Councillor Kevin Maton (2 Viewers)

[tisza]

how is ACL's debt £14m, if the club only owes them £1.4m ?

ACL took out a loan to pay the owners a one-off fee rather than a yearly fee. The debt is the bank loan the council helped with to pay off this original loan.

 

---

[stupot07]

I am saying the exact opposite - if the clubs very future financial stability revolves around a bit of extra f&b then we are in trouble. The biggest problem we have is a wage bill that outstrips our income and the gap is far bigger than the £250k. All this is a bit of a red herring and certainly no reason to be upping sticks and building new stadiums.

Our future financial stability is reliant on a sugar daddy owner who is happy to fund losses and invest in the squad. That's what the majority of fans want, they're not interest in us becoming self sufficient.

 

[Black6Osprey]

I am saying the exact opposite - if the clubs very future financial stability revolves around a bit of extra f&b then we are in trouble. The biggest problem we have is a wage bill that outstrips our income and the gap is far bigger than the £250k. All this is a bit of a red herring and certainly no reason to be upping sticks and building new stadiums.

So how do you purpose we bridge that gap? Where does the problem lie? why would anyone invest?

The Trust has mentioned Swansea as a great example of what can be achieved but I have mentioned a few times that Swansea made an £8m loss to gain promotion in to the Premier. They made a £14 m profit in the Premier. They speculated to accumulate so to speak. The Trust would I assume do the opposite of Swansea and use cheap youth team players and end up playing in the Ricoh in the conference.

 

[tisza]

Our future financial stability is reliant on a sugar daddy owner who is happy to fund losses and invest in the squad. That's what the majority of fans want, they're not interest in us becoming self sufficient.

Doesn't this apply to nearly all the clubs in the top couple of divisions?

 

[ashbyjan]

Where did I say we'll get it for free or even should get it for free!?

I can remember some tool, can't remember who, it was a few months back, suggesting that after everything is paid off (loan etc.) that ACL would hand the RICOH back to the club under the ownership of the trust, now that's utopian!

Obviously the club will have to pay for it, if CCC do sell, it'll be well beyond market value, didn't they once tout 60-80 or 80-100m but now want 40m (Les Reid)?

The charity 50% is available to the club at a fixed formula up until 2015 (I believe) but in these days I am sure they would be open to a deal as they want to get the money out and put it to use for their charitable efforts and not be tied up earning nothing at the Ricoh. The problem is that SISU's relationship with ACL and thereby the charity is such that they are unlikely to ever be in a position to do a deal - as I said earlier the trust has disappeared and is unlikely to ever be rebuilt.

SISU had the chance to buy the charity half in the summer but decided to pull out - is this because they realised that the return on their investment would not be worth it? In other words there is no value in buying ACL. None of us have been through ACL's books with a fine tooth comb but their published accounts show a reasonable business, making a modest profit but nothing stunning obviously nothing that made SISU believe it was worth it.

So if the charity's side was unattractive at whatever the agreed sum was, lets assume Les Reid is right, £4m we can only assume that ACL is not a licence to print money.

 

[ashbyjan]

So how do you purpose we bridge that gap? Where does the problem lie? why would anyone invest?

The Trust has mentioned Swansea as a great example of what can be achieved but I have mentioned a few times that Swansea made an £8m loss to gain promotion in to the Premier. They made a £14 m profit in the Premier. They speculated to accumulate so to speak. The Trust would I assume do the opposite of Swansea and use cheap youth team players and end up playing in the Ricoh in the conference.

The Trust is not saying we copy the Swansea model, though I would be quite happy with their success, or the Pompey model or anyone elses model because every clubs circumstances are different and what we are working towards is a Coventry model to take into account our unique circumstances. But if you look at Swansea they didn't suddenly go millions into debt when they took over the club, they built it up slowly and on the basis of doing what they could afford at any one time. It is only this season I beleive that they are building their own training ground, up to now they have used a shared municipal facility. They have been very prudent and well managed and for that they should provide an example and inspiration.

 

[Black6Osprey]

Grendel - the Donny example is interesting. Donny council did indeed hand over the running of the stadium to the club but the main motivation for the council in this was that the stadium was running at a huge loss and this way they handed that liability to the club, despite what has been written I don't believe the Ricoh is running at a loss. No council will do anything for purely altruistic reasons, if there was a good business case for handing over the running of the complex to the club then fine but I cannot see one.

