Fisher : CCFC would not own Ricoh Areana if Otium bought the freehold (1 Viewer)

[lewys33]

"It is beyond me how a certain select few can then claim that by "renting off sisu" it is no different than before. Technically you are correct. Idiotic, but correct."

That's all I wanted to know thanks.

The only differnece which you fail to see in your little escapede is that if SISU were to sell the Club they are more likely to get a worthy price to get rid of them while owning the Arena, not under current situation, take a chill pill also.

It is infuriating to read what shit you lot spout sometimes. I have tried to be more "sit on the fence" lately, but to try and use the argument that "it is no different before" is absolutely beyond me. I see your point. I just think it is a pretty worthless point.

THEY WANT A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.

 

---

[RoboCCFC90]

It is infuriating to read what shit you lot spout sometimes. I have tried to be more "sit on the fence" lately, but to try and use the argument that "it is no different before" is absolutely beyond me. I see your point. I just think it is a pretty worthless point.

THEY WANT A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.

If I am honest it's not really an arguement I am putting forward, however with most people wiling to curse SISU left, right and centre maybe we should also consider that things have always been the same.

Of course they do and as long as CCFC don't suffer that is fine.

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Reading have quite a complicated structure.

we should clarify Reading’s corporate structure. The profit and loss figures are from The Reading Football Club (Holdings) PLC, which is the parent company of The Reading Football Club Limited, which itself has two wholly owned subsidiaries, the Madejski Stadium Hotel Limited and the Reading FC Community Trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

OOh I hope the football league have begun to record Company numbers....

 

[skybluefred]

Can you stop talking on behalf of all fans all the time? I think you will find most would go back to the ricoh.even if sisu owned it.

Utter rubbish, that's what fisher thought when he took us to the cobblers.
:blue:

 

[lewys33]

If I am honest it's not really an arguement I am putting forward, however with most people wiling to curse SISU left, right and centre maybe we should also consider that things have always been the same.

Of course they do and as long as CCFC don't suffer that is fine.

Why are they willing to curse sisu? Possibly because they took us away from Coventry, only for us to return in potentially the same situation as previously? Of course if SISU buy it and charge say £100,000 or less for "rent/management fees" then I see no real issue. However if it is higher then what was the purpose of all this? I can fully understand why fans would be angry, can you not?

With regards to they want a return on their investment, and you saying as long as CCFC don't suffer that is fine. Yes, totally agree. But if they are to get a return on their investment without CCFC suffering then it is going to take years. Decades possibly. So to say that ........

"The only differnece which you fail to see in your little escapede is that if SISU were to sell the Club they are more likely to get a worthy price to get rid of them while owning the Arena, not under current situation"

..... Is pretty irrelevant, because they are going to be around for a long time if they want a return on their investment.

 

[torchomatic]

But this is the Ricoh. Are you seriously telling me that if on November 23rd at 3pm the team ran out to play Tranmere Rovers at the Ricoh then there would only be 2000 there? That the majority of stayaways wouldn't go? Can I borrow your phrase? Utter rubbish.

Utter rubbish, that's what fisher thought when he took us to the cobblers.
:blue:

 

[jimmyhill]

Not unheard of no, but given that nobody of sane mind would ever buy a Ricoh based CCFC as a standalone entity, it's kind of a mute point.

If it's a mute point I'm surprised anyone has heard of it.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just a few queries .....

If the council decide to sell the freehold are they duty bound to sell to SISU? Could they for instance sell to ACL or a third party? Because it is council owned with other potentially interested parties do they have to put it out to the"market" to get tenders or bids? If the freehold is sold cheaply to SISU or anyone are the councillors liable for the difference between sale price and market price? If the freehold is sold cheaply at under market value to anyone could that sale be challenged by a judicial review?

Whilst it would certainly suit SISU to obtain the site and enhance their investment there are other interested parties for whom it would suit and enhance investments too.

All this sell to SISU is not as straight forward as it seems.......... and thats before any access to income............

 

[duffer]

Just a few queries .....

If the council decide to sell the freehold are they duty bound to sell to SISU? Could they for instance sell to ACL or a third party? Because it is council owned with other potentially interested parties do they have to put it out to the"market" to get tenders or bids? If the freehold is sold cheaply to SISU are the councillors liable for the difference between sale price and market price? If the freehold is sold cheaply at under market value to anyone could that sale be challenged by a judicial review?

Whilst it would certainly suit SISU to obtain the site and enhance their investment there are other interested parties for whom it would suit and enhance investments too.

All this sell to SISU is not as straight forward as it seems.......... and thats before any access to income............

I've been wondering about this too.

I think this is the key law....

"Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 enshrines the statutory duty on local authorities to achieve best value in the context of land disposals. It says that a local authority may dispose of land held
by it in any manner it wishes providing it is not for a consideration 'less than the best that can reasonably be obtained'"

And an example of a side challenging a disposal (unsuccessfully) when they thought it unfair...

http://www.sharpepritchard.co.uk/ar...ies-to-dispose-of-land-for-best-consideration

JR's, as SISU might well consider, cut both ways. There's every chance that a freehold sale to SISU 'under-value' could be challenged in law by another interested party. Possibly even ACL, daft as that sounds.

 

[Astute]

Thing I find ironic is that you would have land and property owned in one company and the football trade owned in another under the same ownership........

much like that over complicated messy financial situation we used to have since 1995 when CCFC H owned the property and CCFC Ltd was the football trade ......

only difference was CCFC H owned CCFC Ltd but who is to say that might not be similar in a new set up............. Likely SBS&L would own both so not so very different

wrong complicated and messy thing to do in 1995 ............. but the right way to go for the owners in 2013........... go figure :facepalm:

Why hasn't anyone picking faults with posts on behalf of SISU picked faults with this one?

Mobile like from me

 

[davebart]

ffs it is SepArate. Is there no one in Coventry knows this?

 

[lewys33]

ffs it is SepArate. Is there no one in Coventry knows this?

Who is SepArate? Are they the SISU/OTIUM/ARVO parent company? Should we hate them too? Do you have Proof?? So many questions!!

 

[luwalla]

Utter rubbish, that's what fisher thought when he took us to the cobblers.

id be back at the ricoh like a flash. my stay away is because i don't agree with moving us to northampton.

most people i speak to say the same.. nothing more, if we were at the ricoh now i think the crowds would be easy 10K+ with the way we are playing maybe 15k

 

[letsallsingtogether]

2501 at least I'll go

id be back at the ricoh like a flash. my stay away is because i don't agree with moving us to northampton.

most people i speak to say the same.. nothing more, if we were at the ricoh now i think the crowds would be easy 10K+ with the way we are playing maybe 15k

 

[Covstu]

i think alot of people would go back to the Ricoh even if it was SISU owned surely? Makes a bit of a mockery of KCIC if they dont!!

 

[fernandopartridge]

What about ACL themselves? They're owned by more than one legal entity, The Alan Edward Higgs Charity (investing through Football Investors Ltd) and North Coventry Holdings. What difference does it make?

I've just noticed that the charity's accounts are overdue though it's likely to be out of their hands.

 

[bigfatronssba]

What about ACL themselves? They're owned by more than one legal entity, The Alan Edward Higgs Charity and North Coventry Holdings. What difference does it make?

I've just noticed that the charity's accounts are overdue though it's likely to be out of their hands.

You really don't like the Charity do you?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just a few queries .....

If the council decide to sell the freehold are they duty bound to sell to SISU? Could they for instance sell to ACL or a third party? Because it is council owned with other potentially interested parties do they have to put it out to the"market" to get tenders or bids? If the freehold is sold cheaply to SISU or anyone are the councillors liable for the difference between sale price and market price? If the freehold is sold cheaply at under market value to anyone could that sale be challenged by a judicial review?

Whilst it would certainly suit SISU to obtain the site and enhance their investment there are other interested parties for whom it would suit and enhance investments too.

All this sell to SISU is not as straight forward as it seems.......... and thats before any access to income............

I don't think they're obliged to open it up to the market in the same way that they would have to if they were buying a service, but nevertheless would be expected to demonstrate vfm for the taxpayer.

That said, they've done plenty in the past that has demonstrated no vfm for the taxpayer, who knows.

 

[fernandopartridge]

You really don't like the Charity do you?

Why do you say that? I am just stating facts. I've even stated that the accounts are overdue but it's probably out of their hands.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've been wondering about this too.

I think this is the key law....

"Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 enshrines the statutory duty on local authorities to achieve best value in the context of land disposals. It says that a local authority may dispose of land held
by it in any manner it wishes providing it is not for a consideration 'less than the best that can reasonably be obtained'"

And an example of a side challenging a disposal (unsuccessfully) when they thought it unfair...

http://www.sharpepritchard.co.uk/ar...ies-to-dispose-of-land-for-best-consideration

JR's, as SISU might well consider, cut both ways. There's every chance that a freehold sale to SISU 'under-value' could be challenged in law by another interested party. Possibly even ACL, daft as that sounds.

It cancels out my post to an extent.

 

[skybluetony176]

Says who? Of course the club and arena management company would be kept separate (probably under a holding company) - that would be the case under any owner. That doesn't mean to say that the club would be charged rent and/or that revenues would not be channeled to the club from stadium activity. You're just guessing, and to say we'd be "no better off" is a massive leap to make given that you have no facts with which to back it up.

if only sh1tsu would clear this up with a simple statement of their plans should they buy the ricoh freehold. at the moments it is as safe to assume that the club will be no better of as it is to assume that the other revenue would be channelled through the club.

the stupid thing is, if they do plan to channel other revenue streams through the club thus helping with FFP rules it will win over fans and put pressure on ACL/CCC/Higgs to do a deal for the sake of the club, fans and a large number off Coventry tax payers/voters. the fact that they haven't released such a statement and their history of bad decisions, i'm going to side with the club will be no better off until sh1tsu says otherwise.

 

[skybluefred]

if only sh1tsu would clear this up with a simple statement of their plans should they buy the ricoh freehold. at the moments it is as safe to assume that the club will be no better of as it is to assume that the other revenue would be channelled through the club.

the stupid thing is, if they do plan to channel other revenue streams through the club thus helping with FFP rules it will win over fans and put pressure on ACL/CCC/Higgs to do a deal for the sake of the club, fans and a large number off Coventry tax payers/voters. the fact that they haven't released such a statement and their history of bad decisions, i'm going to side with the club will be no better off until sh1tsu says otherwise.

The club will be no better off until sisu clear off.
:blue:

 

[chiefdave]

The way I look at it is SISU are well aware of he fans concerns regarding them owning the stadium, it's a question thats been regularly asked of them at least since the summers fans forums.

There's 2 options, either SISU owning the Ricoh / new stadium will benefit SISU or it will benefit CCFC. Knowing people's concerns surely if it would benefit CCFC when asked a question about ownership you would be very clear with your explanation. it doesn't have to be that complicated 'the stadium will be owned by another company but any profit made will be used to cover CCFC losses and / or additional investment in CCFC', that's all you need to say. Many people may choose not to believe it given SISUs track record but you can still say it.

Lets say CCFC lose £2.5m in a year and the Ricoh makes £10m profit (totally made up figures). What do people really think will happen with that £7.5m? When we talk of stadium ownership being in the clubs interest we assume that £7.5m coming to the club but can you see that happening with SISU? I highly doubt it, in my opinion it would go to pay off the debt and then we get into discussions about how much of the debt is money SISU have put in as hard cash. Would you be happy for Ricoh profit to cover legacy debt SISU never paid off, high interest payments, management fees etc?

 

[stupot07]

The way I look at it is SISU are well aware of he fans concerns regarding them owning the stadium, it's a question thats been regularly asked of them at least since the summers fans forums.

There's 2 options, either SISU owning the Ricoh / new stadium will benefit SISU or it will benefit CCFC. Knowing people's concerns surely if it would benefit CCFC when asked a question about ownership you would be very clear with your explanation. it doesn't have to be that complicated 'the stadium will be owned by another company but any profit made will be used to cover CCFC losses and / or additional investment in CCFC', that's all you need to say. Many people may choose not to believe it given SISUs track record but you can still say it.

Lets say CCFC lose £2.5m in a year and the Ricoh makes £10m profit (totally made up figures). What do people really think will happen with that £7.5m? When we talk of stadium ownership being in the clubs interest we assume that £7.5m coming to the club but can you see that happening with SISU? I highly doubt it, in my opinion it would go to pay off the debt and then we get into discussions about how much of the debt is money SISU have put in as hard cash. Would you be happy for Ricoh profit to cover legacy debt SISU never paid off, high interest payments, management fees etc?

I'm not so sure, a successful arena and club would be more appealing then merely a successful arena. You use some of that money to get to the PL, then that's worth about £80m+.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

 

[kmj5000]

Even if that means the end of the club? Brilliant.

