A positive thread (1 Viewer)

albatross · Jan 9, 2015

Nick said:
So ACL wasn't going from strength to strength then?

It had made a profit in every year, however it was very dependent on CCFC for income and as such CCFC and its poor trading record was listed as a risk in the report.

"A significant amount of the revenue is secured against[CCFC], a weak covenant with a history of financial difficulties; "

We all accept the fact that SISU actively distressed ACL to reduce the value of the lease and outstanding loan.

But the review also accepts that with the CCC loan effectively restructuring the debt there was a business plan in place to make ACL sustainable.

Please skim read it and take you own opinions from it. there are some very interesting points in there it is clear and factual so no spin when its all in context.

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

albatross said:
I agree with the general statement but you have to consider the value of ACL at the time.

sometime in 2012 Richard Ellis performed a sensitivity analysis, which indicated that, if the anchor tenant rent was nil, the value of the lease would be only£6.4m; at £200,000 rent, £8.6m; and, at £400,000 rent, £10.8m.

consider that that was before CCFC moved out. The value of ACL at a later date with the rent strike and the team moved would at that point probably be below the £6.4M as it was then a reality rather than a possibility. Also SISU were looking to purchase the Loan from the Bank at a price that the bank did not find acceptable.

Take a look at the judicial review http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/uploads/other/01_07_2014_01_48_11_01.07.14.pdf (section 13 for this extract) not trying to be a clever dick but the Value of ACL has changed a lot over the years.

in 2006 ACL was considered to be worth £37m

As a condition of drawdown, clause 5.2 of the facilityletter required a valuation report from C B Richard Ellis (“Richard Ellis”) of current market value of £37m; and thereafter valuations at regular intervals onvarious bases, e.g. a valuation of £31m after 20 years, and of £26.9m after 5years on the basis that the Football Club had ceased to trade. (Point 9 vi)

People should take a look at this report as as whole , I have selected bits in this thread (not trying to take them out of context) it reportedly cost nearly £1m to produce and is in essence impartial.

Thank you for this... obviously it is clear to see that there were a lot of factors affecting the value of ACL all the way through this.

The point I was trying to make was that when the discussion between SISU and ACL were ongoing regarding that 50% share there were values pitched/discussed that exceeded what it eventually went for.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the council to do the following (which I feel is probably the crux of most people's displeasure with them)

*Talk to SISU/CCFC directly about the discussions with Wasps
*Be open with the public about such discussions.
*Offer the same deal to SISU... on the same terms as Wasps - and make it clear to everyone this is the deal on the table, and if SISU turn it down... it will go to Wasps

If SISU turned down the deal that Wasps got - then not only would they be fundamentally stupid, but there would be no justification whatsoever, and the amount of pressure that could be put on them would be significantly more.

But this never happened... and it should have. Forget whether they liked each other, talk of a new stadium. That would have been the best deal for the Coventry taxpayer AND the football club.

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ Ian1779...No I'm not. Don't try and twist my words. The link I put up CLEARLY states "Bids for 50% of ACL shares." I suggest you borrow a pair of glasses mate, then re-read what is written.

Sky Blue Kid said:
Wasps made a £2.77m offer for ACL......SISU actually topped that with a £2.8m offer. Now! the reason SISU were turned down and sold to the Wasps, let me see now...Although SISU offered £30k more cash, it was full of conditions about disclosures of CCC/ACL defence plans for the JR. Wasps offer was totally UNCONDITIONAL. No brainer if you ask me guys.

This is your original quote... the one I referenced.

It doesn't suggest 50% at all. You have not mentioned 50% anywhere in that.

Wasps did not offer 2.77m for ACL did they?

albatross · Jan 9, 2015

Ian I agree that sensible discussion could probably had this situation resolved in a different manner with a potentially different outcome.

I would really encourage you to skim through the report, it clearly sets out the starting position , discussions , tactics/ actions from each side and responses.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

@ Ian1779.... I don't like being called a liar mate.................................................."Alan Edward Higgs Charity reveal why they turned down Coventry ... 15 Nov 2014 ... Charity accepted Wasps' offer which has seen the rugby club ... to sell their 50 per cent share in Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL to Wasps ... had 'conditions' while the Wasps bid was 'unconditional' making it more attractive for the charity. ... Coventry City FC say they bid £2.8million for Ricoh Arena share. www.coventrytelegraph.net/.../alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323." Try doing some research my friend.

DaleM · Jan 9, 2015

Not a very positive thread anymore is it ?

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ Ian1779.... I don't like being called a liar mate.................................................."Alan Edward Higgs Charity reveal why they turned down Coventry ... 15 Nov 2014 ... Charity accepted Wasps' offer which has seen the rugby club ... to sell their 50 per cent share in Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL to Wasps ... had 'conditions' while the Wasps bid was 'unconditional' making it more attractive for the charity. ... Coventry City FC say they bid £2.8million for Ricoh Arena share. www.coventrytelegraph.net/.../alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323." Try doing some research my friend.

