Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (5 Viewers)

[cloughie]

There were 7 hours between your two posts. Never mind I am compiling a list of some of your other quotes about ACL and the Council to really llustrate your balanced view.

7 hours when I had a life outside of this forum

compile what you like it just illustrates your sad life

 

---

[Samo]

There were 7 hours between your two posts. Never mind I am compiling a list of some of your other quotes about ACL and the Council to really llustrate your balanced view.

He compiles, of course he does.

 

[Grendel]

He compiles, of course he does.

I love your intelligent contributions to the debate, I know when you enter the fray I am really going to struggle to hold my own.

 

[Grendel]

PWKH's cat prefers salmon to tuna.

You clearly liked that one BSB.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You clearly liked that one BSB.

As I said PWKH's computer is down so someone needs to gain a million likes on his cat's behalf.

 

[Sick Boy]

No its not sarcasm. I hanker for the days when all I had to worry about was whether Robbie Keane would score 0ne or two goals today and not think it was some kind of a victory because the owners of my club had successfully abused contract law to stay in business and f*ck over a local council.

So you would welcome back Richardson with open arms?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

So you would welcome back Richardson with open arms?

If we could go back in time to the moment he described and assassinate Richardson, I think our present standing would be slightly better.

 

[James Smith]

So you would welcome back Richardson with open arms?

Yep - The open arms of a straightjacket.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If we could go back in time to the moment he described and assassinate Richardson, I think our present standing would be slightly better.

Schwarzenegger's busy.

 

[James Smith]

If we could go back in time to the moment he described and assassinate Richardson, I think our present standing would be slightly better.

What NO Hondurans?

 

[wingy]

What NO Hondurans?

Wonder if he knows Dave Whelan?

 

[davebart]

Of course the root of our demise can be traced back to the seasons when Richardson tried to buy success.

But they were halcyon days compared to now. Not once in those days, along I suspect with 99.9% of supporters, did I worry about the money being spent. And we weren't the only team chasing the dream either.

At least there was a purpose to it on the pitch. Nothing that is going on now is for the benefit of the team. Or the fans. or indeed the club.

 

[Samo]

I love your intelligent contributions to the debate, I know when you enter the fray I am really going to struggle to hold my own.

I rather fear you may be 'holding your own' the entire time! (shudder!)

 

[psgm1]

PWKH's cat prefers salmon to tuna.

Controversial stuff their brighton - Any PROOF?

As for sisu's stance being a "rent strike" I don't seem to remeber them coming out in open saying they wished to meet ACL / council or whoever and asking for a re-negotiation, or indeed coming out themselves and saying that they will be going on strike and for what reason.

As I recall it (and if someone can show me a relevant press cutting or radio interview date to indicate otherwise), then the only way we as fans (and thye TRUE custodians of ccfc) were told was when the rent strike had been going on for a significant time.

Indeed even the transfer embargos had initially been kept under wraps. It's all very well claiming ACL had done this and the council had done that, but sisu's track record for keeping the fans informed is hardly stellar.

Also I find it laughable how the sisu-apologists castigate ACL for daring to take sisu (in any guise) to court. WHAT ELSE could they do? Sisu clearly entered talks in bad faith. On one hand asking for confidentiality (indeed demanding the council sign unprecedanted confidentiality agreements), yet at the same time freely spreading innuendo and their slant seemingly without right to reply from the local media!

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of the councils actions ad infinitum, to imply sisu had not just a case but a right to refuse to pay rent, and then sight other club/council consortiums to defend this argument, in my eyes is laughable.

Also as a side note, where PRECISELY did sisu arrive at the "average" league 1 rental figure of 170K? Not 100% on all 92 footballing clubs and their council links, but I certainly haven't even heard of 1 club paying this illusory amount! Doncaster aren't and I strongly suspect (but cannot definitively prove) there isn't another club that pays that precise rental amount. so HOW precisely did they come up with that figure; or is it just hyperbole and spin as has come to be expected from years of experience from sisu press releases!

If it turns out average is based on comparing the lowest rent against city's then splitting the difference, it is utterly unrealistic. I would have thought modal average would be most appropriate (even then you aren't taking into consideration seating capacity).

Finally as for cost effectiveness without the team. As someone who had practical experience of these things quoted on here, in terms of costing of floorspace, the NEC charge £150 /m2 for hiring on exhibitions - and I'm guessing that wouldn't allow the exhibitors to have access to the f&d concessions either! based on that, with the potential floorspace of the pitch of 105m x 68m that works out at an impressive £1,071,000.

I appreciate there may be additional expenditure, but to say that having a football club there even paying full current rent of around £100k/month cannot be made up is madness.

Once this tidbit of info was made aware to me, it seems now ALL of sisu's actions and their desire to own the club now make perfect sense. If sisu own the club, then they will be the only people who ACL can sell the ground to. So it is in their interests to keep the club going until they have their name on the deeds. Now once they have this, then there is no need to keep the club going, they can then simply disband the club, leaving them with the TRUE PRIZE - the arena itself!

Sure there would be legal battles and denial of re-development, but EVENTUALLY they would appeal as tesco does, until they got they desired planning permission. Then either they develop themselves or more likely sell on at a much increased value and let a developer reap the rewards.

Clearly this takes no account of the people of coventry or fans of the club, but since when has that mattered to sisu?

Sure this is all ifs and buts, but if this isn't their plan, then there plan is to alienate the fanbase, alienate the owners of the stadium, relegate the club, put in jeopardy their asset for no advantage whatsoever!

Whilst it is possible the second alternative is the truth, which is more likely from a hedge fund - to distress the owners of a high value asset to obtain said asset on the cheap, or to plough money into a failing football team and alienate the fanbase in the offchance that they can get their money back in 3-4 years?

I could be way off, but I suspect plan a is more likely than the alternative!

 

[Tank Top]

Controversial stuff their brighton - Any PROOF?

As for sisu's stance being a "rent strike" I don't seem to remeber them coming out in open saying they wished to meet ACL / council or whoever and asking for a re-negotiation, or indeed coming out themselves and saying that they will be going on strike and for what reason.

As I recall it (and if someone can show me a relevant press cutting or radio interview date to indicate otherwise), then the only way we as fans (and thye TRUE custodians of ccfc) were told was when the rent strike had been going on for a significant time.

Indeed even the transfer embargos had initially been kept under wraps. It's all very well claiming ACL had done this and the council had done that, but sisu's track record for keeping the fans informed is hardly stellar.

Also I find it laughable how the sisu-apologists castigate ACL for daring to take sisu (in any guise) to court. WHAT ELSE could they do? Sisu clearly entered talks in bad faith. On one hand asking for confidentiality (indeed demanding the council sign unprecedanted confidentiality agreements), yet at the same time freely spreading innuendo and their slant seemingly without right to reply from the local media!

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of the councils actions ad infinitum, to imply sisu had not just a case but a right to refuse to pay rent, and then sight other club/council consortiums to defend this argument, in my eyes is laughable.

Also as a side note, where PRECISELY did sisu arrive at the "average" league 1 rental figure of 170K? Not 100% on all 92 footballing clubs and their council links, but I certainly haven't even heard of 1 club paying this illusory amount! Doncaster aren't and I strongly suspect (but cannot definitively prove) there isn't another club that pays that precise rental amount. so HOW precisely did they come up with that figure; or is it just hyperbole and spin as has come to be expected from years of experience from sisu press releases!

If it turns out average is based on comparing the lowest rent against city's then splitting the difference, it is utterly unrealistic. I would have thought modal average would be most appropriate (even then you aren't taking into consideration seating capacity).

Finally as for cost effectiveness without the team. As someone who had practical experience of these things quoted on here, in terms of costing of floorspace, the NEC charge £150 /m2 for hiring on exhibitions - and I'm guessing that wouldn't allow the exhibitors to have access to the f&d concessions either! based on that, with the potential floorspace of the pitch of 105m x 68m that works out at an impressive £1,071,000.

