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.
SISU requested a 3 year run off at the Ricoh; it was rejected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SISU requested a 3 year run off at the Ricoh; it was rejected.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Robbo's equation sees CCC down somewhere between £15 -£20M.
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.
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 .
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 .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?