Les reid's ct article (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2013

Originally Posted by Nick View Post It is amazing the amount of people who don't want sisu to have it because they will rent it to the club... Yet say acl are not at fault for charging us massive rent, it is sisus. Blind, one sided hate is a bastard...................................................................................................Yes, it certainly is Nick. They've had at least 3 different occasions to BUY the Higgs share but didn't...Is that ACL's fault?.....Now ACL need to sell the Ricoh..but NOT to SISU, or any company attached to them. Coventry City AFC needs to be born, and Haskell could well be the man to do it!

DaleM · Sep 21, 2013

AJB1983 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/coventry_city/7139107.stm

Ranson's Sisu Capital group looked to have competition for the club from Greek billionaire Alki David, but the filmmaker withdrew his interest earlier this week.
David, with a reported fortune of £4bn, had claimed that the club was "falling apart"

David wants to have a look now . I don't think "falling apart" quite describes it anymore.

lordsummerisle · Sep 21, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Nick- how many times! Sisu took on all these previous contracts legally, after completing due diligence. They signed over the contracts and legally took them over. They agreed them. They could have negotiated and implemented contract changes, they didnt.

Its not a debating issue its a legal fact!

Amazes me just how many people on here wanted to deprive the council tax paying citizens and local charities of Coventty of millions of pounds by suggesting that SISU should have negotiated a much lower rental 6 years(assume the £400 grand deal in mind?).

Around £4million less in that scenario yet get massively upset over the council tax payers of Coventry and local charities being down on the rent for one year and demanded that ACL put us into admin because of it?

James Smith · Sep 21, 2013

Nick said:
They didn't agree them they took them on. Is it a legal fact they could have negotiated? Haven't they tried a few times but flatly turned down?

You won't mind if sisu build a stadium and charge massive rents then will you?

The only as far as I know/can remember public info about the previous discussions about the rent are in the Trust Q&A

Trust Q&A said:
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.

CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc?showall=1

I'm not sure having read the answers that SISU/CCFC did do any negotiations they might have thought won't matter when the club is back in the premiership. And why was the CCFC answer so vague, there must be records of these discussions surely?

Jack Griffin · Sep 21, 2013

Nick said:
My point is they didn't agree and negotiate it in the first place, fletcher who was involved has said how bad a deal it was for the club but they had no choice.

I'm not saying they are innocent but surely neither are the council and acl who screwed us over when the original deal was done.

Of course it should have been negotiated at the time but how do we know they didn't try at the time? They did try after and didn't get anywhere did they?

Fletcher was ACL chief executive when that contract was negotiated wasn't he?

Moff · Sep 21, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Another quality piece of debate from Grovel.

Says the man who called Torchy a duck. ointlaugh:

GaryPendrysEyes · Sep 21, 2013

Moff said:
Says the man who called Torchy a duck. ointlaugh:

Despite his protestations...1000's of posts suggest 'If it's yellow and quacks it's a Sisu duck'. Succinct and to the point, methinks.Ta.

Moff · Sep 21, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Despite his protestations...1000's of posts suggest 'If it's yellow and quacks it's a Sisu duck'. Succinct and to the point, methinks.Ta.

Whilst I do disagree with your analogy, I do respect your answer, which certainly was succinct and made me laugh!

GaryPendrysEyes · Sep 21, 2013

You have good taste Moffster :0)

James Smith · Sep 21, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Amazes me just how many people on here wanted to deprive the council tax paying citizens and local charities of Coventty of millions of pounds by suggesting that SISU should have negotiated a much lower rental 6 years(assume the £400 grand deal in mind?).

Around £4million less in that scenario yet get massively upset over the council tax payers of Coventry and local charities being down on the rent for one year and demanded that ACL put us into admin because of it?

Sorry I'm a bit lost, I thought that ACL hadn't paid any divided to CCC or the Higgs so how would a lower rent earlier on have deprived these two institutions of millions?

lordsummerisle · Sep 21, 2013

You're confused?

Think how the majority on here must be feeling then when bemoaning the loss up the poor kiddies and council payers when the rent wasn't paid.

James Smith said:
Sorry I'm a bit lost, I thought that ACL hadn't paid any divided to CCC or the Higgs so how would a lower rent earlier on have deprived these two institutions of millions?