Who called you a liar?

I said that in the quote I referenced there was no mention of 50%. By saying 'Wasps paid 2.77m for ACL' you are implying that was for 100%. Hence me saying it was not relevant as the two pieces of information did not match.

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

albatross said:
Ian I agree that sensible discussion could probably had this situation resolved in a different manner with a potentially different outcome.

I would really encourage you to skim through the report, it clearly sets out the starting position , discussions , tactics/ actions from each side and responses.

I think that had it been done, then opinion on this would have been significantly different. There would not be any justification for SISU turning down what Wasps got the Ricoh for... none in a million years.

Nick · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ Ian1779.... I don't like being called a liar mate.................................................."Alan Edward Higgs Charity reveal why they turned down Coventry ... 15 Nov 2014 ... Charity accepted Wasps' offer which has seen the rugby club ... to sell their 50 per cent share in Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL to Wasps ... had 'conditions' while the Wasps bid was 'unconditional' making it more attractive for the charity. ... Coventry City FC say they bid £2.8million for Ricoh Arena share. www.coventrytelegraph.net/.../alan-edward-higgs-charity-reveal-8115323." Try doing some research my friend.

Not the old research line coming out to play again

MichaelCCFC · Jan 9, 2015

Do any of the arguments on this thread matter?

Whatever view you take about ccc/sisu/wasps/sixfields/fans etc etc, none of the arguments on this thread change the reality of our situation as it stands today i.e. ccc are no longer involved in ccfc, wasps are the landlord, sisu have no interest in footballing success and are not investing, we're in division 3, low crowds, terrible football and everyone thinks things are dire - apart from RFC. This thread started with the positive story about Swansea. Their rise from misery to the Prem happened because their fans started to focus on how they as fans could be the catalyst for positive change not endlessly and pointlessly arguing about the past. The swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping that some sugar daddy (or even wasps) will save the day for us/sisu will change/just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change. There are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience. Surely a few have real ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction!?!

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

MichaelCCFC said:
Do any of the arguments on this thread matter?

Whatever view you take about ccc/sisu/wasps/sixfields/fans etc etc, none of the arguments on this thread change the reality of our situation as it stands today i.e. ccc are no longer involved in ccfc, wasps are the landlord, sisu have no interest in footballing success and are not investing, we're in division 3, low crowds, terrible football and everyone thinks things are dire - apart from RFC. This thread started with the positive story about Swansea. Their rise from misery to the Prem happened because their fans started to focus on how they as fans could be the catalyst for positive change not endlessly and pointlessly arguing about the past. The swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping that some sugar daddy (or even wasps) will save the day for us/sisu will change/just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change. There are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience. Surely a few have real ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction!?!

Why don't the campaign groups involved with CCFC make a concerted effort to encourage their members to attend every single game they can manage.

There's a positive starting point for you.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

What is your problem Nick? You know as well as I do, that Ian1779 is taking the p**s. I've researched, he hasn't. Simple as that. ALL of my posts have linked to the CT so there is no room for his twisting my words is there? Fisher himself said SISU offered £2.8m for the remaining 50% share of ACL, but were "Still going to carry on and build a new Stadium".

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
What is your problem Nick? You know as well as I do, that Ian1779 is taking the p**s. I've researched, he hasn't. Simple as that. ALL of my posts have linked to the CT so there is no room for his twisting my words is there? Fisher himself said SISU offered £2.8m for the remaining 50% share of ACL, but were "Still going to carry on and build a new Stadium".

If your research is as detailed as you say it is.. you will clearly see the point I was trying to make, but is obviously lost on you.

AndreasB · Jan 9, 2015

MichaelCCFC said:
Do any of the arguments on this thread matter?

Whatever view you take about ccc/sisu/wasps/sixfields/fans etc etc, none of the arguments on this thread change the reality of our situation as it stands today i.e. ccc are no longer involved in ccfc, wasps are the landlord, sisu have no interest in footballing success and are not investing, we're in division 3, low crowds, terrible football and everyone thinks things are dire - apart from RFC. This thread started with the positive story about Swansea. Their rise from misery to the Prem happened because their fans started to focus on how they as fans could be the catalyst for positive change not endlessly and pointlessly arguing about the past. The swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping that some sugar daddy (or even wasps) will save the day for us/sisu will change/just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change. There are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience. Surely a few have real ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction!?!

Why dont you do another questionnaire?

MichaelCCFC · Jan 9, 2015

Ian1779 said:
Why don't the campaign groups involved with CCFC make a concerted effort to encourage their members to attend every single game they can manage.

There's a positive starting point for you.

Sorry, Ian, but that is not a strategy. It's just a repeat of a point posted on here many times before. You will have read in my post that "The Swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping...just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change." The evidence is that income is not being invested in improving the team and the idea that bigger crowds will lead sisu to change their approach is as fanciful as hoping wasps will buy us. As I said, there are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience who surely have ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction but repetition of kneejerk responses does not do so.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

@ Ian1779...I would say that when a direct quote from the CT and Wasps, and Higgs/ACL stating that Wasps had made a £2.77m bid for the HIGGS 50% share "Unconditionally" and SISU "Counter bid of £2.8m"Conditional" says it all really. wouldn't you? As you say though I would counter your post exactly the same as you did to me...Quotes in Black and White ultimately have flown way over your head. I'm off to relax now. bye, and have a very pleasant day to you.

Nick · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ Ian1779...I would say that when a direct quote from the CT and Wasps, and Higgs/ACL stating that Wasps had made a £2.77m bid for the HIGGS 50% share "Unconditionally" and SISU "Counter bid of £2.8m"Conditional" says it all really. wouldn't you? As you say though I would counter your post exactly the same as you did to me...Quotes in Black and White ultimately have flown way over your head. I'm off to relax now. bye, and have a very pleasant day to you.

Have you read his reply properly? The black and white quote he posted?

AndreasB · Jan 9, 2015

MichaelCCFC said:
Do any of the arguments on this thread matter?

Whatever view you take about ccc/sisu/wasps/sixfields/fans etc etc, none of the arguments on this thread change the reality of our situation as it stands today i.e. ccc are no longer involved in ccfc, wasps are the landlord, sisu have no interest in footballing success and are not investing, we're in division 3, low crowds, terrible football and everyone thinks things are dire - apart from RFC. This thread started with the positive story about Swansea. Their rise from misery to the Prem happened because their fans started to focus on how they as fans could be the catalyst for positive change not endlessly and pointlessly arguing about the past. The swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping that some sugar daddy (or even wasps) will save the day for us/sisu will change/just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change. There are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience. Surely a few have real ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction!?!

Isnt that what the Sky Blue Trust is for? You know, the "official" fans body that you flounced away from?
They clearly have a good track record of attracting credible investment partners...Elliot/Haskell/Wasps

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

I have read what he says, and he basically says I'm a liar. Use the links and go and read what is said in the Telegraph. For the last time today it states Wasps offered £2.77m for the remaing 50% of ACL/Higgs shares "Unconditionally" and SISU offered £2.8m "Conditionally" OK?

Sick Boy · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
What is your problem Nick? You know as well as I do, that Ian1779 is taking the p**s. I've researched, he hasn't. Simple as that. ALL of my posts have linked to the CT so there is no room for his twisting my words is there? Fisher himself said SISU offered £2.8m for the remaining 50% share of ACL, but were "Still going to carry on and build a new Stadium".

Have you been to a MENSA meeting recently, mate?

Nick · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I have read what he says, and he basically says I'm a liar. Use the links and go and read what is said in the Telegraph. For the last time today it states Wasps offered £2.77m for the remaing 50% of ACL/Higgs shares "Unconditionally" and SISU offered £2.8m "Conditionally" OK?

I give up too, he wasn't on about the links he was on about what you typed....
Please read things properly before ranting

italiahorse · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I have read what he says, and he basically says I'm a liar. Use the links and go and read what is said in the Telegraph. For the last time today it states Wasps offered £2.77m for the remaing 50% of ACL/Higgs shares "Unconditionally" and SISU offered £2.8m "Conditionally" OK?

I even think the the £2.8M was taken from a comment from TF where he said "about £2.8M"
Nobody really knows, but a lot have taken it as bigger than Wasps and are giving it some mileage.
I think Higgs wanted out and Sisu were still tying them in with the deal.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

apologies

Losing my temper is wrong. I'm sorry.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

Ian1779 said:
This deal is in relation to a 50% share of ACL... Notably the Higgs proportion. The other 50% has already been sold to Wasps and they potentially had veto over the sale. So to use this an example is not relevant at all is it.....

I never said the offers were made for the other 50% share in the Ricoh. It is rellevant because SISU (If they were trusted) would have a 50% stake now in the ACL/Higgs share of the Stadium. The figures that I quoted have been backed up with quotes in the Telegraph from the Higgs trust.

Nick · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
I never said the offers were made for the other 50% share in the Ricoh. It is rellevant because SISU (If they were trusted) would have a 50% stake now in the ACL/Higgs share of the Stadium. The figures that I quoted have been backed up with quotes in the Telegraph from the Higgs trust.

Are you referring to having 50% with Wasps or the original 50% years ago?

skybluetony176 · Jan 9, 2015

Ian1779 said:
Why don't the campaign groups involved with CCFC make a concerted effort to encourage their members to attend every single game they can manage.

There's a positive starting point for you.

You could ask the same of our owners.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

To all posters on this thread today. I think my posts are very clear and to the point. You can all draw your own conclusions.

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

For the doubters and ones that call me a liar. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-reveal-details-8112794 quote from no other than Tim Fisher.

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

MichaelCCFC said:
Sorry, Ian, but that is not a strategy. It's just a repeat of a point posted on here many times before. You will have read in my post that "The Swansea success certainly wasn't based on things like hoping...just getting behind the team will of itself lead to change." The evidence is that income is not being invested in improving the team and the idea that bigger crowds will lead sisu to change their approach is as fanciful as hoping wasps will buy us. As I said, there are lots of good people on this forum with all sorts of skills and experience who surely have ideas of what can be done to move us forward in a positive direction but repetition of kneejerk responses does not do so.

So if I put the idea on a PowerPoint - does it become a strategy? You say it is repeated a number of times, which it is.. but that's because no one has actually done it have they?

Encouraging fans to attend as many games as they can is not a kneejerk response is it?

What evidence? The evidence of substantial income windfall provided by a massive increase in attendances you mean?

The evidence that in reality the windfall of the Arsenal game, the Clarke and Wilson monies have gone on the day to day running of the club, paying for wages for new players and the like.

You used to send out a weekly mailshot (not sure if you still do?)... why can't you encourage fans on your mailing list to attend as many games as they can to get behind the team?

It might not involve a protest, press conference, photoshoot or name check.... but at least it would be productive and could have a positive impact on the team.
You say that just getting behind the team won't lead to change... but you don't know that at all.

Is it because in reality you don't want to because it will take away from blaming SISU?

Nick · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
For the doubters and ones that call me a liar. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-reveal-details-8112794 quote from no other than Tim Fisher.

You still haven't re-read it back through have you?

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

Leading up to and the following few months after the takeover of CCFC. The Ricoh regularly had "Crowds" of well over 20-21k. After the sales of Scot Dann, and Danny Fox, the writing was on the wall as to what "The SISU agenda" was. Hence the gradual decline in attendances over the next couple of seasons ending up to a meagre 6-7k before taking CCFC. "Lock, Stock, and Barrel" to Northampton. I put it to you Ian1779. that it's NOT up to people like Micheal, and Sky Blue Trust, to encourage fans to re-engage in support of the team, it's up to our owners to shift their bloody ar**s and put serious backing to the cause of getting CCFC back to a good level and standard of football ie- minimum Championship, or even better Premiership football. Would you give your blessing for your daughter to go back to a partner that battered the s**t out of her for 7 years? Yes...No? over to you.

Ian1779 · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
Leading up to and the following few months after the takeover of CCFC. The Ricoh regularly had "Crowds" of well over 20-21k. After the sales of Scot Dann, and Danny Fox, the writing was on the wall as to what "The SISU agenda" was. Hence the gradual decline in attendances over the next couple of seasons ending up to a meagre 6-7k before taking CCFC. "Lock, Stock, and Barrel" to Northampton. I put it to you Ian1779. that it's NOT up to people like Micheal, and Sky Blue Trust, to encourage fans to re-engage in support of the team, it's up to our owners to shift their bloody ar**s and put serious backing to the cause of getting CCFC back to a good level and standard of football ie- minimum Championship, or even better Premiership football. Would you give your blessing for your daughter to go back to a partner that battered the s**t out of her for 7 years? Yes...No? over to you.

Firstly, your analogy is crass... have a bit of class.

Secondly, of course it's the responsibility of the owners to engage the fan base, make the product better, give them deals (£5 for JPT games as an example is a great idea) and attendances should improve. But what is wrong with other people of influence supporting this?

Is the existence of the Trust or any other person/body to only work in a different direction to the club?

Sky Blue Kid · Jan 9, 2015

I apologise if you think my analogy is "Crass" and Classless"....What does that make of the Millionaire Tim Fisher when he says "We batter people in court?"

Godiva · Jan 9, 2015

Sky Blue Kid said:
Leading up to and the following few months after the takeover of CCFC. The Ricoh regularly had "Crowds" of well over 20-21k. After the sales of Scot Dann, and Danny Fox, the writing was on the wall as to what "The SISU agenda" was. Hence the gradual decline in attendances over the next couple of seasons ...

Dann and Fox played here in the seasons 2007/08 and 2008/09.

Average Attendances:

2006/07: 20.342
2007/08: 19.123
2008/09: 17.407
2009/10: 17.305

So attendances dropped while they were here and the season after they left the crowd was unchanged.

There is absolutely no evidence to support what you say.

ccfcway · Jan 9, 2015

this thread is about as positive as a CCFC balance sheet

A positive thread (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency