Councillor Kevin Maton (3 Viewers)

[Flying Fokker]

Only solution is to move away from the Ricoh.
We will lose some fans who will not follow CCFC if they are outside Coventry even if it is only Rugby or Leamington. On the other hand we will also gain fans from wherever we move to.
I hope we till ACL/CCC to get stuffed:jerkit:

So, may lose 80% of fans?

Not interested in seeing Rugby or Leamington play. Ricoh/city or nowhere. Crowds of 2000? Great idea.

 

---

[shropshirecov]

Most, if not all of us agree we need to own the stadium, rightly or wrongly they will never sell to sisu, now we have it from a councullior that they don't want to sell to a private owner.
It should be made clear to the current owners that THEY are at best gonna be holding us back, at worst killing us.

Make it clear how much they want for the entire stadium and what criteria any prospective new owners must meet. If anyones interested lets see the colour of their money, at least make it possible and viable for someone.


*Just my opinion, what do I know,

 

[RedSalmon]

Didn't hear all of what Councillor Mutton said at the time, but I suspect it may well be posturing for any future appeal/challenge SISU may put up with regards to some future purchase of the stadium. It seemed a strange thing to come out with at this time, given what we are going through.

Just an opinion.

 

[Black6Osprey]

Didn't hear all of what Councillor Mutton said at the time, but I suspect it may well be posturing for any future appeal/challenge SISU may put up with regards to some future purchase of the stadium. It seemed a strange thing to come out with at this time, given what we are going through.

Just an opinion.

It was Councillor Kevin Maton not Councillor Mutton. I know it's a similar name and they both have a similar attitude and its not a good one as far as CCFC goes.

 

[torchomatic]

Mmm...not sure about that. Their "posturing" could put potential investors off. Why would anyone invest in a Club if they a) had to keep paying rent to ACL and b) pay to regenerate the local area. Seems like the CCC/ACL monster is getting it all and, once again, the Club are getting a crap deal.

Mutton should come out and make a statement. Make things clear once and for all.

Didn't hear all of what Councillor Mutton said at the time, but I suspect it may well be posturing for any future appeal/challenge SISU may put up with regards to some future purchase of the stadium. It seemed a strange thing to come out with at this time, given what we are going through.

Just an opinion.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I knew the council would never sell, shows at least 50% of ACL have not got the interests of CCFC at heart!

 

[shropshirecov]

I knew the council would never sell, shows at least 50% of ACL have not got the interests of CCFC at heart!

The council represent you. If there was enough will, they would have no choice.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The council represent you. If there was enough will, they would have no choice.

I wouldn't vote for Labour (or, LibDem and I'd never vote Tory, never ever ever!).

When I do vote, I won't vote on policy for CCFC, I vote on issues like tax, NHS, economic policy, etc. etc. national issues, not a small time stadium in Coventry, and most people don't vote for their MP, they vote for the party on the national stage (one reason of many I don't like FPTP) so no, I reject that notion.

The council nor state should have no business with regards to running clubs nor their stadium, nor backing up a private company that runs the ground! The only responsibility they have is funding the FA to increase Grass Roots participation etc.

My step-dad (Millwall fan) said to me a couple of years ago, when I was younger and even more naive, that I'd be silly to think the council would sell the stadium to CCFC, he was right. The CCC will say use HR as an example (what did we actually do wrong? I genuinely don't know) but it's got nothing to do with that, all they're interested in is the money, profit, New Labour has betrayed its Socialist founding principles and it stinks.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Only caught a bit of this guy on CWR on way back from game. He was the last caller and pretty much got cut short but from what I heard, the council do not agree that the stadium should ever be in the complete control of the football club and they should only ever get a share. He cited our failure to look after Highfield Road as why the club shouldn't have full ownership.

Didn't get a good vibe listening to this as I still believe full ownership is the only real way forward.

Perhaps when the administrator does his audit the councillor may regret his statement
As it was said don't let the genie out of the bottle!

 

[ashbyjan]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

 

[mark82]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

In my eyes it would be better for the club to be in complete control of all of its assets. I guess as long as we take 100% of the revenue and profit from all stadium activities ownership doesn't matter. Presumably though we won't get 100% unless we own 100%.

 

[Grendel]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

Name one team outside the premiership that is successful which either does not own the stadium or rents it for less than £100,000 and owns the rights to 100% of revenues.

I only exclude the premiership because of Manchester city.

Surely the trust should really do a study of all council owned stadiums, scrutinise what they get and compare this to Amy arrangement this club has been offered. I think when you do your view will be very different.

 

[torchomatic]

Personally more important for me is why should a club who WON'T own it's own stadium have to pay to regenerate the surrounding area? If CCFC do NOT own the Arena then surely the Council/ACL should do that?

It is VITAL we own it, in my opinion. We don't want outside interference from a Council.

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

Think about it, we own the RICOH, we get the revenues of any event held at the RICOH, concerts, sports events etc. its huge potential for the club.

Jan, I'm about to join the Trust, but talk like this is why I've criticised the SBT for not having a business mind, don't put me off.

 

[tisza]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

No problem. We need the stadium so AVRO can slap a charge on it to protect their money even more and then for SISU to decide it is unfair to take on the 14 million loan the council organized for the ACL. So they stop paying that back and then we can go through another admin in a couple of years.

 

[Grendel]

Personally more important for me is why should a club who WON'T own it's own stadium have to pay to regenerate the surrounding area? If CCFC do NOT own the Arena then surely the Council/ACL should do that?

It is VITAL we own it, in my opinion. We don't want outside interference from a Council.

Exactly. The trust should be putting all its efforts into this. This must be the number one priority.