James Smith · Sep 21, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
You're confused?

Think how the majority on here must be feeling then when bemoaning the loss up the poor kiddies and council payers when the rent wasn't paid.

Not confused, just don't think a lower rent earlier on would have affected the council or the Higgs as no dividend has been paid. Happy to hear any explanations though.

Sky Blues · Sep 22, 2013

stupot07 said:
I doubt very much that Sisu will get full cost recovery for the money they have invested, let alone a profit even with half stadium. I imagine by 'making a return' he means some of their money back rather than profit, or £1 by selling to Hoffman.

The article said: "in the gamble of football, people have to write off losses."

If you are right, does the question really change? Doesn't it simply become: Should taxpayers lose money so financiers lose less money?

stupot07 · Sep 22, 2013

Sky Blues said:
The article said: "in the gamble of football, people have to write off losses."

If you are right, does the question really change? Doesn't it simply become: Should taxpayers lose money so financiers lose less money?

No, I think it's acknowledging that the council/ACL also took a gamble on a football stadium, just like football club owners do on a club and inevitably they will lose money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

lordsummerisle · Sep 22, 2013

Sky Blues said:
The article said: "in the gamble of football, people have to write off losses."

If you are right, does the question really change? Doesn't it simply become: Should taxpayers lose money so financiers lose less money?

Taxpayers wouldn't lose any money as ACL haven't paid a dividend, so it shouldn't matter.

According to James Smith anyway.

jaytskyblue · Sep 22, 2013

Councils have a legal obligation to get 'value for money'. They can't accept a bid below market rate... And Sisu want it at a non negotiable low end price.
It ain't gonna happen.

lordsummerisle · Sep 22, 2013

jaytskyblue said:
Councils have a legal obligation to get 'value for money'. They can't accept a bid below market rate... And Sisu want it at a non negotiable low end price.
It ain't gonna happen.

Whatn is the market rate for an empty football stadium?

Pretty low I'd have thought.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Sep 22, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Whatn is the market rate for an empty football stadium?

Pretty low I'd have thought.

Yet more evidence of the SISU grandmaster plan....

duffer · Sep 22, 2013

stupot07 said:
No, I think it's acknowledging that the council/ACL also took a gamble on a football stadium, just like football club owners do on a club and inevitably they will lose money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

And here's the key flaw to my mind in Les Reid's otherwise excellent article, the idea that the Council took a gamble on the football stadium, and now should accept a loss and sell to SISU for the good of the club.

That's arse-backwards. The Council and the Higgs trust had to fund the remainder of the build or the club would have been homeless. They weren't taking a gamble in the hope of a big payout (like SISU, when they bought CCFC), they were helping the club to survive.

The idea that CCC (and we, as council taxpayers) and the Higgs Trust should now take the hit, whilst SISU get the stadium on the cheap is just wrong to me.

If SISU want to make sure that the Council and the Higgs Trust aren't out of pocket, which I think means finding something like £26 million to buy the Ricoh outright (£10m grant, £14m mortgage, £6m Higgs), then I'd let them have the stadium lock, stock and barrel.

If they're not willing to do that, or agree a deal to move back, then I think the Council and the Higgs should be free to run or dispose of the Ricoh and/or the surrounding land as they see fit, and to actually maximise revenue rather than support the football team. Bailing out the football team has been an unmitigated disaster for both the Higgs Trust and the City of Coventry, and I don't want them to do it again by handing over the Ricoh for a pittance.

If it makes more money for CCFC to build a new stadium elsewhere, as TF insists, then they should get on and do it. If it makes more money for the Council/Higgs to sell or redevelop the Ricoh as something other than a football ground, then they should do that. I don't want the Council bailing out the team again.

If there's no deal to be had regarding rent and income streams, and SISU can't meet the true market value of the Ricoh, and the Council (and this too is key) could make more money without the club being at the stadium by whatever means, then I think it's better that they should go their separate ways rather than simply just giving SISU the keys. Just mho, as ever.

Grendel · Sep 22, 2013

duffer said:
And here's the key flaw to my mind in Les Reid's otherwise excellent article, the idea that the Council took a gamble on the football stadium, and now should accept a loss and sell to SISU for the good of the club.

That's arse-backwards. The Council and the Higgs trust had to fund the remainder of the build or the club would have been homeless. They weren't taking a gamble in the hope of a big payout (like SISU, when they bought CCFC), they were helping the club to survive.

