Would You Still Go ? (3 Viewers)

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I think they acknowledge the high rent but it wasn't the council's fault, because the club agreed to it, whilst bent over a barrel.

So that makes it sisus fault.

The same as I bought as car that had been used in an arm Robbery ten years ago so it was clearly me who did it.

Using the car analogy you buy a car and dont get it HPId or whatever its called,then find out its stolen:thinking about:

 

---

[rondog1973]

The one thing that I can't fathom (well there's more than one but still) is why SISU didn't allow us to go into administration when they took over? Then just pick thru the bones of what was left and take it from there. Not agree daft rent and repayment clauses to Robinson.
Anyone the wiser?

Over confidence bordering arrogance I suspect.

When they first arrived, Ranson was tasked with making the footballing decisions and had obviously convinced Seppala et al that promotion to the top flight was a mere formality, once there they would have the funds to purchase the Ricoh and things may well have turned out very differently.

When it became clear to her it weren't gonna be as easy as he'd convinced her, she dispensed with his services and the hardball tactics began.

This observation ain't a defence of Ranson by the way.

 

[Noggin]

Ha! At least you've admitted it. So Lucas was lying when she said that ACL were fine without the club? 9% of the business I think was quoted.

So if I open a sweet shop and sell my Mars bars for a £100 a time then I would be more than viable, wouldn't I? Thanks Lord Sugar.

gosh you talk crap.

admitted what? that Lucas was lying? we aren't even discussing that period of time though I too believe, though have no information either way that comment was at best spin, I've certainly never attempted to defend that comment of hers. I don't understand your desire to prove it to be a false claim though, the worse financial situation acl were in the better deal and the more reasonable the sale to wasps was.

If you open a sweetshop and sell mars bars for £100 each no you won't be viable as you have no sales. if you were able to make lots of sales you would be very viable but quite what this has to do with anything I've no idea. Have you taken your meds? what on earth is with these nonsensical analogies?

A large loan was taken out completely because ccfc had messed up their finances (yep Richardson's fault and if he were at the club we'd be calling for his head too) the only way it was possible for this loan to be taken out was if ccfcs rent was high enough to cover it. That made the rent high but not in the slightest a rip off or unreasonable. It did eventually become the case though of course that the rent was eventually higher than it needed to be, ccfc were right to push for a new deal when they did, unfortunately they then didn't take the deal and instead chose to all but destroy the club and ruin it's long term future. Not to worry though you've got their back

 

[Noggin]

back on topic though, I'm not currently going but it has nothing to do with the league or the quality of football. As a rule I generally believe in the through thick and thin argument however while the clubs owners don't have the clubs best interests at heart I just will not support them. I tried when we came back to give them another chance but it was obvious almost straight away that nothing had changed.

personally I'd be much happier watching ccfc in the conference with owners that wanted us to succeed, that made reasonable, intelligent and justifiable choices to benefit the club than I am now, as a football fan I need something to hope for and believe in and I just have no hope left whatsoever under sisu. The only hope people seem to have left looks like complete and utter delusion and while there has always been a bit of delusion in getting excited for the new season as a city fan it's now orders of magnitude worse. You have to be willing to suspend all rational thought to believe sisu still have the clubs interests at heart and that they are going to build a new stadium for our future.

So if we get relegated, get new owners early in the summer and they look like their head is screwed on right, I'll be buying my season ticket (new owners would have people to answer the phones and an internet connection not powered by rodents), I'd be buying my shirt (new owners would have merchandise for sale) and I'd be excitedly going to my first game of the season, hopeful for the new era, the atmosphere would be great (because new owners would have put everyone together). I certainly wouldn't be thinking it's only league 2 I'm not going. It would be the first time in a few years I was truely excited to go again.

 

[chiefdave]

just how much was the remaining 340 odd days revenue a t Highfield Road worth? Any figure above nothing would do.

No idea but at least we were getting it not someone else. I seem to recall OSB saying the F&B in the final season at HR was close to £1m.

what benefit? the money was being used to pay off the loan that was only needed because ccfc were in trouble. if acl or ccfc were making a profit you'd have a point but they were not in fact it's quite clearly been a big loss at least for higgs. if you are down millions of pounds from an enterprise you were only in for someone elses benefit you were clearly not ripping them off.

What benefit? I'll put it simply for you. If you pay £1.2m a year for 20 years, during which you receive all the income the stadium generates to contribute to that rent, and then own the stadium are you better or worse off than paying £1.2m a year for 50 years, during which you receive not a penny of the income the stadium generates, and own nothing?

 

[Ian1779]

A large loan was taken out completely because ccfc had messed up their finances (yep Richardson's fault and if he were at the club we'd be calling for his head too) the only way it was possible for this loan to be taken out was if ccfcs rent was high enough to cover it. That made the rent high but not in the slightest a rip off or unreasonable.

