Firstly, well done to the City last night. Showed the grit and the 'we will not be beat' attitude that existed a few months ago. Mr. Fisher has now said 'it will take less than a year to build' the new stadium. I think people's fears of leaving Coventry for good should now be put to rest, and also, the idea we will never return to the Ricoh is also far off the mark. Point 1 - People have seen what happened at MKDons and think that situation will be the norm. Wrong. MK did not have a team and their council were looking for one. The situation was further esculated by the fact the Wimbledon public (major) and their council didn't want a 'successful' team on their doorstep. The good people of Wimbledon prefer their quaint 'tennis' town to be sleepy and not taken over every two week by football fans. Yhe Coventry public, on the other hand, want us back. Point 2 - A 'permanent' stadium would take more than a year to build so everything is now pointing to a 'temporary one', This makes good business sense because it leaves the club open to a return to the Ricoh at some point, dismantle the stadium and re-sell the land. So with the 80% pessimists who have taken over this site I say, 'have patience, enjoy your new Saturday life, and in a few years we will be back at the Ricoh'. Have a good day.
Less than a year to build?? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter japandy
- Start date
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Why would sisu build a new stadium just to dismantle it again?
I know their less than blessed in the business acumen department but surely even their not that stupid?
I know their less than blessed in the business acumen department but surely even their not that stupid?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
80% I don't think japandy. Wonder what the walk up is like at sixfields??
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Didn't it only take a year to put up the Greenhouse Meadow at Shrewsbury? Of course time was being consumed by buying appropriate land, planning permission, etc.
I think until land is bought by Sisu/CCFC there will be doubt over this new Stadium and even then there maybe doubt, I would prefer a deal for us to go back to the Ricoh however that looks a distant opportunity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think until land is bought by Sisu/CCFC there will be doubt over this new Stadium and even then there maybe doubt, I would prefer a deal for us to go back to the Ricoh however that looks a distant opportunity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
Are you for real ? Comparing Sky Blues to MK Dons/Wimbledon is silly as is building a stadium to pull it down again.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Are we talking a year for the actual construction?
That's not really that impressive considering the Ricoh was built in about 18 months.
That's not really that impressive considering the Ricoh was built in about 18 months.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Indirectly he could be right.
If Sisu build a new 15,000 seater stadium outside Coventry. what would be the follow on plan?
Sisu will own the stadium and the club.
When Sisu come to sell the club will the new owners really want the stadium with the club.
If they don't then Sisu possible would not sell the club. Result is we are stuck with Sisu.
If Sisu sell without releasing the stadium, whats to stop the new owners moving to the Ricoh? Lease ?:thinking about:
If they do move the club back to the Ricoh the stadium will be a white elephant and more than likely get knocked down.
The Prefect
Active Member
We should all have learnt to take anything Fisher says with a pinch of salt... Remember CCFC Ltd as a non-trading subsidiary, and the club as 'debt free'? When it comes to stating facts he is simply not someone to trusted.
I'm not sure your parallels with Wimbledon are actually correct however, I do accept that Merton Council didn't co-operate with the football club. Bear in mind neither will Coventry City Council cooperate with SISU. Relocating is relocating - it's just a matter of distance for us. For me, if we're outside Coventry we are no longer 'Coventry City'.
I have no reason to disbelieve the building of a temporary stadium and that it could be built in less than a year. SISU are looking at this for two reasons.
Reason 1 - The Sixfields boycott is costing them far more money than they anticipated and it's my guess that they don't want to make up the shortfall with equity - just loans (which might be repaid at some future date). There will also be the very real danger of more Football League sanctions next season as the club's turnover during this season will be a lot less than SISU originally forecast. Crowds will most likely go down next season - not up.
Reason 2 - A temporary stadium will lengthen the 'distress period' of ACL by the club not being there. Building a temporary stadium might add ten years to this as it is likely the Football League would give permission to use the temporary stadium for a number of years.
It looks a cleaver move by SISU as it buys even more time and will push up revenues which are so poor at Sixfields. SISU want the Ricoh - and this buys even more time for not much money. The club sacrificed nearly £2m a year of turnover going to Sixfields for up to 5 years. Add to that the clubs losses the figure is way over £10m. A quick land deal and a £5m temporary stadium and things might pick up (they think).
More than one more relegation and the temporary stadium remains. It will be fine for non-League football.
An interesting development though.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
all boils down to location for me not build time.
if its v close then it can embraced as helping the club move forward i guess without a greedy council stopping us from making a profit
if its too far out its not really ccfc and just wont work imo
if its v close then it can embraced as helping the club move forward i guess without a greedy council stopping us from making a profit
if its too far out its not really ccfc and just wont work imo
Leamington Pete
Well-Known Member
I think anyone who believes the club has plans to build a temporary stadium is misguided. Temporary no, cheap yes.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Very loose argument.
You do realise that Sisu management take more out of the club than ACl did in rent.
We got a stadium from ACL whilst from SISU we got ............................................................................................................ (Please fill in)
duffer
Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, I don't think Fisher saying that the stadium will take less than a year to build necessarily implies that it will be a temporary structure.
I think it's possible that you could build a 'standard' out-of-the-box permanent stadium pretty quickly these days - how that sits with the stadium design committee and all of their requirements I don't know though.
Regardless, and as many have said, it's not the build that takes the time as much as getting the land and planning permission. For all of TF's bluster, there's no evidence at all of any progress on that.