The idea that CCC (and we, as council taxpayers) and the Higgs Trust should now take the hit, whilst SISU get the stadium on the cheap is just wrong to me.

If SISU want to make sure that the Council and the Higgs Trust aren't out of pocket, which I think means finding something like £26 million to buy the Ricoh outright (£10m grant, £14m mortgage, £6m Higgs), then I'd let them have the stadium lock, stock and barrel.

If they're not willing to do that, or agree a deal to move back, then I think the Council and the Higgs should be free to run or dispose of the Ricoh and/or the surrounding land as they see fit, and to actually maximise revenue rather than support the football team. Bailing out the football team has been an unmitigated disaster for both the Higgs Trust and the City of Coventry, and I don't want them to do it again by handing over the Ricoh for a pittance.

If it makes more money for CCFC to build a new stadium elsewhere, as TF insists, then they should get on and do it. If it makes more money for the Council/Higgs to sell or redevelop the Ricoh as something other than a football ground, then they should do that. I don't want the Council bailing out the team again.

If there's no deal to be had regarding rent and income streams, and SISU can't meet the true market value of the Ricoh, and the Council (and this too is key) could make more money without the club being at the stadium by whatever means, then I think it's better that they should go their separate ways rather than simply just giving SISU the keys. Just mho, as ever.

Please explain how the taxpayer would actually be worse off if the Ricoh was signed over to another organisation.

jaytskyblue · Sep 22, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Whatn is the market rate for an empty football stadium?

Pretty low I'd have thought.

Which is actually why CCC won't sell to Sisu and will sell to a new owner based at the Ricoh. The Ricoh has low overheads, CCC will just wait it out or do a rent deal, until Sisu move on., then sell to a new owner at a sensible price.

alphabettyspagetty · Sep 22, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Whatn is the market rate for an empty football stadium?

Pretty low I'd have thought.

Depends if you have the vision to see beyond a blinkered view that if the club is never going to come back (hopefully not), that there is such a thing as change of use! The ricoh is a potential goldmine IF used to full effect. ACL haven't been able or willing to do that up until recently, but the fact that compass is now making more money without the team there, and that exhibitions are held there pretty much every week plus all the large and expensive asian weddings held there the potential is immense.

No one in their right mind would blindly keep the pitch without a football team if cov never come back! Why do you think sisu want it so badly??

Grendel · Sep 22, 2013

alphabettyspagetty said:
Depends if you have the vision to see beyond a blinkered view that if the club is never going to come back (hopefully not), that there is such a thing as change of use! The ricoh is a potential goldmine IF used to full effect. ACL haven't been able or willing to do that up until recently, but the fact that compass is now making more money without the team there, and that exhibitions are held there pretty much every week plus all the large and expensive asian weddings held there the potential is immense.

No one in their right mind would blindly keep the pitch without a football team if cov never come back! Why do you think sisu want it so badly??

There is no evidence compass make more money, no evidence that very minor exhibitions generate significant revenue and if the best it can now boast is that it hosts large weddings the future is hardly very bright.

letsallsingtogether · Sep 22, 2013

Oh forgot you are an expert in this field you like others have no proof of this so why not wait until there next accounts are out before making assumptions..
I know nothing on this subject but I do see it packed everyday when I drive past surely must be making something?

Grendel said:
There is no evidence compass make more money, no evidence that very minor exhibitions generate significant revenue and if the best it can now boast is that it hosts large weddings the future is hardly very bright.

stupot07 · Sep 22, 2013

alphabettyspagetty said:
Depends if you have the vision to see beyond a blinkered view that if the club is never going to come back (hopefully not), that there is such a thing as change of use! The ricoh is a potential goldmine IF used to full effect. ACL haven't been able or willing to do that up until recently, but the fact that compass is now making more money without the team there, and that exhibitions are held there pretty much every week plus all the large and expensive asian weddings held there the potential is immense.

No one in their right mind would blindly keep the pitch without a football team if cov never come back! Why do you think sisu want it so badly??

How do compass make more now the team has left? The only difference is the football pitch is it being surf or have they been extorting money out of Ccfc ladies?

stupot07 · Sep 22, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
Oh forgot you are an expert in this field you like others have no proof of this so why not wait until there next accounts are out before making assumptions..
I know nothing on this subject but I do see it packed everyday when I drive past surely must be making something?

