1998-2005 boardroom controversy and tales (1 Viewer)

[Bigelvesy]

Afternoon guys,
Long time admirer of the forum and joined today specifically to ask this question
As i thought id get more intelligent responses on here than gmk!

Started supporting cov after i was taken to a game at HR in our first season back in division 1 and have been a loyal sky blue since. But as i was fairly young then, ive never heard about all the apparent controversies and dealings of former chairmen bryan richardson and mike mcginnity. Ive seen things mentioned such as the land deal but not much more,
Just wondered if anybody wanted to share their memories of what was reported in the press or was general fan knowledge if never officially announced, or even rumours.
Particulary around the richardson/strachan era and the beginning stages of the new stadium project.

Cheers guys

 

---

[Astute]

Not got time at the moment. Will reply when I have a spare day or two. We got shafted by different people at different times.

Just wish I could say things have vastly improved, but......... All we have got for many years is bullshit released to us and they expect us to believe it

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Rick Gekoski's book Staying up is a decent read, you will see some stuff on there. Also worth asking the same question on GMK as there are members on there who were involved with the very first trust (not the one that went on to make wonky garden tables) and other supporter consultation groups and have some tales to tell.

They basically had a go at making it big whie probably also tryign to make money for themselves, Apparently McGinnity's company won the contract to furnish the East and Main Stand with seats when they were redevoloped, appacarently somebody on the board had shares in the company which won the catering deal at the Ricoh, plus there were the decent players we signed and no doubt some of the other less better players were signed to facilitate moves for the better players.

I still believe to this day that we had any intention of signing Robert Jarni with a view to him playing for us.... however while it made us look silly we made money owning a player for the day.....

 

[Bigelvesy]

thanks guys, i'll deffo take a look at the book.

 

[chickentikkamasala]

Well as you have posted the same question on GMK I would probably edit your first post on here as slagging off GMK users as being unintelligent night not get you the desired responses on GMK :-O

 

[wingy]

You'll probably get more of a response later ,there are some old sages on here with plenty of info but its a match afternoon,so we're all pre-occupied ,there are stories of directors funding some of the big transfers in,then taking the profit from sales.Richardson allegedly pocketed a tidy fee on the tesco land deal.The ground move would have been consistent for a lot of prem clubs at that time ,right or wrong ,relegation compounded it.

 

[Black6Osprey]

The land deal money went in the direction of the council. It's the only reason they came in to bail us out. The stadium move was a good idea but relegation, followed by the collapse of the Championship TV deal compounded the problem and we had sold Highfield Road and had no where to go. The payment from Tesco should have gone to pay for the stadium but financial problems due to the what I mention above (after Richardson had left) and the Council pocketed the cash and the stadium was finished with them having part ownership and us owning jack shit. Now the council are in the way again always in it for themselves.

 

[Sky Blues]

The land deal money went in the direction of the council. It's the only reason they came in to bail us out. The stadium move was a good idea but relegation, followed by the collapse of the Championship TV deal compounded the problem and we had sold Highfield Road and had no where to go. The payment from Tesco should have gone to pay for the stadium but financial problems due to the what I mention above (after Richardson had left) and the Council pocketed the cash and the stadium was finished with them having part ownership and us owning jack shit. Now the council are in the way again always in it for themselves.

The council have a duty to Coventry's taxpayers to get best value in any property deal.

 

[Black6Osprey]

The council have a duty to Coventry's taxpayers to get best value in any property deal.

The council screwed us so they could get the Tesco cash, get revenue out of the Ricoh and they left the club high and dry. Don't tell me the council give a shit about the tax payer. We have the worst city centre in England.

 

[cloughie]

The land deal money went in the direction of the council. It's the only reason they came in to bail us out. The stadium move was a good idea but relegation, followed by the collapse of the Championship TV deal compounded the problem and we had sold Highfield Road and had no where to go. The payment from Tesco should have gone to pay for the stadium but financial problems due to the what I mention above (after Richardson had left) and the Council pocketed the cash and the stadium was finished with them having part ownership and us owning jack shit. Now the council are in the way again always in it for themselves.

you are either deluded or you are Brian richardson as you are talking sh*t

 

[cloughie]

The council screwed us so they could get the Tesco cash, get revenue out of the Ricoh and they left the club high and dry. Don't tell me the council give a shit about the tax payer. We have the worst city centre in England.

you are on the money again, who got paid a huge amount of money for brokering the tesco deal? Brian richardson

The council get no revenue from the ricoh until the mortgage is paid

 

[Black6Osprey]

you are either deluded or you are Brian richardson as you are talking sh*t

You need to get your facts right or don't pass comment.

