ACL pays any rent. ACL bought the lease and paid cash (mortgaged at YB).
Money from naming rights goes to ACL - that'll be Wasps then.
I don't think your third line is a question.

 

[shmmeee]

Not sure on the first two. Fairly certain the naming rights go to ACL. I think there is a rent paid but it's just a vague memory of one of the many random documents from this debacle. I think it was used to pay the loan payments but could be completely wrong.

AFAIK the loan was only for part of the build cost, so cost free isn't quite accurate. They sold £60m of land for a start.

 

[skybluetony176]

Glad your asking, mostly legal BUT suggest you follow the main guy on top of it, @lesreidpolitics

Hope I got that right? Main man Coventry Observer - PUSB!

Isn't the Observer a free paper?

I like free papers. It gives me something to light the wood burner with.

 

[italiahorse]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Who gets the money from the new naming rights for the stadium - CCC or ACL

CCC have no outstanding loans on the Ricoh, they are all with ACL - CCC have an asset that was cost free

From the JR judgement. CNR is effectively CCC.

ACL took a 50 year sublease of the Arena from CNR, with the option of
paying a £1.9m per annum rent or a premium of £21m. In addition, “super
rent” was payable, based on ACL’s net profit before tax, of 10% on profits
over £3.75m rising to 50% of profits over £7.75m. In clause 3.18, CNR was
essentially given a wide right of veto over assignments of the lease.

 

[chiefdave]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Don't think they pay rent as such but they do (did?) pay for the lease. Can't remember the exact amount off the top of my head but think it was in the region of £20m for 50 years, which was cheaper than paying the annual charge. What we don't know is what, if anything, the council will be getting in return for the lease extension.

 

[dongonzalos]

Glad your asking, mostly legal BUT suggest you follow the main guy on top of it, @lesreidpolitics

Hope I got that right? Main man Coventry Observer - PUSB!

He has got quite a lot of stuff incorrect though.
I would advice you email the council direct can't see why the terms if ground rent (leasehold) would be kept back.
Also I am sure naming rights was part if the full deal

 

[Grendel]

From the JR judgement. CNR is effectively CCC.

ACL took a 50 year sublease of the Arena from CNR, with the option of
paying a £1.9m per annum rent or a premium of £21m. In addition, “super
rent” was payable, based on ACL’s net profit before tax, of 10% on profits
over £3.75m rising to 50% of profits over £7.75m. In clause 3.18, CNR was
essentially given a wide right of veto over assignments of the lease.

The £21 million is the loan they don't pay rent

 

[stupot07]

How depressing is this

Ccfc paid 7 years rent + £570k CVA.

7x £1.3m + £570k = c£9.7m for matchday (c25 days) and no/little access to revenue.

Wasps will have paid £5.5m for 100% shares and £1m to extend the lease for 200 years. £6.5m for the lot.


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

 

[Ian1779]

Extend that rent payment over the original lease.

1.3m x 50 = 65m

The club would have paid 65m for 0% ownership and 0% revenue other than match tickets.

It's the Brighthouse deal of the century.

And people wonder why some dislike the council.

 

[Godiva]

Extend that rent payment over the original lease.

1.3m x 50 = 65m

The club would have paid 65m for 0% ownership and 0% revenue other than match tickets.

It's the Brighthouse deal of the century.

And people wonder why some dislike the council.

Or why it was necessary to break the lease.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

CCC own the freehold. How much rent do ACL pay to CCC each year ?

Who gets the money from the new naming rights for the stadium - CCC or ACL

CCC have no outstanding loans on the Ricoh, they are all with ACL - CCC have an asset that was cost free

I'd also like to know when those naming rights are up for renewal. The Cov Observer claimed ages ago the deal had been extended but that's shrouded in doubt, and is commercially confidential info apparently.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'd also like to know when those naming rights are up for renewal. The Cov Observer claimed ages ago the deal had been extended but that's shrouded in doubt, and is commercially confidential info apparently.

It's very much commercially confidential now the council has sold its share.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's very much commercially confidential now the council has sold its share.

Indeed...

tbh we're not likely to get any answers now, are we... not that we did before, anyway!