I appreciate there may be additional expenditure, but to say that having a football club there even paying full current rent of around £100k/month cannot be made up is madness.

Once this tidbit of info was made aware to me, it seems now ALL of sisu's actions and their desire to own the club now make perfect sense. If sisu own the club, then they will be the only people who ACL can sell the ground to. So it is in their interests to keep the club going until they have their name on the deeds. Now once they have this, then there is no need to keep the club going, they can then simply disband the club, leaving them with the TRUE PRIZE - the arena itself!

Sure there would be legal battles and denial of re-development, but EVENTUALLY they would appeal as tesco does, until they got they desired planning permission. Then either they develop themselves or more likely sell on at a much increased value and let a developer reap the rewards.

Clearly this takes no account of the people of coventry or fans of the club, but since when has that mattered to sisu?

Sure this is all ifs and buts, but if this isn't their plan, then there plan is to alienate the fanbase, alienate the owners of the stadium, relegate the club, put in jeopardy their asset for no advantage whatsoever!

Whilst it is possible the second alternative is the truth, which is more likely from a hedge fund - to distress the owners of a high value asset to obtain said asset on the cheap, or to plough money into a failing football team and alienate the fanbase in the offchance that they can get their money back in 3-4 years?

I could be way off, but I suspect plan a is more likely than the alternative!

A cracking post my friend.
It expresses my own thoughts entirely, I agree that sisu will attempt to Financially distress ACL in an attempt to gain ownership of the complex, which, if people could understand, is the only reason why they bought us out, they certainly have no positive desire to own a foot ball club going forward, ownership of the sky Blues, is the "Trojan Horse" used to gain the keys to the Ricoh, thank God its Failing, and ACL are standing their ground, in the face of threats, and intimidation.
"The Ricoh" is a valuable Asset to the City of Coventry and must not be given away cheaply, to financial Bully's who will carve up and sub let the family silver.

 

[dongonzalos]

Controversial stuff their brighton - Any PROOF?

As for sisu's stance being a "rent strike" I don't seem to remeber them coming out in open saying they wished to meet ACL / council or whoever and asking for a re-negotiation, or indeed coming out themselves and saying that they will be going on strike and for what reason.

As I recall it (and if someone can show me a relevant press cutting or radio interview date to indicate otherwise), then the only way we as fans (and thye TRUE custodians of ccfc) were told was when the rent strike had been going on for a significant time.

Indeed even the transfer embargos had initially been kept under wraps. It's all very well claiming ACL had done this and the council had done that, but sisu's track record for keeping the fans informed is hardly stellar.

Also I find it laughable how the sisu-apologists castigate ACL for daring to take sisu (in any guise) to court. WHAT ELSE could they do? Sisu clearly entered talks in bad faith. On one hand asking for confidentiality (indeed demanding the council sign unprecedanted confidentiality agreements), yet at the same time freely spreading innuendo and their slant seemingly without right to reply from the local media!

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of the councils actions ad infinitum, to imply sisu had not just a case but a right to refuse to pay rent, and then sight other club/council consortiums to defend this argument, in my eyes is laughable.

Also as a side note, where PRECISELY did sisu arrive at the "average" league 1 rental figure of 170K? Not 100% on all 92 footballing clubs and their council links, but I certainly haven't even heard of 1 club paying this illusory amount! Doncaster aren't and I strongly suspect (but cannot definitively prove) there isn't another club that pays that precise rental amount. so HOW precisely did they come up with that figure; or is it just hyperbole and spin as has come to be expected from years of experience from sisu press releases!

If it turns out average is based on comparing the lowest rent against city's then splitting the difference, it is utterly unrealistic. I would have thought modal average would be most appropriate (even then you aren't taking into consideration seating capacity).

Finally as for cost effectiveness without the team. As someone who had practical experience of these things quoted on here, in terms of costing of floorspace, the NEC charge £150 /m2 for hiring on exhibitions - and I'm guessing that wouldn't allow the exhibitors to have access to the f&d concessions either! based on that, with the potential floorspace of the pitch of 105m x 68m that works out at an impressive £1,071,000.