 

[Grendel]

No problem. We need the stadium so AVRO can slap a charge on it to protect their money even more and then for SISU to decide it is unfair to take on the 14 million loan the council organized for the ACL. So they stop paying that back and then we can go through another admin in a couple of years.

At least we know who you work for. Thanks.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

As an aside-if the club owned the whole facility would that not make it responsible for all non footballing events, which it isn't suited to handling? Zero rent and full revenue is clearly the best we can aim for.

 

[stupot07]

As an aside-if the club owned the whole facility would that not make it responsible for all non footballing events, which it isn't suited to handling? Zero rent and full revenue is clearly the best we can aim for.

Wouldn't the club just employ an events team to handle that side of the operation?

 

[torchomatic]

Not sure why you think the club couldn't do it. They would just employ specialist staff, I would presume.

As an aside-if the club owned the whole facility would that not make it responsible for all non footballing events, which it isn't suited to handling? Zero rent and full revenue is clearly the best we can aim for.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Not sure why you think the club couldn't do it. They would just employ specialist staff, I would presume.

I suppose because the club has barely shown an ability to manage itself let alone non-footballing matters! I'm confident that a new owner can get the Higgs share, especially at the knockdown price being touted. The council's stance on their share I find difficult to understand.

 

[shropshirecov]

Can someone explain why it is vital to own the stadium? Surely what is vital is to have access to the revenue streams and have a good working relationship with the stadium operators/owners.

Seriously, after everything you can't see why it's vital we own the stadium??

I give up.

 

[ashbyjan]

Name one team outside the premiership that is successful which either does not own the stadium or rents it for less than £100,000 and owns the rights to 100% of revenues.

I only exclude the premiership because of Manchester city.

Surely the trust should really do a study of all council owned stadiums, scrutinise what they get and compare this to Amy arrangement this club has been offered. I think when you do your view will be very different.

The question wasn't about the level of the rent, although I agree we should always strive to get as low a rent as possible for the good of the club - the questions was about ownership. My premise is that stadium ownership is not intrinsically necessary for financial stability. The importance is revenue streams and having access to those and to talk of building a new stadium just to get those when with proper negotiation the club could get them here makes no sense financially. Extra revenue would be £250k (being generous) and cost of being homeless and building a new stadium £25m more on the debt - long payback I would suggest.

As for what has been offered in the current negotiations I would temper that with the observation that any negotiations have been done were done in an antagonistic and non co-operative atmosphere (from both parties) and that is never going to be conducive to getting a good deal for anyone.

 

[ashbyjan]

Think about it, we own the RICOH, we get the revenues of any event held at the RICOH, concerts, sports events etc. its huge potential for the club.

Jan, I'm about to join the Trust, but talk like this is why I've criticised the SBT for not having a business mind, don't put me off.

Are you therefore suggesting that the council should simply hand the club the stadium for nothing? If they did that would be fantastic but in the real world is that likely, let alone legal? And just so I am clear about this are you talking about being handed ACL for free or the freehold?

 

[speedie87]

We should all make sure ricoh ownership is an important issue when voting for the Next council elections take place

 

[Grendel]

Are you therefore suggesting that the council should simply hand the club the stadium for nothing? If they did that would be fantastic but in the real world is that likely, let alone legal? And just so I am clear about this are you talking about being handed ACL for free or the freehold?

There are examples of councils who handed the management company to the club FOC. We played one of them yesterday.

 

[ashbyjan]

Seriously, after everything you can't see why it's vital we own the stadium??

I give up.

Instead of giving up just explain? There are plenty of clubs who don't own their stadiums, what we have is a bad deal here and need access to the revenues which we don't have at present.

 

[Grendel]

Instead of giving up just explain? There are plenty of clubs who don't own their stadiums, what we have is a bad deal here and need access to the revenues which we don't have at present.

This though includes revenues from all non football related matters as well.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Instead of giving up just explain? There are plenty of clubs who don't own their stadiums, what we have is a bad deal here and need access to the revenues which we don't have at present.

Just to clarify Jan-were we to get the 'open book' access as proposed by ACL, how much would this contribute to our turnover?

 

[ashbyjan]

There are examples of councils who handed the management company to the club FOC. We played one of them yesterday.

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.

 

[Black6Osprey]

. My premise is that stadium ownership is not intrinsically necessary for financial stability. The importance is revenue streams and having access to those and to talk of building a new stadium just to get those when with proper negotiation the club could get them here makes no sense financially. Extra revenue would be £250k (being generous) and cost of being homeless and building a new stadium £25m more on the debt - long payback I would suggest.
.

So are you suggesting that are mere £250k of extra revenue would make us financially stable??

The problem is there are so many fingers in the pie we are never going to get enough financially out of the stadium. To buy the stadium is never going to happen as pay back will be after we are all dead and building a new stadium is equally long winded.

We are stuffed whichever way you look at it.

 

[ashbyjan]

Just to clarify Jan-were we to get the 'open book' access as proposed by ACL, how much would this contribute to our turnover?

In a championship season £1m approx, due to lower attendences and sales this year it would have been about £650k.

 

[ashbyjan]

So are you suggesting that are mere £250k of extra revenue would make us financially stable??

The problem is there are so many fingers in the pie we are never going to get enough financially out of the stadium. To buy the stadium is never going to happen as pay back will be after we are all dead and building a new stadium is equally long winded.

We are stuffed whichever way you look at it.

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.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Are you therefore suggesting that the council should simply hand the club the stadium for nothing? If they did that would be fantastic but in the real world is that likely, let alone legal? And just so I am clear about this are you talking about being handed ACL for free or the freehold?

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)?

 

[Baginton]

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