The club went to the Council to get financial help in the funding of Ricoh (this is all after Richardson was long gone) it was supposed to be a 50/50 joint venture deal.

The club did not have the money to complete the purchase of the land, which would then enable them to sell off half of it to Tesco, it was agreed that the Council would purchase the land, then conclude the deal with Tesco, all as part of their joint venture agreement.

But after the purchase of the land and the sale to Tesco had been completed, the Council informed the club that they were unable to share with them the profit from the sale of the land due to ‘state aid’ implications.

In other words the council kept the payment from Tesco 100%.

This is no secret and the info is available.

So if you don't think we got screwed by the council then you my friend are the deluded one.

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

This is no secret and the info is available.

Where, Black60sprey?

 

[Vale87]

Whilst noting the comments above, surely we cannot lose sight of the fact that Richardson was the original driving force behind the move to the Ricoh, and originally it was to have a roof and sliding pitch etc. However, this proved to be beyond our means and due to the fact that he had totally mismanaged the club, leading to him & the board selling Highfield Road, and then proceeding to pay back most of the proceeds in rent, we were left in the position that eventually led to mass clearance of players and the emergence of SISu.
On many occasions it has been requested that the details behind Richardson's leadership are revealed, but everyone hides behind the "gagging order" and we will therefore probably never know the real truth.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

You can talk about robin's team selections, the form of individual players but just can't get away from the shambolic strategic management of CCFC.

The city of Coventry has benefitted from the Arena, Olympics, conferences, thriving shopping outlet. The big casualty has been CCFC, since the sale of HR the club has been going only one way. I think a minimum offer from ACL should be for an indefinite rent free period - won't happen but may stimulate those in charge of ACL to run it more efficiently rather than get the totally non-commercial rent of £1.2m.

 

[TheParsonsHose]

Afternoon guys,
Long time admirer of the forum and joined today specifically to ask this question
As i thought id get more intelligent responses on here than gmk!

Started supporting cov after i was taken to a game at HR in our first season back in division 1 and have been a loyal sky blue since. But as i was fairly young then, ive never heard about all the apparent controversies and dealings of former chairmen bryan richardson and mike mcginnity. Ive seen things mentioned such as the land deal but not much more,
Just wondered if anybody wanted to share their memories of what was reported in the press or was general fan knowledge if never officially announced, or even rumours.
Particulary around the richardson/strachan era and the beginning stages of the new stadium project.

Cheers guys

I have the following book which gives a good insight of where it all went wrong......

Crooked Spires: Chesterfield and Coventry City
Volume 1 of Clubs in crisisAuthorsMark Ashmore, George Rowland

 

[oldskyblue58]

The details of the Ricoh project and its funding are held in a council report dated 26 june 2006.

Total cost was £118m including the purchase of the land. CCFC never actually owned the site. Tesco didnt pay £65m to the council, they paid £42m in cash and £17m in kind - that in kind payment was to take over the site costs already spent by CCFC that they had no hope of paying. In fact had the deal not been done we would not have been having this discussion ..... there would have been no club or stadium. Not only that but had the council not been involved then a significant amount of funding would not have been obtained or afforded. Even then the club couldnt afford the relatively small amount required to be involved in the project and the Higgs charity had to become involved at a cost of just over £6m (part of which included paying off a £2m loan the club already had and could not afford to repay)

Given the cost of the stadium was £118m just where do you think the Tesco funding went to ? Who actually paid for the build ? or perhaps who didnt actually pay for any of it might be a better question.

Just to be clear neither the council or charity have taken a penny from the Ricoh in terms of income. They cant get a return on their shares right now for the same reasons SISU couldnt if they owned them.

So the logic would appear to be that the club can completely mess up, just about put themselves out of business yet again, and the council etc are supposed to bail them out with taxpayers money....... then hand the asset over at no value to the successive muppets who keep putting the club at risk in the first place.......... just so the fans dont feel "screwed " by the council ? :facepalm:

The only ones being screwed were the fans ............. and they were being screwed by those in charge at CCFC......... who for years proved without doubt to be wholly inept at running, but more importantly safeguarding the club.

 

[oldskyblue58]

from the 2002 CCFC H accounts

"the group had an option to acquire the land on which the stadium is to be developed which lapsed during the year" So they no longer had the right to the freehold interest by 31/05/02

the joint venture with the Council was to start after 31/05/02 by which time Richardson was gone (30/01/02). The cost of investment by CCFC in the project was to be net £4.8m (the costs already spent on the original project less loans on it)............ the new project was for 50% of ACL (including the long lease).......... the club had to sell that investment simply to keep going and got £6.2m (circa) for it from the Charity.