I appreciate there may be additional expenditure, but to say that having a football club there even paying full current rent of around £100k/month cannot be made up is madness.

Once this tidbit of info was made aware to me, it seems now ALL of sisu's actions and their desire to own the club now make perfect sense. If sisu own the club, then they will be the only people who ACL can sell the ground to. So it is in their interests to keep the club going until they have their name on the deeds. Now once they have this, then there is no need to keep the club going, they can then simply disband the club, leaving them with the TRUE PRIZE - the arena itself!

Sure there would be legal battles and denial of re-development, but EVENTUALLY they would appeal as tesco does, until they got they desired planning permission. Then either they develop themselves or more likely sell on at a much increased value and let a developer reap the rewards.

Clearly this takes no account of the people of coventry or fans of the club, but since when has that mattered to sisu?

Sure this is all ifs and buts, but if this isn't their plan, then there plan is to alienate the fanbase, alienate the owners of the stadium, relegate the club, put in jeopardy their asset for no advantage whatsoever!

Whilst it is possible the second alternative is the truth, which is more likely from a hedge fund - to distress the owners of a high value asset to obtain said asset on the cheap, or to plough money into a failing football team and alienate the fanbase in the offchance that they can get their money back in 3-4 years?

I could be way off, but I suspect plan a is more likely than the alternative!

What a strange day.

SBT calls SISU c-units

PGSM shows great insight and thought and steps away from the ramblings of a mad man.

Today is going to be a wonderful day

 

[Delboycov]

What a strange day.

SBT calls SISU c-units

PGSM shows great insight and thought and steps away from the ramblings of a mad man.

Today is going to be a wonderful day

Maybe it shows that at last we're all becoming united again and lets face it, never have we needed to be so much! Then again....probably not ;-)

 

[wingy]

Maybe it shows that at last we're all becoming united again and lets face it, never have we needed to be so much! Then again....probably not ;-)

Nah we'll always be City Delboy.:facepalm::facepalm:

 

[grego_gee]

a lot of contradiction here!

Inside track: No. All that the Higgs Charity has said is that it would like to sell at the right price at the right time. It would like that time to be now because it would like to re-employ the capital in other projects in Coventry. It has also said that ideally it would be a sale to an owner of CCFC that has the confidence of the City of Coventry, Council and people.

As to the profits made by ACL: every year investment has been made to improve the facilities at the Ricoh: new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. These are all within the skin of the original building and perhaps for someone who only comes on a match day are invisible. They are of course visible to the greater number of people who come on all the other days of the year.

A cracking post my friend.
It expresses my own thoughts entirely, I agree that sisu will attempt to Financially distress ACL in an attempt to gain ownership of the complex, which, if people could understand, is the only reason why they bought us out, they certainly have no positive desire to own a foot ball club going forward, ownership of the sky Blues, is the "Trojan Horse" used to gain the keys to the Ricoh, thank God its Failing, and ACL are standing their ground, in the face of threats, and intimidation.
"The Ricoh" is a valuable Asset to the City of Coventry and must not be given away cheaply, to financial Bully's who will carve up and sub let the family silver.

It should have been. Of course, Birmingham as the Second City was an attraction and Villa Park has a larger capacity. They've opted for large venues generally with some obvious and understandable exceptions, but despite all that, you're right, the Ricoh was a serious contender. All I can say is, have you seen it lately?

I love it when the Tove says ACL doesn't make any profit because it was all reinvested back into the Ricoh! So that doesn't count then?

Then the Tank argues what a valuable "Asset to the City of Coventry" the Ricoh is when the Tove has already admitted he's spent all the profits on sprucing up the Ricoh, " new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc.". So not a lot coming out of this "Asset"?

Then Insider says " All I can say is, have you seen it lately?".