The easiest deal would be the club takes over he running of the stadium (I'm talking future owners rather than SISU ) it continues to pay the £14 m loan back to the council and an agreement is reach that the council/charity get a % of turnover. job done move on.

 

[Black6Osprey]

The Trust is not saying we copy the Swansea model, though I would be quite happy with their success, or the Pompey model or anyone elses model because every clubs circumstances are different and what we are working towards is a Coventry model to take into account our unique circumstances. But if you look at Swansea they didn't suddenly go millions into debt when they took over the club, they built it up slowly and on the basis of doing what they could afford at any one time. It is only this season I beleive that they are building their own training ground, up to now they have used a shared municipal facility. They have been very prudent and well managed and for that they should provide an example and inspiration.

I don't see how an £8 m loss is prudent, it sounds more like a gamble to me.

 

[ashbyjan]

The easiest deal would be the club takes over he running of the stadium (I'm talking future owners rather than SISU ) it continues to pay the £14 m loan back to the council and an agreement is reach that the council/charity get a % of turnover. job done move on.

If you are talking future owners I would happily agree that any deals are possible but I would rather the football club concentrated running the football club and left it to a third party (ACL, IEC or even someone like AEG) to run the stadium. By owning half of ACL (which any new owner would do straight away and something SISU failed to do) gives the club the access to revenue and profits but leaves the running of the stadium to employed third party specialist professionals.

 

[ashbyjan]

I don't see how an £8 m loss is prudent, it sounds more like a gamble to me.

Its only a gamble if you cannot afford to service that debt - Man Utd have massive debts but due to their huge profits can afford that debt. I would have to assume that for the Swansea board, which includes the Swans Trust, they felt that it was worth the investment.

 

[ashbyjan]

The future faced by our club - and lets never forget its our club - is uncertain and there will no doubt be some difficult times ahead but the discussions here show that it is obvious that there are many intelligent fans with a variety of different points of view but in the end we are united by one thing - we all really care about our club. We may have our differences of opinion, that's the nature of football fans and humans in general, but we all care about our club. I would invite you all along to the next Trust meeting, put your points of view across, we are not a myopic organisation and welcome all fans views. What we believe in is that fans deserve a say in the running of their club and not just have to put up with the whims and decisions of self interested owners - we have had this for the past 2 decades and look where we are?

 

[Black6Osprey]

If you are talking future owners I would happily agree that any deals are possible but I would rather the football club concentrated running the football club and left it to a third party (ACL, IEC or even someone like AEG) to run the stadium. By owning half of ACL (which any new owner would do straight away and something SISU failed to do) gives the club the access to revenue and profits but leaves the running of the stadium to employed third party specialist professionals.

But what revenue and profits? They only made £1m profit when the rent was being payed. I also don't understand the revenue aspect. If some level of turnover is allowed to be shown on CCFC books therefore in theory raising the amount allowed to be spent on wages in accordance with FFP. It is only on paper. Say turnover became £8m with 60% FFP this would give £4.8 m wages. But we still wouldn't really have that money it's just the turnover is showing on the books. How is that sustainable? I don't really get it.

 

[wingy]

But what revenue and profits? They only made £1m profit when the rent was being payed. I also don't understand the revenue aspect. If some level of turnover is allowed to be shown on CCFC books therefore in theory raising the amount allowed to be spent on wages in accordance with FFP. It is only on paper. Say turnover became £8m with 60% FFP this would give £4.8 m wages. But we still wouldn't really have that money it's just the turnover is showing on the books. How is that sustainable? I don't really get it.

Good Point Black Osprey ,you'd assume it would have to be Owner investment ,which is ................non forthcoming.

 

[ashbyjan]

But what revenue and profits? They only made £1m profit when the rent was being payed. I also don't understand the revenue aspect. If some level of turnover is allowed to be shown on CCFC books therefore in theory raising the amount allowed to be spent on wages in accordance with FFP. It is only on paper. Say turnover became £8m with 60% FFP this would give £4.8 m wages. But we still wouldn't really have that money it's just the turnover is showing on the books. How is that sustainable? I don't really get it.

