Les Reid= FAIL (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blue Kid]

The biggest question he should have asked Septic "Which he didn't" according to the statement. Without doubt could have swayed my way of thinking...........................................................Would the Football Club own the new Stadium, and NOT SISU/OTIUM. or indeed any other "Arm" of the SISU business enterprise....If not....Would the "New Stadium" be RENTED to the Football Club???

 

---

[TheOldFive]

Why is that so important to you? Would it inform or change your opinion or behaviour one way or another? Unless I'm missing some fine point of accounting law - I'd imagine some financial instrument would be used for any kind of property/equity transaction. I "own" my house albeit some would say I'm deluded on that and in fact I don't until I pay off the Mortgage etc. My Mortgage payments are rent to the bank etc? Is that what you're thinking of?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Am I on my own, or do others like me remember vividly, Fisher "Blustering, bumbling, and in the end not give an answer to the question" when put to him at one of the "Fans Forums"

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

He didn't appear to ask any questions or challenge any of the comments being made.

Maybe these were conditions of the interview.

 

[skybluetony176]

that is the biggest question. alot of people are assuming that a new ground built by shitsu would automatically be owned by the club and the club would only be sold with the ground and vice versa, they are also assuming that the club will not be paying rent for the new ground.

i have challanged more than 1 person on here to prove that this will not be the case and as yet no-one has.

the nearest statement i can find is that a football club should have acces to all revenue that it generates, that doesn't mean the club has to own the ground and it doesn't mean that the club will be paying rent for the ground.

 

[Nick]

People are moaning that SISU want to buy the stadium outright rather than rent it but want them back at the Ricoh, so surely this must mean renting it from the council.

However, if they build a new stadium there is a massive problem with us renting that?

I don't personally agree with renting either, but just wondered what the difference is?

 

[torchomatic]

If PH4 owned CCFC would he own the stadium or would the club?

Not difficult to work out is it?

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'm sure he'll be gutted by the criticism from a clown like you.

 

[chiefdave]

Why is that so important to you? Would it inform or change your opinion or behaviour one way or another? Unless I'm missing some fine point of accounting law - I'd imagine some financial instrument would be used for any kind of property/equity transaction. I "own" my house albeit some would say I'm deluded on that and in fact I don't until I pay off the Mortgage etc. My Mortgage payments are rent to the bank etc? Is that what you're thinking of?

Think the point is if SISU own the stadium and we are paying them rent how is the football club, the bit I assume we are all bothered about, actually better off. Using your house analogy, you own your own house as all the legal documents are in your name, it's only if you default on your mortgage the bank steps in. If you rented your house you could pay for 50 years, and pay way more than the value of the house, without owning a brick.

 

[Nick]

If PH4 owned CCFC would he own the stadium or the club?

The property developer fella?

 

[lordsummerisle]

If PH4 owned CCFC would he own the stadium or the club?

Not difficult to work out is it?

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Sisu would have to buy half the stadium from PH4 anyway.

Well, according to Richard Keys a few weeks back(and a few weeks before that, and a couple of weeks before that) he's bought half of it already.

 

[chiefdave]

People are moaning that SISU want to buy the stadium outright rather than rent it but want them back at the Ricoh, so surely this must mean renting it from the council.

However, if they build a new stadium there is a massive problem with us renting that?

I don't personally agree with renting either, but just wondered what the difference is?

the point would be if we're going to end up in exactly the same situation why not just stay at the Ricoh? moving away, losing fans and causing all the associated grief there has been is pointless from the clubs perspective if we end up in a new ground we don't own. If there's a clear business case showing the move would benefit the club then great, lets move, however if there isn't, or it's only going to benefit SISU, why bother?

 

[theferret]

that is the biggest question. alot of people are assuming that a new ground built by shitsu would automatically be owned by the club and the club would only be sold with the ground and vice versa, they are also assuming that the club will not be paying rent for the new ground.

i have challanged more than 1 person on here to prove that this will not be the case and as yet no-one has.

the nearest statement i can find is that a football club should have acces to all revenue that it generates, that doesn't mean the club has to own the ground and it doesn't mean that the club will be paying rent for the ground.

How can anyone realistically prove that it won't happen? Just as you cannot prove that it will.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

TheOldFive....For a answer see skybluetony176

 

[skybluetony176]

Why is that so important to you? Would it inform or change your opinion or behaviour one way or another? Unless I'm missing some fine point of accounting law - I'd imagine some financial instrument would be used for any kind of property/equity transaction. I "own" my house albeit some would say I'm deluded on that and in fact I don't until I pay off the Mortgage etc. My Mortgage payments are rent to the bank etc? Is that what you're thinking of?

the point is you own a stake in your house and at the end of your mortgage you will own the house out right. its not the same as being a sitting tennant paying rent on a permanent basis as we were at the Ricoh

 

[torchomatic]

That's him. The property developer fella. Hold on a minute....

The property developer fella?

 

[bezzer]

I'm sure he'll be gutted by the criticism from a clown like you.

:claping hands:

 

[skybluetony176]

How can anyone realistically prove that it won't happen? Just as you cannot prove that it will.

100% correct. so it shouldn't be to hard for timmy to make a statement and say one way or another and we know how timmy likes a statement. the fact that he or anyone else from shitsu hasn't said one way or another doesn't fill me with confidence, does it you?

 

[theferret]

the point would be if we're going to end up in exactly the same situation why not just stay at the Ricoh? moving away, losing fans and causing all the associated grief there has been is pointless from the clubs perspective if we end up in a new ground we don't own. If there's a clear business case showing the move would benefit the club then great, lets move, however if there isn't, or it's only going to benefit SISU, why bother?

But ultimately it is about the viability of the football club. If, under such an arrangement, the club was sustainable and self-financing, I'm not sure why it matters all that much what the internal company structure is because the club and stadium company would be under single ownership.

 

[Steve.B50]

The biggest question he should have asked Septic "Which he didn't" according to the statement. Without doubt could have swayed my way of thinking...........................................................Would the Football Club own the new Stadium, and NOT SISU/OTIUM. or indeed any other "Arm" of the SISU business enterprise....If not....Would the "New Stadium" be RENTED to the Football Club???

I must agree this question is one of the more important that should have been asked?

At the Forums he was asked and did everything but actually give a yes or a no?

 

[Nick]

the point would be if we're going to end up in exactly the same situation why not just stay at the Ricoh? moving away, losing fans and causing all the associated grief there has been is pointless from the clubs perspective if we end up in a new ground we don't own. If there's a clear business case showing the move would benefit the club then great, lets move, however if there isn't, or it's only going to benefit SISU, why bother?

That is the thing, we don't know the plan

If SISU build this stadium and hammer us for rent so we are in exactly the same position as before.

I don't know enough about this sort of thing to be able to say what would be best, they may well charge minimal rent or it may be rent free or it may be even bundled in with the Club. We don't know.

 

[oldskyblue58]

that all said I think we have to bare in mind that Joy will have had probably to approve the article before it went out ....... so the article wont have been entirely Reids own work

 

[skybluetony176]

But ultimately it is about the viability of the football club. If, under such an arrangement, the club was sustainable and self-financing, I'm not sure why it matters all that much what the internal company structure is because the club and stadium company would be under single ownership.

that would depend on how good the rent deal was. shitsu would have to let the club have full access to matchday revenues as they have made a big song and dance about it at the Ricoh but if that extra revenue was then taken away to pay a rent set by a landlord who knows exactly how much they can get away with charging we will be in no better position as we were at the Ricoh, possibly worse. shitsu are not going to complain to themselves that the rent is too high and go on a rent strike against itself are they. they are going to keep getting the best return for their investors even if that means we sre stuck in the lower divisions with lost generations of supporters.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

that all said I think we have to bare in mind that Joy will have had probably to approve the article before it went out ....... so the article wont have been entirely Reids own work

While you're here

The bit about the council being able to take over and thus meaning distressing ACL was pointless as SISU would never be able to gain control of the Ricoh that way, is that a fair alternative position to take, if looking at things?

 

[TheOldFive]

No, I've had a think about it and I think you are barking up a wrong tree on this one. Doesn't matter if if there's a rent paid from one part of the business to another it's all one business under Sisu so you do what's most financially "efficient". Our nightmare at the Ricoh came about because the ventures (Club and Stadium) were not owned under the one Owner.

I heard this question put at forums and SBT meetings and now I recall it always sounds like a Smart-Alec "there must be a conspiracy theory in this somewhere" type question from someone suspecting some swindle coming down the line. It sounds like a clever question but it's not really.

 

[dongonzalos]

I'm sure he'll be gutted by the criticism from a clown like you.

Another insightful contribution.

You really must live in a sad sneering little world

 

[sky blue john]

How can anyone realistically prove that it won't happen? Just as you cannot prove that it will.

Agreed but do you have a problem with the question being asked ?

 

[torchomatic]

Posted a Nazi propaganda poster on a football forum lately?

Another insightful contribution.

You really must live in a sad sneering little world

 

[theferret]

Agreed but do you have a problem with the question being asked ?

No, not at all. I would quite like to hear the answer myself.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Always been the case that a failed lease reverts to the landlord. So ACL fail then the whole shebang reverts to the council

but even then I dont think it is quite accurate

If ACL had gone bust with CCFC here then who is best placed to run Ricoh the council or CCFC ? I would say CCFC. SO a deal on a new lease would have to be struck, if for nothing else the council to recoup losses somehow

Also does what JS said lead to understanding their insistance on the freehold ....... if they get that can they buy/distress ACL out of the lease that is blocking access to income?

 

[The Bear]

Here's an idea...instead of moaning on here about Les Reid not doing/saying/writing what you want, why not actually talk to the lad himself? He's nearly always happy to answer enquiries via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Lesreidpolitics

If you want a question asked or some decent information from the person who knows more about this whole debacle than anyone else I can think of, off you go.

I know one thing for sure, he doesn't go wading down into forum posts trying to find out what's what.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think when looking at why stadiums are in seperate companies to football teams you are missing the point.

It isnt generally about the rent it is about seperating the major asset from the major loss making trade. Protecting the asset.

Yes there can be rent paid but if you own both parties that can be nominal or market value or nothing at all. Leases between two sides of the same are easy to vary in any case.

 

[chiefdave]

But ultimately it is about the viability of the football club. If, under such an arrangement, the club was sustainable and self-financing, I'm not sure why it matters all that much what the internal company structure is because the club and stadium company would be under single ownership.

would the club and stadium be under single ownership? I've not seen that stated anywhere and that's part of my problem with the new ground scheme. SISU could create a new company which charges CCFC rent and retains matchday revenues, exactly the same situation as we're in with ACL. They could also sell the club in the future but retain ownership of the ground. There's a lot of unanswered questions and until they get answered we just don't know if we would be any better off in a new ground.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Having drawn attention, very publicly, to the problems of one side owning a club while the other owns a ground, why would anybody go to SISU and only buy one half of the whole?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Having drawn attention, very publicly, to the problems of one side owning a club while the other owns a ground, why would anybody go to SISU and only buy one half of the whole?

you wouldnt but it isnt about the sale it is to protect the asset. You can sell both at the same time. If the holding company owns the property and the subsidiary the football team you sell the holding company to sell it all.

The attention was drawn because it suited ........... lots of teams have the set up and dont have problems