Of course it benefits Coventry having a multi-purpose stadium/ exhibition centre/ casino etc.. It brings people into the city who spend money and attracts businesses to the area. The people did benefit from Lloyd's buyout as the alternative was much worse. Before the Ricoh there was just empty contaminated land. That benefitted no-one.
Like what? You're the one saying that the Higgs family haven't done enough for the club despite the numerous times they've bailed the club out financially over more than one generation of their family. Not to mention the academy (an academy sisu tried to throw back in their face over a bill for a lawnmower, yet the Higgs still welcomed them back). So come on, I'm all ears. Educate me.
I think SISU have looked at the scenario and have come to the conclusion that the best chance of getting at least some money back is with real estate. That is Joy's subject, she majored in it. Unfortunately it doesn't look good for the soccer team which is attracting too much negative publicity for SISU.
Sixfields is a community asset for Northampton. It is used by local schools, by the local FA as part of their grass-roots initiatives. There is clear evidence that the community use the amenity.
How much of that goes on at the Ricoh?
Numerous?
Soccer is the appropriate term in our case as are real estate and majored. We are an asset of a Cayman Isles/ USA company. We are no longer a football club set up to achieve sporting success. That was our past, but the present is different. We are owned by a private equity / hedge fund sponsor or hedge fund - depending on how you view the situation. Our core business is real estate, although we do own a soccer franchise.
Sixfields, the area not the football pitch, is both an amenity and an asset. The Ricoh complex is also used for various events, but on a commercial basis and is a commercial asset. If you pay, you can use the Ricoh arena. A soccer academy is using it, or will be.
Numerous eh? Thanks for clearing that up, not.
Tell me. How could someone so knowledgeable about the casino contract buy out not have a single idea about what more the higgs family could have done to benefit the club.
I'm still all ears and waiting for you to educate me.
That wasn't an endorsement of your point... I'm almost giddy in excitement waiting for you to tell me exactly how Higgs has financially supported CCFC on numerous occasions, other than the 2 points we have discussed here.
That wasn't an endorsement of your point... I'm almost giddy in excitement waiting for you to tell me exactly how Higgs has financially supported CCFC on numerous occasions, other than the 2 points we have discussed here.
They did help the club financially, but knowing full well there would be some return on the investment. They didn't donate the money to CCFC did they?
Nobody in ANY party had the desire to a) stop this nonsense occurring in the first place and b) get a deal done. ALL of them were too driven by personal motives.
Don't turn this back on me because you can't answer your own point. What the Higgs family and Trust have done for this club is well documented. You're the Google expert, look for yourself. Given the snippets about the casino found out you should be able to find out more than anyone ever thought they had done before. Unless you were being fed the casino info of course.
Anyway. Back to your original point. You said they could have done more. Given you think this you must of course have an idea of what that would be, otherwise you couldn't have come to the original conclusion.
For the 3rd time. I'm all ears, educate me.
If Coventry City hadn't been run by such a bunch of chancers the Charity would never have had to step in, so talk of motive is just an absolute nonsense to me.
"I know", thought Ms Higgs, "we'll let the club run itself into the ground, and offer them a pittance for their share now, and then ask for an absolute fortune for it in return later". That, as you can see by the facts, is utter rubbish - you're not thinking straight.
There certainly doesn't seem to be any motive for profit here, except in your head - although of course the trustees of the charity have a legal duty to act according to their financial responsiblities. The charity clearly wasn't set up to give CCFC money every time they got into trouble, which is lucky because they'd have gone broke very quickly and some time ago!
As to the desire to sell, the charity agreed a price for the share with SISU for less than they actually paid for it (so no profit there) but SISU's idea of buy-now, pay later without offering any great degree of security was just pushing it a bit too far perhaps.
So, I can see that you've got issues with the charity, but I don't think the evidence supports your opinion here.
As an aside I've got to admit that it boils my piss that a company that can pay so much to players, executives, and agents (and in interest to themselves) could still try to stiff a charity. It beggars belief that some people will support our owners in that.
You're pissing in the wind pal.At what point did I lay the blame exclusively with the charity?
Pretty sure I said all parties responsible...
At what point did I lay the blame exclusively with the charity?
Pretty sure I said all parties responsible...
Indeed and in what way were the charity responsible?
Was it for coming to the rescue when the club had nowhere else to turn, or refusing to sell at a discount under an inadequately secured buy-now, pay later plan?
OK, so in terms of the buyout of CCFC's share of ACL, could more have been done to get that back in the hands of CCFC, even before SISU arrived? The club would have had a big revenue spike in that first year, could that transaction have happened there?
When SISU did buy the club... it's perfectly evident they failed spectacularly in doing the correct due diligence. Do you think that Higgs explained to SISU in detail and said the impact of not buying them out of the ACL share?
Once the share was in Higgs' hands, the veto of the council became the stumbling block. Essentially suggesting the charity were stuck unless the council gave approval. I would have not had that scenario in place, there was no benefit for Charity, or club.
I'm not saying they are completely to blame.. far from it. But every party had opportunities to do more along the way to stop this ever happening. As such they should not be excused blame or perceived as victims just because they are a charity.
Maybe they could have done more but sisu didn't want to buy the ground in the early days this was verified by ML at the meetings last week, they were there for the short term to make money also verified at the same meeting, but like everything they have done in connection with CCFC they fucked up. Shame as I can't see that changing until it is to late.
Then there is the period where Sisu would't talk to anyone associated with Coventry including their own fans? Almost through all of there tenement of CCFC.
When SISU did buy the club... it's perfectly evident they failed spectacularly in doing the correct due diligence. Do you think that Higgs explained to SISU in detail and said the impact of not buying them out of the ACL share?
The same goes for the club as well of course, so nobody can say that it is "worthless" when they're expected to accept a one pound offer.
So between 2003 and 2012 there wasn't a single opportunity to sell the share back?
If we work on the basis that the lawyer count was 2:7. ACL had 1 lawyer per £14.5k and SISU 1 per £41.4k.
So if we went on the SISU ratio ACL would need 0.7 of a lawyer.
If we worked on ACL ratio, SISU would have needed 20 lawyers.
Nice bit of Maths to start the day!
The opportunity as I understand it was always there. Pre sisu the money wasn't there. The very first interview I saw and indeed anyone saw of RR was on the day the take over was confirmed was on the Midlands news, he was sat in the ricoh and in his very first interview he talks about the club owning the ricoh. He didn't talk specifics (lease or freehold) but he did highlight it as a priority.
So the real question is why did sisu not take the option on day one. Or anyone from sisu ever since.
Don't turn this back on me because you can't answer your own point. What the Higgs family and Trust have done for this club is well documented. You're the Google expert, look for yourself. Given the snippets about the casino found out you should be able to find out more than anyone ever thought they had done before. Unless you were being fed the casino info of course.
Anyway. Back to your original point. You said they could have done more. Given you think this you must of course have an idea of what that would be, otherwise you couldn't have come to the original conclusion.
For the 3rd time. I'm all ears, educate me.
ACL have paid off the loan with any profit they have made, £21m loan reduced to £14m in 5 years. This is not a SISU way to run a company so they wanted rid of ACL and total controll of the RICOH. IN 5 years the RICOH would be in debt for millions, which would disapear to SISU coffersIf all profit is reinvested into Ricoh complex why would SISU want to buy them? That doesn't seem to add up.
EVERYONE could have done more. Especially SISU. All parties are culpable.
So between 2003 and 2012 there wasn't a single opportunity to sell the share back?
So between 2003 and 2012 there wasn't a single opportunity to sell the share back?
In other words you just threw out the word numerous without any facts at all.
I thought there was a formula in place for the club to buy the share back at any point during this timescale, or have I missed your point. The charity agreed this with the club I thought, what other opportunities should they have been making?
They loaned us money about £2m (interest free) they can't just give us money under charity rules whilst at HR (before the ACL share sale). Sir Higgs wrote off a £666,000 loan to our club* when Sisu came in as well as giving up his shares like other supporters. I'll provide sources for those once I get off to change tubes.
* Interest free as did McGinnity and Robinson.
They loaned us money about £2m (interest free) they can't just give us money under charity rules whilst at HR (before the ACL share sale). Sir Higgs wrote off a £666,000 loan to our club* when Sisu came in as well as giving up his shares like other supporters. I'll provide sources for those once I get off to change tubes.
* Interest free as did McGinnity and Robinson.
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?