Anyway, I suggest an FOI request for various things, and appeal the answer if it comes back commercially confidential. Would still prob get nowehere but... use the appeal facility!

 

[italiahorse]

The £21 million is the loan they don't pay rent

£21M was the one off payment for the 50 year lease instead of paying £1.9M a year rent.
However, in the old agreement they still payed 'super rent' based on profits over £3.75M (Yet to be reached ?)

As far as I am aware the £1M paid by Wasps extends the lease to 250 years but the 'super rent' is still payable.
I guess until the deal or accounts are published we will never know.

 

[oldskyblue58]

ACL borrowed 21m from Yorkshire Bank in order to pay CCC for the £21m lease premium. That lease premium means there is no annual rent paid by ACL to CCC. They were given a choice between paying the premium or an annual rent of £1.9m they chose the lease premium

The naming rights go to ACL as leaseholder. As I understand it Ricoh have an option to break or not that comes up in 2015 or 2016. With Wasps playing there they could well be more inclined to renew than they were say 1 year ago.

CCC owns the freehold and that was not cost free. What the lease premium did was allow CCC to repay some of the original finance that CCC had (a Prudential loan of £21m) on the £115m build costs. As far as we know CCC are still owed circa £14m on the buy out of the Yorkshire Bank loan that ACL used to have - certainly according to Company House CCC still has a charge over the ACL assets

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What we don't know however, is how issuing a 250 year lease changes those arrangements, if it does.

 

[oldskyblue58]

what has puzzled me NW has been the reluctance by CCC until now to create a lease for ACL that has real worth. Why didn't they create a 125 year lease in the first place that could have allowed a lot of things including development of the site and a higher value sale. Politics and egos getting in the way again perhaps? Seems to me that setting up things properly at the get go and thinking clearly ahead has been a problem for both CCC and CCFC

 

[fernandopartridge]

Indeed...

tbh we're not likely to get any answers now, are we... not that we did before, anyway!

Anyway, I suggest an FOI request for various things, and appeal the answer if it comes back commercially confidential. Would still prob get nowehere but... use the appeal facility!

I plan to make an FOI request related to just the councils prudential borrowing.

 

[fernandopartridge]

what has puzzled me NW has been the reluctance by CCC until now to create a lease for ACL that has real worth. Why didn't they create a 125 year lease in the first place that could have allowed a lot of things including development of the site and a higher value sale. Politics and egos getting in the way again perhaps? Seems to me that setting up things properly at the get go and thinking clearly ahead has been a problem for both CCC and CCFC

Indeed. In my eyes the initial £21m leasehold payment hamstrung ACL and consequentially the club. 125 year lease may have got ACL better terms from a commercial lender?

 

[italiahorse]

ACL borrowed 21m from Yorkshire Bank in order to pay CCC for the £21m lease premium. That lease premium means there is no annual rent paid by ACL to CCC. They were given a choice between paying the premium or an annual rent of £1.9m they chose the lease premium

The naming rights go to ACL as leaseholder. As I understand it Ricoh have an option to break or not that comes up in 2015 or 2016. With Wasps playing there they could well be more inclined to renew than they were say 1 year ago.

CCC owns the freehold and that was not cost free. What the lease premium did was allow CCC to repay some of the original finance (a Prudential loan of £21m) on the £115m build costs. As far as we know CCC are still owed circa £14m on the buy out of the Yorkshire Bank loan that ACL used to have - certainly according to Company House CCC still has a charge over the ACL assets

What is the 'super rent' mentioned in the JR Court Judgement on profits over £3.75M in addition to the £21M one off payment above?
I assume nothing has been paid yet at that profit has never been reached but I guess that when it is it switches in.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Yes there was that clause in the original lease....... however I am not sure how the new lease works or even where it sits in the structure..... so that clause could be defunct, certainly if I were Wasps I would want it out of any agreement

 

[Grendel]

£21M was the one off payment for the 50 year lease instead of paying £1.9M a year rent.
However, in the old agreement they still payed 'super rent' based on profits over £3.75M (Yet to be reached ?)

As far as I am aware the £1M paid by Wasps extends the lease to 250 years but the 'super rent' is still payable.
I guess until the deal or accounts are published we will never know.

The £21m is the loan

You are not aware of any of the other details at all

 

[Deleted member 5849]

what has puzzled me NW has been the reluctance by CCC until now to create a lease for ACL that has real worth. Why didn't they create a 125 year lease in the first place that could have allowed a lot of things including development of the site and a higher value sale. Politics and egos getting in the way again perhaps? Seems to me that setting up things properly at the get go and thinking clearly ahead has been a problem for both CCC and CCFC

Indeed.

What this does show, to a degree (and unfortunately!) that SISU were actually right in not buying in on the original terms. I still don't understand why they can't separate out development and stadium, anyway. A few studies that suggest the benefit to development are not as great as thought, but regardless of this have always been baffled why that ends up a sports club's responsibility. If they want to do it great, they can buy the lease for that bit themselves, but I've never understood why that has been a condition of 'owning' the stadium.

And surely it's better to sell it peacemeal anyway, if you're looking for value?

I dunno, I give up. Anyway, off to see my bank manager to see if my cheque book's still valid(!) so what do I know!

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

I'd also like to know when those naming rights are up for renewal. The Cov Observer claimed ages ago the deal had been extended but that's shrouded in doubt, and is commercially confidential info apparently.

Even when the name is changed it will take a while to get called the new name as everybody will keep calling it the Ricoh also I hope the council are not going to be paying to take down and change all the brown information signs around the place.

 

[Godiva]

What is the 'super rent' mentioned in the JR Court Judgement on profits over £3.75M in addition to the £21M one off payment above?
I assume nothing has been paid yet at that profit has never been reached but I guess that when it is it switches in.

Yes there was that clause in the original lease....... however I am not sure how the new lease works or even where it sits in the structure..... so that clause could be defunct, certainly if I were Wasps I would want it out of any agreement

And even if 'super rent' still exists there will be ways around it. Profit can in most circumstances be 'reduced' through various accountant techniques.

 

[The Gentleman]

I plan to make an FOI request related to just the councils prudential borrowing.

You need to get out more mate

 

[oldskyblue58]

Indeed.

What this does show, to a degree (and unfortunately!) that SISU were actually right in not buying in on the original terms. I still don't understand why they can't separate out development and stadium, anyway. A few studies that suggest the benefit to development are not as great as thought, but regardless of this have always been baffled why that ends up a sports club's responsibility. If they want to do it great, they can buy the lease for that bit themselves, but I've never understood why that has been a condition of 'owning' the stadium.

And surely it's better to sell it peacemeal anyway, if you're looking for value?

I dunno, I give up. Anyway, off to see my bank manager to see if my cheque book's still valid(!) so what do I know!

Thing is though Wasps haven't bought in on the original either they got 250 years! So why couldn't the club negotiate better terms too? especially when they first came in and had decent leverage on the situation

 

[The Gentleman]

How depressing is this

Ccfc paid 7 years rent + £570k CVA.

7x £1.3m + £570k = c£9.7m for matchday (c25 days) and no/little access to revenue.

Wasps will have paid £5.5m for 100% shares and £1m to extend the lease for 200 years. £6.5m for the lot.


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

What's even more depressing is the fact that Sisu had the chance (or a few chances) to get in to the Ricoh and fucked it up! I wonder how different things would have been for CCFC?

 

[fernandopartridge]

You need to get out more mate

I'm a concerned taxpayer. No wonder they take the piss out of Coventry people.

 

[torchomatic]

Isn't it weird that concern for the "children's charity" and "the Coventry taxpayer" seems to have mysteriously evaporated...

I'm a concerned taxpayer. No wonder they take the piss out of Coventry people.

 

[Raggs]

Isn't it weird that concern for the "children's charity" and "the Coventry taxpayer" seems to have mysteriously evaporated...

The childrens charity must have approved Wasps bid, along with knowledge that Wasps weren't likely going to want to share. Why would someone be concerned?

 

[Grendel]

Isn't it weird that concern for the "children's charity" and "the Coventry taxpayer" seems to have mysteriously evaporated...

You missed out saving a community asset from the grubby mitts of a filthy hedge fund