This wasn't the ONLY way was it though? How many time have the council refinanced/renegotiated/restructured loans in regards to the Ricoh? The fact is that now they have sold to Wasps that the 'loan' that had to be so large and give CCFC such large rent is anything but.

There was a clear choice made. They took advantage of CCFC and the poor financial situation it was in. The only way that it could have possibly justified setting it so high would be if there was a staggered transfer of ownership (a bit like a mortgage) where the excess rent would have given the club something to own at the end.

Justify for us how - had CCFC paid the full term of the lease, they would have handed over in excess of £65 million for 0% revenue and 0% ownership?

But of course that's not a rip off or unreasonable is it.....

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

No idea but at least we were getting it not someone else. I seem to recall OSB saying the F&B in the final season at HR was close to £1m.



What benefit? I'll put it simply for you. If you pay £1.2m a year for 20 years, during which you receive all the income the stadium generates to contribute to that rent, and then own the stadium are you better or worse off than paying £1.2m a year for 50 years, during which you receive not a penny of the income the stadium generates, and own nothing?

I would suggest that an extra 10 or 15 thousand fans for 23 games is worth much more than a fiction that is 365 day revenue wouldn't you,after all that is the cake the f/b is icing

 

[chiefdave]

This wasn't the ONLY way was it though? How many time have the council refinanced/renegotiated/restructured loans in regards to the Ricoh? The fact is that now they have sold to Wasps that the 'loan' that had to be so large and give CCFC such large rent is anything but.

I think there's couple of things to consider. Firstly how much of their own money did CCC, or Higgs for that matter, actually put in. Seems a lot of it came from grants, Tesco's etc, it's not like CCC stumped up £120m to build the thing. Secondly at what point did ACL come into play. As I remember, and I may have this wrong, the original rescue plan we would still own the freehold. There was then something vague about grants not being given if we owned it and ACL being setup.

 

[chiefdave]

I would suggest that an extra 10 or 15 thousand fans for 23 games is worth much more than a fiction that is 365 day revenue wouldn't you,after all that is the cake the f/b is icing

I didn't realise it was a choice between one or the other. Personally I'd rather we had an extra 15K at every game and got all the money they spent while attending.

 

[Ian1779]

I think there's couple of things to consider. Firstly how much of their own money did CCC, or Higgs for that matter, actually put in. Seems a lot of it came from grants, Tesco's etc, it's not like CCC stumped up £120m to build the thing. Secondly at what point did ACL come into play. As I remember, and I may have this wrong, the original rescue plan we would still own the freehold. There was then something vague about grants not being given if we owned it and ACL being setup.

Higgs put nothing into the build... only whatever they paid for ACL share.

CCC - was it something like £10m and then the loan on top. Not 100% sure.

 

[Noggin]

What benefit? I'll put it simply for you. If you pay £1.2m a year for 20 years, during which you receive all the income the stadium generates to contribute to that rent, and then own the stadium are you better or worse off than paying £1.2m a year for 50 years, during which you receive not a penny of the income the stadium generates, and own nothing?

Thats pretty patronising for someone making a false comparison.

Is it the case that it's better to pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years and own the stadium rather than pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years as rent and not own the stadium. Yes absolutely this is true. It does not however follow that because this isn't great for ccfc that it is great for acl. Higgs put in what 6mill? took nothing out and sold for 2.77mill + had other costs to deal with, in what way do you think they ripped ccfc off?

 

[Noggin]

This wasn't the ONLY way was it though? How many time have the council refinanced/renegotiated/restructured loans in regards to the Ricoh? The fact is that now they have sold to Wasps that the 'loan' that had to be so large and give CCFC such large rent is anything but.

There was a clear choice made. They took advantage of CCFC and the poor financial situation it was in. The only way that it could have possibly justified setting it so high would be if there was a staggered transfer of ownership (a bit like a mortgage) where the excess rent would have given the club something to own at the end.

Justify for us how - had CCFC paid the full term of the lease, they would have handed over in excess of £65 million for 0% revenue and 0% ownership?

But of course that's not a rip off or unreasonable is it.....

Had ccfc paid 1.2mill for the entirety of the lease it would have been a stupid idea of course it would, hence the reason it was set up for them to buy back half it, something they could have done 5 years or so ago for less than they spent on the rent, legal fees and money lost in northampton.

No one is disagreeing that the rent was too high at the end, at that point ACL should have (and did) agree to a massive cut in the rent, however the rent at the start was correct and necessary to make it possible for the loan to be taken out and paid back.

 

[Nick]

Didn't it take moving to Northampton to get the rent cut?

 

[Noggin]

Didn't it take moving to Northampton to get the rent cut?

no, there was the 400k offer that had they accepted it we could have avoided northampton and administration and had a decent go at promotion last year instead.