Similarly, there's never been any kind of convincing argument that it's possible to finance it all. SISU would have to turn a business that has consistently made an overwhelming loss under them, into one that suddenly makes enough profit to fund not only itself but also the humping great debt that it will take on board as the result of having to borrow £10-£20m towards the new ground. I can't see how that adds up.
I think it's possible that you could build a 'standard' out-of-the-box permanent stadium pretty quickly these days - how that sits with the stadium design committee and all of their requirements I don't know though.
Regardless, and as many have said, it's not the build that takes the time as much as getting the land and planning permission. For all of TF's bluster, there's no evidence at all of any progress on that.
Similarly, there's never been any kind of convincing argument that it's possible to finance it all. SISU would have to turn a business that has consistently made an overwhelming loss under them, into one that suddenly makes enough profit to fund not only itself but also the humping great debt that it will take on board as the result of having to borrow £10-£20m towards the new ground. I can't see how that adds up.
The Prefect
Active Member
Good shout although I can actually 'buy' this as SISU could get ten years out of a 'temporary stadium'. With their fondness for litigation if the 'Football League' agreed five years they would go to court for another five years.
Reading between the lines this says SISU are starting to panic due to the loss of support at Sixfields. The boycott is working...
I think reason 2 is poppycock. ACL have been holding out up until now for the offchance that sisu grow up, and at the very least acknowledge if they want the Ricoh they must deal with ACL! Throughout this they have done no such thing. So to assume that they will hold out if by chance sisu finally decide to build a new stadium is absolutely crazy! Just look at the NEC. That is worth 2 billion per year to the local economy! Even if the Ricoh is only 1/10 of that (I would have thought more), that is £200 million per year to the economy! There is no way they will leave it lying dormant! There are cars every day outside the ricoh. It may not be rock concerts every week, but there aren't that many held at the NIA! Corporate gigs pay far better - (you might get say £100 from 2 attendees, but you will get far more from corporate attendees as it is all on expenses! Why do you think all the hotels around the NEC are Hiltons & high end hotels? Company directors don't stay in travellodge! This must be the reason sisu want the ricoh. No way their game plan is to maintain a league 1 club! sisu out
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I think SISU's gameplan is to build a cheap multi use stadium and flog it or rent it for other sports use after acquiring a distressed Ricoh on the cheap.
Anyway not withstanding that idea, the real time will be consumed in getting planning, that could take many years, I think 2 years after initial application is on the optimistic side, than add minimum 18 months to issue contracts & build (don't expect a contractor to start the day after planning consent, is granted!).
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They are certainly daft enough :thinking about:
The Prefect
Active Member
patccfc, I do agree with everything you say here. Distressing ACL is SISU's primary motive (poppycock yes!)- why else take the club away and sacrifice 90% of home support and their associated income?
If SISU win the judicial review and ACLs funding structure needs to change there is the chance that they might not be able to secure long-term capital which could (and I stress COULD) put ACL into severe problems and lead to administration down the line. Their original bank wanted out of their funding.
I think it's a long shot for SISU - and building a temporary stadium might add a few years to their timescales.
No - I don't think he is for real
SkyBlueUkeman
New Member
I'm not setting foot in a stadium that took "Less than a year to build" unless I wanted to come out of it in a bodybag.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
SkyBlueUkeman
New Member
Ah Torch. I've missed you. Still a condescending arse I see?
SkyBlueSid
Well-Known Member
It's all very well saying the build could be done in a year. But when will that year begin?
They haven't bought any land yet, so let's assume (benevolently) that they will have done so by the start of next season. They then have to produce plans and go through the planning process. There will be objections from all sides, and it will probably result in a planning enquiry. All that could take a couple of years. That means that it could be 2017 before it is built. Then again, if planning was eventually refused........
They haven't bought any land yet, so let's assume (benevolently) that they will have done so by the start of next season. They then have to produce plans and go through the planning process. There will be objections from all sides, and it will probably result in a planning enquiry. All that could take a couple of years. That means that it could be 2017 before it is built. Then again, if planning was eventually refused........
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They were talking at the stadium forum about planning going in as soon as the land deal is announced. That's why they wanted the whole process wrapped up by the end of this month, as after that the design was locked in. Basically the idea was if land was bought next month that's when planning goes in.
18 months seems to be an optimistic estimate of planning time. Then 12 months to build. So we're talking September 2016 at the absolute earliest.
18 months seems to be an optimistic estimate of planning time. Then 12 months to build. So we're talking September 2016 at the absolute earliest.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be using Shrewsbury as an example. From start to finish took around 9 years if memory serves. With regard doubt, building works would need to start before I would even contemplate believing them as land is valuable and they could sit on it before selling it on for profit, big builders do it all the time. So buying land does not mean new stadium in my eyes.
SkyBlueSid
Well-Known Member
Of course it will never happen. The discussion is just hypothetical really.
As I see it, even if ACL went under, they would get to assign the administrator - not sisu! In my view there would be a very strong case for CCC to buy the remainder of ACL. I cannot see a business case that would allow sisu to be allowed to own ACL.
After all CCC own the freehold, 50% of ACL, whilst Sisu/otium themselves have stated categorically they have no longer any connection with the Ricoh. There is a strong business case to switch to a pure events based Ricoh (NIA lite if you will). As an administrator, I would be hard pressed to push a case for sisu to get their grubby ickle mitts on ACL!
SISU OUT