We were paying over a million a year in rent? Where has all that gone?

imp:

 

[Delboycov]

Nah we'll always be City Delboy.:facepalm::facepalm:

With SISU in charge I wouldn't rule anything out Wingy! ;-)

 

[James Smith]

I love it when the Tove says ACL doesn't make any profit because it was all reinvested back into the Ricoh! So that doesn't count then?

Then the Tank argues what a valuable "Asset to the City of Coventry" the Ricoh is when the Tove has already admitted he's spent all the profits on sprucing up the Ricoh, " new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc.". So not a lot coming out of this "Asset"?

Then Insider says " All I can say is, have you seen it lately?".

We were paying over a million a year in rent? Where has all that gone?

imp:

As a guess, to improve the Facilities at the Ricoh Arena, such as those mentioned by PWKH e.g. new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. and on the mortgage.

 

[Godiva]

As a guess, to improve the Facilities at the Ricoh Arena, such as those mentioned by PWKH e.g. new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. and on the mortgage.

How does it benefit the club that ACL build a new exhibition hall when it never receive a penny from any exhibition there?

 

[grego_gee]

It should have been. Of course, Birmingham as the Second City was an attraction and Villa Park has a larger capacity. They've opted for large venues generally with some obvious and understandable exceptions, but despite all that, you're right, the Ricoh was a serious contender. All I can say is, have you seen it lately?

As a guess, to improve the Facilities at the Ricoh Arena, such as those mentioned by PWKH e.g. new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc. and on the mortgage.

All I can say is Vasa vacua facere maxime sonitus - Vade enim Civitatem!

imp:

 

[duffer]

How does it benefit the club that ACL build a new exhibition hall when it never receive a penny from any exhibition there?

Erm... because when the club buys their share of ACL, they'll get a share of the profits that the investment will realise?

The club could have built their own stadium of course, just for football. Except at the time they were completely broke and about to be homeless, and had to get the Council and Higgs trust to bail them out.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I love it when the Tove says ACL doesn't make any profit because it was all reinvested back into the Ricoh! So that doesn't count then?

Then the Tank argues what a valuable "Asset to the City of Coventry" the Ricoh is when the Tove has already admitted he's spent all the profits on sprucing up the Ricoh, " new exhibition halls, a new conference facility, new hotel rooms etc.". So not a lot coming out of this "Asset"?

Then Insider says " All I can say is, have you seen it lately?".

We were paying over a million a year in rent? Where has all that gone?

imp:

Are you thick? SISU simply want to pick it up for a song from a distressed company & sell on quickly.. they won't stay long if they make a killing. Vultures.. that is what they are..

 

[James Smith]

Erm... because when the club buys their share of ACL, they'll get a share of the profits that the investment will realise?

The club could have built their own stadium of course, just for football. Except at the time they were completely broke and about to be homeless, and had to get the Council and Higgs trust to bail them out.

And I believe as I've said before that the club should eventually own ACL, I just don't think SISU should, ever.

 

[bigfatronssba]

<p>

How does it benefit the club that ACL build a new exhibition hall when it never receive a penny from any exhibition there?

So ccfc should have a say on what another private business puts its money into?

Im all for ccfc owning the Ricoh, but your post makes no sense.

 

[Godiva]

<p>

So ccfc should have a say on what another private business puts its money into?

Im all for ccfc owning the Ricoh, but your post makes no sense.

My posts never makes sense, so no surprise there.

I was reacting when somebody seemed to believe that it is ok the club has been paying £1m+ per year and that ACL used the profit to invest in business the club doesn't benefit from.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

My posts never makes sense, so no surprise there.

I was reacting when somebody seemed to believe that it is ok the club has been paying £1m+ per year and that ACL used the profit to invest in business the club doesn't benefit from.

It's been proven by clear calculation on here that to build a stadium of 20K seats and more would cost in the region of £1.5m per annum; assuming a reasonable term and low interest rates.

What continues to amaze me is that you believe a club who couldn't afford to build their own stadium should be gifted use of a facility well below the cost they'd incur to build themselves.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

My posts never makes sense, so no surprise there.