Hardly evidence that the Council and/or charity ripped CCFC off or screwed them over............ what it says is that because of the poor leadership and financial management of the club CCFC simply could not afford to be involved ........... and only have themselves to blame

 

[oldskyblue58]

You can talk about robin's team selections, the form of individual players but just can't get away from the shambolic strategic management of CCFC.

The city of Coventry has benefitted from the Arena, Olympics, conferences, thriving shopping outlet. The big casualty has been CCFC, since the sale of HR the club has been going only one way. I think a minimum offer from ACL should be for an indefinite rent free period - won't happen but may stimulate those in charge of ACL to run it more efficiently rather than get the totally non-commercial rent of £1.2m.

The damage to CCFC is entirely self inflicted, as you say shambolic management. Whilst it can be argued that the rent at £1.2m is currently too expensive I dont see any real justification for CCFC getting the facilities rent free, that is simply not commercial for either party and ignores the fact that CCFC continues to live far beyond its means even excluding rent. Why should ACL sacrifice part of its own viability to fund the shambles at CCFC..... where is the logic of that when CCFC brings less and less to the stadium and city

I also think that people tend to tar ACl with the same brush as CCFC as far as efficient management is concerned or even taint it with the stigma of local council involvement. There is no real evidence that anyone else would run it more efficiently or get more from the site. Look at some of the things going on there, the inward investment, the number of non football events, the profile of the stadium nationally (even internationally), the plans for the future already made, the changes in key personnel, other developments in the area because of the Arena ............ the only thing that holds it back is the association with its non paying tenant CCFC.

You can argue that someone else could take it to bigger and better things, develop the site far more ...... but that has nothing to do with the efficiency of current ACL management.... and would probably require an owner with a global presence ( not a cash strapped inept little football club and its clueless owners)

 

[cloughie]

You need to get your facts right or don't pass comment.

In other words the council kept the payment from Tesco 100%.

This is no secret and the info is available.

So if you don't think we got screwed by the council then you my friend are the deluded one.

I refer you to OSB who uses the recorded facts to explain the episode that you describe as 'we got screwed by the council'

We would never have been in that position if Richardson hadn't screwed us over the Highfield Road sale and the rent back deal. His brokerage fee over the Ricoh was just icing on the cake.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

So the question is....will Black6Osprey reply again, and eat a slice of yummy humble pie ?

 

[ashbyjan]

Big question is how much longer can ACL/council allow the club to simply not pay rent - must be £1million now owed and club showing no apparent moves to resolve matter. Wonder if these anti council stories are coincidental?

 

[Danceswithhorses]

If i were the council, i would say, no deal until ACL's rent is paid upto date and in full at the original rate (seeing as they dismissed ACL's more than generous offer to reduce it)

 

[cloughie]

Big question is how much longer can ACL/council allow the club to simply not pay rent - must be £1million now owed and club showing no apparent moves to resolve matter. Wonder if these anti council stories are coincidental?

Yes that's the ploy of sisu those horrible council people have caused all this :jerkit:

 

[Black6Osprey]

So the question is....will Black6Osprey reply again, and eat a slice of yummy humble pie ?

No humble pie here mate. I stand by what I said.

When I say the council got 100% of the cash, I mean they saw an opportunity and used the cash to get what they wanted and certainly didn't help us out of the goodness of their heart.

Figures seem to vary depending on where you look and who you ask but the council loaned roughly 20+ million which has been paid back. The club spent roughly 10M and the money from the land sale plus Advantage West Midlands and a few others made up the total spend. So the council spend 20M odd and get it repaid and the club spend 10M and get nothing in the end. I blame McGinnity for selling our share for about 4M, what a twat and the Council for a lot of stuff including a hole in my road.

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

No humble pie here mate. I stand by what I said.

When I say the council got 100% of the cash, I mean they saw an opportunity and used the cash to get what they wanted and certainly didn't help us out of the goodness of their heart.



Figures seem to vary depending on where you look and who you ask but the council loaned roughly 20+ million which has been paid back. The club spent roughly 10M and the money from the land sale plus Advantage West Midlands and a few others made up the total spend. So the council spend 20M odd and get it repaid and the club spend 10M and get nothing in the end. I blame McGinnity for selling our share for about 4M, what a twat and the Council for a lot of stuff including a hole in my road.