As OSB posted the other week, the next set of accounts won't show he true reflection of ACL without Ccfc because of the once in the lifetime opportunity that is the Olympics, the fact that they were still receiving match day costs and F&Bs and other associated incomes from Ccfc games. It will be the 2013/14 accounts released in April/may 2015 that will show the true impact of no Ccfc.

covmark · Sep 22, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
Oh forgot you are an expert in this field you like others have no proof of this so why not wait until there next accounts are out before making assumptions..
I know nothing on this subject but I do see it packed everyday when I drive past surely must be making something?

Tbf grendel wasn't the one making the assumption was he, but what the hell any excuse eh

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 22, 2013

duffer said:
That's arse-backwards. The Council and the Higgs trust had to fund the remainder of the build or the club would have been homeless. They weren't taking a gamble in the hope of a big payout (like SISU, when they bought CCFC), they were helping the club to survive.

Hmm, at the risk of going political (sod it, I will!) it's true indeed that the council had to fund the remainder of the build or the club would have been homeless.

unfortunately in the modern world, there are more and more limits on councils funding things for the intangible benefits, the social benefits. Instead, funding has to pay its way financially.

Hence the setting up of the structure of the Ricoh to an extent, to allow it to pay its way financially; hence the original deal agreed for the club to play there, to allow it to pay its way financially.

Unfortunately in the modern world we expect services, we expect community investment... but nobody wants to pay for it in taxes, so it's all about making a commercial profit. Unfortunately as soon as this happens, there's the risk of a loss too.

And there always was a risk with the Ricoh, that the club would go belly up anyway, and there'd be nothing there. Given the state of the club when the council stepped in, it's a pretty crazy deal from all sides really, exposing the council to needless risk, giving the club an extension of life that it maybe didn't deserve as set up.

But what's done is done.

We are where we are, and the problem with a commercial organisation owning the club, and the Ricoh being run along commercial lines, is it becomes two entities looking after their own financial interest, the intangible, the social interests become secondary.

But... I don't like to see it as council v evil hedge fund,more evil hedge fund v commercial entity that happens to manage the club's (former) stadium at this point in time.

So I struggle to support one side over the other, as long as it's about the finances. Unfortunately until both football and politics start changing (and politics won't change until WE become happy to pay for our own culture and heritage) it will always be about the finances.

Jack Griffin · Sep 22, 2013

I completely agree with duffer.. when the Arena stadium project was in jeopardy some years ago I was proactive enough to contact my local councilors to urge them to support the completion of the project, if I had any inkling that the scenario I now see in place could occur I would have said precisely the opposite.

I've also said the charity made a bad decision too.. they need in future to stick to their stated aims which are..

The objects of the Charity are: (a) Such charitable purposes as the Trustees may select which shall benefit wholly or mainly the inhabitants of the area within 25 miles of the centre of Coventry; (b) The Charity Fund shall be applied as far as may be practicable in the promotion of child welfare and particularly the welfare of under privileged children; (c) The Trustees of the Charity may co-operate with or contribute to any other charity having objects substantially similar to the objects of the Charity.

Many people have said here that it isn't the Football Clubs job to develop the land around the Arena, well neither is it the Councils job to bail out a Football Club.. if it so happens that the Arena to survive has to be converted to become a larger exhibition space and be able to hold massive concerts all year long, so be it, but no way should an asset for which CCC & the Higgs charity are still owed significant sums be given away for next to nothing... SISU have stated their plan, let us see it they truly have the backing and determination to see it through.

Grendel · Sep 22, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
I completely agree with duffer.. when the Arena stadium project was in jeopardy some years ago I was proactive enough to contact my local councilors to urge them to support the completion of the project, if I had any inkling that the scenario I now see in place could occur I would have said precisely the opposite.

I've also said the charity made a bad decision too.. they need in future to stick to their stated aims which are..

Many people have said here that it isn't the Football Clubs job to develop the land around the Arena, well neither is it the Councils job to bail out a Football Club.. if it so happens that the Arena to survive has to be converted to become a larger exhibition space and be able to hold massive concerts all year long, so be it, but no way should an asset for which CCC & the Higgs charity are still owed significant sums be given away for next to nothing... SISU have stated their plan, let us see it they truly have the backing and determination to see it through.

And people have the audacity to call me a troll when sanctimonois tossers like this keep spouting their pro ACL bullshit ALL the time.

duffer · Sep 22, 2013

Grendel said:
Please explain how the taxpayer would actually be worse off if the Ricoh was signed over to another organisation.

Erm... assuming this is a serious question and not a pointless wind up (which is kind of a big assumption, given)... because of the value of ACL as it stands, and the value of it as an alternative development. And of course the money that the taxpayer has already sunk into it (10m grant, 14m mortgage, 6m Higgs).

But the next time you see people signing over land for nothing, please let me know mate - I'll be first in the queue.

duffer · Sep 22, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
I completely agree with duffer.. when the Arena stadium project was in jeopardy some years ago I was proactive enough to contact my local councilors to urge them to support the completion of the project, if I had any inkling that the scenario I now see in place could occur I would have said precisely the opposite.

I've also said the charity made a bad decision too.. they need in future to stick to their stated aims which are..

Many people have said here that it isn't the Football Clubs job to develop the land around the Arena, well neither is it the Councils job to bail out a Football Club.. if it so happens that the Arena to survive has to be converted to become a larger exhibition space and be able to hold massive concerts all year long, so be it, but no way should an asset for which CCC & the Higgs charity are still owed significant sums be given away for next to nothing... SISU have stated their plan, let us see it they truly have the backing and determination to see it through.

I did that too - urged the Council to save the club and fund the arena. How wrong I was.

The club has spent millions (if not tens of millions) on players and wages since then, and yet has somehow never had the money to buy back into the stadium, or seemingly now to pay the rent. And now they're back, seemingly begging (or bullying) to get the Ricoh for next to nothing or never return to it.

So, to mind it's not right to expect the Council and Higgs to bail out CCFC again. If there's no deal to be had with SISU that means the Council and Higgs can at least break-even, then so be it. Perhaps all sides need to move on.

Grendel · Sep 22, 2013

duffer said:
Erm... assuming this is a serious question and not a pointless wind up (which is kind of a big assumption, given)... because of the value of ACL it as it stands, and the value of it as an alternative development. And of course the money that the taxpayer has already sunk into it (10m grant, 14m mortgage, 6m Higgs).

But the next time you see people signing over land for nothing, please let me know mate - I'll be first in the queue.

It is a serious question and as usual gets no answer at all.

So please tell me how financially an individual tax payer would be worse of in the scenario you have described.

Effectively the only local tax is council tax. So in pound notes how is the tax payer worse off and by how much?

Sky Blues · Sep 22, 2013

stupot07 said:
As OSB posted the other week, the next set of accounts won't show he true reflection of ACL without Ccfc because of the once in the lifetime opportunity that is the Olympics, the fact that they were still receiving match day costs and F&Bs and other associated incomes from Ccfc games. It will be the 2013/14 accounts released in April/may 2015 that will show the true impact of no Ccfc.

You are right and this is the reason I suspect Coventry could be in Northampton for a while. Les Reid's article seems to suggest Sisu won't back down and the hope for a speedy resolution lies in selling the Ricoh to Sisu and incurring a loss in the process. Would a politician from the left entertain helping financiers to recover some of their losses? Would a politician from the right entertain taxpayers' money being so publicly written off like that? I would suspect the answer in both cases will be 'no' until such time as they know whether ACL can survive without CCFC there - and, as you say, we may be waiting until spring 2015 to find that out.

Sisu have thrown the dice, they've broken the contract. Now, I fear, the fans will have to wait - at home, at away matches, on the hill or in Sixfields - to see which way they land. If the dice fall Sisu's way maybe they will get the Ricoh. If they don't, will they build their own stadium?

Jack Griffin · Sep 22, 2013

Grendel said:
It is a serious question and as usual gets no answer at all.

So please tell me how financially an individual tax payer would be worse of in the scenario you have described.

Effectively the only local tax is council tax. So in pound notes how is the tax payer worse off and by how much?

LOL, it's not like as if you ever trouble yourself with answering any questions put to you.

I'll however ask you (and anyone else prepared to answer) one more question, should the Higgs charity write off the £6M they put into the Arena?

Les reid's ct article (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency