Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Agree and what did we get last season and what are we going to get this season? And why?
But seeing as little or no taxpayers money ever went in to the stadium, why should that be of concern? Of course they need to keep it viable because they need to be sure that ACL can continue to meet their obligations in terms of repayments, but otherwise what responsibility do they have to council tax payers? The stadium was built for CCFC, and they were the driving force behind it right up until the last minute, having done much of the legwork and helped put in place much of the funding. It was just unfortuante that there was a funding shortfall at the end and the council secured a loan to bridge it - and for that the club lost complete control of a project they had taken from nothing to very nearly the point where the first spade entered the ground. It was a travesty really.
I can't really see much evidence of the council having 'desperately tried to balance the long term stability of the club'. That some key figures on the council support the club is undeniable, that SISU acted appallingly during negotiations is undeniable. That said, when all this is done and dusted, I very much hope there is some sort of internal investigation at CCC that asks if things could have been done differently because as far as I am concerned they have a lot of questions to answer.
Oh, and a minor point, we averaged over 20K in our first 2 seasons, suggesting we were regularly getting over 20K.
How much do Hull or Swansea pay? If we're talking market rents than lets compare it to other recently built stadia....
CCFC signed up to it with a gun to their head, not forgetting that the CCFC that signed then is not the CCFC that won't sign now.
Circumstances change, it appears to me that the Council were willing to offer a rent abatement to a company due to a change of circumstances, only that company would not afford the same to another who were also subject to a change in circumstance.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the owners have the club's best interests at heart either, moving to Sixfields being a case in point.
The Welsh Audit Office commissioned a report on The Liberty Stadium. The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online) stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.How much do Hull or Swansea pay? If we're talking market rents than lets compare it to other recently built stadia....
CCFC signed up to it with a gun to their head, not forgetting that the CCFC that signed then is not the CCFC that won't sign now.
Circumstances change, it appears to me that the Council were willing to offer a rent abatement to a company due to a change of circumstances, only that company would not afford the same to another who were also subject to a change in circumstance.
PWC report via thisissouthwales.co.uk said:"financial position of SSMC remains precarious and the current revenue sharing arrangements are considered unsustainable". It also reveals that Swansea Council made a further loan to the SSMC in 2005, for £2.6 million, which it later wrote off, even though auditors "were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".
If it was so unfair, why did CCFC sign up for it without complaint, and why did they only push for a reduction in the last year or so?
£24 million was the cost of acquiring the land - a portion of which was sold on for £59.5 million to Tesco. 'Bryan Richardson's finest hour' I think it was called at the time :thinking about:. It was a good deal no matter how you view it. £17 million was the cost of decontamination.
From details in CCFCH accounts
The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else
There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m
The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd
The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.
The club couldnt afford to pay its way and sold the £6.8m asset to the Charity for £6.5m
The charity paid for it by £2m in cash the waiver of 2.5m 5% debebenture loans (2003) and the settlement of £2m loans directors of CCFC made to CCFC
Those folks are the facts as disclosed by the club and its auditors in accounts filed at Companies House
Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??
So when CCFC "invested" in the joint venture they transferred to the assets but also the associated creditors....... and then received pretty much the full value from the charity for something that hardly existed
The Welsh Audit Office commissioned a report on The Liberty Stadium. The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online) stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H
What a shame we never took the oportunity to buy the charity share when we had the oportunity (and I think we still do).
Because I can't believe that they have always done what is best for the club, was selling Fox and Dann the best thing to do? Was the boycott rather than negotiate the best thing to do? Is moving us to Northampton and buggering us under FFP rules the best thing to do? Name something positive that the club/SISU have done recently.It isn't the point, why do you always have to bring it round to a 'SISU are bad' angle? Can't you argue objectively?
Not strictly true. Robinson approached ACL in December 2005 stating the club couldn't afford the rent. Not sure why it wasn't pursued then. And, at that time, we'd only been in the stadium four months, so it seems there certainly was a problem with the business model from the outset. Foolishly agreed by the club.
And is the Ricoh financial situation considered unsustainable by their auditors? Don't believe so but happy to be proved wrong.Talking of Swansea, this is how their council leader responded to calls that Swansea City should pay more rent:
Mr Holley said he was "astonished that the Labour leader wants to penalise the Swans in this way". He added: "We should be helping them to achieve more not taxing them on their success. As far as I am concerned the financial arrangements with regards to the Liberty Stadium are robust and appropriate. When the management company makes a profit then the council get their fair share.
"We are also taking steps to ensure that high standards of maintenance are sustained.
"I do not want to take much-needed cash from the Swans that should be spent on strengthening the team and ensuring that they retain their Premier League status.
"The city stands to gain hugely from the success of the Swans in terms of investment, jobs, prestige and revenue. The council will also benefit from that dividend.
"I am not prepared to jeopardise that future by forcing the football club to pay more. We are here to help them not hinder them."
What a refreshing attitude that is. Can you imagine one of our elected leaders ever saying that?
What the frig?? I haven't been on here since Saturday where I was witness to the biggest display of unity from Sky Blues Fans for as long as I can remember. Proud to be apart of that unity through adversity. A few days on and we've regressed a year. He said, she did, labelling. What matters is saving our club, not mud slinging, not who predicted what and not who is to blame. Let's be proactive not reactive and build on what Saturday achieved.
To be honest, I've gone beyond caring as to whether it's Sisu's fault, ACL's fault, Richardsons fault or whoever. I just want this sorted. The time for bringing those to account is for after we've pulled this club away from the raging storm of the abyss.
I think GR did approach ACL either PWKH, Tim, or the Trust Q&A said it, but then he rejected the sliding scale rent Sir Higgs proposed which might well have been better for us.OK torchy, fair enough, but I've never heard that before. No reason to doubt your word, but have you got a link to it? And like you say, why didn't they renegotiate then, honestly. Or why didn't SISU do it when they first got in.
The rent has only become a show-stopping issue recently, and from the accounts it isn't the rent that's been pulling the club down either. As others have said, how much of the debt is actually down to the rent.
SISU paid themselves more interest on their own debts in the last set of accounts (700k?) than they would've done on the rent at £400k. It's not an easy analysis to do, but I'd bet their 'management' fees far exceed even that.
It's not the rent killing the club, imho.
Well the club never bought the land, otherwise they would own the freehold or a leasehold, it is the council that owns the freehold, so they must have bought the land.
I think the club did put in ~£6.8M, which may have gone to decontamination costs, but later the Higgs bought out the CCFC part for about £6.5M, OSB has the story.
And is the Ricoh financial situation considered unsustainable by their auditors? Don't believe so but happy to be proved wrong.
OK torchy, fair enough, but I've never heard that before. No reason to doubt your word, but have you got a link to it? And like you say, why didn't they renegotiate then, honestly. Or why didn't SISU do it when they first got in.
The rent has only become a show-stopping issue recently, and from the accounts it isn't the rent that's been pulling the club down either. As others have said, how much of the debt is actually down to the rent.
SISU paid themselves more interest on their own debts in the last set of accounts (700k?) than they would've done on the rent at £400k. It's not an easy analysis to do, but I'd bet their 'management' fees far exceed even that.
It's not the rent killing the club, imho.
I finally found Tim Fisher describing stadium finance, he clearly says that the council bought the land from British Gas for between £14M and £18M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA start about 1m 50s into tape..
I'm pretty sure that is the £17M in the funding part of report, there is coincidentally another £17M in the costs part of the report for decontamination.. one sum is expenditure and one sum is money put in,, they are not the same thing & lie on different sides of the balance sheet.
"I absolutely wish them all the best, they work their socks off and as I've said before that club needs support from Coventry City Council.
I won’t go into specific detail. “There are well-documented things about what’s happening down at Coventry. It is a magnificent club. Potentially huge. “But it needs support to build revenue streams and help from the council.
"That led to a decision to want to speak with Huddersfield and that's how the decision has been arrived at.
"
Wait a minute both stadiums have conference facilities http://www.liberty-stadium.com/events_venue.php and have held concerts http://www.liberty-stadium.com/gallery.php . Swansea despite all the Premiership TV money etc. coming in now still don't pay a serious rent and yet the way the Liberty Stadium is financed isn't sustainable. Plus The Swans aren't the only pitch using tenants at the Liberty there is also the Ospreys.You're comparing apples with oranges to an extent. The Liberty Stadium is much more reliant on the football club in terms of income - there are no big concerts there, no exhibition hall, no hotel, no underground casino. You would think therefore, that of the two, the management company at the Ricoh could afford to be more generous towards the football club in terms of the deal it offers than is the case at Swansea, but actually it is the other way around.
Robins probably knew a lot more than any member on here (apart from PWKH)
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?