'Highfield Two' (10 Viewers)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 23, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
You speak as though rent received equals pure profit, which as you must be aware is utter rubbish.
How about the financial cost of servicing the debt that ACL had to take up to finance the Ricoh when CCFC went bust and could not proceed with building the stadium. How about salaries and wages and maintenance etc. etc. etc.?
You must know that your comment is a false statement and that the 6 million paid in rent was used 100% to service debt and costs or improve the facilities.
I wish you people trying to support SISU would present the whole truth instead of picking little bits and then misusing them to make false points.

The ridiculous nature of his comparison doesn't stop there. The Ricoh was build to be a Premier League stadium. We all acknowledge the rent is too high, but it was agreed, negotiated and contracted against the backdrop of it being a Premier League home; and frankly speaking it would do a grand job in being so.

The Fisher Arena is one befitting a League One club; in image and value; designed and dreamt by an outfit that has calibrated expectation ever lower, season by season since they arrived.

To make any comparison by cost or value between the Ricoh, and this crude and Fisher's diminutive Meccano Set is to compare the military strength of the USA to that of the Isle of Wight

James Smith · May 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
They have paid £6 million in rent over 5 years and have zero ownership of the Arena from that £6 million!
They probably see £20 million in building a stadium better suited to our needs, as smarter use of the money going on the rent.

imp:

They had the chance to buy at least the charity stake in ACL and walked away after agreeing a heads of terms. They could have started negotiations from the start of their ownership and then could have bought the Council stake later on. But they didn't and started us on the road to destruction. Might have cost them less than building the White Elephant stadium as well.

Houdi · May 23, 2013

SISU have got basically 3 options,that I can think of.
Option 1 to walk away, in which case they would have lost everything,it would be an utter humiliation,and any reputation they still retained in the business world would be massively diminshed.
Option 2 to continue to pour huge sums of money into buliding a new stadium,and losing millions more in the 3/4 years the club would be playing at Walsall.
Option 3 to look for the best possible exit strategy which maximises their return.
Option 1 was never likely to realistically happen.Option 2 would result in further huge losses,with little realistic chance of ever recovering their losses.Option3 their best option,can only best be served by initially apparently pursuing option 2.If they didn't apparently pursue option 2,then option 1 would be their only option,as a football club has to play somewhere.They could hardly tell the administrator and football league that they wish to carry on running CCFC ,if they didn't apparently have a ground to play at.To me SISU's preferred option is still option 3,they just need option 2 presently to strengthen their bargaining position

rupert_bear · May 23, 2013

Highfield Two !! Did Tim Fisher really wake up one morning and think " i know a good name for our new wish for stadium, the fans will love it" Cretin !!

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

ccfcway said:
To be honest "highfield road 2" is absolutely spot on.

They have picked a great name and have managed to get the attendance in there as well !

Are you real ?

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

SkyBlueSwiss said:
You talk utter rubbish.
The discussion concerned the opportunity cost of moving away for three years while building a new stadium as compared to staying at the Ricoh.
If they stayed at the Ricoh they could have made an agreement to reduce the rent to 400k. The opportunity cost of moving and building a new stadium must therefore by definition be compared to this 400k figure.
Stop talking rubbish and telling half truths.

Half truths?

Sorry I must of missed the part where Tim Fisher had signed an agreement to pay the £400K figure in a Monthly Rental Agreement and that we are also staying at The Ricoh..

Again it's all if's and opportunities, they didn't sign that agreement, which means SISU have to look at the agreement currently and compare that expenditure to the one they are "speculating" that they will make on building their own ground and moving to Walsall for 3 years.

Personally I wish they would stay at the Ricoh, although I can't see that happening, Why?

The rent amount verbally agreed is good, but that's not the whole package, Tim Fisher wants what he believes the club is entitled to (Right's to revenue, F&B and so on), on the cheap, these were previously sold by McGinnity (What a douche!) and now Fisher expects them to just be handed over?? Surely the dude lives on a different planet, mind you why would you sell those right's in the first place? Fisher also wants a ground that he gets 100% of revenue streams from (Totally understand that), but what he should do instead of building a new ground for £30m, why not just invest that money into buying the Ricoh? Why won't this happen, because no one trusts SISU. So instead of sitting back on their backsides and going over the same old shizzle with ACL/CCC they're planning to invest into a stable future where they build their own home.

Grrr I hate SISU!!!

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The ridiculous nature of his comparison doesn't stop there. The Ricoh was build to be a Premier League stadium. We all acknowledge the rent is too high, but it was agreed, negotiated and contracted against the backdrop of it being a Premier League home; and frankly speaking it would do a grand job in being so.

The Fisher Arena is one befitting a League One club; in image and value; designed and dreamt by an outfit that has calibrated expectation ever lower, season by season since they arrived.

To make any comparison by cost or value between the Ricoh, and this crude and Fisher's diminutive Meccano Set is to compare the military strength of the USA to that of the Isle of Wight

You make it sound as in Fisher's head he is thinking "I have no hope, no expectation, no ideas to build a succesful business/Football Club, yet I shall continue to build a ground that relates to where I am, not looking forward or back and having no aspiration for any future of my business".

