skybluebeduff
Well-Known Member
I never asked you to, get off your high horse.
Read your previous post then my reply again.
=AndreasB;734459 and dont need to prove my support to you.
Amazing how many City fans seem to have a problem with CCFC benefiting from the income the CLUB generates.
Please explain Torch how CCFC will benefit ?
Because all I can see the extra revenue is required to pay Arvo their 1.8 million a year interest charges !!
Please explain Torch how CCFC will benefit ?
Because all I can see the extra revenue is required to pay Arvo their 1.8 million a year interest charges !!
Please explain Torch how CCFC will benefit ?
Because all I can see the extra revenue is required to pay Arvo their 1.8 million a year interest charges !!
As I said it's amazing how many people don't want CCFC to benefit from money spent by Coventry City fans at the Ricoh. It's almost as if people are more interested in ACL and the "poor" taxpayers than the club they support. Nah, that can't be true.
As for interest charges. They are high, there is no getting away from that, but so was the rent. And no doubt if we ever get over by a new lot then they will do exactly the same. Whatever way you look at it our club is being shafted. The only thing that will change will be the shafters.
Every club needs to be generating revenue in order to maximize their potential, their paying the charges now, just like wages and overheads peoples wages at the club.
The club needs revenues, having said that, a return to the ricoh at a reduced rate and 50% minimum of income surely benefits all parties involved from a business perspective.
However, heard all the same talk from both sides last year before and after a march.... nothing changed.
I never asked you to, get off your high horse.
Read your previous post then my reply again.
As I said it's amazing how many people don't want CCFC to benefit from money spent by Coventry City fans at the Ricoh. It's almost as if people are more interested in ACL and the "poor" taxpayers than the club they support. Nah, that can't be true.
As for interest charges. They are high, there is no getting away from that, but so was the rent. And no doubt if we ever get over by a new lot then they will do exactly the same. Whatever way you look at it our club is being shafted. The only thing that will change will be the shafters.
So every owner will be exactly the same then ?
So you think we should just roll over and except the situation ?
You bring everything around to the rent that ccfc used to pay which at 1.3 million everybody agrees was to much. But that is long dead and the rent now would be nothing like that on a return to the Ricoh.
Even with a low rent and all the Ricoh match day revenue the 1.8million yearly Arvo interest would never be sustainable.
As I said it's amazing how many people don't want CCFC to benefit from money spent by Coventry City fans at the Ricoh. It's almost as if people are more interested in ACL and the "poor" taxpayers than the club they support. Nah, that can't be true.
As for interest charges. They are high, there is no getting away from that, but so was the rent. And no doubt if we ever get over by a new lot then they will do exactly the same. Whatever way you look at it our club is being shafted. The only thing that will change will be the shafters.
So every owner will be exactly the same then ?
So you think we should just roll over and except the situation ?
You bring everything around to the rent that ccfc used to pay which at 1.3 million everybody agrees was to much. But that is long dead and the rent now would be nothing like that on a return to the Ricoh.
Even with a low rent and all the Ricoh match day revenue the 1.8million yearly Arvo interest would never be sustainable.
Yes, I do think every owner will be the same. People don't invest millions of pounds just for the sake of it. No one is going to take us over if they don't recoup some of their investment. This is why ACL need to look at their whole business model. Even if SISU left by lunch the new lot wouldn't stand for such a poor deal, would they?
Ultimately, what we all want is for CCFC to prosper. So we want a fair deal not only from our owners (who ever they are) but also from our landlords.
its amazing that sisu didn't see the benefit of purchasing the higgs share so the club not only recieved 100% of match day revenues but also 50% of all other revenues. if the revenue is so valuable to the club and we're now being told that this is why sisu cant return to the Ricoh they could have bought the higgs share with 2 seasons of the losses from playing at suxfields yet we're facing 4 more seasons at suxfields until never never land gets built. how many times over could they have purchased the higgs share by then?
its not the fans who are the stumbling block in the club benefitting from the income it generates is it? so who has and is the problem?
It's not that I don't want the club to benefit from F&B etc - quite the opposite. I just don't support the club in trying to crowbar it away from another organisation for free, when this is clearly unreasonable. Just because something benefits CCFC doesn't mean we have to support it by default - SISU are happy to use any excuse to justify their actions in essentially trying to get a stadium for free. Yes it would help the club in theory, but it's unethical.
The rent was actually perfectly reasonable given the cost to the council to fund the Ricoh completion - £1m per year for a £30m provided isn't that steep - no private investor would touch that so CCC stepped in as lender of last resort. Didn't see any club officials complaining about "unlawful state aid" back then? Club also were vying for the Prem at the time so £1m rent would ahve been a drop in the ocean - who was to blame for that dream going sour, surely not CCFC owners?
I can't believe any owners would screw us more than SISU - 10% interest charges on loans, management fees, saddling debt onto the club for a needless new stadium, decimating the fanbase by moving to Northampton for their own ends - it beggars belief.
Its not as if CCC didn't get anything out of there act of charity! to CCFC. I.E. the regeneration of an eyesore in that part of the city which had stood contaminated and of no use to man nor beast for years, and at the end of it by spending less than one tenth of the overall cost of the development ending up the sole owner, and then getting back the £20M loan through ACL for the lease.
Its not as if CCC didn't get anything out of there act of charity! to CCFC. I.E. the regeneration of an eyesore in that part of the city which had stood contaminated and of no use to man nor beast for years, and at the end of it by spending less than one tenth of the overall cost of the development ending up the sole owner, and then getting back the £20M loan through ACL for the lease.
Its not as if CCC didn't get anything out of there act of charity! to CCFC. I.E. the regeneration of an eyesore in that part of the city which had stood contaminated and of no use to man nor beast for years, and at the end of it by spending less than one tenth of the overall cost of the development ending up the sole owner, and then getting back the £20M loan through ACL for the lease.
How did they spend less than one tenth of the cost?
Let's face it. At the very least Sisu want the money generated by the club yo go to the club. ACL are unable to / don't want that to happen. So we reach a stalemate again. This is also the reason replacement owners are very thin on the ground.
If you review the minuets of the council meeting that agreed the £20M loan to cover the shortfall, when CCFC's financial partner pulled out it gives a breakdown of all the investment that made up the total costs for the building of the Arena, CCC contribution to this cost was £10M.
According to PWKH an offer was made at one point which included some or all of the F&B but it was rejected. I'd be interested as would I suspect a lot of others to know, what the terms in it were and which ones Sisu objected to + why.
If you review the minuets of the council meeting that agreed the £20M loan to cover the shortfall, when CCFC's financial partner pulled out it gives a breakdown of all the investment that made up the total costs for the building of the Arena, CCC contribution to this cost was £10M.
The Higgs share does not entitle the club to any of these revenues.
If you review the minuets of the council meeting that agreed the £20M loan to cover the shortfall, when CCFC's financial partner pulled out it gives a breakdown of all the investment that made up the total costs for the building of the Arena, CCC contribution to this cost was £10M.
Have you got a link? I've got a severe allergy to finding information on government websites.
Amazing how many City fans seem to have a problem with CCFC benefiting from the income the CLUB generates.
We dont. Getting back to the Ricoh with a sensible rent and purchasing the Higgs share would generate more revenue for CCFC than staying at Sixfields.
The SBT Q&A (which I keep going back to, but only because it's the most complete set of answers we've got from either side) seems to suggest that what made the previous deal fall apart (before Sixfields) was the catering in the hospitality suites and the other F&B revenue. They argue that ACL aren't making anything like enough profit and claim Swindon make something like £1.9m compared to the £100k ACL make (though that's nearly twice the entire turnover, so something has to be off).
Why not?
(found it) That's £10m equity investment. But the land sold to Tesco was theirs to sell, so add another £59.4m on. Plus they borrowed £21m, sold land for £5m, and accessed a development fund that wouldn't have been there if they weren't involved for another £4.4m, plus the £1.3m they contributed in interest they gained from sticking the Tesco money in the bank.
It's still their money. If you part exchange your car for £1000 and pay £1000 cash, you still paid £2000 for your new car.
Do you think Haskell or Hoffman would pay? I don't. By returning will ACL's share value increase do you think.
People need to accept that the club will not buy them but will want them or we won't ever have a business case.
Sorry had to go out. In reply to your statement above, I think you will find the land was owned by the Gas board and CCFC had already negotiated the price for and the agreement to buy the land they had also been in contact with Tesco to purchase the part of the land that the council subsequently sold, when there financial backer pulled out.
The club were also going to plug the shortfall of £20M with a loan from a Portugese bank. The bank pulled out, the Council stepped in. The rest, as they say, is (horrible) history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?