no chance of that now, they have raised 30m so far in the bond issue according to the other thread. So they are almost certainly safe now for the next 7 years, at that point of course they could fail as they will owe 30mill and would need to refinance. waiting 7 years in limbo with the vague hope for wasps to go bust doesn't sound fun.
New stadium meeting with RBC (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter chiefdave
- Start date
no chance of that now, they have raised 30m so far in the bond issue according to the other thread. So they are almost certainly safe now for the next 7 years, at that point of course they could fail as they will owe 30mill and would need to refinance. waiting 7 years in limbo with the vague hope for wasps to go bust doesn't sound fun.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I don't think there's that many clubs who don't get the income from their stadium. Even if you discount the extra facilities the Ricoh has, such as the exhibition halls, we still need to have access to all revenues to be on the same footing as other clubs.
When was this? Was it just ruled out at the existing business park or in general? Seems to me Ansty is the ideal location. Right up against the city boundary, infrastructure already in place and a nice big plot of land suitable for use between the business park / RR and the motorway.
To be fair this hasn't come from SISU, this has come from the CT firing in FOI requests to get details of private meetings. Ones SISU clearly didn't want made public from reading the minutes. The interesting part of this is that it appears councils have to give details of private meetings. Would expect the CT to be firing a batch of requests in now to CCC regarding the Ricoh and their dealings with SISU and Wasps.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Isnt there another contradiction....
The whole purpose of a new stadium is for the club to maximise income from it. To be able to afford the build and usage this is essential. Let alone the apparent significant effect these income streams will have on the team budgets
However the focus portrayed to RBC is a community based stadium. Forget that it is going to be in green fields outside of both Coventry and Rugby for a moment although that is a limiting factor in my mind. A Community base is a worthy and positive thing, something that would help sell the idea to RBC. However it isn't going to maximise incomes. Look at the things they might have in mind, for example say they meant what they proposed in their offer letter to AEHC, that is going to mean little/reduced income and areas set aside that are not earning but cost to build, in fact it could add to the clubs current costs.
It cant be all about the finances certainly but can the new stadium on a greenfield site be both a community hub and maximise incomes which are vital to the one thing important to the fans, the CCFC team on the pitch?
The whole purpose of a new stadium is for the club to maximise income from it. To be able to afford the build and usage this is essential. Let alone the apparent significant effect these income streams will have on the team budgets
However the focus portrayed to RBC is a community based stadium. Forget that it is going to be in green fields outside of both Coventry and Rugby for a moment although that is a limiting factor in my mind. A Community base is a worthy and positive thing, something that would help sell the idea to RBC. However it isn't going to maximise incomes. Look at the things they might have in mind, for example say they meant what they proposed in their offer letter to AEHC, that is going to mean little/reduced income and areas set aside that are not earning but cost to build, in fact it could add to the clubs current costs.
It cant be all about the finances certainly but can the new stadium on a greenfield site be both a community hub and maximise incomes which are vital to the one thing important to the fans, the CCFC team on the pitch?
Astute
Well-Known Member
They will have to pay back 6.5% for 7 years then find however much they raise. So they would have to find 2m a year just for the 30m in interest. So there is 14m. Then they need to find the 30m. So we are up to 44m already.
So Richardson wants his 10m back? He could loan it back to them to cover 5 years worth of interest. So they would have to pay interest for him to have his money back for a few years. It looks like a poor plan to me. I wouldn't be happy if it was SISU doing the same.
So which part of it being safe do you mean?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I think in many ways this is good news. SISUs bluff, assuming it is a bluff, can now be called. Although its not a final deadline its pretty clear that to have any chance of success the September deadline is key. That puts the ball firmly in SISU's court, they have until September to get their act together and move this forward.
If we reach September and we're no further forward then we can effectively cross any locations covered by RBC off the list. The options then start to quickly run out and it becomes increasingly difficult for Fisher to bluff his way out of it.
If we reach September and we're no further forward then we can effectively cross any locations covered by RBC off the list. The options then start to quickly run out and it becomes increasingly difficult for Fisher to bluff his way out of it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Here's a horrible thought. If SISU have managed to make the club self sufficient then they might just stick around doing more of the same for the next 7 years in the hope that when Wasps have to pay back the investors they don't have the cash and SISU can pick up the Ricoh on the cheap.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I would say that it has gone from a bluff against CCC to a bluff against Wasps. Are Wasps raising funds to call their bluff? Both sides seem to be playing a dangerous game.
Astute
Well-Known Member
This has been my worry since just after the plan for Wasps to raise funds was announced. But there again it would be worth it if we end up owning our own ground.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yep, and that's over the backdrop of needing to make an extra £2.4m profit to cover wasps and ACL losses based on last accounts (yes, things have changed since then), whilst generating more profit to invest in the team, plus the £2m pa to pay the interest on the £30m. And this is while throwing free tickets about and the compass contract that we know only gives 10-12% on F&B's.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't hold your breath on that. I don't expect the CT to be rocking the CCC boat just yet.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
My guess is SISU have in mind the other side of the A46, somewhere from Ansty park down to Broadstreet RFC which all falls under RBC.
Can not see them getting this off the ground in a million years.
Can not see them getting this off the ground in a million years.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
FWIW, and a slight digression, although the main election candidates have leafleted me, have had limited leafleting ref: the local council. In fact I've had... two, one from the TUSC, and one from Labour.
So in any talk of voting out the council, few seem to want my vote!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Apart from the fact that at the moment our landlords have to pay slightly more than lip service to doing us a good deal.
In a year's time, do they have to do the same?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'll ask our former FOI officer if they'd have approved it
I suspect as with most things if there was a desire to keep it secret, a reason could have been found. That said, it probably offers a reason to appeal FOI decisions ref: Wasps
Astute
Well-Known Member
As there is a 2 year option I would like to think it would be on approx the same terms. But the one thing for sure is that they need our rent money and the other money generated by us being there.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There is an opportunity from the Wasps side to not take up that 2 year option.
Oh and as for needing our cash, I'd argue it's more public pressure atm, which could whither and die as people forget. The long term gain for Wasps could well be not to take our cash, but get rid of a competitor for leisure time and cash within the city.
Harsh, ruthless... but could be good business sense.
Astute
Well-Known Member
There is an opportunity for the Wasps not to be able to pay back the bonds. They will need all the cash they can get. And if they fail the Ricoh would be mortgage free
4waspsting
Active Member
How, you going to make money moving and trying to get 18,000 people when we are in the old 3 rd division what a load of cunts, no way anyone is coming to Rugby, makes it easier to follow the wasps stupid fuckin idiots
Astute
Well-Known Member
Would guess it is about the same, maybe slightly more. They might have been a bit worried about a JR against CCC going the way of SISU so wanted to get rid of the loan. But at the same time Richardson cash out in case it doesn't work. Whatever happens he is then in a no lose situation.
It just seems strange to me that they came to Coventry to save money just to get 44m minimum in debt. If they raise what they wanted to.....35m.....they will have to pay £2,275,000 interest a year and then the 35m back in 7 years. So with interest it would come to over 50m
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Having our stadium is not bad news.... whether they deliver it or not is another matter. New owners will be faced with the same choice to make.
When are you going to wake up and realise that any deal to stay at the Ricoh long term will ONLY benefit Wasps... not CCFC. Unless they go to the wall or we move elsewhere we are consigned to being their bitch.
You mean like your new best friends at Wasps did?
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
Where is Les Reid ? Being an award winning journalist and right on his patch I would have thought this would be an exclusive in both the Cov and Rugby Observers ?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I am not going to watch rugby at the Ricoh. And I will watch to see how the repayments of the interest goes whilst paying back the 35m in only 7 years.
Would guess it is about the same, maybe slightly more. They might have been a bit worried about a JR against CCC going the way of SISU so wanted to get rid of the loan. But at the same time Richardson cash out in case it doesn't work. Whatever happens he is then in a no lose situation.
It just seems strange to me that they came to Coventry to save money just to get 44m minimum in debt. If they raise what they wanted to.....35m.....they will have to pay £2,275,000 interest a year and then the 35m back in 7 years. So with interest it would come to over 50m
So potentially mitigating risk legally or defaulting to CCC, then reducing the term by roughly a third
Quite harsh terms and potential failure to the end user
Sounds like something a hedge fund might do
Cheers for the answer by the way
No come backs to the private Investors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Disagree on both.
Owning our own out of town stadium with the debt associated with it will finish us.
Wasps will profit from us being at the Ricoh and to keep us there they need to keep us sweet.
If they understand our issues getting to the PL they just might help us. Once in the PL it becomes a win win for both wasps and ourselves.
However talk of leaving the Ricoh and continued Legal challenges will piss both them and our fans off.
We need to see a way out of this mess one way or another or fans will find better things to do.
Owning our own out of town stadium with the debt associated with it will finish us.
Wasps will profit from us being at the Ricoh and to keep us there they need to keep us sweet.
If they understand our issues getting to the PL they just might help us. Once in the PL it becomes a win win for both wasps and ourselves.
However talk of leaving the Ricoh and continued Legal challenges will piss both them and our fans off.
We need to see a way out of this mess one way or another or fans will find better things to do.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
My two favourite phrases on SBT are: "award winning journalist" and "batter people in court". Love 'em.
10 page thread so far on stadium never never land, posters stating it will never happen ( which it won't as they have no ambition or funds to complete such a fantasy), yet you discuss.
It should be given no thought at all as it will never happen, however two points for those who still like to discuss something that will never happen -
But here is a thought, they bang on about the 365 revenues a new stadium would generate, but A - if they build it within Rugby and not Coventry seriously are the fanbase going to accept this, or will we just lay back swallow more bullshit and head off to Stadium Fisher.
B - If they magically did get a loan to fund the whole process, the 365 day revenue which they state would help make the club self sustainable, would infact not be for X amount of years as someone is going to want their outlay back for building stadium never ever and we would not see a fooking penny of it on the playing side.
So enjoy them two thoughts.
It should be given no thought at all as it will never happen, however two points for those who still like to discuss something that will never happen -
But here is a thought, they bang on about the 365 revenues a new stadium would generate, but A - if they build it within Rugby and not Coventry seriously are the fanbase going to accept this, or will we just lay back swallow more bullshit and head off to Stadium Fisher.
B - If they magically did get a loan to fund the whole process, the 365 day revenue which they state would help make the club self sustainable, would infact not be for X amount of years as someone is going to want their outlay back for building stadium never ever and we would not see a fooking penny of it on the playing side.
So enjoy them two thoughts.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I can guarantee you that I and many others will never "follow" the Wasps. Anyone who thinks people will just blindly follow the Wasps franchise are, in my opinion, "stupid fuckin idiots".
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why would they need to keep us sweet? If we're not building a new stadium they become a monopoly. They can treat us how they like and charge us whatever they want and we have little other option.
With no evidence of things having moved forward on a new ground since the Sixfields move would the league give permission for a similar thing to happen again? I don't see how they could. If it really is the Ricoh or nothing we have to take whatever Wasps offer, even if its worse than the deal we had when we first moved there.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Don't forget "Childrens Charity" and "Community Asset".
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Okay, but we can still go out of business though.
The club will not own the stadium. it will be owned by investors ... and so will any associated debts.
The club will own a new stadium management company.
With investors creaming the incomes from the imaginary stadium and wanting their money back, and us fans being ripped off by watching a load of crap on the pitch and being lied too about budgets and funds being available for players.
Nothing would change then would it.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I like your first paragraph....you question why we discuss the subject......then you discuss :claping hands:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I think the opposite, everyone should get behind Fisher and tell him to get on with it. Call his bluff.
Would that not depend on location? If, for example, it was in Ansty right next to the business park / motorway would it really be any different to the Ricoh?
I suspect the theory would be that it works very long term. Lets say the Ricoh has a further 150 years left in it. How much would we pay in rent against how much in revenues in that time compared against a new stadium. Clearly while we were paying off finance we wouldn't be seeing much in the way of extra cash coming into the club but once that was paid off after say 50 years would we not then be in a better position than we are currently?
Sure a lot of us won't be around to see the benefit but we're stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment and neither option seems particularly attractive in the short to medium term.