 

[Noggin]

Didn't it take moving to Northampton to get the rent cut?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685

In fact its quite sad to see how much damage has been done since that time, we were so full of hope that January when we beat Preston,

 

[Nick]

Was that the one that went back up after 3 years? It was a while ago so could be wrong.

 

[Noggin]

Was that the one that went back up after 3 years? It was a while ago so could be wrong.

it was fixed for 3 years (as in wont be increased) not down for 3 years than back to 1.2mill. but there were multiple rent offers before the club moved away. There was an even more generous one right before we moved too when acl were getting desperate.

The simple fact of the matter is while the club getting themselves a better rent deal was justified it clearly wasn't the reason for their rent strike and they never had an intention of doing a deal. we all now know it was all about trying to crush acl.

 

[chiefdave]

Is it the case that it's better to pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years and own the stadium rather than pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years as rent and not own the stadium. Yes absolutely this is true. It does not however follow that because this isn't great for ccfc that it is great for acl. Higgs put in what 6mill? took nothing out and sold for 2.77mill + had other costs to deal with, in what way do you think they ripped ccfc off?

There were alternative ways to do things that wouldn't have needed ACL to be created. It wasn't the original 'rescue' plan for CCC to retain freehold ownership and a management company to be put in place.

Why didn't CCC just loan us £20m to give them back for the 50 year lease. We'd be paying roughly the same, if anything a bit less, and in 20 years would outright have owned the Ricoh. Higgs wouldn't be involved at all and CCC's role would just be to collect the money.

In terms of what Higgs took in and out I believe some, if not the majority, of their initial investment wasn't cash. And of course the famous option to buy back saw the price practically double. If things had gone as expected Higgs would have done very very well out of us.

 

[Nick]

So that one wasn't actually a great deal as it just goes back up again...

What was the one just before moving?

 

[Noggin]

So that one wasn't actually a great deal as it just goes back up again...

What was the one just before moving?

no it doesn't go back up again, the deal was rent cut from 1.2mill to 400k and for at least 3 years it will stay at 400k, then after 3 years like any landlord they can put the rent up slightly. So like 420k or something. you seem to be thinking it was a rent cut for 3 years, it wasnt.

I don't remember the exact details and honestly who cares at this point? there were multiple massively improved rent deals offered before sisu moved us away.

 

[stupot07]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685

In fact its quite sad to see how much damage has been done since that time, we were so full of hope that January when we beat Preston,

Is that the rent deal that would revert back to £1.3m after 3 years?

11.12am

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-coventry-city-7248897


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

 

[Grendel]

Is that the rent deal that would revert back to £1.3m after 3 years?

11.12am

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-coventry-city-7248897


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

Yes it is - let's forget that shall we.

Also Higgs put in around £2.3 million I believe.

Noggin seems low on facts but very high on pro council rhetoric.

 

[Nick]

Is that the rent deal that would revert back to £1.3m after 3 years?

11.12am

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-coventry-city-7248897


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

That's the one, I was sure I read it somewhere!

 

[ccfcway]

Sisu QC says Joy Seppala didn’t want to pay more than £100k in rent (matchday costs on top).

She said it was the going rate in the Premiership.

 

[dongonzalos]

From CCFC (Holdings) Accounts 2005
By Covsupport News Service
Paul Fletcher back in 2005

The following is from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd's annual report for the 31st of May 2005 and provide some useful comments.

The following is taken from the statement that appeared in those accounts by then Managing Director Paul Fletcher.

MOVE TO THE RICOH

"The Club had high hopes on and off the pitch for the move to the new stadium. In financial terms, the Club budgeted broadly in-line with the experience of other clubs moving into a new stadium, to increase its revenue by 50%. This meant that despite the loss of profits from sponsorship, board advertising and catering, the Club would nonetheless have sufficient increase in income from the major sources of revenue with which it was left - season ticket and matchday sales, merchandise and boxes - to generate for the first time in many years an operating profit and positive cash flow. £1m was due to come into the Club.

Sadly, as is now public, these hopeful plans were dashed by two factors. 1) the late opening of the stadium, and 2) our own inadequate preparations to exploit the opportunities afforded by the new stadium. The Club's estimate of the cost to it commercially from the late opening amounted to over £1m. The factors were the loss of a high profile opening friendly; the loss of our opening home fixtures particularly Norwich which would have been our first League fixture; and the loss of merchandising sales which had not been planned around a major drive to take place in the new premises.

There was one other factor that cost us dear, namely the unscheduled changes to Coventry City Council's Section 106 agreement in respect of potential parking areas. This more less doubled the size of the no parking zone and the impact on our season ticket sales was heavily adverse. We were 50% below our budget. Discussions on improving the situation continue with the Council.

