Ann lucas (2 Viewers)

[Hobo]

Seppala Fisher digging their heels in, like they always have.

Whichever way you look at their finances there is no comfort for Coventry City FC....can't believe some are so dumb to it.

 

---

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

just to add to that, at the beginning of the year it was all about F & B and car parking, now its all about the freehold that the club doesn't need (just to be clear, WE NEED THE LEASEHOLD FOR REVENUE ACCESS & NOTHING MORE).

presumably the F & B line was about winning hearts and minds before holding the club to ransom in Northampton and revealing what they wanted all along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQk0VPX3nY

 

[skybluetony176]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQk0VPX3nY

i think you're right Susan.

just for the record all Susan's are evil. but that's a story for off topic, bitch.

 

[whiteheadj]

don't care anymore just don't sell freehold its worth more to the people of cov than what SISU want to pay

Completely agree if I remember correctly were we not told sisu left due to the fact the rent was too high? So what all the people saying the cards are in the council hands are accepting sisu's lies and justifying there actions. As a tax payer on all levels I agree, the asset that is the Ricoh is worth more too us as a community asset than any amounts off money a faceless offshore hedge fund could offer.

 

[whiteheadj]

In the long-term the Club or it's Owners must own and run the stadium with access to ALL revenue streams, renting is not an option!

Northampton is temporary one way or the other! LOL

Right so it's ok for the owners to own the stadium but then rent it back to the football club (as sisu have already stated they would do) and most likely in the process rack lots off debt up in the process for there gain?

As I support my football club if we build a new stadium it must be the football clubs.

Or do sisu have other interests and couldn't really care about our club and are basically using the football club to get a business on the cheap.

Hmmm the mind boggles

 

[whiteheadj]

Keep hearing renting is not an option .......... so why is it not an option ?

ACL effectively rent the place (they paid rent up front as a premium) and they own ALL the income from the site. I would suspect they would be more than happy to extend the lease to 99 or more years and never own the freehold.

What that means is CCFC would have to control ACL to get control of ALL the income streams, with a long lease you get to control site development too

So why wouldnt that work for CCFC also ? why must they own the freehold?

I totally agree, we left because we were told we could not afford the rent. That was a lie. Our club is being used as a weapon by sisu to get hold of the Ricoh. If they want the Ricoh they need to come back as tenets and prove to all us tax paying coventry people we can even trust them with our investment. After all it's our hard earned money which built the stadium.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Completely agree if I remember correctly were we not told sisu left due to the fact the rent was too high? So what all the people saying the cards are in the council hands are accepting sisu's lies and justifying there actions. As a tax payer on all levels I agree, the asset that is the Ricoh is worth more too us as a community asset than any amounts off money a faceless offshore hedge fund could offer.

Yes white, I believe that was the case, along with a cut in the pie money. So a rent free option would certainly blow that argument out - they'd have to pay match day costs (policing, stewarding etc) weather they play at the Ricoh, Sixfields, HR2, so that shouldn't be a factor. If they want a cut of the pie money, they have to buy into ACL or the Higgs, they can't just be given that too.

I don't believe the council/ACL have been entirely fair to CCFC over the years, but they are the only ones currently making concessions and trying to offer something that is in line with other clubs who don't own their own ground. Regardless if the Ricoh is used as a community asset, its owned by the community's caretakers and they can't just give it away. Our fan base realistically is only a tenth of the number of people living in Cov, how fair is that on the rest of the ratepayers who don't like football but still have to pay for other local authority services.

 

[shmmeee]

It is all well and good her saying that, but on what terms? So many people are now listening to every word she says but when the Marlon King saga happened some (not all people) were slating her.

Some people Nick, care more about the argument being made than the person making it.

 

[shmmeee]

Keep hearing renting is not an option .......... so why is it not an option ?

ACL effectively rent the place (they paid rent up front as a premium) and they own ALL the income from the site. I would suspect they would be more than happy to extend the lease to 99 or more years and never own the freehold.

What that means is CCFC would have to control ACL to get control of ALL the income streams, with a long lease you get to control site development too

So why wouldnt that work for CCFC also ? why must they own the freehold?

You'll get no replies from the usual suspects as Joy hasn't answered that question so they don't know what to say. Kind of proves they have no sentient thought really.

 

[whiteheadj]

Yes white, I believe that was the case, along with a cut in the pie money. So a rent free option would certainly blow that argument out - they'd have to pay match day costs (policing, stewarding etc) weather they play at the Ricoh, Sixfields, HR2, so that shouldn't be a factor. If they want a cut of the pie money, they have to buy into ACL or the Higgs, they can't just be given that too.

I don't believe the council/ACL have been entirely fair to CCFC over the years, but they are the only ones currently making concessions and trying to offer something that is in line with other clubs who don't own their own ground. Regardless if the Ricoh is used as a community asset, its owned by the community's caretakers and they can't just give it away. Our fan base realistically is only a tenth of the number of people living in Cov, how fair is that on the rest of the ratepayers who don't like football but still have to pay for other local authority services.

I agree but the Ricoh makes money (unlike most other public owned organisations) lol so we are actually going to get some sort of our investment back which is good. Maybe it could be managed better to get more potential out of the stadium but I'm no expert.

Previous owners signed the rent agreement and sisu were awear of the rent when they bought the club. At the end of the day the agreement on the rent was made thinking we'd be back in the pl or when we were in it. Sisu only became interested in the rent when they realised owning the club didn't mean they were entitled to buy the ground on the cheap. They are using it as an excuse and also a weapon to get the Ricoh. Let's face it if there was any blame on anyone other than the owners past and present it would only equate to 1%.

 

[skybluefred]

If Ann Lucas wants CCFC back at the Ricoh then Ann should make clear to Sisu two things:

Firstly - Whether the Freehold of the Arena is for sale?

Secondly - At what price is the Arena Freehold for sale?

If Sisu then choose not to negotiate for a Rental Agreement (which they have already stated their not interested in) or don't feel that the value of the Arena is a fair amount and choose not to do business then by all means build a new ground or enquire about an independant valuation of the Arena Freehold.

Independent valuations do not come into it,if anybody wants to sell something they put their asking price on it, which,
may be negotiable within a small percentage. On the other hand if somebody wants to buy something that is not
for sale, then they must make an offer which is attractive enough for the owner to consider it.
If the figure of £4m is a true reflection of sisu's valuation then they had better start work on their own cow shed in
the backwaters of nowhere.
The Ricoh and all it's surrounding development land must be worth a 6 figure sum .

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You'll get no replies from the usual suspects as Joy hasn't answered that question so they don't know what to say. Kind of proves they have no sentient thought really.

I was going to leave it, as it's not the only reason anyway...

But the prosaic reason for freehold is as said in Seppala's interview with the CT, she can't work with the council and they can't work with her, so best to cut all ties where possible.

Now the above reason doesn't alter the fact that they still have to work with the council on things such as planning permission, but it's a perfectly reasonable and rational reason.

Of course she hasn't said that explicitly...

I was hoping the Hull chairman would offer up a reason, but he's equally enigmatic!

Having been deprived of opportunities to acquire the stadium freehold, which would have enabled us to create the infrastructure in the surrounding area

​

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Independent valuations do not come into it,if anybody wants to sell something they put their asking price on it, which,
may be negotiable within a small percentage. On the other hand if somebody wants to buy something that is not
for sale, then they must make an offer which is attractive enough for the owner to consider it.

By that measure, if independent valuations are irrelevant, then surely that opens up the owners to their anchor tennants buggering off in order to make ACL's position untenable, and have them desperate to sell...

 

[bigfatronssba]

I was going to leave it, as it's not the only reason anyway...

But the prosaic reason for freehold is as said in Seppala's interview with the CT, she can't work with the council and they can't work with her, so best to cut all ties where possible.

Now the above reason doesn't alter the fact that they still have to work with the council on things such as planning permission, but it's a perfectly reasonable and rational reason.

Of course she hasn't said that explicitly...

I was hoping the Hull chairman would offer up a reason, but he's equally enigmatic!

​

A professional doesn't allow personal feelings get in the way of the correct business deal.

I don't like most of the people I work with, however I have to keep my personal opinions to myself.

If the stupid cow feels that strongly about Coventry council, then she shouldn't have bought an iconic Coventry business.

 

[skybluefred]

By that measure, if independent valuations are irrelevant, then surely that opens up the owners to their anchor tennants buggering off in order to make ACL's position untenable, and have them desperate to sell...

Not so, ACL have a viable business without sisu or CCFC. It's not black & white but I would think it very likely that sisu
if they got the freehold of the Ricoh they would liquidate CCFC.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not so, ACL have a viable business without sisu or CCFC. It's not black & white but I would think it very likely that sisu
if they got the freehold of the Ricoh they would liquidate CCFC.

That doesn't stack up logically though.

If ACL is viable without CCFC, then they won't get it on the cheap;

If it isn't viable without CCFC, there's no reason to liquidate (again) CCFC on obtaining it.