Take the football club away and that deal becomes worthless. Yes, things evolve, and 'Ricoh Arena' is used now as a blanket term for the entire complex, but it is not enough to justify Ricoh staying in under the current terms, because a huge amount of exposure would be lost. What I have been told, and I work a lot with people from Ricoh, is that they would bail out. Just what I have been told.
I commend them standing there ground with the rent, of course I am not happy wth the situation that we may even go out of business..
MMM If I am not mistaken those accounts were for last year when CCFC were still paying the rent.. I may be wrong this, but I am looking forward to seeing there accounts for this year. Also if ACL were on such a healthy financial position why did CCC borrow them £14,000,000 to pay off Yorkshire Bank? I am sure most sponsorships would probably leave if CCFC were to stop playing there Football Matches there, yes okay there would be events being held by ACL using the Arena, but CCFC is the biggest advertisment for the Arena not to mention brings all the sponsors in..
Again, it doesn't become worthless. In so claiming, you are avoiding reason.
Ricoh as a business may not be interested - I'll even happily accept your anecdote in that regard; but to state that because one photocopier-maker isn't interested it's 'worthless' really doesn't stack up
just for info.................... for 10 point deduction to take effect this season should we go in to administration it needs to be done before 28/03/13 (fourth Thursday in March)
Like it or not, the £14m agreement with the council took the wind out of Fisher's sails in a way he couldn't possibly have expected. To supplement this with the debt order, coming into play at the end of the season gave him nowhere to go. He either negotiates - openly, honestly and with intent - or he's left with no alternative other than to show his true colours. That's 'running rings' my friend. Surely you want him at the table, negotiating what's best for our club? Or are you happy with all these whimsical notions about new stadia just outside of Rugby somewhere? What sort of distraction is this, when negotiations are there to be had, and rentals accruing day-by-day?
Let me answer you a simple question. We signed, what, 9 players in the summer? Fisher now admits that we will enter transfer embargo next season due to FFP rules without movement. Not now, that's into next season too.
How did ththisappen? He gambled on us either getting promoted, or pulling rerevenuetreams from ACL we currently have no lawful right to in order to make sure we didn't enter automatic transfer embargo. How is that to run a business? How confident can you be in this business an ththoseteering it?
Fact remains, in the short term it would only add to ACL's woes seriously effecting their viability. It would take something pretty radical to happen and a major expansion of facilities to prevent the Arena becoming an underused white elephant pretty quickly.
Jan, seriously RICOH have every intention of pulling out.
Almost all the exposure they get is via the football club. Target market has nothing to do with it; it is simply about name/brand awareness, and for that it is the exposure they get via the football club that is the most important aspect of the deal. 'Positive' coverage is also irrelevant, it is simply about getting the name out there. Ricoh's maket share of the UK copier market has grown substantially in the last 10 years and the naming rights deal has had a good deal to do with that.
Stop and think for one minute of all the exposure it gets in newspaper articles, match reports, on TV news bulletins, in football related publications such as matchday programmes, on internet sites and message boards (not just ours but amongst fans of all clubs that have visited us), on Sky Sports, on radio stations such as TalkSport and Five Live, on all those local stations that cover their teams when they play at 'The Ricoh', in general conversations amongst football supporters and so on and so on. Just think about how many times the words "The Ricoh Arena" are spoken on television and radio throughout the course of a year in reference to our football club or in relation to other clubs who have played a fixture there. Then think about all the times it is mentioned on TV and radio in relation to conferences, business meeting and exhibitions?
We all don't mind the end-game. But at what point does their stance become so unreasonable to to actually reduce the prospect of settlement? Some time ago. And now? What now? You're happy with headlines like those in The Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-administration-ricoh-arena
Can I highlight a line? 'They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file'.
Is that a threat? The very exexistence of our historical club? The word 'commend' shouldn't even be in your head!
Now back to the rent issue, this should have been sorted out from day one and the game these two groups of idiots (ACL/SISU) are playing are dangerous and are not condoned by any fan including myself and it needs to stop.
Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.
The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to trty and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.
Its Hinckley United actuallythanks MMM !!
Are you Grenduffy in disguise?
You state this as though this is absolute fact. How do you know this? Can you prove this? Is this a FACT or is this wishful thinking on your part.
Please advise us all how you are privy to such information that you can state it as absolute fact on this forum.
Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into account "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.
The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to try and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.
Did you miss this MMM..
"I always want what is best for the club, what I would want in an ideal world is for SISU to say to ACL "We will buy back the revenue access that was sold to you previously and accept the rental offer of £400,000 that is on the table" or "We have £30,000,000 which we have publicly declared we are willing to invest in building a new Stadia for us to play our home fixtures in, instead of this we want to own half the Ricoh or more and are willing to invest as much money to make CCFC financially sound and viable""
I have always said this situation should have been sorted from day one, before even that, when CCFC were moving into the Ricoh they must have signed the Agreement before they moved into the ground, so why didn't the thick moron who signed the contract say "£1.2 Mil a year that's a bit steep" and question it? Then we might not be in this situation, but I know we don't live on if's and but's and unfortunately this is the situation we find ourselves in I believe both sides need to sit down with a mediator who knows Football financing and help both sides to agree on a contract. Something like the above where SISU accept the rent offer and give them the £6,000,000 back for revenue streams would be helpful and I don't dodge that..
Fact in capital latters, or a more cautious lowercase fact? Mmmm. What exactly is it you want?
I will not give names, why would I? All I know is that Ricoh UK discussed the matter at board level and that the consensus was that the agreement would be either have to be renegotiated or torn up in the event that the football club left.
Wishful thinking? Hardly. Why do you think I want ACL to fail? On the contrary, if the club are evicted I would want it to succeed, because that would make the likelihood of planning consent for a new venue for the football club a good deal more likely that it might otherwise be if it turns out the Arena cannot survive without the football club after all.
Robo
The auditors only just signed off on those ACL accounts. As part of standard audit procedure, auditors must take into account "subsequent events" right up to the moment that they sign off on the audit report, so it is guaranteed that the auditors are fully aware of the non-payment of rent and the threat by SISU to leave the Ricoh and renege on the rental contract despite the high courts decision, so by signing off on the prior year audit report, the auditors are confirming beyond doubt that in their opinion ACL is a going concern even without CCFC as sitting tenants and the rent that CCFC should be paying to ACL in accordance with the contract, the law and the high court judgement.
The pro-SISU lobby can now bring up any stupidity they want to "prove" that ACL cannot survive without CCFC, they can accuse me of not being a real fan, they can use their usual tactics of attack and asking non-sequeter questions to try and divert people from facts or truth, all of which will not alter in the slightest degree the fact that the professional auditing company, by signing off the accounts, and in full knowledge of the SISU/rent situation, consider that ACL is indeed a going concern.
Beyond doubt? Nothing is beyond doubt in business, to suggest otherwise is a nonsense. There are countless examples of companies that were given the green light following an external audit only to bite the dust in the months that followed. There are no 'facts' or 'guarantees', and any audit requires a certain amount of guesswork.
Perhaps the position of ACL is indeed stronger than some give it credit for, but nothing I have heard or read convinces me that it could survive losing up to 1/3 of its turnover without sailing into very choppy waters indeed.
I think the % quoted by ACL is more like 1/6 of turnover.Beyond doubt? Nothing is beyond doubt in business, to suggest otherwise is a nonsense. There are countless examples of companies that were given the green light following an external audit only to bite the dust in the months that followed. There are no 'facts' or 'guarantees', and any audit requires a certain amount of guesswork.
Perhaps the position of ACL is indeed stronger than some give it credit for, but nothing I have heard or read convinces me that it could survive losing up to 1/3 of its turnover without sailing into very choppy waters indeed.
I thought I was being very clear, but let me ask it again in simple language:
Are you claiming that you have definate and absolute proof that Ricoh will indeed not renew the contract if CCFC are not playing at the arena? I am not asking you to quote names and addresses, I am asking you to confirm that you have absolute proof that what you are claiming is a fact and represents the truth beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I miss much my friend. It's a disagreeable by-product of the relentless aging process
My crux, I guess, is this. Move the rent issue aside a moment. How can we have any faith in those running our club when they've accrued such massive debts from a 'debt free' start 5 years ago? How did they think a squad, shorn of so much quality and a manager with 4 months experience could hack a full championship season? Why - when glaring down the barrel of relegation would you sell your leading scorer, and replace him with less reinforcements than your relegation peers? Why deal with dissent by instructingg orange-jacketed buffoonss to meter out such violence? Why sign so many players this summer, that they automatically place us foul of FFP rules both this season and next? And why offer the sort of text read in The Guardian this week? It sickens me.
I simply despair....
This isn't fucking Narnia you clown.
I enjoy debating with MMM, he tends not to get hysterical
A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?
I think the % quoted by ACL is more like 1/6 of turnover.
A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?
A question for OSB probably which company has all the 45million of Sisu debt CCFC or CCFCH ?
neither techincally if the set up remains as per the 2011 accounts. SISU lent the money to SBS&L who then lent that money to CCFCH who then lent it to CCFC. Caveat to that is it may have changed since we dont know
Neither really-CCFCH is held by another company which funds it through SISU. CCFC's debt is to CCFCH which is to its own holder.
No, I have said quite clearly that it was something I was told. Absolute proof? What, like a secret leaked document? This isn't fucking Narnia you clown.
I enjoy debating with MMM, he tends not to get hysterical and could understand that what I was saying was anecdotal (you understand what that means?). I was simply told by a senior figure within that company of what the view of Ricoh UK is to the possible departure of CCFC and how it effects their position.
Do I have it recorded? Well sadly, I left my dictaphone at home that day :facepalm:
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?