It's all about the Taxpayer (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Jul 2, 2015

When SISU were attacked for rejecting the rent agreement one of the main reasons given was that the club were trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap. In fact in went further than that;

· The Ricoh was a community asset
· The Higgs Charity had to have their money back. In fact it was a moral outrage that anyone would offer them less. Not only that many “experts” claimed a lower offer was not acceptable as it breached charity commission rules
· The Ricoh had huge potential earnings. Anything less than £12 million was an insult and would be unfair on the poor Coventry tax payer
· The F and B revenues were sold by the club. An outrage to include this in the price, the club has to buy them back at market value.

A lot of the emphasis on this was the immorality (and apparent illegality) on the charity side and also the need to protect an asset from being undersold and so not fully benefitting the tax payer.

Well fast forward and we find the lot was sold for under £6 million.

The disturbing thing we then find is that, according to the local media, it is worth a lot more than that.

· The £6 million is now over £45 million
· The F and B is magically £195 million
· The basket case, (sorry the “washing its face” case, is a thriving business

What slightly confuses me here is why those very same people who were so adamant that this asset should be protected for the people of Coventry – all the taxpayers – now seem to have gone a little silent. Surely the taxpayer has been ripped off haven’t they? Do these people not care anymore?

Can you someone advise me why these people seem to have changed their stance?

wince · Jul 2, 2015

When SISU were attacked for rejecting the rent agreement one of the main reasons given was that the club were trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap. In fact in went further than that;

· The Ricoh was a community asset
· The Higgs Charity had to have their money back. In fact it was a moral outrage that anyone would offer them less. Not only that many “experts” claimed a lower offer was not acceptable as it breached charity commission rules
· The Ricoh had huge potential earnings. Anything less than £12 million was an insult and would be unfair on the poor Coventry tax payer
· The F and B revenues were sold by the club. An outrage to include this in the price, the club has to buy them back at market value.

A lot of the emphasis on this was the immorality (and apparent illegality) on the charity side and also the need to protect an asset from being undersold and so not fully benefitting the tax payer.

Well fast forward and we find the lot was sold for under £6 million.

The disturbing thing we then find is that, according to the local media, it is worth a lot more than that.

· The £6 million is now over £45 million
· The F and B is magically £195 million
· The basket case, (sorry the “washing its face” case, is a thriving business

What slightly confuses me here is why those very same people who were so adamant that this asset should be protected for the people of Coventry – all the taxpayers – now seem to have gone a little silent. Surely the taxpayer has been ripped off haven’t they? Do these people not care anymore?

Can you someone advise me why these people seem to have changed their stance? [/ QUOTE] Good point

hill83 · Jul 2, 2015

Because a lot of people are/were anti Sisu at all costs. Without taking anything else into consideration.
Reading a couple of old threads and seeing a couple of loud types who haven't posted since we've been back at the Ricoh backs this up.

Also, have a day off Grendel. It's not healthy.

eastwoodsdustman · Jul 2, 2015

simply put its: sisu=bad ccc/aeht/acl = good.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over any more.

Sbarcher · Jul 2, 2015

I think it must all boil down to Wasp fans being greedy pie-eaters with a liking for Guiness.

lifeskyblue · Jul 2, 2015

All along neither side has been honest re their intentions. The people who suffer are the people of Coventry and the supporters of Coventry City. For the politicians and SISU it a game and all part of their day-to-day activity

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Senior Vick from Alicante · Jul 2, 2015

All though not palatable to a lot of folk what's done is done. If their were any recourse for the councils actions Sisu would not be looking at JD2 this month and the council would already be in the dog house. The one thing that is missing from the original post is the court costs that would be incurred by both parties in fighting a long litigation against our owners could have swayed their decision in dropping the Ricoh portfolio as quick as they did. But as the saying goes the past is the past and it wont pay for your future, Sisu need to invest to move on and then sell to recoup some of their losses. Its hard to take losses in all walks of life but sometimes you just have to move on and concentrate on learning lessons and reaping the rewards from taking the knocks, as City fans that's one thing were all having to do on too many occasions.

Hobo · Jul 2, 2015

Grendel said:
When SISU were attacked for rejecting the rent agreement one of the main reasons given was that the club were trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap. In fact in went further than that;

· The Ricoh was a community asset
· The Higgs Charity had to have their money back. In fact it was a moral outrage that anyone would offer them less. Not only that many “experts” claimed a lower offer was not acceptable as it breached charity commission rules
· The Ricoh had huge potential earnings. Anything less than £12 million was an insult and would be unfair on the poor Coventry tax payer
· The F and B revenues were sold by the club. An outrage to include this in the price, the club has to buy them back at market value.

