Legal action dropped (1 Viewer)

[No future with SISU]

So really ACL ultimately are the issue aren't they? So really what the offer should be is to hand ACL to sisu including payment of the outstanding mortgage.

This would then force sisu into a corner. They either accept to run the management company and not get entitlement to the freehold or they refuse and admit owning the freehold property is the only way forward for them. We are I think the only club that has not got ownership (or part ownership) of the management company that runs the ground of all council owned stadiums.

Before you start blabbering on about the club selling its rights to this and sisu knowing the score remember you claim to be a Coventry supporter so want the club back in town. Most council owned stadiums have allowed the club shares in the management company without charge - yes without charge. Stoke went one step further and have the stadium to the club for payment of the outstanding mortgage. Oh and stokes ground had assistance in construction from a regeneration charity.

So for once get your head out of your backside and agree the club has to own ACL and there is no precedent from any club in the country that has a council built stadium that it pays for it.

So once more some one finds another stadium to use as an example and then prints a statement as if it is true. Well by using stokes ground you have shown you are not a person to tell the truth so a lot of what you put on here in other posts are unreliable. The Britannia stadium was built by Stoke city football club. The council never owned it, they did give a £3m loan as well as Stoke regneration put in £3m. SFC took over this morage in 2007.

 

---

[No future with SISU]

You'd certainly need an idiots guide.

You need to hold one fact in that tiny little brain if yours - it cost the council £10 million in terms of investment - a figure they have never disputed.

The only club that is very similar to is is stoke with the Brittania as that was also funded by a regeneration charity in part. It gives without saying the club ended up with a far better deal and in a far better place than ours.

Who cares though. As long as the council can cream off more and more from the club and good old ACL keep bobbing along the likes of you and astute will be happy.

Once again you are try ing to use the stoke model but it is not like the coventry city council financed ricoh, CCFC did not finance the building of the ricoh, stoke city football club financed the building of their stadium. It is not very similar get your facts right.

 

[No future with SISU]

£100million??

The amount goes up day by day.

£10million was the council contribution.

£13.9m and a £21m loan.

 

[italiahorse]

You'd certainly need an idiots guide.

You need to hold one fact in that tiny little brain if yours - it cost the council £10 million in terms of investment - a figure they have never disputed.

The only club that is very similar to is is stoke with the Brittania as that was also funded by a regeneration charity in part. It gives without saying the club ended up with a far better deal and in a far better place than ours.

Who cares though. As long as the council can cream off more and more from the club and good old ACL keep bobbing along the likes of you and astute will be happy.

I didn't mean "an idiots guide" as explained by an idiot. I meant an explanation of how the Ricoh was financed in simple terms.

 

[No future with SISU]

The club was on it's last legs, which is why we got Sisu.
No one will buy the club in it's current state.
It's Sisu till we get own stadium & or promotion.

Was sisu the only offer to buy CCFC LTD.

 

[lordsummerisle]

£13.9m and a £21m loan.

£10 million and the £21million loan was paid straight back to the council as was the amount for the 50 year ACL lease. Though of course that £21 million just goes round and round through various companies in a way that a hedge- fund would be proud of.

Either way, nothing like the £100 million pound figure or more that gets banded around as fact on here.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

£10 million and the £21million loan was paid straight back to the council as was the amount for the 50 year ACL lease. Though of course that £21 million just goes round and round through various companies in a way that a hedge- fund would be proud of.

Either way, nothing like the £100 million pound figure or more that gets banded around as fact on here.

Do you know the whole cost breakdown structure of the build costs of the Ricoh- reported as £120m wasnt it?
Be in interesting to know in the present climate?

 

[mrtrench]

You'd certainly need an idiots guide.

You need to hold one fact in that tiny little brain if yours -

What a frightfully rude plebeian-like fellow. If you haven't anything nice to write, you ought to consider not writing anything at all.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Do you know the whole cost breakdown structure of the build costs of the Ricoh- reported as £120m wasnt it?
Be in interesting to know in the present climate?

It is all here
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Data/Council/200601171800/Agenda/0912 - Ricoh Arena Development.pdf

And note the council made a £14M loan to ACL in Jun 2013.. that is still being repaid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21033825

 

[lordsummerisle]

It is all here
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Data/Council/200601171800/Agenda/0912 - Ricoh Arena Development.pdf

And note the council made a £14M loan to ACL in Jun 2013.. that is still being repaid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21033825

The £14million loan isn't in addition to, it's instead of the original £21million loan.

Total build costs were £81 million I think, including the land etc (mostly paid for by Tesco).

 

[Grendel]

Once again you are try ing to use the stoke model but it is not like the coventry city council financed ricoh, CCFC did not finance the building of the ricoh, stoke city football club financed the building of their stadium. It is not very similar get your facts right.

