Locals boosting the crowd. (1 Viewer)

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Trust has all but disppeared between the two parties now Duffer, CCFC have said they won't return under a Tennancy agreement to the Ricoh while ACL are landlords.

That is true, but they have never explained why.

ML made some rather strange comment on CWR about it "putting our business model at risk" (I think that was the quote), without explaining how the evil ACL/CCC axis would achieve this.

To any rational person, if the new stadium is a reality, a short term (i.e. circa 3-5 years) rental deal at the Ricoh seems the obvious solution.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

That is true, but they have never explained why.

ML made some rather strange comment on CWR about it "putting our business model at risk" (I think that was the quote), without explaining how the evil ACL/CCC axis would achieve this.

To any rational person, if the new stadium is a reality, a short term (i.e. circa 3-5 years) rental deal at the Ricoh seems the obvious solution.

SISU requested a 3 year run off at the Ricoh; it was rejected.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

SISU requested a 3 year run off at the Ricoh; it was rejected.

Yes and the rent was £1.2m per year - both of these are historic facts, only of relevance to those who wish to make a point.

The relevant information is that SISU were offered a 3 year deal at very attractive rent within the last few months.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

That is true, but they have never explained why.

ML made some rather strange comment on CWR about it "putting our business model at risk" (I think that was the quote), without explaining how the evil ACL/CCC axis would achieve this.

To any rational person, if the new stadium is a reality, a short term (i.e. circa 3-5 years) rental deal at the Ricoh seems the obvious solution.

I would assume that Sisu believed ACL conspired to force them out of Coventry, cost them the 10 point deduction this season and any shot of the play-offs with that gone.

As Fernando has said below the Club did request a 3 year run off at the Ricoh, but this was denied, I can't blame CCFC for not trusting ACL, I don't know all the facts and I can't find myself trusting them either, same can be said for CCC and Sisu.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Yes and the rent was £1.2m per year - both of these are historic facts, only of relevance to those who wish to make a point.

The relevant information is that SISU were offered a 3 year deal at very attractive rent within the last few months.

Problem is DTD is that both deal was offered at times when harmony between the two parties were completely different, albeit it's always been bad but got worse before this season, during the Admin process in fact.

 

[torchomatic]

I would assume that Sisu believed ACL conspired to force them out of Coventry, cost them the 10 point deduction this season and any shot of the play-offs with that gone.

As Fernando has said below the Club did request a 3 year run off at the Ricoh, but this was denied, I can't blame CCFC for not trusting ACL, I don't know all the facts and I can't find myself trusting them either, same can be said for CCC and Sisu.

And you have the leader of the council trying to sell to a third party rather than the owners of the club.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes and the rent was £1.2m per year - both of these are historic facts, only of relevance to those who wish to make a point.

The relevant information is that SISU were offered a 3 year deal at very attractive rent within the last few months.

Do we know that? We know the value of the rent offered for 3 years, we don't know whether it was a 3 year contract.

 

[duffer]

SISU requested a 3 year run off at the Ricoh; it was rejected.

What were the terms of the offer to (or rather via) the FL again?

Would CCFC be better off financially under this deal, or not?

 

[duffer]

And you have the leader of the council trying to sell to a third party rather than the owners of the club.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

And once again we descend into madness. At what point did Cov CC/ACL talk to Haskell.

Was it before or after SISU stopped paying the bills?

Before or after TF shook hands on a reduced rent?

Before or after the club had a third-party debt order placed against it by the court?

Before or after the club went into admin?

 

[fernandopartridge]

What were the terms of the offer to (or rather via) the FL again?

Would CCFC be better off financially under this deal, or not?

We don't know because the full detail of the deal has never been disclosed.

 

[Astute]

We don't know because the full detail of the deal has never been disclosed.

And this says a lot.

CCC have stopped making statements. It gives less ammunition to SISU. If SISU can make any sort of statement where they can try to blame someone for what is happening they will and do. They have even recently made the accusation that ACL is losing money so the tax payer would be better off if they got the stadium. When questioned Labo admitted he had no proof. If they had ammunition to throw at CCC they would.

And it would be hard to believe that they would be worse off not bringing our club home. The odds are they would be better off at the previous rent of 1.2m. So rent free for half a season and then cheaper than they are paying to Northampton doesn't take much working out.

 

[Captain Dart]

To me it is clear, if they come back to the Ricoh they swap a superior and more convenient product for an inferior product in a less friendly location when they open their new stadium.
So instead, SISU starve fans of the football they crave by moving away and expect a rush to buy when legoland opens. That is the business plan, create a demand by restricting supply.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

And once again we descend into madness. At what point did Cov CC/ACL talk to Haskell.

Was it before or after SISU stopped paying the bills?

Before or after TF shook hands on a reduced rent?

Before or after the club had a third-party debt order placed against it by the court?

Before or after the club went into admin?

It sounds as if you're trying to justify CCC/ACL's actions by stating all that Sisu had done wrong?

Forgive me Duffer but when you have ACL showing a businessman around the Arena, who then after one particular fixture goes into the Casino and makes an open statement to the fans ensuring them better times are ahead, yet all the while you have the tenants of the Arena playing in it, but you refuse to sell it to them for unjustified reasons it does seem perculiar and that's being nice!

It is no secret that ACL have been approached pre-Sisu regarding the rent and the fact that it was to high, yet nothing was done about it, I agree that Sisu's actions are unjust but this mess should have been sorted before Sisu had ever come on the scene and it wasn't, since it has transpired into this mess.

 

[duffer]

Do we know that? We know the value of the rent offered for 3 years, we don't know whether it was a 3 year contract.

Sounds like three-years to me.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/sisu-boss-joy-seppala-rejects-6363684

Even if it was ten years - at £100k/pa the buy out should the club choose to build a new stadium (presuming it couldn't negotiate for more of what it wants at the Ricoh) would still be easily covered by the extra crowds they'd get at the Ricoh compared to Northampton.

There's lots of stuff up for discussion here - but the one 'fact' that I see is that the club is better off at the Ricoh under the rental deal, unless you're SISU and you want to continue to attack ACL/CCC.

 

[duffer]

It sounds as if you're trying to justify CCC/ACL's actions by stating all that Sisu had done wrong?

Forgive me Duffer but when you have ACL showing a businessman around the Arena, who then after one particular fixture goes into the Casino and makes an open statement to the fans ensuring them better times are ahead, yet all the while you have the tenants of the Arena playing in it, but you refuse to sell it to them for unjustified reasons it does seem perculiar and that's being nice!

It is no secret that ACL have been approached pre-Sisu regarding the rent and the fact that it was to high, yet nothing was done about it, I agree that Sisu's actions are unjust but this mess should have been sorted before Sisu had ever come on the scene and it wasn't, since it has transpired into this mess.

Actually, what I was doing is shooting down the tired old argument that all this is the Council's/ACL's fault because they spoke to Preston Haskell (after all of the things I've listed).

What you're doing is expanding the argument to where we go round in circles about the earlier stuff - pre-SISU. We differ on that too, but in truth that's completely irrelevant - we are were we are.

The simple fact is that the club would be better off financially under the deal offered to them via the FL. Isn't that the case?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

What needs to happen is that new negotiations are started, with a small rent deal and a value price for the Higgs Share of ACL the club takes on both and after 3 years it's contractually written that two independent valuations are made on the rest of the 50% shares in ACL and a fair price is determined at which point CCFC has the right to purchase these shares.

So for instance:

Rent Per Season - £100,000
Higgs Shares in ACL - £5,000,000

The club pay no more than £6,000,000 for both and presto, the Club is back at the Ricoh (which everyone wants), the Club has the Matchday revenue's (That the Club wants), the Ricoh has a tenant (which everyone wants) and after a short period of time in which the Club sustain a proof of trust and relationship with CCC and ACL the Club can buy the other 50% which makes them the main Group in it all (which they want).

Now tell me why it wouldn't work?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Actually, what I was doing is shooting down the tired old argument that all this is the Council's/ACL's fault because they spoke to Preston Haskell (after all of the things I've listed).

What you're doing is expanding the argument to where we go round in circles about the earlier stuff - pre-SISU. We differ on that too, but in truth that's completely irrelevant - we are were we are.

The simple fact is that the club would be better off financially under the deal offered to them via the FL. Isn't that the case?

What needs to happen is what I just posted above, but the deal offered to the FL will never happen so although it might seem logical it's something we can forget.

 

[duffer]

What needs to happen is that new negotiations are started, with a small rent deal and a value price for the Higgs Share of ACL the club takes on both and after 3 years it's contractually written that two independent valuations are made on the rest of the 50% shares in ACL and a fair price is determined at which point CCFC has the right to purchase these shares.

So for instance:

Rent Per Season - £100,000
Higgs Shares in ACL - £5,000,000

The club pay no more than £6,000,000 for both and presto, the Club is back at the Ricoh (which everyone wants), the Club has the Matchday revenue's (That the Club wants), the Ricoh has a tenant (which everyone wants) and after a short period of time in which the Club sustain a proof of trust and relationship with CCC and ACL the Club can buy the other 50% which makes them the main Group in it all (which they want).

Now tell me why it wouldn't work?

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but there's no need to tie moving back into the Ricoh into any conditions that I can see.

The simple fact is that by moving back, the club makes more money.

At the point they're back they can start negotiating about anything they want. If that doesn't pan out for whatever reason, then CCFC builds a new ground and moves on. Why won't that work?

 

[duffer]

What needs to happen is what I just posted above, but the deal offered to the FL will never happen so although it might seem logical it's something we can forget.

Why mate? Why won't it happen?

Why should we pretend that there isn't a deal on the table that makes good sense for the club.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but there's no need to tie moving back into the Ricoh into any conditions that I can see.

The simple fact is that by moving back, the club makes more money.

At the point they're back they can start negotiating about anything they want. If that doesn't pan out for whatever reason, then CCFC builds a new ground and moves on. Why won't that work?

No the question of why wasn't aimed at you specifically, but the time scal I have put on it is that either way if Sisu have to build a new Stadium it's not going to be up for another three years and in three years at the Ricoh they have a chance to sustain and win back some trust from the fans, the people of Coventry and CCC, at which point they can show their responsible to hold 100% shares of ACL.

I agree that even if the Club moved back tomorrow they would make more money over the remaining games than they have done at Sixfields, but while their spending £3,000,000 per season to prop up the Club and £25,000,000 to build Arena Del Legoland it makes no sense why they can't buy ACL out and be a ready made Stadium for all their needs within the same time frame.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Why mate? Why won't it happen?

Why should we pretend that there isn't a deal on the table that makes good sense for the club.

I'd like to know Why mate trust me, but should we believe what we are told, Trust has gone between all parties and there is no incentives for the Club to return under the landlord that is ACL.

 

[The Gentleman]

What needs to happen is that new negotiations are started, with a small rent deal and a value price for the Higgs Share of ACL the club takes on both and after 3 years it's contractually written that two independent valuations are made on the rest of the 50% shares in ACL and a fair price is determined at which point CCFC has the right to purchase these shares.

So for instance:

Rent Per Season - £100,000
Higgs Shares in ACL - £5,000,000

The club pay no more than £6,000,000 for both and presto, the Club is back at the Ricoh (which everyone wants), the Club has the Matchday revenue's (That the Club wants), the Ricoh has a tenant (which everyone wants) and after a short period of time in which the Club sustain a proof of trust and relationship with CCC and ACL the Club can buy the other 50% which makes them the main Group in it all (which they want).

Now tell me why it wouldn't work?

But you, yourself have continually stated that the club should not and won't take up another rent deal at the Ricoh. The fact that you have changed your mind proves that you can make a rental deal work and be viable for both parties.

Unfortunately the club are not happy with just match day revenues, they want it all.

 

[wingy]

Why mate? Why won't it happen?

Why should we pretend that there isn't a deal on the table that makes good sense for the club.

Robbo's equation sees CCC down somewhere between £15 -£20M.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

But you, yourself have continually stated that the club should not and won't take up another rent deal at the Ricoh. The fact that you have changed your mind proves that you can make a rental deal work and be viable for both parties.

Unfortunately the club are not happy with just match day revenues, they want it all.

The Club have stated that they won't take up a Rental deal this has been said many times, do I think a Rental deal is wrong for the Club, in some ways yes I do, but not with the terms that you have quoted as I said in another recent post Sisu are planning to invest £3,000,000 per season to prop up the Club and £25,000,000 to build Arena Del Legoland now that effectively over 5 seasons should a new Stadium be built £40,000,000, I have always said and you can quote me on this it makes no sense why for £40,000,000, £30,000,000 or a £100,000,000 why Sisu can't invest that money to purchase the Ricoh.

Yet I don't think I am alone but it's a question that has never been asked to the Club and I can't think why, Noggin will vouch for me that we deliberated a similar conversations over about 3 threads a month ago saying pretty much something similar.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Robbo's equation sees CCC down somewhere between £15 -£20M.

Bare in mind Wingy I didn't put a price for the CCC's 50% of ACL in there but how much more can it be than the other 50% which the Higgs owns (£5,000,000/£6,000,000 from memory.)

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

The Club have stated that they won't take up a Rental deal this has been said many times, do I think a Rental deal is wrong for the Club, in some ways yes I do, but not with the terms that you have quoted as I said in another recent post Sisu are planning to invest £3,000,000 per season to prop up the Club and £25,000,000 to build Arena Del Legoland now that effectively over 5 seasons should a new Stadium be built £40,000,000, I have always said and you can quote me on this it makes no sense why for £40,000,000, £30,000,000 or a £100,000,000 why Sisu can't invest that money to purchase the Ricoh.

Yet I don't think I am alone but it's a question that has never been asked to the Club and I can't think why, Noggin will vouch for me that we deliberated a similar conversations over about 3 threads a month ago saying pretty much something similar.

The club (well, SISU) have indeed stated that they won't take a rental deal at the Ricoh - they have never however put forward a rational explanation for this stance.

On the "purchase price" issue, I am in full agreement with you. I have asked many times why SISU are (supposedly) willing to support the self-imposed losses of playing at Sixfields and spend £25m on a 12,000 seater (now increased to 15,000 - how much does that increase the cost?) stadium, yet reportedly ML believes that the 32,000 seater Ricoh is worth £5-£6m.

Odd.

 

[wingy]

Bare in mind Wingy I didn't put a price for the CCC's 50% of ACL in there but how much more can it be than the other 50% which the Higgs owns (£5,000,000/£6,000,000 from memory.)

Yeah thats what I based my view on Robbo,then clear the loan ,lose their initial £10M. Invested In the project .

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Yeah thats what I based my view on Robbo,then clear the loan ,lose their initial £10M. Invested In the project .

Potentially then another £25,000,000.. Even so if they paid all of that it would still be cheaper than building a new Ground? Could CCC not generate some of that money by selling the land around the Arena to the Club so that the Club could build on it, i.e a Train station which has been muted at the Ricoh since it was built?

 

[wingy]

Potentially then another £25,000,000.. Even so if they paid all of that it would still be cheaper than building a new Ground? Could CCC not generate some of that money by selling the land around the Arena to the Club so that the Club could build on it, i.e a Train station which has been muted at the Ricoh since it was built?

You'd hope they could ,but Its been stated many times there are reservations on both sides and questioned why should a Club be expected to get Involved in development ,I'm sure the CCC reservations were allegedly around this point .

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You'd hope they could ,but Its been stated many times there are reservations on both sides and questioned why should a Club be expected to get Involved in development ,I'm sure the CCC reservations were allegedly around this point .

Most likely, I agree there are certain development projects that could would not suit the Club but if a Train Station was built at the Ricoh surely this would suit all?