Why let the facts get in the way?

 

[oldskyblue58]

general question because i am unsure who was the land for the project purchased off originally ? cost £24.1m

 

[crowsnest]

general question because i am unsure who was the land for the project purchased off originally ? cost £24.1m

british gas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/aug/20/newsstory.coventry

And a gipsy family had a small section of the land.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The council got paid £21m by way of lease premium....... which is what ACL had an option to do, either to pay an annual rent of £1.9m or pay a one off lease premium of £21m to the freeholder. The loan for the premium payment remains within the ACL accounts. It is not an unusual transaction.

CCFC didnt actually pay out £10m etc (2002 CCFC accounts say it was less than £5m) because they never had £10m or £5m to actually pay out........ their "investment" was based on costs incurred that in the end they didnt settle (pay out) and had to be settled by the deal with Tesco on freehold property that CCFC never owned or had any rights over. The project basically settled the preliminary costs expended that CCFC couldnt settle and at that stage CCFC had foregone the option on the freehold, so that part of the project was no longer theirs. O

They were left with a joint project to manage the stadium via a 50% interest in the company owning the long lease on the site. The value of that investment was based on the costs that CCFC never actually paid out less loans set against it and was valued by CCFC themselves at less than £5m ........ those costs included nearly 2m in interest on the loans (am guessing that they were not normal bank loans so you can guess who benefitted). I would also guess there were certain other costs like finders fees etc included in the value of their "investment" ...... again i wonder who benefitted?

At the point that CCFC could no longer afford the freehold involvement then there were choices to be made by the Council. They were the sole party able to arrange the finances and drive the project. Yes there was a blue chip company there to purchase part of the freehold, but the council could have said let CCFC stew with £17m of costs, that had no real worth, and massive loans ..... do a deal with Tesco themselves and develop the site in a very different manner ......... or they could try to do a deal that helped the club, provided it with a stadium on some basis (HR having been sold already so CCFC had no place to go)....... not only that they took sunken costs (costs with no real value other than to CCFC) and said there was a joint project there on the basis of managing the stadium on a 50:50 basis through ACL (of course the club decided they couldnt afford that continued investment and sold those rights too)

It really isnt about who you talk to.................. the figures are in published documents

The council didnt screw the club on the deal ............. the club failed to meet their commitment to it .......... as usual their eyes being bigger than their belly. The council were committed previously to a regeneration program for north coventry, something CCFC were not or should be expected to be - they just needed a stadium and quickly. CCFC couldnt finance the project, the project needed council involvement to get grants and cheap finance, Tesco wanted the site but needed the infra structure too - new roads etc but also assurance there was an intention to redevelop the area (CCFC couldnt give that) - so the council had to be involved

Originally despite a lot of local politics the council supported CCFC in their need to find a new site........... they supported the club when it became deep in debt........... was prepared to do a 50:50 deal on the freehold............ was prepared to do a deal on a 50:50 deal on ACL to run the site ............... on each and every change the club failed to deliver, not because of the council but because the club couldnt run their own business properly. CCFC has had massive debts for over a decade not because of anyone other than themselves and that means acquiring finance for capital projects was going to be extremely hard to do. The Council having decided to regenerate a whole area of the city could not put that at risk because its financially inept partner could not meet its commitments. There is more to this than CCFC ........... but without the Council taking control of the build then where would CCFC have gone when they were kicked out of Highfield Rd

The councils are no angels ............ but they have a duty to do their best for the citizens of Coventry in general not just the supporters of CCFC ........... had the deal been done by a private third party company we wouldnt be having this discussion but i am willing to bet CCFC would not have been treated so softly. There would be no questions about earnings, ownership etc.

Bottom line is CCFC is a basket case that created this situation themselves, they got themselves into a financial mess, had debts bearing no relation to any tangible asset, loaded the figures with self interest. In the real world of cold hard finance the club got exactly what it deserved - nothing ................ and it could have been a whole lot worse !

 

[skyblueman]

A sorry sorry tale... at the end of the day I will always blame those bastards at SKY for truly ruining football in this country - it made every chairman clamour for the holy grail of the premiership and to hell with how we get there - spend spend spend and so the idiots did, doesn't matter that we don't have the money or the support - it was premiership or bust and for us it's bust...

If not for Sky we would still be at HR playing better football with better players in higher leagues

 

[oldskyblue58]

british gas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/aug/20/newsstory.coventry

And a gipsy family had a small section of the land.

thanks crowsnest ........ raises more questions though ........ Richardson or CCFC ? bought 80 acres for 2m to 3m from British gas per the article (was that the freehold or long leasehold though)....... but the project sold 3/8ths of it relatively soon after for £65m (puts whole site value over £173m!)........... but in the council documents the freehold purchase was £24m (- who paid too? )....... and in the 2002 accounts the club had lost the option to purchase the freehold so the club never owned the freehold.

doesnt make sense

 

[cloughie]

thanks crowsnest ........ raises more questions though ........ Richardson or CCFC ? bought 80 acres for 2m to 3m from British gas per the article (was that the freehold or long leasehold though)....... but the project sold 3/8ths of it relatively soon after for £65m (puts whole site value over £173m!)........... but in the council documents the freehold purchase was £24m (- who paid too? )....... and in the 2002 accounts the club had lost the option to purchase the freehold so the club never owned the freehold.

doesnt make sense

I am sure it could easily be explained who bought the 80 acres, but would hazard a guess that it is included in that infamous gagging order.

 

[chiefdave]

thanks crowsnest ........ raises more questions though ........ Richardson or CCFC ? bought 80 acres for 2m to 3m from British gas per the article (was that the freehold or long leasehold though)....... but the project sold 3/8ths of it relatively soon after for £65m (puts whole site value over £173m!)........... but in the council documents the freehold purchase was £24m (- who paid too? )....... and in the 2002 accounts the club had lost the option to purchase the freehold so the club never owned the freehold.

doesnt make sense

My head hurts! Has anyone got a total figure for the cost of the whole project and who put what into it or is that too simple?

 

[Black6Osprey]

It really isnt about who you talk to.................. the figures are in published documents

Bottom line is CCFC is a basket case that created this situation themselves, they got themselves into a financial mess, had debts bearing no relation to any tangible asset, loaded the figures with self interest. In the real world of cold hard finance the club got exactly what it deserved - nothing ................ and it could have been a whole lot worse !

Just because the figures are published doesn't mean it tells the whole truth.

Its funny how everyone moans about the club overstretching themselves and paying the price and then moaning like bitches because SISU don't want to throw money down the bottomless pit. You (and I don't literally mean you) can't have both ways. If you support the idea that Richardson made a huge mistake trying to grow the club beyond its station then you must also support SISU not spending anything the club don't have.

And following that logic league two beckons. Who would run a club?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Would agree that the whole truth is more than the published docs but they are the real details we have to go on. The club got themselves in this mess, it wasnt caused by the council.

I know the "You" isnt directed at me, and you wont get an arguement from me about the logic, i have argued long and often on here that the club has to have a plan that lives within the means available to it, ie can it afford the borrowing or debt it takes onboard, be that bank, institutions or from owners. Personally i would support SISU not allowing the club to spend what it doesnt have, trouble is that isnt a plan they have as they forecast losses of 3m or more this season........ the debt gets bigger and bigger with precious little in assets to offset it. Similarly i did not believe in the glorious plans ala Richardson & co ....... if something seems too good to be true it usually is and their plans (it wasnt just Richardson the whole Board share responsibility) were built on the shifting sands of self interest and poor financial control. The club did not have the means to do it, it never had the means to do it. It mystifies me why successful business men leave their brains behind as soon as they enter a football club.

Too many people fail in my opinion to allocate the blame fairly............ "we were screwed by the council", "the council are ripping us off", etc. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of those that have run the club for the last 15 years - all have contributed in their own way to a monumental cock up. Had they taken their responsibility seriously, left egos & self interest behind we would be far better off and not looking to Council or charity to ride to the rescue on more than one occassion. Those board members failed to safeguard the club, for no other real reason than self interest and huge egos. A club is far more than its board, they are only custodians, the fans are key and are here far longer

If you look at it from a council perspective, any deal that was done had to have the interests of the city of Coventry placed first and then further down the list the interests of Coventry City FC. The council isnt here to bail out football clubs, but it is here to get the best for its rate payers. Yes there is ego involved in council too but you would be incorrect to view the deal for the Ricoh as being done just to help the football club. It was and is much more than that. The football club had their chances, whilst intent on over paying average players (wages 112% of turnover for example) the directors took their eyes off the first real prize - in so doing lost the prize and put it all at risk. The council did what any business, investor or football club director should do - sought to maximise their investment for their shareholders (the rate payers), unlike the business sector however they tempered it with a lot of patience and a strong sense of community they took less than they could have.

In short we have not had in the last 15 years a board of directors capable of running a successful club and of safeguarding the clubs future........... the really disappointing thing is that the situation continues in my opinion.