You are correct its all paper money but we have at present two problems. 1 is a wage bill that we simply cannot afford from the money the club earns and an extra £250K F&B ETC would not bridge this gap, what would be needed is getting some or all of the high earners either off the books or onto smaller contracts. 2. The FFP argument is that our current wages account for more than the 60% of revenue allowed under FFP next season so that would instantly put us into transfer embargo. So by showing a basically fake revenue we get round the FFP problem and avoid embargo but the fundamental problem is the wages.

As for ACL's profits please remember that the accounts we see are all historic and in the past 9 months ACL have done loads of cost saving and restructuring and are now a very different business than the one reflected in those accounts recently published so I would predict that ACL will be in profit not withstanding the clubs rent. I would say that their cost cutting and streamlining is reflected in their ability to cut the rent demand from £1.2m to £400k.

 

[James Smith]

Don't agree with the councillor that the club shouldn't own the Ricoh or at least the lease on it, but is he stating a personal opinion or council policy and let us not forget that the board of ACL only has two council appointed directors initial. What is clear to me is that SISU have ruined their chances of buying the Ricoh. As PWKH said SISU stopped negotiating for the charity share and just buggered off, which is an interesting tactic. Then they stopped paying the rent which is another clever way of showing your commitment to the people you'd have to deal with. What I do think is a good idea is the stadium being financially able to support the club with non footballing revenue. So the club isn't just dependent on what they can generate now, which as we all know isn't a lot.

What PWKH said on this issue makes a lot of sense and aren't ACL spending money (which would reduce profits) at the moment on extending facilities at the Ricoh like the hotel for example? I'm going to go and check what he has posted on this.

 

[ashbyjan]

James - ACL's current policy is that all profits are ploughed back into the business - neither of the owners, council and charity, take any dividends from the business. The stipulation was that this would continue until the Yorkshire Bank loan was paid off - now the debt is to the Council itself we will have to see if there is a change of policy.

 

[James Smith]

Okay that makes sense and helps develop the Ricoh which is a good thing for Coventry. So theoretically if they continue with this policy even though the mortgage payments are going to the council not YB, ACL can still invest in the Arena. Then that makes it more likely to generate more profit and thus more attractive to any potential new owner of CCFC as it would help the club be self sustaining.

 

[CCFCSteve]

If our ambition is just to survive at this level like Walsall and remain as tenants at the Ricoh then we might as well all give up now.

Think youlll find they're 4 points off play offs.

I agree, in a utopian position we'd all love to own the stadium. Even if the council said a new owner could have it we'd be looking at 30-40m in total. I don't think that's going to change whether we can challenge for promotion over the next couple of years.

Also, maybe after a couple of years of solid ownership a and investment the council (or at least this councillor) will change their view. Who knows.

 

[CCFC_GT]

You are correct its all paper money but we have at present two problems. 1 is a wage bill that we simply cannot afford from the money the club earns and an extra £250K F&B ETC would not bridge this gap, what would be needed is getting some or all of the high earners either off the books or onto smaller contracts. 2. The FFP argument is that our current wages account for more than the 60% of revenue allowed under FFP next season so that would instantly put us into transfer embargo. So by showing a basically fake revenue we get round the FFP problem and avoid embargo but the fundamental problem is the wages.

As for ACL's profits please remember that the accounts we see are all historic and in the past 9 months ACL have done loads of cost saving and restructuring and are now a very different business than the one reflected in those accounts recently published so I would predict that ACL will be in profit not withstanding the clubs rent. I would say that their cost cutting and streamlining is reflected in their ability to cut the rent demand from £1.2m to £400k.

The fundamental problem here is not that CCFC wages are too high, though yes wages could be spent more effectively (in some cases) by employing players that actually earn what they are being paid, and the answer is not to pay players less because generally you get what you pay for and that is not a recipe for success on the field.

The fundamental problem is that CCFC needs to be able to pay even higher wages to attract better players, and for this it needs access to revenues and profits way beyond F&B, to include all revenues and profits from the various activities at the Ricoh Arena. This was the club's original vision for the Ricoh development in the first place. If CCFC is to ever get back to, and be able to compete in the Premiership, it needs this.

If the Council / ACL is prepared to sell the rights to all Ricoh revenue and profit at a reasonable price to CCFC whilst retaining some ownership of the Arena itself and receiving minimal on-going return then fine, let them maintain partial ownership of the Ricoh. Otherwise the Council/ACL should be prepared to sell up completely (to responsible investors).

access to

 

[stupot07]

Doesn't this apply to nearly all the clubs in the top couple of divisions?

Yes but it doesn't mean that it's right. I would actually be far happier knowing that we have a sustainable football club not reliant on someone pouring money in to keep us viable.

 

[Paxman II]

I think the sticking point is why should the council hand over an asset they built to completion and rescued to a private company for free?

Can't argue with that. But....and there is a but.

There are enough arguments about who put what in at the beginning and the football club have contributed to that. It may never have even got done had the original vision not been Coventry City's.. So there is a sense of 'ownership' towards what was built to replace Highfield Road and that has to be taken along with the money the club put in and the time and effort to bring about the fruition of the stadium (which would include the directors efforts at the time...maybe even the money they 'lost' along the way to see it enacted - cue, Richardson?)
The Council can't be so dismissive in the way this councillor on the radio said, it wouldn't be right.

Put a price on all that, put a price on the actually cost spent by the tax payer the council put in - which by definition is not their money but the people of Coventry who pay taxes and have a say on whether they would like to help get their football club to a better state surely?

For me the council should relinquish the freehold completely to the football club to have the stadium and all it's rights but under those various circumstances it does look a bit weighted and too friendly towards any owners. So the right course to take is surely maintain the freehold so it can always be safe guarded as asset to the City. get shot of the middle man that is ACL (always set to be a contentious set up and unworkable) along with the charity of course and hand over a decent prolonged lease of the complete stadium to the football club on say 99 years. the amount of caveats and clauses can be designed to protect the interest of the football club and not the owners who run it. In other words all revenues must be applied to the football club operations. The saleable lease becomes an asset for any owners of the football club and similar to freehold very valuable. It gives a reason for investors to participate, put money in for players etc.

The land around the stadium for development can be a joint venture if with anybody including the football club and held on separate leases not affecting the football club directly but benefitting the developers and owners of the football club to generate money. You don't own the football club then you can't own the land development scenario. Also each lease must be transferable together and can never be sold separately without the football club.
I'm just thinking out loud and that's an avenue I would look to research further and one or something similar that must be taken or this football club will never get another owner. The current owner will simply and eventually have to call it a day.
The immoveable object that is SISU need to be given a deal that would see this eventual outcome happen but they will have to agree a limited participation and accept a way forwards that will realise them some of their investment back. They surely deserve to have that opportunity at the least. Once a sale with new owners is agreed SISU could be paid off as it were to a fixed amount pre agreed on the proviso they continue to run the football club correctly, invest in it's structure and players to keep it attractive to purchasers.
When you have a leasehold business it's as good as a freehold in many respects, you just never own it and that I would, prefer as you never know what crazy owners are next. Clauses will protect our club and stadium from actions such as SISU have undertaken from coming in a ruining everything.
I see no reason to have the presence of a supporters trust. I just don't see a basis for it under the system I suggested or how they could be involved with a lease. The council would retain ultimate control over the lease and clauses placed that would sanction and break the lease if the owners failed I their responsibilities.

Rant over....I'm having a bust day and I've probably just made no sense at all as I ramble...

 

[ashbyjan]

The fundamental problem here is not that CCFC wages are too high, though yes wages could be spent more effectively (in some cases) by employing players that actually earn what they are being paid, and the answer is not to pay players less because generally you get what you pay for and that is not a recipe for success on the field.

The fundamental problem is that CCFC needs to be able to pay even higher wages to attract better players, and for this it needs access to revenues and profits way beyond F&B, to include all revenues and profits from the various activities at the Ricoh Arena. This was the club's original vision for the Ricoh development in the first place. If CCFC is to ever get back to, and be able to compete in the Premiership, it needs this.

If the Council / ACL is prepared to sell the rights to all Ricoh revenue and profit at a reasonable price to CCFC whilst retaining some ownership of the Arena itself and receiving minimal on-going return then fine, let them maintain partial ownership of the Ricoh. Otherwise the Council/ACL should be prepared to sell up completely (to responsible investors).

access to

I agree with the fundamentals but firstly our wages are unbalanced with four players earning 1/3 of the total and this needs addressing. I agree if it makes economic sense to buy into ACL then we can via the Higgs charity 50% but I disagree when some seem to believe we should simply be given the stadium for free or that to survive we must have the stadium. SISU have insisted that ACL is a broke business so makes no money - therefore if that's true the club simply be taking on more debt.

This whole thing is complex and its too simplistic to assume that if we have the stadium all our problems will be solved. With ownership come costs and responsibilities and not simply a flood of money into CCFC's coffers.

 

[Paxman II]

Jan, buying into the current unworkable ACL model is not going to solve anything.
The club needs the stadium. As I said above a lease is the obvious choice.
A lease is transferable meaning a saleable asset. New investors/owners would come flocking.

 

[ashbyjan]

But ACL is nothing more than the leaseholder so what you are asking for is already there or am I not understanding you

 

[CCFC_GT]

I agree with the fundamentals but firstly our wages are unbalanced with four players earning 1/3 of the total and this needs addressing. I agree if it makes economic sense to buy into ACL then we can via the Higgs charity 50% but I disagree when some seem to believe we should simply be given the stadium for free or that to survive we must have the stadium. SISU have insisted that ACL is a broke business so makes no money - therefore if that's true the club simply be taking on more debt.

This whole thing is complex and its too simplistic to assume that if we have the stadium all our problems will be solved. With ownership come costs and responsibilities and not simply a flood of money into CCFC's coffers.

I haven't noticed anyone on here lately suggesting that the club should get the stadium or access to revenue and profits for free, but I do see a growing number that believe the club needs access to all the revenue and profit the Arena can generate, way beyond F&B (and I would suggest more than just a 50% share) in order to progress and return to where we all want it to be, not just survive.

I personally don't care whether CCFC owns the Ricoh so long as it is able to purchase, at a reasonable price, the rights to access to all Ricoh revenues and profits, and providing this is sufficient to attract new investors, but I don't see the Council agreeing to sell just rights to revenues and profits whilst maintaining its stake in the Ricoh either.

Of course ownership of the stadium comes with costs and responsibilities, and it needs to be managed well, but the Council/ACL is not uniquely able to do this, and there is no reason to believe it would be any less successful under new responsible ownership.

 

[ashbyjan]

GT - the two key words in your whole post are "responsible ownership" something which in the eyes of the council we don't have at present and therefore I very much doubt they would ever entertain the idea of selling any revenue streams etc to SISU. I have no problem with the club buying extra revenue streams from the Arena and I certainly do not think ACL have done a faultless job with the Arena and there is nothing to say another non-council owned operator could not do a better job. I would also say that if (and at present that's a big if) we do get new responsible owners then I would see no real reason for the council not to look to sell its share of the leasehold for the right price or for specific revenue streams to be sold to the club. I doubt if the council will ever sell the freehold but that is another matter entirely and not a money generator in the short term. However whilst I agree that new revenue streams would be useful I disagree that without them we cannot survive, we could survive quite happily with the revenue streams from match days, revenue we are currently denied. I basically disagree with this blind assumption that we must own the stadium, when with a bit of creativity we could have all the advantages of ownership without the costs or responsibilities.

 

[James Smith]

I think the sticking point is why should the council hand over an asset they built to completion and rescued to a private company for free?

Can't argue with that. But....and there is a but.

There are enough arguments about who put what in at the beginning and the football club have contributed to that. It may never have even got done had the original vision not been Coventry City's.. So there is a sense of 'ownership' towards what was built to replace Highfield Road and that has to be taken along with the money the club put in and the time and effort to bring about the fruition of the stadium (which would include the directors efforts at the time...maybe even the money they 'lost' along the way to see it enacted - cue, Richardson?)
The Council can't be so dismissive in the way this councillor on the radio said, it wouldn't be right.

Put a price on all that, put a price on the actually cost spent by the tax payer the council put in - which by definition is not their money but the people of Coventry who pay taxes and have a say on whether they would like to help get their football club to a better state surely?

For me the council should relinquish the freehold completely to the football club to have the stadium and all it's rights but under those various circumstances it does look a bit weighted and too friendly towards any owners. So the right course to take is surely maintain the freehold so it can always be safe guarded as asset to the City. get shot of the middle man that is ACL (always set to be a contentious set up and unworkable) along with the charity of course and hand over a decent prolonged lease of the complete stadium to the football club on say 99 years. the amount of caveats and clauses can be designed to protect the interest of the football club and not the owners who run it. In other words all revenues must be applied to the football club operations. The saleable lease becomes an asset for any owners of the football club and similar to freehold very valuable. It gives a reason for investors to participate, put money in for players etc.

The land around the stadium for development can be a joint venture if with anybody including the football club and held on separate leases not affecting the football club directly but benefitting the developers and owners of the football club to generate money. You don't own the football club then you can't own the land development scenario. Also each lease must be transferable together and can never be sold separately without the football club.
I'm just thinking out loud and that's an avenue I would look to research further and one or something similar that must be taken or this football club will never get another owner. The current owner will simply and eventually have to call it a day.
The immoveable object that is SISU need to be given a deal that would see this eventual outcome happen but they will have to agree a limited participation and accept a way forwards that will realise them some of their investment back. They surely deserve to have that opportunity at the least. Once a sale with new owners is agreed SISU could be paid off as it were to a fixed amount pre agreed on the proviso they continue to run the football club correctly, invest in it's structure and players to keep it attractive to purchasers.
When you have a leasehold business it's as good as a freehold in many respects, you just never own it and that I would, prefer as you never know what crazy owners are next. Clauses will protect our club and stadium from actions such as SISU have undertaken from coming in a ruining everything.
I see no reason to have the presence of a supporters trust. I just don't see a basis for it under the system I suggested or how they could be involved with a lease. The council would retain ultimate control over the lease and clauses placed that would sanction and break the lease if the owners failed I their responsibilities.

Rant over....I'm having a bust day and I've probably just made no sense at all as I ramble...

Okay what I would like to be seeing is something vaguely like that, the freehold stays with the council and the club hold the lease which would be a long lease, 99 years or more. The club gets all the revenue from the various activities of the Arena to help fund the football club and pay for the lease. This assumes that the new owner of the club will have enough money to develop the surrounding land so that the Arena generates more profit. SISU have basically managed to piss off the stadium lease owners so much that this can't be them. What do SISU have left in CCFC HOLDINGS that gives them any right to the lease of the stadium as far as I can see, nothing. Again I think SISU don't have a USP here to go all dragons den for a second. They don't have the Golden Share if reports are to be believed so someone could just buy CCFC Ltd and start again with a new team, they could also take up the last offer ACL put on the table and continue to play at the Ricoh.

 

[TurkeyTrot]

Anyone think the jaguar hall is under used for bands and such.

 

[ashbyjan]

Okay what I would like to be seeing is something vaguely like that, the freehold stays with the council and the club hold the lease which would be a long lease, 99 years or more. The club gets all the revenue from the various activities of the Arena to help fund the football club and pay for the lease. This assumes that the new owner of the club will have enough money to develop the surrounding land so that the Arena generates more profit. SISU have basically managed to piss off the stadium lease owners so much that this can't be them.

Agree with this, could be done through 50% of ACL via Higgs and then as owner proves "trustworthy" the councils 50%. I also assume you mean profits after running costs of area are paid and arena is invested in for future developement and expansion. However I would also like the fans to have a major stake in the ownership and governance of the club - investor/developer can make money building and running hotels etc and club can prosper from percentage of profits

 

[Paxman II]

A lease of the stadium to the owners of CCFC (whoever they be) for 99 years.

That is way different to having a council shared ACL/Charity as leaseholders. Currently it's ACL that holds the sway over the Ricoh and all it's revenue streams generated and furthermore from the tenants that it has.

All that must be in the football clubs hands not this separate company that serves only one purpose to make money for itself. That means they maintain the financial stability of the football club in their hands. They want profit for themselves which is a company ultimately operating under a lease from the council. What possible scenario can you envisage where ANY investor will come along and accept that when buying the football club? That's why the whispers were already there about Joe Elliott's efforts and others to secure a buyer but not without securing access to those revenues and that in all seriousness will still not be viable by simply buying a 50% share in ACL. I'm sure Haskell or any other potential buyer will want clear ownership of the stadium. period. That eventually will get accepted by all sides when they awake from their slumber.
I'm saying as outlined above that can be done on a lease for 99 years. It has to happen.
the alternate is the football club moves with it's licence and builds elsewhere which is now even more of an option than ever, leaving the stadium with no anchor tenant. That regardless of the ridiculous suggestion from ACL would be a disaster for them.
This idea that ACL needs to exist is nonsense. It's needs to disband and offers invited for the stadium inclusive of the football club.
that could be struck with SISU now. It would invite big money - enough to pay down some SISU debt and a huge profit for the council/ACL before handing over the all inclusive new lease. That gets rid of SISU who would surely agree to a figure and accept they will not be given that lease.
Gosh when I think of the investors this would attract!! The price would pay off what the council have put in, they still own the stadium and have a great lease with a nice smart rent.