A lot of the emphasis on this was the immorality (and apparent illegality) on the charity side and also the need to protect an asset from being undersold and so not fully benefitting the tax payer.

Well fast forward and we find the lot was sold for under £6 million.

The disturbing thing we then find is that, according to the local media, it is worth a lot more than that.

· The £6 million is now over £45 million
· The F and B is magically £195 million
· The basket case, (sorry the “washing its face” case, is a thriving business

What slightly confuses me here is why those very same people who were so adamant that this asset should be protected for the people of Coventry – all the taxpayers – now seem to have gone a little silent. Surely the taxpayer has been ripped off haven’t they? Do these people not care anymore?

Can you someone advise me why these people seem to have changed their stance?

your good points are undermined by the fact your stance (as an excectutive business person) was it was worthless! Let's face it, Wasps are doing what we all wanted SISU to do. They might fail, but it would be dangerous to wait around in hope. That is because they appear to be putting everything in to make it work.

SISU misread the market thinking they were the only player in town. Plus I think they had a lack of finances with a changing world market. Wasps weren't rich but seem more equipped at this stage to getting investors on board.

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2015

Any thoughts on CCC and their refusal to offer a comparable deal to our and the city's football club? Any thoughts on saying one thing in public and doing another in private? Or is it <robot mode> all SISUs fault?

Hobo said:
SISU misread the market thinking they were the only player in town. Plus I think they had a lack of finances with a changing world market. Wasps weren't rich but seem more equipped at this stage to getting investors on board.

Hobo · Jul 2, 2015

torchomatic said:
Any thoughts on CCC and their refusal to offer a comparable deal to our and the city's football club? Any thoughts on saying one thing in public and doing another in private? Or is it <robot mode> all SISUs fault?

it is not robot mode at all. I think it is well documented how the relationship between the three parties became sower. I think SISU's hard nose game was driven by lack of free capital and investors. I also think they thought they could drive the price down further by putting ACL on its knees. Unfortunately Wasps came in with a concrete bid, by then CCC and HIGGS just wanted out.

business is always messy, on one hand you have figures on a page, then you have the personalities. Some muddy the waters, some have the art of making things easy and crystal clear.

we still play at the Ricoh and SISU still own us.....today is the foundation of our future, bitching about the past changes nothing about today.

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

The people of Coventry still have the stadium on the books and it will default to them if Wasps fail.
We are still unsure whether Wasps actually pay rent to CCC be it now or profit related.
Employment in the area is increasing now the tumble weed has been cleared up.

There is no doubt that Wasps have a more high profile and can apply more levers for potential investors.
Perhaps Sisu are aware that CCFC would not be able to get those incomes at League 1 level and may be right in not going bust trying to get the Ricoh at market value.

Nick · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
The people of Coventry still have the stadium on the books and it will default to them if Wasps fail.
We are still unsure whether Wasps actually pay rent to CCC be it now or profit related.
Employment in the area is increasing now the tumble weed has been cleared up.

There is no doubt that Wasps have a more high profile and can apply more levers for potential investors.
Perhaps Sisu are aware that CCFC would not be able to get those incomes at League 1 level and may be right in not going bust trying to get the Ricoh at market value.

I thought it defaulted to the bond people?

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
The people of Coventry still have the stadium on the books and it will default to them if Wasps fail.

Are you sure about that?

italiahorse said:
Employment in the area is increasing now the tumble weed has been cleared up.

Any evidence for this? How many full time salaried posts have been created for local residents with Wasps arrival?

italiahorse said:
There is no doubt that Wasps have a more high profile and can apply more levers for potential investors.

I would doubt that, I would say having a successful football team would generate a much higher profile than a rugby team. As we know, confirmed by the independent experts used by CWR and CT, it is now near impossible for CCFC to achive the level of success that would increase the profile of the city worldwide.

italiahorse said:
Perhaps Sisu are aware that CCFC would not be able to get those incomes at League 1 level and may be right in not going bust trying to get the Ricoh at market value.

Why would we go bust trying to buy the Ricoh? Surely that would only be the case if the sale price was inflated?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jul 2, 2015

Hobo said:
Let's face it, Wasps are doing what we all wanted SISU to do.

Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

torchomatic said:
Any thoughts on CCC and their refusal to offer a comparable deal to our and the city's football club? Any thoughts on saying one thing in public and doing another in private? Or is it <robot mode> all SISUs fault?

