Video Bryan Richardson Interview | Final Comments (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Newsbot
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It seems to be the latter but unsure for what purpose. There isn't as much direct criticism of the council but definitely criticism if Robinson et al which seems valid. The Roland Nilsson video is interesting, we were going well in January 2002 yet they inexplicably brought in Jim Smith after Richardson went, disaster and the rest is history.
Edit: Smith was brought in whilst Richardson was still at the club, interviewer should have asked about that
Edit: Smith was brought in whilst Richardson was still at the club, interviewer should have asked about that
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
To be honest his comments raise more questions than they solve the history. His selective memory where he can remember a particular day in the 1990's but not the figures that paint him in a bad light devalues his contribution for me. Some of the comments seem like the comments of a dreamer.
For example, whilst it could well be true the Tesco deal meant there would be income from rents, he neglects to say that those rents would have had to be applied to the repayment of the build costs. If you assume the CCC contribution £10m and the Prudential funding £21m were the hole in the finances then applying the rents at £1.6m pa, a bank base rate at 4% in 2002 and finance margin at 2% above base rate would mean it would take well over 35 years to repay. (starting from when it opened in 2005). It wouldn't provide extra funding for the team until at least 2040.
It may have been that the club had access to more trading income of course, but look at the losses and cash flow deficits since then would that access have rid us of all those? Especially if that income was being ploughed in to the team. Maybe maybe not and i am not confident under the old ownership that it would, track record we know was not good
Very little had been spent on the new stadium by the time he left in January 2002 ? The audited accounts say the club was contracted to pay out over £17m by that time and didn't have the means to do it. Hardly small numbers
The club only owed the bank £8m ? The audited accounts show it was over £20m in overdrafts and bank loans. But you cannot ignore the other liabilities by describing them as soft loans, they are still liabilities and payable, all £60m of it. It also ignores that the option on the site securing the £13m still owed for the costs already spent, had lapsed with no way for the club to finance repayment or site purchase. By the time he left the club was living hand to mouth with little or no access to new funding and the bank was less than sympathetic. Never have understood why you would spend £17m on something you were yet to own.
As for his bonus, well that's a bonus on a deal that never happened isn't it? The club never got the deal over the line but he got paid anyway? In actual fact the grand scheme he led ultimately left the club in a worse position. Bottom line is it was by reason of his employment and he earnt over £600k including pension
Yes he does point to CCC not being that helpful, I would have a lot of sympathy for that. I think CCC have been one of the root causes of the financial mess surrounding the stadium. However you cannot say in one breath the club should not have had anything to do with the council and in the next expect them to underwrite the stadium build finance risk without expecting them to be involved. It just would not happen
As said by others this was a PR piece pointing towards how the previous owners and CCC got it all wrong. They did, but that doesn't excuse what has gone on since then. 2007/08 should have been an opportunity for a clean slate ............. it wasn't taken. It didn't have to be that way.
Yes i know thats just my opinion. But i think you have to look behind what is said, join up the dots with what is known and to also ask why was it said. There are too many gaps and contradictions in what he has said
For example, whilst it could well be true the Tesco deal meant there would be income from rents, he neglects to say that those rents would have had to be applied to the repayment of the build costs. If you assume the CCC contribution £10m and the Prudential funding £21m were the hole in the finances then applying the rents at £1.6m pa, a bank base rate at 4% in 2002 and finance margin at 2% above base rate would mean it would take well over 35 years to repay. (starting from when it opened in 2005). It wouldn't provide extra funding for the team until at least 2040.
It may have been that the club had access to more trading income of course, but look at the losses and cash flow deficits since then would that access have rid us of all those? Especially if that income was being ploughed in to the team. Maybe maybe not and i am not confident under the old ownership that it would, track record we know was not good
Very little had been spent on the new stadium by the time he left in January 2002 ? The audited accounts say the club was contracted to pay out over £17m by that time and didn't have the means to do it. Hardly small numbers
The club only owed the bank £8m ? The audited accounts show it was over £20m in overdrafts and bank loans. But you cannot ignore the other liabilities by describing them as soft loans, they are still liabilities and payable, all £60m of it. It also ignores that the option on the site securing the £13m still owed for the costs already spent, had lapsed with no way for the club to finance repayment or site purchase. By the time he left the club was living hand to mouth with little or no access to new funding and the bank was less than sympathetic. Never have understood why you would spend £17m on something you were yet to own.
As for his bonus, well that's a bonus on a deal that never happened isn't it? The club never got the deal over the line but he got paid anyway? In actual fact the grand scheme he led ultimately left the club in a worse position. Bottom line is it was by reason of his employment and he earnt over £600k including pension
Yes he does point to CCC not being that helpful, I would have a lot of sympathy for that. I think CCC have been one of the root causes of the financial mess surrounding the stadium. However you cannot say in one breath the club should not have had anything to do with the council and in the next expect them to underwrite the stadium build finance risk without expecting them to be involved. It just would not happen
As said by others this was a PR piece pointing towards how the previous owners and CCC got it all wrong. They did, but that doesn't excuse what has gone on since then. 2007/08 should have been an opportunity for a clean slate ............. it wasn't taken. It didn't have to be that way.
Yes i know thats just my opinion. But i think you have to look behind what is said, join up the dots with what is known and to also ask why was it said. There are too many gaps and contradictions in what he has said
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
In the soap opera that is CCFC, I hope McGinnity, Robinson and Richardson have all written down their versions of the 'truth' that will all be revealed when they're all dead, and there's no confidentiality agreement to hold them to.
It'd be great reading... taking aside who we all support, anyway!
It'd be great reading... taking aside who we all support, anyway!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think by 2007/08 the opportunity for a genuine clean slate was gone as the arrangements at the Ricoh were in place with a council seemingly unwilling at that point to revisit them.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The ticking clock was an opportunity to put pressure on more than just the individual shareholders, however.