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
It might have relevance, but to SISU they were contractually obliged to pay the £1.2m-a-year figure that was agreed when we moved to the Ricoh, yes a reduced offer was discussed and in some aspects agreed with a new rent agreement, but have they been paying that figure? No, They did reach that agreement? No, Was the offer signed off by all parties? No. They (SISU) have too look at the agreement that they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better than that, holding onto "Well they were offered £400K" means jack..

You write this assuming everything SISU said is correct. There was some verbal agreement at £400K and SISU changed there mind. They were obviously not far off so just a little bit of fine tuning would have got them there. However ACL wrongly pulled the plug on negotiations and SISU took this literally.

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
They have paid £6 million in rent over 5 years and have zero ownership of the Arena from that £6 million!
They probably see £20 million in building a stadium better suited to our needs, as smarter use of the money going on the rent.

imp:

The financing of that figure would be more than £400K/year and also you have the running costs.

Jack Griffin · May 23, 2013

italiahorse said:
You write this assuming everything SISU said is correct. There was some verbal agreement at £400K and SISU changed there mind. They were obviously not far off so just a little bit of fine tuning would have got them there. However ACL wrongly pulled the plug on negotiations and SISU took this literally.

The plug was pulled because the protracted nature of the negotiations were designed to distress ACL.

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

Noggin said:
They do have to look at the 1.2mill they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better, oh yes they can 400k, no instead of taking the heads of terms and turning it into a contract, best to start planning a stadium that will be terrible worse for the next 3-5 years but after that perhaps it's slightly better than we are currently obliged to pay, but still massively worse than the deal we have just agreed.

I can't understand where you are coming from at all, they spent a year negotiating a better deal, they get to the point that they have a great one and you think its ok to say, oh we can build a tiny stadium for less than we are currently contractually obliged to pay (but not paying) and while its a much much stupider idea than the deal we just spent a year negotiating lets go with that, sorry acl we're moving out.

It's called cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's a ridiculous plan and you know it.

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

italiahorse said:
You write this assuming everything SISU said is correct. There was some verbal agreement at £400K and SISU changed there mind. They were obviously not far off so just a little bit of fine tuning would have got them there. However ACL wrongly pulled the plug on negotiations and SISU took this literally.

I don't write like that at all italia, my point of the post is to highlight that SISU will look at the expenditure based on the current agreement and not something that was verbally agreed but never signed off..

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

dongonzalos said:
12 k capacity stadium.

For a club that over the years has average 17-18k during a time of mostly no success

Tells you the aspirations that SISU have for Coventry City Football Club. Can't wait!! !!!!!

I can't live with this plan. I want Premier League and SISU want Division 1. It won't happen.

Jack Griffin · May 23, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
I don't write like that at all italia, my point of the post is to highlight that SISU will look at the expenditure based on the current agreement and not something that was verbally agreed but never signed off..

Nonsense, they know as well as anyone that the agreement, details of which ACL have made public could be accepted anytime. Instead they continue with their aggressive approach..

italiahorse · May 23, 2013

savosdad said:
Its the biggest load of shit i've ever heard load of cunts

TRANSLATION : "This plan stinks"

Deleted member 5849 · May 23, 2013

italiahorse said:
You write this assuming everything SISU said is correct.

In his defence, many arguments here start from the assumption everything ACL says is correct.

valiant15 · May 23, 2013

italiahorse said:
TRANSLATION : "This plan stinks"

Not so long ago you we're one of sisu's biggest supporters,even after relegation you backed them. Why the sudden shift in sides? ?

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Nonsense, they know as well as anyone that the agreement, details of which ACL have made public could be accepted anytime. Instead they continue with their aggressive approach..

Then answer to me why haven't they signed it? If this deal is so beneificial..

kg82 · May 23, 2013

valiant15 said:
Not so long ago you we're one of sisu's biggest supporters,even after relegation you backed them. Why the sudden shift in sides? ?

Does it matter?

SkyBlueBlood · May 23, 2013

Coventry City Council boundary = http://www.coventry.gov.uk/info/100003/in_my_area/1472/boundary_maps/6

To be outside Cov Council boundary and nearer to the centre than the Ricoh they must be going south so Baginton, Ryton, Burton Green.

Would not be surprised if these half wits built a stadium right in the path of HS2 just so they could get a compulsary purchase order. Tossers.

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
In his defence, many arguments here start from the assumption everything ACL says is correct.

Couldn't agree more..

valiant15 · May 23, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Then answer to me why haven't they signed it? If this deal is so beneificial..

Because they want everything for nothing and they dont care how they get it.

WFC · May 23, 2013

There's a bit of truth and yet no truth in both sides here. It is true to say that they could have had a deal for £400k and so it is right to compare the prospect of the costs for a new build against this and say what a stupid decision to do this rather than take that deal if that's what you believe.