What are you on about?

Acquiring the Ricoh is only Plan B isn't it - after the ship sailed off into the sunset with Captain Timmy at the helm?

 

[Grendel]

What are you on about?

Acquiring the Ricoh is only Plan B isn't it - after the ship sailed off into the sunset with Captain Timmy at the helm?

Such a mature and rationale argument.

 

[kmj5000]

Such a mature and rationale argument.

I was simply pointing out the weakness of your argument - you suggested that it would be the end of the club if SISU don't get their hands on the Ricoh. Do you not believe that they are committed to Plan A either?

 

[Sky Blues]

Such a mature and rationale argument.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

To be honest if I were advising SISU about how the Ricoh/a stadium would be owned then I would be putting it in a seperate company also. The seperate property company may or may not charge the operating company Otium a rent - it doesnt have to. The reason it is put in a seperate company would be (a) to keep it away from the losses and debts incurred by the football club and (b) because it gives it flexibility in terms of potential sale. You could tie CCFC to a long lease at the stadium but sell the property company to a third party.

Think you have to bear in mind that whilst the fans see the stadium as the clubs and the club being essential to the stadium, it is not really the case because CCFC would contribute only a small percentage of income to the whole site whilst in L1 or Championship. As one method of valueing the property would be on the basis at least in part of turnover then you can perhaps see where the worth is. This is a business deal to SISU i suspect it is not anything JS has any great affinity to.

Would the club benefit from the additional income brought by owning the stadium. Yes even if in another group company. FL league rules would allow this to happen so long as in the same group. Here is how I think it will work based on CCFC having a long lease and the stadium owned in a prop company. Small or peppercorn rent with regular rent reviews say every 3 years. So the team could get 60% of the full turnover for FFP even if it doesnt actually receive it. The property company would have a loan to Otium of the cashflow it wishes to provide, which should leave something still in the pot (the net profit on the 40%)to drive down the SISU debts.

If they sold the stadium on but not the club, well that might be a problem in several ways for the club. The turnover would no longer count, would SISU still fund the club, is the club saleable (maybe with a long lease and proper cost structure, would SISU discount their loans

One final point I think you would find the first thing that JS would be to put a charge over the stadium in favour of ARVO.

I notice this got rather less likes than many of your insights that can be interpreted as purely anti-SISU and already fit the world view

Anyway as a question, what would the consequence of your last sentence be? Protecting their investment, or something more?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

The ultimate word in this is, "TRUST" and I'll never trust SISU with the running of CCFC ever again.

 

[James Smith]

Such a mature and rationale argument.

Well that's the one the owners of/people running our club have made, Plan A is a new stadium. Now you might not like that but they own the club and can do what they like subject to the FA and FL rules (including bending them).
Now you may say that this isn't a very mature argument for the long term viability of the club, but this club isn't a democracy. If you don't like it the only thing you can do is stop financially supporting the owners, you can't vote them out everybody handed over their shares.

 

[sky blue john]

What's the weather doing today Joy & Timmy, is it a plan A or Plan B day today ?????

 

[_brian_]

What's the weather doing today Joy & Timmy, is it a plan A or Plan B day today ?????

Now I'm as pro anti-pro-Sisu as the next man*, but even I'm struggling to see how this works as a decent insult!!! Sorry, mate!

(*Or woman, but as we're discussing football I'm going to play the statistics card. LOL!!!)

 

[sky blue john]

Now I'm as pro anti-pro-Sisu as the next man*,
but even I'm struggling to see how this works as a decent insult!!! Sorry, mate!

(*Or woman, but as we're discussing football I'm going to play the statistics card. LOL!!!)

Just think how confused us fans could be if Joy & Timmy hadn't communicated that day and one of them was working to plan A and the other was working to plan B !!!

 

[oldskyblue58]

I just put out the facts as I see them NW..... how others choose to interpret them is up to them

There is nothing wrong in the charge on the property to secure borrowing, it is likely to include a charge over the shares issued in the property company. The charge however could be called in and ARVO take the property. It is unlikely that CCFC would benefit from any sale and certainly the SISU fund investors who presently have more to lose than ARVO remain unsecured and at risk.

Given the apparent rate of interest on the ARVO loans then their debt is likely to grow quickly, assuming that debt is not converted to shares (which they could be)