 

[CCFC_GT]

GT - the two key words in your whole post are "responsible ownership" something which in the eyes of the council we don't have at present and therefore I very much doubt they would ever entertain the idea of selling any revenue streams etc to SISU. I have no problem with the club buying extra revenue streams from the Arena and I certainly do not think ACL have done a faultless job with the Arena and there is nothing to say another non-council owned operator could not do a better job. I would also say that if (and at present that's a big if) we do get new responsible owners then I would see no real reason for the council not to look to sell its share of the leasehold for the right price or for specific revenue streams to be sold to the club. I doubt if the council will ever sell the freehold but that is another matter entirely and not a money generator in the short term. However whilst I agree that new revenue streams would be useful I disagree that without them we cannot survive, we could survive quite happily with the revenue streams from match days, revenue we are currently denied. I basically disagree with this blind assumption that we must own the stadium, when with a bit of creativity we could have all the advantages of ownership without the costs or responsibilities.

Yes the keywords are responsible ownership, and I see few on here associating that with SISU, least of all me.

I absolutely disagree that match day revenues are sufficient for CCFC, and we seem to be on a different page on this because you talk about survival while I talk about progression back to where we belong.

 

[James Smith]

Agree with this except I would also like the fans to have a major stake in the ownership and governance of the club - investor/developer can make money building and running hotels etc and club can prosper from percentage of profits

I would imagine that having a representative of the SBT or at the very least someone independent on the board is something a new owner would consider. I read up on Sir Higgs last night and he seemed to be an alright guy despite being on the board through the BR years. His report which I'll admit I only read the conclusions of is about corporate governance which wasn't something that interested me till now. He suggested that there were more independent directors of Companies which would help prevent the directors who work for the company going and doing something silly. And a senior one who would liase with the shareholders, which could be the fans in this case.

Why couldn't we have a similar person here?

 

[James Smith]

A lease of the stadium to the owners of CCFC (whoever they be) for 99 years.

That is way different to having a council shared ACL/Charity as leaseholders. Currently it's ACL that holds the sway over the Ricoh and all it's revenue streams generated and furthermore from the tenants that it has.

All that must be in the football clubs hands not this separate company that serves only one purpose to make money for itself. That means they maintain the financial stability of the football club in their hands. They want profit for themselves which is a company ultimately operating under a lease from the council. What possible scenario can you envisage where ANY investor will come along and accept that when buying the football club? That's why the whispers were already there about Joe Elliott's efforts and others to secure a buyer but not without securing access to those revenues and that in all seriousness will still not be viable by simply buying a 50% share in ACL. I'm sure Haskell or any other potential buyer will want clear ownership of the stadium. period. That eventually will get accepted by all sides when they awake from their slumber.
I'm saying as outlined above that can be done on a lease for 99 years. It has to happen.
the alternate is the football club moves with it's licence and builds elsewhere which is now even more of an option than ever, leaving the stadium with no anchor tenant. That regardless of the ridiculous suggestion from ACL would be a disaster for them.
This idea that ACL needs to exist is nonsense. It's needs to disband and offers invited for the stadium inclusive of the football club.
that could be struck with SISU now. It would invite big money - enough to pay down some SISU debt and a huge profit for the council/ACL before handing over the all inclusive new lease. That gets rid of SISU who would surely agree to a figure and accept they will not be given that lease.
Gosh when I think of the investors this would attract!! The price would pay off what the council have put in, they still own the stadium and have a great lease with a nice smart rent.

Would the administrator want to move the club out of the Ricoh?

 

[mrtickle]

The club should own the arena, end of. The council has no place in the running of the arena if the club is to be successful.

 

[James Smith]

The club should own the arena, end of. The council has no place in the running of the arena if the club is to be successful

.


I think that the club should own a long lease on the Arena but to prevent the new owners from selling the ground the freehold should stay with the council. That way the new club owners can't do something sneaky like have two similar sounding companies and switch the freehold from one to another and then put that company into admin etc.