I was reacting when somebody seemed to believe that it is ok the club has been paying £1m+ per year and that ACL used the profit to invest in business the club doesn't benefit from.

I don't imagine many landlords give the tenants' rent back to them. Had the club not sold its stake all those years ago the club would not have paid £9m in rent since 2005, and would be able to claim ACL's turnover (in total, not just F+B), to be cross invoiced toward its own.

SISU were actually on course to get the Higgs share and make this a reality, but never chased it up. Why?

 

[Godiva]

It's been proven by clear calculation on here that to build a stadium of 20K seats and more would cost in the region of £1.5m per annum; assuming a reasonable term and low interest rates.

What continues to amaze me is that you believe a club who couldn't afford to build their own stadium should be gifted use of a facility well below the cost they'd incur to build themselves.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain?

I haven't seen the calculation, but it's probably not far off.
I can't explain why it would be a financial better - more robust - investment to build a new stadium, but I am sure that sisu's spreadsheet monkeys know everything they need to construct an investment case. Based on that they will know what is the best solution financially - to stay or to move. I couldn't tell if they're right or wrong as I haven't seen their caculations.

What I can say is that it would be a disaster for the fans and for ACL if the club moves away. A much better solution would be to sell ACL to the club. That is what I am advocating.

 

[James Smith]

I haven't seen the calculation, but it's probably not far off.
I can't explain why it would be a financial better - more robust - investment to build a new stadium, but I am sure that sisu's spreadsheet monkeys know everything they need to construct an investment case. Based on that they will know what is the best solution financially - to stay or to move. I couldn't tell if they're right or wrong as I haven't seen their caculations.

What I can say is that it would be a disaster for the fans and for ACL if the club moves away. A much better solution would be to sell ACL to the club. That is what I am advocating.

No problems with that so long as it isn't to the club when SISU are still owners.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I haven't seen the calculation, but it's probably not far off.
I can't explain why it would be a financial better - more robust - investment to build a new stadium, but I am sure that sisu's spreadsheet monkeys know everything they need to construct an investment case. Based on that they will know what is the best solution financially - to stay or to move. I couldn't tell if they're right or wrong as I haven't seen their caculations.

What I can say is that it would be a disaster for the fans and for ACL if the club moves away. A much better solution would be to sell ACL to the club. That is what I am advocating.

Problem is Godiva that neither the charity nor the council are able to justify just handing over their shares in ACL for nothing. As I said before, SISU seemed set to buy the charity's stake last summer but never followed it up-perhaps they saw it as cheaper to try and bust ACL through Timbo's boycott.

 

[Godiva]

I don't imagine many landlords give the tenants' rent back to them. Had the club not sold its stake all those years ago the club would not have paid £9m in rent since 2005, and would be able to claim ACL's turnover (in total, not just F+B), to be cross invoiced toward its own.

SISU were actually on course to get the Higgs share and make this a reality, but never chased it up. Why?

Why did they never buy the shares?
Well, the Higgs expect to get £6m-£8m for the shares and the real value of the whole ACL is maybe £6m in total. That could easily be one reason.
Then there's the claim sisu put to the court that there was a joint plan between sisu and CCC to distress the ACL mortgage so it could be bought from Yorkshire Bank at £2m-£5m. If that had gone through Higgs could have gotten their expected price effectively leaving Yorkshire Bank to pay for the party. That could - if there's any truth in sisu's claim - be a second reason.

 

[James Smith]

Why did they never buy the shares?
Well, the Higgs expect to get £6m-£8m for the shares and the real value of the whole ACL is maybe £6m in total. That could easily be one reason.
Then there's the claim sisu put to the court that there was a joint plan between sisu and CCC to distress the ACL mortgage so it could be bought from Yorkshire Bank at £2m-£5m. If that had gone through Higgs could have gotten their expected price effectively leaving Yorkshire Bank to pay for the party. That could - if there's any truth in sisu's claim - be a second reason.

Why would the whole of ACL be worth £6-8m are you just going solely on the value of the mortgage?