SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
So why did Ann Lucas say it was always built for a sports franchise then?
Michael Byng on twitter (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter robbiethemole
- Start date
So why did Ann Lucas say it was always built for a sports franchise then?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You're making it sound like the club put zero money in which wasn't the case. At the point the club took a 50% share in ACL they had put millions in to the project. Don't have the figures to hand but the amounts put in by the council and CCFC weren't that far apart from memory. Seem to recall the original agreement was for CCFC to have 50% of the freehold only to have CCC move the goalposts late in the day.
Also Higgs in real terms put in far less than £6.5m, there's a detailed post from OSB on here that shows that. They then expected CCFC to buy back at the formula price generally accepted to be in the region of £10m, a huge profit for them.
The club has made mistake after mistake and been run appallingly for years, that can't really be disputed, but that doesn't mean they haven't been on the receiving end of some pretty poor treatment on more than one occasion.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I've been having a nose back into the history of this. Very interesting to find out if there are any Council documents which suggest the Arena was built for CCFC. Of course the arena was built for the Sky Blues, lets make no bones about it here. However, even from 2001, the Council has put forward that they have built the Arena for "...sporting and other events.." (2.11)
http://www.keresleyvillages.org.uk/Documents/Coventry Development Plan 2001.pdf
http://www.keresleyvillages.org.uk/Documents/Coventry Development Plan 2001.pdf
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Our club was GIVEN 50% of ACL. Our club then loaned 6.5m against this share. SISU then took over and didn't want to pay for this share to get it back. Our club could have had this share back for less than they got for it. So how could this have been massively overpaying for it? That is unless you count the millions wasted in legal fees
Massively overpaying for it based on the fact that Wasps paid around £5.5million for 100%.
Absolutely spot on it would of been alot different today if Sisu had invested in the stadium we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yet again someone seems to remember that our club put millions into the build. Just like many seem to think that we paid for the land and to have it decontaminated.
I have shown several time on here that we put less than 800k into the project. We never paid for the land or decontamination. Tescos paid for that.
Higgs loaned money.....about 1.5m IIRC...... to our club. Our club needed more to stay afloat so loaned more against the share of ACL. It then totalled 6.5m.
Agree with the rest though.
Astute
Well-Known Member
And all thanks go to SISU for taking us to Northampton to devalue it. The values were before they took us there and then refuse to negotiate leaving the door open to Wasps. But lets not have the truth get in the way.
Astute
Well-Known Member
http://www.higgscharity.org.uk/the-ricoh-arena/
Would you like to show everyone where this 10m was ever asked for? Can show you lots for much less......even the JR..........
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Higgs still valued their share at £6.5million after we'd been away for a season.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-council-values-ricoh-7051198
Though the council valued it at "nil" before we left.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But tried to sell it to SISU for 5.5m well before SISU moved us to Northampton to try and save some money by devaluing it......or was it in their attempt to get it unencumbered?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
A price that CCC thought massively overvalued the share. Before we went to Northampton.
Surely you should be directing outrage at those who sold the business so cheap, especially as it now has two "sporting franchises" playing there.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There was a formula price which was confidential however most people believed it to be in the region of £10m. PWKH posted on here that he couldn't confirm the exact formula but that that it was about right.
skybluedan
Well-Known Member
Well 2 weeks on and byngs still a c**t
Astute
Well-Known Member
Outrage? Just pointing out the usual false information. Have said about my dislike of what was sold, to who and for how much. Said it was sold too cheaply. Also supposed to be said in the Wasps section of this site isn't it?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Believed to be.......never seen proof of it myself and the most I have seen asked for it was 5.5m.......1m less than was paid for it and just over half the amount you were trying to make out that they wanted for it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
£5.5m bought 100% of it, both ACL and CCC shares.
The formula price of in excess of £10m was for the Higgs Share of ACL.
The SISU deal talked about was £5.5m for the Higgs Share.
When it came out that SISU were prepared to pay £2m for the Higgs Share it was mocked on here. The share went for £2.74m.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not to mention a lease extension of over 200 years chucked in for nothing.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
The stadium was a ccfc brainchild built for ccfc to play in.
Ccc did not build it, they only funded the completion when the money ran out.
The council had been trying unsuccessfully to find ways of re generating that area since the 70s so it would probably still have gas towers standing there without the plans of our football club.
It sounds sometimes like we had fuck all to do with any part of its inception.
All I'm saying is had there been no ccfc there would not have been a stadium at all.
Ccc did not build it, they only funded the completion when the money ran out.
The council had been trying unsuccessfully to find ways of re generating that area since the 70s so it would probably still have gas towers standing there without the plans of our football club.
It sounds sometimes like we had fuck all to do with any part of its inception.
All I'm saying is had there been no ccfc there would not have been a stadium at all.
Is that right? Who confirmed that?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well, given the context of this conversation, CCFC were offered 42 years for half ownership at £6.5 million I think it's been chucked in, don't you?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Well they should have offered a bit more then instead of losing out.
Nope. My view is that the Council will have sought to ensure that whatever deal was cut with Wasps followed the correct procedures. Logically in my opinion, extending a lease for free would be open to challenge, as the Council would not have received market/best value. So, if it becomes public knowledge, then I think we will see a payment was made for the extension.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Are you stating as fact that ACL paid a going rate for the additional 200 years on the lease over and above the amount previously reported for the sale of ACL to Wasps?
Given the cost of the initial lease we'd be talking about a figure of around £85m, surprised the council are keeping that quiet. If they have generated considerable funds for the city through this sale you would think they would be shouting it from the rooftops and not forging ahead with millions of pounds worth of cuts.
I think I said I was expressing my view. And I suspect your day job is not in property. When there is an existing lengthy lease in place, extending that lease will not cost anything like £85m.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
That may have been because they said it was actually worth nothing. They offered the 2 million purely because it was a charity.
Someone bought it for 2.77 for business reasons not charity reasons
duffer
Well-Known Member
There's nothing typical about the deal with ACL. From what I understand most commercial leases are more like ten to fifteen years, but then the landlord usually benefits from a substantial rent relating to the value of the property.
I'm not at all clear what rent, if anything, the Council are charging ACL. If it's a nominal amount, then an extension to a 250-year-term sounds like a deal worth a bit more than £1 million to me - when SISU were talking about this it was described as being near enough to freehold as to make no difference.
As with the whole deal, it's deliberately opaque - something that should not really be the case when there are such large sums of public money involved.