Having said that it is also right to say that it needs to be measured against the £1.2 because that deal is no longer available to fisher as it is Ltd that has the lease not Holdings and so he can't agree that deal now, the administrator could. Having said that even if the administrator did agree that deal for holdings to then use it they would probably have to pay Ltd the same rent value to cover it otherwise the administrator is giving them preference over other creditors.

The real truth of the matter is he has no choice but to look for another ground because he simply doesn't have one at the moment. Ltd has a lease for a ground, Holdings doesn't just a plan to rent one then build one. It would be very difficult for the administrator to sign the £400k deal because it commits Ltd to a long term deal for the future when it isn't at all certain that Ltd even has a future.

What it really means is comparing the cost of a temporary rent and build cost for Holdings to either deal is meaningless. It is more a case of how much will it cost Holdings to get a ground as they do not have one at all at the moment.

kg82 · May 23, 2013

I'm sick and tired of this now. I just want to know who now has the right to make these decisions, which part of the club is the footballing side, where we're going to play etc. Jesus, it's just so shit at the moment.

valiant15 · May 23, 2013

kg82 said:
Does it matter?

It does after being shouted down for years.

kg82 · May 23, 2013

valiant15 said:
It does after being shouted down for years.

I'm sorry, but you give as good as (actually more) than you take. So no, it doesn't matter.

RoboCCFC90 · May 23, 2013

valiant15 said:
Because they want everything for nothing and they dont care how they get it.

Agreed! But they won't get what they want that way and it was naive of them to believe so..

valiant15 · May 23, 2013

Kg, I know,the difference is, I was right all along.

Saddler17 · May 23, 2013

Hi guys - just to let you know, I've emailed our chief executive Stefan Gamble to oppose the suggestion of a WFC ground share with CCFC. I'd urge others from both clubs to do likewise:

"Dear Stefan

I read with great concern the article in today's Coventry Telegraph, which states that sources close to Coventry City Football Club have revealed the club is in negotiations to ground share at the Banks's Stadium from next season for up to three years.

As a Walsall fan of over 25 years, I would like to make clear my absolute opposition to this proposal and would strongly urge the club to do likewise. The way that the owners of Coventry City have run up unmanageable levels of debt, reneged on agreed rental agreements and forced CCFC Ltd into administration is the complete antithesis of everything Walsall FC stands for. And all this while continuing to fund a playing budget that dwarfs what Walsall can afford.

I think it is vitally important that Walsall publicly reiterates its long-held view that football clubs should live within their means, rejects any suggestion of a ground share with Coventry City and expresses its support for long-suffering Coventry fans who want a club in their own community, for their community, run sensibly by owners that care. I believe that the sooner a statement is issued the better for all concerned.

Over the last two years there has been much progress at Walsall that has brought admiring glances from across the football community. Cosying up to the most despised and unscrupulous owners in the Football League would undo all that good work and goodwill, costing the club far more than it would gain financially from a ground share arrangement.

Yours etc"

valiant15 · May 23, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Agreed! But they won't get what they want that way and it was naive of them to believe so..

I almost feel sorry for them. .....not

lifelongcityfan · May 23, 2013

what is the email adress for wfc ceo

ccfctommy · May 23, 2013

I think the ground would need to hold 20.000 ideally with room to expand.

Still can't see this happening though.

James Smith · May 23, 2013

Saddler17 said:
Hi guys - just to let you know, I've emailed our chief executive Stefan Gamble to oppose the suggestion of a WFC ground share with CCFC. I'd urge others from both clubs to do likewise:

"Dear Stefan

I read with great concern the article in today's Coventry Telegraph, which states that sources close to Coventry City Football Club have revealed the club is in negotiations to ground share at the Banks's Stadium from next season for up to three years.

As a Walsall fan of over 25 years, I would like to make clear my absolute opposition to this proposal and would strongly urge the club to do likewise. The way that the owners of Coventry City have run up unmanageable levels of debt, reneged on agreed rental agreements and forced CCFC Ltd into administration is the complete antithesis of everything Walsall FC stands for. And all this while continuing to fund a playing budget that dwarfs what Walsall can afford.

I think it is vitally important that Walsall publicly reiterates its long-held view that football clubs should live within their means, rejects any suggestion of a ground share with Coventry City and expresses its support for long-suffering Coventry fans who want a club in their own community, for their community, run sensibly by owners that care. I believe that the sooner a statement is issued the better for all concerned.

Over the last two years there has been much progress at Walsall that has brought admiring glances from across the football community. Cosying up to the most despised and unscrupulous owners in the Football League would undo all that good work and goodwill, costing the club far more than it would gain financially from a ground share arrangement.

Yours etc"

Thank you! (oh and welcome :welcome

Manchester_sky_blue · May 23, 2013

Post Stefan Gambles email address and we will all do likewise.

Thanks for your support

grego_gee · May 23, 2013

rupert_bear said:
They had the opportunity to buy half the Ricoh three of four years ago but turned it down. They can't have it both ways.

Incorrect! they had the opportunity to purchase the Higgs share in ACL - which owns a 50 year lease on the Arena, Not the freehold!

imp:

'Highfield Two' (10 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency