Coventry City Council have Failed CCFC (21 Viewers)

lewys33 · Mar 9, 2014

I do agree with the OP on this one. ACL COULD have restructured to help both the club, the city and ACL prosper before this all started. However they didnt. Probably 1 of the biggest mistakes the council made was leaving it all too late.

However, lets not kid ourselves and suggest this would have solved the clubs problems. Lets also not kid ourselves that this has been merely about rent.

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

lewys33 said:
I do agree with the OP on this one. ACL COULD have restructured to help both the club, the city and ACL prosper before this all started. However they didnt. Probably 1 of the biggest mistakes the council made was leaving it all too late.

However, lets not kid ourselves and suggest this would have solved the clubs problems. Lets also not kid ourselves that this has been merely about rent.

simple things like a train station would make the ricoh a gold mine, but poor decision has led to things associated with Cov and CCFC in general, disappointment and failure

bigfatronssba · Mar 9, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I agree with the OP. ACL had already bankrupted the club once and refused to reduce the rent when asked before Sisu even took over. They then tried to put the club into administration over a rent strike that was agreed between both CCFC and ACL to stress the mortgage to pay it off at a reduced rate.

All will be revealed in court and I can't wait for it all to come out

You mean CCFC and ACL conspired against Yorkshire Bank's financial interest?

That's illegal according to Mark Labovitch.

Your accusing CCFC of illegal activity?

bigfatronssba · Mar 9, 2014

SonOfSnoz said:
& the redevelopment of Coventry is not the duty of it's football club! Council should stick to running the city of Coventry not interfering in holding a football club hostage!

So your agreeing with me that the council should treat CCFC like any other business in the city?

lapsed_skyblue · Mar 9, 2014

When I started reading this thread I thought it was an elaborate joke by Nick who had taken an old thread and merely re dated the posts. Some of the posts seem eerily familiar.
In the last few months we have progressed very little.

Poker player A: "you're cheating!"
Poker player B: "how do you know that I'm cheating?"
Poker player A:"you've not got the cards that I dealt to you"

lewys33 · Mar 9, 2014

ccfc92 said:
simple things like a train station would make the ricoh a gold mine, but poor decision has led to things associated with Cov and CCFC in general, disappointment and failure

The train station should have been there from day 1.

SonOfSnoz · Mar 9, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
So your agreeing with me that the council should treat CCFC like any other business in the city?

I do!

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

lewys33 said:
The train station should have been there from day 1.

imagine being able to get from Cov station to the ricoh, in about 5 mins on the sky blue express for a couple of quid.

people say Jimmy Hill was ahead of his time, and they are right.

but even today's "business people" can't spot simple things, so maybe Jimmy Hill was 100 years ahead of his time, not 50?

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

Firstly the OP is spot on, I have a seen a couple of comments that I want to clarify though.

bigfatronssba said:
The council offered lower rent 3 to 4 times.
What else should they have done?

Ron I picked your quote above as you mentioned that ACL offered a lower rent 3 or 4 times which is correct but if they were able to offer the lowest offer available and acceptable why not do this to begin with and save any hassle of conflict?

dongonzalos said:
Why can't you wait for it to come out?

What do you think will be achieved?

I am sure that there will be information that comes to light in the JR that many of us were not aware of and I must insist I believe this will be on both sides, problem is I think it will have more impact on ACL/CCC.

ccfc92 said:
Fully agree with the OP, but did CCFC actually ask CCC/ACL for a reduction? Or did they just start withholding the rent?

My point is, how are ACL meant to know what CCFC's books are like?

Abdul CCFC went to ACL before Sisu came in and asked for a reduction in the rent, ACL knew the Club was struggling even more so when the Club then decided to sell it's share of ACL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

James Smith · Mar 9, 2014

What I've read is that when we moved to the Ricoh the club did ask for a reduction in the rent because other costs were so high that the gates needed were unlikely to be achieved. ACL rejected this perhaps because as a new business they couldn't afford to or because they were out to get the club financially.

Then up pop Sisu who acquire our club and do nothing to try and renegotiate the rent level at that time. Then after relegation Sisu decided to boycott the rent payments before attempting any serious negotiations. When deals were offered involving reduced rent these were either rejected as being inadequate or agreed and then subsequently denied (handshakes etc.). ACL either attempting to collect the outstanding rent or to punish Sisu - took court action and then later on after no movement from Sisu, applied for Administration.

Against the wishes of the paying customers which is us the supporters, we were moved to groundshare at NTFC. Since then the rent has been the least of our financial worries, given the attendances at "home" matches and knock on effects on the Pie money.

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

[/QUOTE]

Abdul CCFC went to ACL before Sisu came in and asked for a reduction in the rent, ACL knew the Club was struggling even more so when the Club then decided to sell it's share of ACL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

this is exactly why there should be an available account of what has REALLY happened.

i don't know about anyone else, but the constant he said/they said/ she said is hard to follow and causes more conflict amongst fans

jan87 · Mar 9, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I have seen documents that back this up yes

If you have seen the documents the rest of us would like to see them also, please reply

M&B Stand · Mar 9, 2014

Hatred of the football club owners has helped the council no end.

If a new owner was to come in, I do wonder if people would still want such a good deal for the stadium management company.

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 9, 2014

I think if I was Ann Lucas I would consider the current situation as deeply unsatisfactory but in hindsight a couple of years down the line it may look strong of them

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

Sky Blue Pete said:
I think if I was Ann Lucas I would consider the current situation as deeply unsatisfactory but in hindsight a couple of years down the line it may look strong of them

this is a key point aswel, in a couple of years we could be flying high, in a couple of years we might no longer exist.

James Smith · Mar 9, 2014

lewys33 said:
The train station should have been there from day 1.

I agree it was dumb that it wasn't built, the money was there to do so and planning permission was granted based on there being one. But don't forget it wasn't the council who stopped the station from being built in the first place, the Strategic Rail authority were the ones who said no. www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/new-hope-ricoh-rail-station-3129939

wingy · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Firstly the OP is spot on, I have a seen a couple of comments that I want to clarify though.

Ron I picked your quote above as you mentioned that ACL offered a lower rent 3 or 4 times which is correct but if they were able to offer the lowest offer available and acceptable why not do this to begin with and save any hassle of conflict?

I am sure that there will be information that comes to light in the JR that many of us were not aware of and I must insist I believe this will be on both sides, problem is I think it will have more impact on ACL/CCC.

Abdul CCFC went to ACL before Sisu came in and asked for a reduction in the rent, ACL knew the Club was struggling even more so when the Club then decided to sell it's share of ACL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It has to be remembered that ACL had to pay the Council £900k rent when we moved In ,so were only supplementing that by £300k,maybe Machday costs,while there was no other business going on at that point .

However,around 6 months in the Lease was taken out along with the loan ,Still very little other business going on @ the Arena plus interest to pay.

So should the Club pay a Premium for being the sole user of the Facility and pay such a rate to enable ACL to paydown the rate at double the requirement ?

IMO yes and No .

If the lease was over 50 yrs then the paydown should have been ,ACL CCC must have made a Political /Business decision to accelerate ( Wrong)!!

Should the Club have paid a premium If It prevented other events from going ahead ,potentially yes,However as other business supported the Arena that premium should have been reduced /rescinded.

Noggin · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Firstly the OP is spot on, I have a seen a couple of comments that I want to clarify though.

Ron I picked your quote above as you mentioned that ACL offered a lower rent 3 or 4 times which is correct but if they were able to offer the lowest offer available and acceptable why not do this to begin with and save any hassle of conflict?

because the final offer (and the previous offer to that) are not reasonable rates for an arena of the size and quality that is being offered. Those rates were clearly both a) desperation rates and b) rates designed to show absolutely they aren't the issue. Not that is has stopped some of you with the (but it was offered to the football league nonsense) The 400k offer seems to me to be a fair compromise and representative of what is being hired and that was offered well before the move if I remember correctly.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

wingy said:
It has to be remembered that ACL had to pay the Council £900k rent when we moved In ,so were only supplementing that by £300k,maybe Machday costs,while there was no other business going on at that point .

However,around 6 months in the Lease was taken out along with the loan ,Still very little other business going on @ the Arena plus interest to pay.

So should the Club pay a Premium for being the sole user of the Facility and pay such a rate to enable ACL to paydown the rate at double the requirement ?

IMO yes and No .

If the lease was over 50 yrs then the paydown should have been ,ACL CCC must have made a Political /Business decision to accelerate ( Wrong)!!

Should the Club have paid a premium If It prevented other events from going ahead ,potentially yes,However as other business supported the Arena that premium should have been reduced /rescinded.

Don't disagree with most of that, however that actual rental amount needed to be looked at from the start, £1,200,000 a season was absolutely bonkers and that should have been renegotiated from day 1.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

Noggin said:
because the final offer (and the previous offer to that) are not reasonable rates for an arena of the size and quality that is being offered. Those rates were clearly both a) desperation rates and b) rates designed to show absolutely they aren't the issue. Not that is has stopped some of you with the (but it was offered to the football league nonsense) The 400k offer seems to me to be a fair compromise and representative of what is being hired and that was offered well before the move if I remember correctly.

You can say that Noggin but would you say that paying £1.2M is fair considering that you have also just said that £400K is a fair compromise? As I have said previously on this forum the Ricoh Arena was doomed to fail for CCFC and CCC from day 1.

CCFC to some extent had no choice but to go with it as there was no other options out there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

James Smith · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Don't disagree with most of that, however that actual rental amount needed to be looked at from the start, £1,200,000 a season was absolutely bonkers and that should have been renegotiated from day 1.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was the rent always £1.2 m from day one or did it increase each year to that level?

Grendel · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
You can say that Noggin but would you say that paying £1.2M is fair considering that you have also just said that £400K is a fair compromise? As I have said previously on this forum the Ricoh Arena was doomed to fail for CCFC and CCC from day 1.

CCFC to some extent had no choice but to go with it as there was no other options out there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can charge want they want but people then can't bleat that they care about the club when they clearly don't.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

James Smith said:
Was the rent always £1.2 m from day one or did it increase each year to that level?

I believed it was from the start happy to be shown otherwise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

Grendel said:
They can charge want they want but people then can't bleat that they care about the club when they clearly don't.

Well it's about being fair, People don't believe Sisu have been fair yet the continued bleating misses the point that to some extent CCC/ACL hasn't been fair towards it's Tenant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

James Smith · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I believed it was from the start happy to be shown otherwise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No idea myself and would be interested to know.

Grendel · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I believed it was from the start happy to be shown otherwise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Day one plus matchday costs.

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Well it's about being fair, People don't believe Sisu have been fair yet the continued bleating misses the point that to some extent CCC/ACL hasn't been fair towards it's Tenant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

maybe we should start our own FairTrade campaign?

FairCov anyone?

wingy · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Don't disagree with most of that, however that actual rental amount needed to be looked at from the start, £1,200,000 a season was absolutely bonkers and that should have been renegotiated from day 1.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats basically what I'm saying Robo,It could and should have been no higher than £600-£700K. and the model would have still worked for everyone.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

ccfc92 said:
maybe we should start our own FairTrade campaign?

FairCov anyone?

Life isn't fair though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ccfc92 · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Life isn't fair though

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I blame our fathers for giving us the Sky Blue Bug

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

Grendel said:
Day one plus matchday costs.

Thanks G-Man, Matchday costs are inclusive anywhere we play but obviously the costs took a rise at the Ricoh as it has more potential for larger crowds.

£325K a season, with £1.2M in rent and all without Matchday revenues thanks to McGinnity..... Ass*****

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 9, 2014

ccfc92 said:
I blame our fathers for giving us the Sky Blue Bug

Wouldn't have it any other way though Geez

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shmmeee · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Well it's about being fair, People don't believe Sisu have been fair yet the continued bleating misses the point that to some extent CCC/ACL hasn't been fair towards it's Tenant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry don't buy it. The argument is all ifs buts and maybes.

The long and the short is that most landlords would've told them to fuck off when asked for a new deal and certainly wouldn't be keeping the door open.

They restructured their entire business to allow a lower rent than the one agreed.

The fact is that rent was never the issue. That's been shown by their actions since. Frankly if you believe rent was ever the issue you're very naive IMO.

lapsed_skyblue · Mar 9, 2014

If CCFC hadn't sold their half of ACL would the high rent have mattered so much, especially if they had been able to buy the other half? The rent was after all surely paying the mortgage off which was increasing the value of ACL.

shmmeee · Mar 9, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Thanks G-Man, Matchday costs are inclusive anywhere we play but obviously the costs took a rise at the Ricoh as it has more potential for larger crowds.

£325K a season, with £1.2M in rent and all without Matchday revenues thanks to McGinnity..... Ass*****

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not just McGinnity but every board member who had the chance to buy them back but didn't.

Coventry City Council have Failed CCFC (21 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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