According to a post by PWKH from last year the Pie Money was included in at least one offer to Sisu and it was rejected. Now assuming that is correct you have to wonder what it was that they didn't like in the rest of the offer. He also seems to be suggesting that buying the Higgs share would get the matchday revenues back. Would be nice to see details of past offers in full.
But seriously, the key is it's actually a detailed offer laid out without a headline positioning one way or another. We've had too many things that haven't been as advertised, from both sides, so it's a binding offer if in public domain, but let's not have the bits picked out to suit a certain position and skew the impression of it before serious talks even begin. At the moment it's too easy for SISU to say 'ah but we'd love to come back, if only there were a proper offer' and too easy for t'other view to bang on about Hoffman paying the rent, £400k up to monster monster levels, £150k via football league ad infnitum.
Removal of as much doubt as possible, please. corner off as many places to run as possible, call out Robert Robinson(?) for a nice little game of Call My Bluff.
I think at first a nice easy way to get that would be for ACL to offer identical terms to Sixfields in the short term. Even if it means they get free ball boys and all the pies they can eat. Surely even a CCFC there earning them no money is better than a CCFC not there earning them no money? Obviously it's not a long term solution, but baby steps.
It would, my understanding was that the share came with the revenues. And another potential route back is to resurrect that deal maybe?
I was just wondering if we simplify everything to "pie money" too much and there are other important revenue streams that it hinges on.
According to a post by PWKH from last year the Pie Money was included in at least one offer to Sisu and it was rejected. Now assuming that is correct you have to wonder what it was that they didn't like in the rest of the offer. He also seems to be suggesting that buying the Higgs share would get the matchday revenues back. Would be nice to see details of past offers in full.
It's important to clarify here that 50% of ACL entitles you to 50% of their share in IEC which is where the revenue actually goes. Since ACL is in debt to CCC to the tune of £14m (a bit less now), you can't start to profit from this ownership until the loan plus interest is fully paid.
I may be mistaken but buying the share would at least elevate the club to joint landlords with the council and nullify the need to pay rent.
Pretty sure that was just cross invoicing of F&B's, not actually access to them. Interesting PWKH (and other parties) never mentioned the rent deal returned to £1.3m after 3 years (yes I know we have had other offers, and yes Sixfields makes no financial sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
PWKH said:It is clear that the Club needs more income and ACL had offered to give up some income: the food and beverage revenues everyone refers to.
I fear that just as that offer is now withdrawn the possibility of the Club now buying back into ACL has receded.
Pretty sure that was just cross invoicing of F&B's, not actually access to them. Interesting PWKH (and other parties) never mentioned the rent deal returned to £1.3m after 3 years (yes I know we have had other offers, and yes Sixfields makes no financial sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
In the post he says this:
Which to me means actual money not just cross invoicing, but I could be wrong.
Yes we can all say what about this what about that. But at the end of the day lets be realistic Sisu don't want a rental deal.
They want match day and non-match day revenue and this is why they will never agree a deal !!
Not 100% sure about that either way given the people who have been saying that the Higgs share wouldn't be able to get Pie Money until the ACL debt is paid. Would giving (the F&B) revenue to a tenant be more acceptable legally than the apparent no-no of paying a dividend before the debt is paid off?He's talking about that in the context of buying the Higgs share though isn't he?
Seeing as the club was paying rates for non matchdays as well from the start of the tenancy then would be reasonable to expect the revenues from those too I'd have thought.
Was it clear that the rent reverted to 1.3m or was it if no further negotiations were done in the 3 years that it would? It read to me like it could be renegotiated so it might actually never revert to 1.3m
Yes we can all say what about this what about that. But at the end of the day lets be realistic Sisu don't want a rental deal.
They want match day and non-match day revenue and this is why they will never agree a deal !!
Was it clear that the rent reverted to 1.3m or was it if no further negotiations were done in the 3 years that it would? It read to me like it could be renegotiated so it might actually never revert to 1.3m
No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?
Why are you such a dick and so Anti the average Coventry City fan?
Michael starts a thread in a positive manner and prompts other to make comments which we hope and pray our owners might read and all you do is throw a negative response.
I agree that all it takes is a phone call.
What do people think is the right level of revenue streams in the first instance? Obviously SISU would eventually want the lot - maybe they could achieve that by buying out ACL in the future, which may be the best way to circumvent other contracts and the like.
I think as a starting point maybe ALL matchday revenues including sponsorship within stadium/pitch area, hospitality etc.
Maybe I'm being a bit obvious here but doesn't the fact that Sisu don't want ACL to exist preclude any hope of a rental deal, which would ensure ACL's survival by giving them some much needed cash-flow?
Why not go back a few steps and have the parties start negotiating on a more open basis to find out what kind of stadium occupation deal they can try and work out?
Sticking to only having a rental deal offer just seems to be trotting out the same Council-favoured deal that Sisu aren't going even consider.
I completely agree that accepting a rent deal would be the quickest way to get us back to the Ricoh but it does not, based on all of the recent history and available evidence as to motives, seem remotely likely to happen
It's an interesting conversation & intellectual exercise to go over various deal scenarios & possibilities but ultimately it is just a bit of role play. Getting all of the parties who can actually cut a deal round the table has to be the priority.
Sisu won't rent and CCC won't sell.
To get back to the OP, the thrust of the point is let's get back to the Ricoh and then the detailed negotiations can start.
Maybe I'm being a bit obvious here but doesn't the fact that Sisu don't want ACL to exist preclude any hope of a rental deal, which would ensure ACL's survival by giving them some much needed cash-flow?
Sisu won't rent and CCC won't sell. That only leaves one option, sisu will have to put the club up for sale. There's nothing here for them.
I think I might start a new fans group STSCCFCTTHB.
Well, yes, and CCC don't want to sell the free hold. Best we'd all better give up and build a new ground/get new owners.
The main problem seems to be getting the fuckers in the same room for the right reason and keeping them coming back until they're done.
Repeating myself here but there are many options in between 'rent only' & 'freehold'. (And 'new ground & 'new owners' for that matter.) Exploration by negotiation or some such trite phrase
Indeed. Sorry, it's a trigger phrase for me so apologies if it wasn't appropriate for you. But starting off with one sides wishes as a base isn't conducive to healthy negotiations.
But surely any tenancy has to be either leasehold or freehold, no? What's the third option (other than new owners/new ground)?
Squatting!
I thought Cameron made it illegal?
Indeed. Sorry, it's a trigger phrase for me so apologies if it wasn't appropriate for you. But starting off with one sides wishes as a base isn't conducive to healthy negotiations.
But surely any tenancy has to be either leasehold or freehold, no? What's the third option (other than new owners/new ground)?
Well, there's...(cue Lyle Lanley-style music)
- Rent-only
- Rent with benefits (pies and parking!)
- Rent-to-lease (e.g. rental period converting into leasehold purchase over time if certain conditions are met)
- Short lease (50-99 years)
- Long lease (100+)
- Freehold
- (Plus a few variations of the above)
- Plus variations of the above with Sisu selling the club to a third party on completion of one of the above deals
- One of us wins EuroMillions and spunks it all on buying everything
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?