Didn't TF say they would not bought at that price ?
Perhaps a League one club like ours actually can't afford to run the Ricoh.
It's all about a club's visibility that generates other incomes.
A stadium sponsor or catering company is more likely to put in big money if they are on the telly every week.
Investors also relate to long term risk and the history of Sisu here would make people think twice.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jul 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
Are you sure about that?

Any evidence for this? How many full time salaried posts have been created for local residents with Wasps arrival?

I would doubt that, I would say having a successful football team would generate a much higher profile than a rugby team. As we know, confirmed by the independent experts used by CWR and CT, it is now near impossible for CCFC to achive the level of success that would increase the profile of the city worldwide.

Why would we go bust trying to buy the Ricoh? Surely that would only be the case if the sale price was inflated?

Ignore the sad troll

Nick · Jul 2, 2015

CCFC said:
Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

Sisu would have just got finance secured on the ricoh anyway, no way it should be allowed

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

CCFC said:
Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

There may be a few but I would say most on here would have wanted Sisu to make a reasonable offer and CCC to have accepted it.

Nick · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
There may be a few but I would say most on here would have wanted Sisu to make a reasonable offer and CCC to have accepted it.

Is a sisu reasonable offer the same as a wasps one? History says not in some of or fans eyes

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
Didn't TF say they would not bought at that price ?

TF says a lot of things. He said they wouldn't have bought with the loan outstanding after they had put in an offer to pay the same as Wasps with the loan remaining outstanding so SISU's actions would appear to contradict Fishers words.

What did anyone expect him to say after the sale? That he completely messed it up and he wished he could have got the same deal as Wasps?

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2015

They even circulated templates to send to Mutton begging him not to.

CCFC said:
Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2015

CCFC said:
Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

I can imagine what this forum, the CT comments and CWR phone in would have been like if SISU had purchased the stadium then immediately asked fans to loan them millions to pay off the money owed to themselves.

Specs WT-R75 · Jul 2, 2015

Grendel said:
When SISU were attacked for rejecting the rent agreement one of the main reasons given was that the club were trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap. In fact in went further than that;

· The Ricoh was a community asset
· The Higgs Charity had to have their money back. In fact it was a moral outrage that anyone would offer them less. Not only that many “experts” claimed a lower offer was not acceptable as it breached charity commission rules
· The Ricoh had huge potential earnings. Anything less than £12 million was an insult and would be unfair on the poor Coventry tax payer
· The F and B revenues were sold by the club. An outrage to include this in the price, the club has to buy them back at market value.

A lot of the emphasis on this was the immorality (and apparent illegality) on the charity side and also the need to protect an asset from being undersold and so not fully benefitting the tax payer.

Well fast forward and we find the lot was sold for under £6 million.

The disturbing thing we then find is that, according to the local media, it is worth a lot more than that.

· The £6 million is now over £45 million
· The F and B is magically £195 million
· The basket case, (sorry the “washing its face” case, is a thriving business

What slightly confuses me here is why those very same people who were so adamant that this asset should be protected for the people of Coventry – all the taxpayers – now seem to have gone a little silent. Surely the taxpayer has been ripped off haven’t they? Do these people not care anymore?

Can you someone advise me why these people seem to have changed their stance?

This was just more CET spin. The _turnover_ on the F&B is projected to be upto 195m over the remaining 24 years. ~8m in turnover per year. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity. What is the profit on that turnover... who knows, my guess is you are looking in the range 1.5-3m, and who knows what percentage of that is going to Wasps as part of this deal - we just don't actually know.

hill83 · Jul 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
I can imagine what this forum, the CT comments and CWR phone in would have been like if SISU had purchased the stadium then immediately asked fans to loan them millions to pay off the money owed to themselves.

There wouldn't have been enough popcorn gifs or actual popcorn to cope with it.

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
Are you sure about that?

CCC own the freehold

Any evidence for this? How many full time salaried posts have been created for local residents with Wasps arrival

I only see the local pubs have increased staff. Why full time staff ? On Wasps matches there are obviously more people working than on CCFC matches. I think CCC may have some figures.

I would doubt that, I would say having a successful football team would generate a much higher profile than a rugby team. As we know, confirmed by the independent experts used by CWR and CT, it is now near impossible for CCFC to achive the level of success that would increase the profile of the city worldwide.

Agree if we are in PL.

Why would we go bust trying to buy the Ricoh? Surely that would only be the case if the sale price was inflated?

The sale price is only the start. The ability to finance the running of the place is another. Perhaps Sisu figures show this and hence the quote it's not worth it.

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2015

Specs WT-R75 said:
This was just more CET spin. The _turnover_ on the F&B is projected to be upto 195m over the remaining 24 years. ~8m in turnover per year. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity. What is the profit on that turnover... who knows, my guess is you are looking in the range 1.5-3m, and who knows what percentage of that is going to Wasps as part of this deal - we just don't actually know.

According to the CT this deal runs for 15 years, up until 2030 so that makes turnover £13m a year. That is only £0.5m a year higher than was claimed when the original deal with Compass was signed. Be interesting to see how accurate that projection was and how that equated to profit for ACL. Would also like to know where IEC fits in to this. There was supposed to be a joint venture company responsible for that side of things, has that now been dissolved?

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

Nick said:
Is a sisu reasonable offer the same as a wasps one? History says not in some of or fans eyes

The price Wasps bought at was cheap for a stadium with a team in it.
The price probably reflected the value without a team.
I think the JR documents detail this.
With the history between CCC and Sisu, Wasps would always win a similar bid.

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
CCC own the freehold

But without the lease that has little value. My understanding is the lease is not tied to Wasps and is held in a separate company, also a separate company to ACL itself, so if either company fails the ownership of the lease does not revert to CCC

italiahorse said:
I only see the local pubs have increased staff. Why full time staff ? On Wasps matches there are obviously more people working than on CCFC matches. I think CCC may have some figures.

I said full time as anything else really is having little impact. A few extra hours on minimum wage is hardly a huge boost to the local economy. And of course the unknown is what they offset of that is. How many people are spending less elsewhere in the city as they are now spending money on Wasps, money that ultimately is not retained in the city.

italiahorse said:
The sale price is only the start. The ability to finance the running of the place is another. Perhaps Sisu figures show this and hence the quote it's not worth it.

This comes down to the valuation. We told the non-sporting side is doing incredibly well. Why would it make a difference if that was being run under the ownership of Wasps or SISU? Either the place is a profitable worthwhile investment or a financial black hole that should be steered clear of, its not both

Hobo · Jul 2, 2015

CCFC said:
Are they though? There would have been an uproar by many on here had the council sold to the club whilst under SISU ownership.

they have a lease and negotiated a long lease giving them almost the equivalent of ownership. Unfortunately, someone at SISU seemed determined to have a diferent type of lease. To me SISU went wrong in not being clear or consistent on the terms they wanted. Ultimately their stratergy was wrong because they never landed the deal.

it is now time to move forward with fresh ideas, rather than keep analysing the past. Some would have us go back to Jimmy Hill in his second tenure as to mistakes made. The decisions made from today are what will shape our future.

It is suprising to me, that the people who were quick to rubbish the Ricoh, seem to be the ones most aggrieved by the Wasps being long term tenants? You can't have it both ways!

SISU, in my book seriously fucked up; but at the moment are the only ones who can turn us around! They have shown tentative steps to addressing mistakes. I can live with a limited budget if there is a genuine desire for steady progression.

italiahorse · Jul 2, 2015

CCFC said:
Ignore the sad troll

Oops Sorry, I didn't realise you had to agree with Grendel to make a contribution on this thread.
Which of my points don't you agree with and if you can put more than 4 words together, why ?

blueflint · Jul 2, 2015

can't say i remember an offer before wasps appeared as that was part of the problem many prices were thrown around but did they make a genuine offer i don't know do you

covcity4life · Jul 2, 2015

once again the council lovers have been shown up

I WIN

Hobo · Jul 2, 2015

covcity4life said:
once again the council lovers have been shown up

I WIN

but everyone's future is the same.

Specs WT-R75 · Jul 2, 2015

chiefdave said:
According to the CT this deal runs for 15 years, up until 2030 so that makes turnover £13m a year. That is only £0.5m a year higher than was claimed when the original deal with Compass was signed. Be interesting to see how accurate that projection was and how that equated to profit for ACL. Would also like to know where IEC fits in to this. There was supposed to be a joint venture company responsible for that side of things, has that now been dissolved?

The CET article is not clear. It says:

"having retained and extended the contract which previously ran from 2007.Wasps has said it expects the new deal to be worth £195m in turnover by the end of the contract."

You could argue that the new contract replaces the old and is now worth 195m from now until 2030? Aah ignore me, I took the remaining term on the existing deal and added 15.... 2030-2015... duh. my bad

Anyway sentiment remains. Turnover vanity....

Jack Griffin · Jul 2, 2015

italiahorse said:
The sale price is only the start. The ability to finance the running of the place is another. Perhaps Sisu figures show this and hence the quote it's not worth it.

If SISU calculations are right and Wasps calculations are baloney then the stadium will fall into SISU's hands, won't it?

It's all about the Taxpayer (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency