Think there is some confusion as to what sits where in financial statements
The costs of acquiring and building the Ricoh will sit as an asset on the balance sheet of the freeholder - CCC - subject to any revaluation since 2005. On the other side of that would be the liability for amounts that are still owed in respect of financing the acquisition and build costs - as over half was financed from the sale to Tescos £67m+, then £21m was cleared by the lease premium paid by ACL and a chunk else received in grants - there isn't a lot still outstanding. This way of financing the build is the kind of thing that SISU are apparently looking at to finance the new stadium.
What we also had were the shares in ACL split equally in to two companies one owned by CCC the other by AEHC. The charity spent 6.5m to acquire the 1.76m shares of £1 each and got back 2.77m. According to the build report in 2006 CCC had an equity investment of £10m and apparently they sold that for 2.77m also. Neither AEHC (through Football Investors Ltd) nor CCC (through Coventry North Regeneration ltd) now have an interest in ACL but both have incurred large investment losses. So no entries now on either CCC or AEHC balance sheets
What SISU allude to is that they will find a site that is bigger than they need and will sell off either freehold or long lease interests of parts in order to fund the build costs of the stadium and the attached training/academy facilities. In addition if the training is at that site then you would expect Ryton to be sold too. Same principle as for the Ricoh really. Trouble is the site really - in Coventry it could be subject to CCC planning regulations and needs (it has nothing to do with vindictiveness which would be easy to challenge) it has to make sense in the long term development plans for the City. Or just outside Coventry which could be affected by Green Belt considerations and the finance available to do the necessary infra structure. Both potentials will be affected by the need for commercial or domestic development at the site (no demand no interest and therefore no value), in addition the proposal for a new stadium will probably need Secretary of State approval. The theory goes for the balance sheet of CCFC is that the asset (the built stadium/training complex) will be far greater than the ongoing finance liabilities because other 3rd parties will effectively have paid for it. Theory is fine in practice not sure i see it happening
From what I understand certain CCFC connections have been saying because of the state of the Ricoh pitch a return to Sixfields has been muted. Not sure that the FL would allow it - "we want to move again because our pitch is too muddy" is not going to be a valid reason. However the commitment by Wasps to relay the pitch has some implications for building the SISU stadium. If the proposal has to go to the Secretary of State then he will have to look at need to the City of Coventry and if there is already a major stadium where both can play with a decent pitch will a stadium rank higher than other planning needs?
Do SISU have something to sell. Well yes they have a football club to sell. What the problem is - is at what price. I agree no one will come in and take on £50m debts of SBS&L group. But they dont have to CCFC sits in Otium and that can be sold separately and any inter company debts between Otium and SBS&L negotiated down or even out. That leaves ARVO who have revolving finance loans and other debts totalling at least £13m (May 2013) which are secured by charges over all the assets. It would be able to negotiate settlement if there were a will on both sides to do so. If say CCFC could get a long term lease with income access of some sort from ACL/Wasps that might add some worth - say 125 years (Wasps can do that because they have 250 years). Depends on the will, the price, the access to income but it could be done. There are options for a sale.
Would Wasps be interested at this point. Highly unlikely. They are stepping in to the unknown themselves on the back of poor financials. The risk attached to CCFC and the working capital that would be required I would think would not be a good option right now. However facilitating a new buyer of CCFC or even sticking with the present owners that's possible (see above)
Not sure any of us know what Wasps are budgeting for in terms of crowds I find it hard to believe it would be 20k or 25k as has been mentioned. Given the move away, the obvious mood of some against, the fact that one local derby (Northampton) already played at Adams Park etc then I would expect anybody looking at such proposals would say how? Wasps have had to raise finance so the projections will have been scrutinised. Another point is that the turnover per head of Wasps in 2013 was approx £57 (CCFC in 2013 was £20) do they actually need 20k attendance to break even? On those figures that would give them turnover approaching £18m! Unlikely. In addition i would think there is a premium on the sponsorship and advertising deals they can get now compared to Adams Park not to mention full access to things like Car park, F&B income that they didnt get at Wycombe plus the ability to do far more match day hospitality (we all know the price of that at CCFC now think Premiership). I have a feeling that the breakeven figures for crowds is much lower that 20k.
Bottom line is keep an open mind. CCFC could build a stadium, SISU could sell if they chose to, Wasps are not guaranteed to fail