Wrong - the council, the club and a regeneration charity financed it. The difference is that the club were allowed to purchase the outstanding mortgage from the council and the charity and face value - it cost the club £6 million pounds

 

[georgehudson]

i'd think this discussion should be evaluated by persons with a neutral financial viewpoint,
once again the problem seems to arise,
all matters aside, why have the fa not 'grasped the metal',
imho, i am deeply suspicious of our owners motives, as i am of the other parties involved,
the truth is out there,
this is not a statement from the Cayman Islands independence party,
PUSB

 

[Grendel]

i'd think this discussion should be evaluated by persons with a neutral financial viewpoint,
once again the problem seems to arise,
all matters aside, why have the fa not 'grasped the metal',
imho, i am deeply suspicious of our owners motives, as i am of the other parties involved,
the truth is out there,
this is not a statement from the Cayman Islands independence party,
PUSB

No its a statement from the ACL Popular Front

All my statements are those of a Sky Blue supporter - something you only may recall as a distant memory

 

[georgehudson]

far from it grendel, you may wish to involve a biased debate, personally,
i, since the 1950's have followed / supported / wished the very best for MY club,
as i have tried to state on many occasions, our current crisis is being handled by persons who give, not a toss, for the club,
but consider their own viewpoint & wealth as the ultimate,
as you seem to be the 1 in the know,
with your undoubted wisdom,
it may be worth you conducting a poll as to who & in which percentage, is to blame ?

 

[Jack Griffin]

The £14million loan isn't in addition to, it's instead of the original £21million loan.

Total build costs were £81 million I think, including the land etc (mostly paid for by Tesco).

Wrong total build costs were £113M it is documented fully in the references I linked.
I don't know if you've chosen not to read them or worse chosen to misrepresent the the facts?

It is your interpretation that the £14 was instead of the £21M loan, I never said that. However in your previous post you implied that the £21M had been paid off, and it wasn't, it was only partly paid off.

Basically I've backed up my facts with unequivocal references & you have either deliberately presented a factually inaccurate picture or at best are a very poor researcher.

I'll repost my references, enjoy reading them.

It is all here
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Data/Council/200601171800/Agenda/0912 - Ricoh Arena Development.pdf

And note the council made a £14M loan to ACL in Jun 2013.. that is still being repaid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21033825

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

far from it grendel, you may wish to involve a biased debate, personally,
i, since the 1950's have followed / supported / wished the very best for MY club,
as i have tried to state on many occasions, our current crisis is being handled by persons who give, not a toss, for the club,
but consider their own viewpoint & wealth as the ultimate,
as you seem to be the 1 in the know,
with your undoubted wisdom,
it may be worth you conducting a poll as to who & in which percentage, is to blame ?

Have you not heard the news George.. G doesnt do percentages.... well almost doesnt do them....

The percentage game is ultimately pointless. It is arbitary and open to conjecture.

We know certain things. There is general acceptance among the general football world that the council dealt the club a very poor hand when they agreed the Ricoh deal. This, whatever arguments anyone cares to deploy is ultimately beyond argument. In fact no-one has ever produced any examples of a council treating its club so shabbily. Despite his bluster and fondness for admiration on here this is a question PWKH refuses to ever address.

The notion that anyone is a SISU fan is of course as absurd as absolving the council for their role in the clubs demise. Why is anyone a fan of the owners of the club? It's ridiculous and of course they have to accept responsibility for the decision to remove the club from its community and the potential catastrophic implications this may have.

However the irony of course is there for all to see isn't it? If our council and its management company had offered the club a fair deal at the beginning of its tenure and did not create a situation where the club had to increase its adult fanbase by 40% just to break even then we would not have even heard of SISU would we? It was only the unsustainable business model that introduced our evil hedge fund in the first place.

Fan hypocrisy is also significant. When fans bleat that the council saved us they also demanded the owners (prior SISU) purchased expensive players. They blasted the owners for selling McSheffrey but why? The council needed its pound of flesh didn't it?

Virtually every independent analyst said the model would never work and the club was dead the minute it entered into its pact with the council. They have been proved 100% correct.

....... just brilliant!!!

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So were sisu but decided they wanted it for free.

Wrong - the council, the club and a regeneration charity financed it. The difference is that the club were allowed to purchase the outstanding mortgage from the council and the charity and face value - it cost the club £6 million pounds

 

[James Smith]

Ostensibly for underprivileged children in the Coventry Area, (they have a website).
I've previously questioned if their reasons for propping up the football club are in accord with their stated aims.. they really need to get out of football & stay out.

Actually if you read up on the charity it wasn't just set up to help deprived children but stated within the objects is

Such charitable purposes as the trustees may select which shall benefit wholly or mainly the inhabitants of the area within 25miles of Coventry City centre.

Source:http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends67/0000509367_ac_20110405_e_c.pdf
They therefore I am assuming they decided that taking on the club's stake in the Arena met that criteria when the trustees were looking at the plight of our club. I have never mentioned any other project or recipient of the charity's funds (apart from the Alan Higgs Centre) because I don't know of any others.

 

[dongonzalos]

They probably took into consideration what the founder of the trust would have wanted