Sick Boy
Super Moderator
The council turned down requests for this from Paul Fletcher & co. Why are you so desperate to defend them??
update on odds and ends off the pitch (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
The council turned down requests for this from Paul Fletcher & co. Why are you so desperate to defend them??
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
"you are my council, my only council..."...."Potholes!! Get into 'em, fill 'em up"!!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Regardless what we think now the early days of CCC involvement should be applauded.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
What, really, your joking, when did that happen because I haven't read it on here!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about their performance over the last few years.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
OK, OK...
I don't think that, although it's not really their fault.
Firstly, they were always up front (or at least Dave Nellist, who had the casting vote was) about the project being about urban regeneration first, football club second. That was why the ground was built, not because it would help a football club.
One could surmise that's where and how Robinson could have sold the idea in the first place, too... but we fall into speculation there.
The problem with urban (re)generation is that central government expects such things to pay their way. That hampers the local government, forces them to put in place ridiculous deals that aren't to the benefit of the club in community, but are about the balance sheet. I can, incidentally, believe that certain elements of the council signed off the build with the best of intentions, but central government dictats would always stymie any effort. Those elements also signed off with a lot better intentions than the club board, which was all about a stay of execution, and therefore positioned the Ricoh or bust as sole strategy, conveniently forgetting they held the option to buy back Highfield Road, and conveniently forgetting that while the club held rights over the site, the club could always be passed on for someone elseto pick up the baton. That, of course, didn't suit the agenda of the board at the time.
Now urban regeneration is all very well, but it doesn't always take into account the needs of a club. The gasworks site probably not the best site available in truth (Parkside as mentioned) but did suit a political aim too. Club, as ever, comes second.
Of course at the time, public opinion was very much for the Ricoh being built, so for the vote to be as close as it was certainly suggests that it wasn't built just for cheap votes. The vote was hoever close as much because of misgivings (probably fair, too) about the cost to the public purse - hence the commitments to regeneration at the last minute, hence ridiculous deals.
If we go back to then, then CCC certainly come out of that better than the football club's board in terms of motivation, but it';s still arguable that the club was first on their priorities. And, like it or not, to gain that the other options were marginilised in order to make it seem like it was Ricoh or bust.
When it wasn't.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Very much as I see it except for one thing. CCC didn't choose the location. They took over the plans started by Richardson.
Grendel, who would have paid to get HR back?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Not strictly true. The CCFC plans were Parkside or Foleshill. They were encouraged to choose Foleshill by the council for one reason or another though you'd suspect that the ex gas works were a much harder sell for prospective developers.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Lets to hope we never see that smug b@@@@rd Appleton again and he has cleared off back to London, it's lucky he wasn't paid on his ability to find the golden share quickly or he wouldn't have got much.
it is a shame that directors don't get struck off for constant annual returns that are late that might make these pair of idiots do it on time like thousands of other companies seem to be able to manage.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Would either of these allowed enough land for all of the surrounding builds which paid for the majority of the build? And also a lot more of the costs were paid for by grants because of the state of the land. The total costs that had to be paid were just under 12m IIRC.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
For reminder on actual costs see 2006
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...57-ricoh-arena-timeline?showall=1&limitstart=
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
So it was nearly 13m that CCC put in then. The biggest joke is that our club put in 1.7m towards the costs and paid a high rent which went towards debt payments on behalf of ACL just for Wasps to get it all.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Don't forget that we also had 50% of ACL around that time so some rent and takings were effectively going to us.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Is that so fp? My memory isn't brilliant these days, and I don't recall that at all.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Only 50% as we were only given 50% of ACL. But we didn't have the 50% of ACL when paying the rent until we purchased it back either so not exactly true.
There has been so many twists and turns since we sold HR that anyone can make things look however they want to and will have evidence to back up their claims. No wonder we can't agree between ourselves what exactly has gone on or who is to blame the most.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is going back to about 1997.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is going back to about 1997.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it the case that any profit made by ACL was to be used to make overpayments on the loan so we wouldn't have received a penny from our 50% stake until that was paid off?
Would be interesting to see total spend on the project from the time Richardson dreamt it up to now and see how the amounts put in by us (including rent), CCC, Higgs and Wasps compare. I suspect we would find that we have put in the most yet have ended up with nothing.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If we had gone into administration then there would be two outcomes. Either nobody is interested and we go out of business or we have new owners. At that point the Ricoh wouldn't have existed so the likely way forward would have been for a new owner to exercise the buy back clause on HR.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
IIRC was a joint decision with Richardson, but yeah the gas works was heavily favoured for it's regeneration ability. This was the same time that Butts Park, The Sky Dome, etc were being planned and sport was a big part of CCC's plan. The basketball team turned down a place at the Sky Dome, but we got the rugby and football clubs a new ground and brought the Blaze (booo franchise teams!) into the Sky Dome.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The Crusaders did play a game at the SkyDome but had all sorts of problems with moisture on the playing surface. Think the idea was abandoned after that.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
There is no way in a million years CCFC put in the most to the Ricoh. Not by an order of magnitude.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It was turned down before the Sky Dome was built. Dip Donaldson wanted to go his own way.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's all down in black and white either in the document above, which also has references to where the information comes from, or in the JR document.
If you want the facts they are there for examination.
What is not there is the reasons they took the various actions and that will always be up for debate.
Your statement above saying we were only given 50% infers we should have been given 100%. Even though the CCFC management at the time messed up big time.
Q. Why we could not keep control of the project is still a mystery to me. On paper a stadium worth £100M for investing £20M should easily be financed.
Q. Did CCFC line up buying the land from British Gas but had to let the Council do it ? That seems crucial.
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Parts of the CU technology park (formerly RR Parkside) were already being occupied by 1998, I rather think an opportunity to use the Parkside site never really existed in practice as there would have been 5 or more years of discussion & planning before that stage and probably CCFC had no money to purchase or lease the land (if CU actually paid, they may well have got a nice fat EU grant).
Around the same time the arena project got outline planning http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/club-information/timeline/357-ricoh-arena-timeline, this scheme probably hinged upon the receipt of loadsa money from Tesco for part of the land. Followed as we now know by all sorts of 'cashflow' and 'funding' issues that led to the current unsatisfactory situation.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The club would have done.
What should have happened is the club should have gone into administration - at that point it would actually have been a strong purchase proposition. It still was attracting reasonable crowds in the championship.
At that point new owners could have excercised the clause. The sale of the rights was pivotal and stupid. The club ended up paying penalty clauses to the builder which ultimately cost more than they received anyway.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Wrong. All revenue was ploughed straight back in in order to reduce the loan value. This actually is why in isolation the Higgs share was always worthless.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If you have a business with a loan, paying it off is still to your credit surely.
You can either take an income or pay off the loan. You can still take the incomes for Fair Play rules.
Basic business ? or have I missed something ?
Higgs share worthless
) . I'll tell Wasps when I see them !!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If you have a business with a loan, paying it off is still to your credit surely.
You can either take an income or pay off the loan. You can still take the incomes for Fair Play rules.
Basic business ? or have I missed something ?
Higgs share worthless
Yes you have missed something. The fact that the board of directors operating at the time would have dictated policy and the policy would not have favoured the club.
Wasps wouldn't have bought the Higgs share in isolation as ultimately it gave you nothing. Ask them if they would have done. The club would still paid the same rent as before and the strategy would not have changed.
Getting the finance sounds easy but as In our current guise Is proving difficult
IIRC a Spanish bank pulled out
The clubs debt levels were enormous at the time
Astute
Well-Known Member
Our club wouldn't have been able to raise the money. It wasn't a case of admin and all sorted. FL rules mean that all football debts must be paid. We were in debt for no other reason than giving players contracts that we couldn't afford. These would still have had to be honored. Some try to make out that it was the high rent that put us in trouble. But we were well in trouble well before the Ricoh was built. And the rent came to less than 10% of our outgoings. We never paid much rent before SISU started the rent strike. But how much bad debt was written off and how much do SISU say that they have put into our club?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There was an options appraisal on the councils website which discusses the merits of the two sites (which shows who really chose the location). I can't find it now mind you.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There was an options appraisal on the councils website which discusses the merits of the two sites (which shows who really chose the location). I can't find it now mind you.
Must have been bad if a Spanish bank pulled out pre financial crisis !!??