However, this is not the whole story. Our own preparations were not professional or thorough enough. Had the Ricoh been ready on time we would have certainly done much better and we would have avoided the short term cash crisis that hit us. But when we look around at other similar clubs, they are better organised and obtain much higher revenues from those activities that are still with the Club.

THE CASH CRISIS

In any event, the outcome, due to this combination of factors, was that by September last year, the Club had suffered a serious cash outflow of £1m in the preceeding months and was in breach of its overdraft limit. After a difficult but constructive negotiation we have reached agreement with the Co-operative Bank to enable the club to trade with confidence for the future. I would like to thank the Co-operative Bank for their support. We have also reached agreement with Arena Coventry Limited who operate the stadium, for compensation amounting to £280,000 due to the late opening of the stadium. Whilst, this is much less than the Club considered it could have legitimately claimed, we recognise that ACL itself has suffered considerable financial losses. Further discussions continue with ACL to agree a two tier rental agreement whereby the Club pays rent of £500k in the Championship and £1.5m in the Premiership. We hope to make an announcement in the near future."

What does all of this lot mean?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

From what I can find in the court papers the 3 year reduction and then the increase back to £1.2m was an offer that the bank (and ACL) wanted at a particular time, and this was a sticking point. When the Council bought the loan the reference to the rent going back up after 3 years wasn't mentioned.

"After the Council had purchased the Bank debt, thereby resolving that immediate sticking point, negotiations over rent continued between CCFC and ACL. On 29 January 2013, Heads of Terms were agreed, involving rent at £400,000 from 1 January 2013 with an agreement on arrears taking into account a reduced escrow account sum (which left arrears of about £0.5m to be paid) and an in-principle agreement for CCFC to benefit from match-day food and beverage revenues and ACL paying a larger share of the rates on the Arena. The Directors of CCFC and ACL representatives shook hands on that; but the deal was rejected on 4 February 2013 by Ms Seppala".

 

[dongonzalos]

In 2005 though was CCFC trying to get a 1.5 million rent in the premiership and a 500k rent in the championship?

 

[stupot07]

In 2005 though was CCFC trying to get a 1.5 million rent in the premiership and a 500k rent in the championship?

Are you just making up figures?


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

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Yes it is - let's forget that shall we.

Also Higgs put in around £2.3 million I believe.

Noggin seems low on facts but very high on pro council rhetoric.

The total cost to Higgs was a bit more than £2.3m, not like you to put a spin on things.

Copied from the trust website.
19th December Alan Edward Higgs Charity acquires 50% of ACL from CCFC ltd. Shares owned by Football Investors Limited, which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the Charity. Cost to Charity £6,523,184 inc. fees. Payment made £2m cash £2.5m waiver of loan and £2m to two directors who had outstanding loans to FIL who then re loaned the money to CCFC ltd. CCFC Ltd acquires option to purchase shares back from the Charity.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Are you just making up figures?


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

The figures are from the CCFC annual report as part of the 2005 accounts, Don has copied the full report in this thread.

 

[dongonzalos]

Are you just making up figures?


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

No, are you?

 

[stupot07]

Fair enough hadn't seen that post.....although is it actually legit because the income certainly didn't increase by 50% 2005 to 2006

According to OSB, it went from c£9m to c£10m. £1.5m would have still been way too high for matchday only no/little revenue use, even in the PL. I presume that £500k in the championship was unacceptable to ACL and they wanted nearer the £1.3m in the championship and more in the PL.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=23232




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

 

[dongonzalos]

Fair enough hadn't seen that post.....although is it actually legit because the income certainly didn't increase by 50% 2005 to 2006

According to OSB, it went from c£9m to c£10m. £1.5m would have still been way too high for matchday only no/little revenue use, even in the PL.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=23232




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

I think the 50% was what they hoped would happen based on other clubs, but it never happened for a variety I if reasons. Because it never happened they were going to negotiate a new rent.

500k Championship
1.5 Premiership

They felt that would be a very good deal by the looks of it. One that they were excited about and the announcement was to follow when done.

 

[stupot07]

I think the 50% was what they hoped would happen based on other clubs, but it never happened for a variety I if reasons. Because it never happened they were going to negotiate a new rent.

500k Championship
1.5 Premiership

They felt that would be a very good deal by the looks of it. One that they were excited about and the announcement was to follow when done.

Excited about? Not sure where you came to that conclusion. It didn't happen and we got screwed over for £9m rent. Why are you and others trying to justify it as a good deal?

And anyway, didn't the same Paul Fletcher slag everyone off in his book, saying they ripped the football club off?


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

 

[Nick]

Excited about? Not sure where you came to that conclusion. It didn't happen and we got screwed over for £9m rent. Why are you and others trying to justify it as a good deal?

And anyway, didn't the same Paul Fletcher slag everyone off in his book, saying they ripped the football club off?


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

Is that what we paid? Less than wasps bought it for....