New stadium update: (2 Viewers)

[Grendel]

At the end of the day, regardless of our opinions, it's about money.

If, in the long term, building our own stadium with access to the full revenue streams is cheaper than renting at the Ricoh with access to none, then I think it could happen.

I'm not sure it adds up unless you can get hold of a lot of money on very favourable terms, but really, who knows.

I never thought a business already losing money would be able to refinance a £35m bond either, but if Wasps can manage that on diminishing returns, then imagine the kind of suckers that a vaguely promising Championship football team could pull in.

Wasps can refinance as the lease is valued much higher so there is security

Sisu have shown no business case to support the logic of ground development - they need some “action” as the lease we now have is valueless and decreasing - there has to be some break clause limitation as well you’d assume

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

As why else would an institution like Warwick Uni very publicly associate themselves with the club if there was even the slightest chance that it would harm their reputation?

I don't see how it can. Warwick will just progress with their own plans, upscale or downscale accordingly... or bring in another partner.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I don't see how it can. Warwick will just progress with their own plans, upscale or downscale accordingly... or bring in another partner.

I think it would harm their reputation, locally anyway. This would've been the second time in a decade that the club has attempted to spin this yarn and despite SISU's dubious track record they've been led down the garden path. Not a brilliant look for a university that is touted to be in the top 10 in the UK and within the top 100 in the world. It makes them look amateurish.

Also, why would they bring in a partner to build a 'stadium' that they don't need? In the more likely scenario that the plans will evolve into a training facility, then who would they bring in to partner with them?

Wasps already have their facility in Henley-in-Arden and Coventry Rugby don't have the capital for such a project. So they'd likely have to turn to external investment. Is a new training facility really that much of a priority for the university?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Talking to my sources lol. It appears further information was requested and wasn’t given from sisu so the eu decided not to continue with it

So conceivably the complaint couldn’t be withdrawn but now can. Made sense to me

Kind of backs the thought that it was simply done to be as awkward as possible. You could call it spite. Hard to come to any other conclusion when SISU themselves couldn't be bothered with the paperwork. They must have known the case was without merit in the first place. Just one more hail Mary that crashed and burned.

Seems to be an abuse of the legal system. Although many companies & investors etc use the legal system in ways not intended by the law

Whilst i think the initial move to Northampton was a clever plan to break the lease, SISU have lost every court case, fractured a fan base, cost the club millions. They totally misjudged just about everything and got very very lucky in Fisher persuading MR to come back.

If anything your information makes me think even less of our owners

Did your source tell you when the missing information deadline was or when the EU said enough is enough? Around the time when they needed to return to Coventry perhaps? Because i suspect the undertakings SISU have had to give relate to all future legal challenges not just the EU one, could easily have taken months since to sort out.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We play in one. We don't have one.

If a new one was built it's highly likely we wouldn't have one then either. It'd be owned by a SISU subsidiary and leased to the club.

Think there's more likelihood of part-ownership in the Ricoh than a new stadium.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Also, why would they bring in a partner to build a 'stadium' that they don't need? In the more likely scenario that the plans will evolve into a training facility, then who would they bring in to partner with them?

A stadium can be many things... including one for universities' football, which was the original plan I believe. As for training facilities then again, that can be just university level, can scale anywhere from local sports clubs at a low level (Broadstreet have become reasonably wealthy by moving often) up to local clubs that are close-ish - Birmingham City, even.

Many possibilities.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

A stadium can be many things... including one for universities' football, which was the original plan I believe. As for training facilities then again, that can be just university level, can scale anywhere from local sports clubs at a low level (Broadstreet have become reasonably wealthy by moving often) up to local clubs that are close-ish - Birmingham City, even.

Many possibilities.

Understand your point how they could effectively do as they wish if the deal fell through for whatever reason but I still think you're underestimating the lengths organisations of Warwick Universities size and stature will go to ensure their reputation is protected. Especially when their reputation has already been through the mill in recent years.

Whether it's a stadium or a training facility (far more likely), the project may well go under and in fact I think most wouldn't be surprised if it did. However, the point remains: why would they publicly associate themselves with businesses or organisations on a whim?

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

You notice that the Vice Chancellor didn't actually say they were looking forward to developing a new stadium. Or anything, for that matter. He said they were supporting the club in its ventures. I suspect they might have acted as some kind of intermediary to smooth the relationship between SISU, Wasps and CCC, and perhaps have agreed to build a training ground on campus.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Kind of backs the thought that it was simply done to be as awkward as possible. You could call it spite. Hard to come to any other conclusion when SISU themselves couldn't be bothered with the paperwork. They must have known the case was without merit in the first place. Just one more hail Mary that crashed and burned.

Seems to be an abuse of the legal system. Although many companies & investors etc use the legal system in ways not intended by the law

Whilst i think the initial move to Northampton was a clever plan to break the lease, SISU have lost every court case, fractured a fan base, cost the club millions. They totally misjudged just about everything and got very very lucky in Fisher persuading MR to come back.

If anything your information makes me think even less of our owners

Did your source tell you when the missing information deadline was or when the EU said enough is enough? Around the time when they needed to return to Coventry perhaps? Because i suspect the undertakings SISU have had to give relate to all future legal challenges not just the EU one, could easily have taken months since to sort out.

It should all come out in the news. I only asked a question of someone who’s been involved with the story all along. No one at the club or owners. What they said just kind of made sense to me. No idea of what the truth is but as mulder and scully would affirm I’m sure it’s out there

 

[The Philosopher]

The one thing that has really annoyed me is this impression that the Cllrs give that they somehow had the right to do whatever they wanted with the Ricoh and the lease.

The stadium didn’t belong to Anne Lucas and co., it belonged to Coventry. As in the City of Coventry, the citizens of Coventry - the taxpayers. It was a community asset.

The elected officials have a duty to the people of Coventry to manage the assets of the City in the best way possible.

The question is simple: was £2.7m plus the £14m bank loan the best deal that the Council could get for the Coventry taxpayer?

To my mind, a simple :“SISU, stop messing around. We’ve had a bid from Wasps, will you pay more / do a joint deal / want to walk away?” would have been fair.

The underhanded behaviour of the deal, lack of transparency, technical dereliction of duty to the citizens of Coventry by not attempting to get the best sale price by the open market is concerning. Would SISU have paid more? Who knows. Bottom, line: they weren’t given the option. I expect those that are voted in to represent us to abide by fairness.

Has a community asset been sold on the cheap? The fact that Wasps were able to revalue it up very quickly speaks for itself.

The argument seems to be that Wasps brought business to the City. I’d counter that equivalent custom, if not more, was driven out of the City for a while.

The asset was sold on the cheap. I believe a better deal could have been done, more money to the council coffers. In the meantime, the same CCC has no qualms about asking for higher Council Tax.

 

[Grendel]

It should all come out in the news. I only asked a question of someone who’s been involved with the story all along. No one at the club or owners. What they said just kind of made sense to me. No idea of what the truth is but as mulder and scully would affirm I’m sure it’s out there

The truth is Sisu used legal process as a form of attrition. They use courts to drag their enemies through and to try and destabilise and create uncertainty. The Empress hates defeat and since the Sixfields defeat (which I am sure she was confident she would win) she has never let it go. She can't. It's in her DNA. She has used the club since then as a sideshow to try and win a increasingly losing battle

 

[The Philosopher]

Kind of backs the thought that it was simply done to be as awkward as possible. You could call it spite. Hard to come to any other conclusion when SISU themselves couldn't be bothered with the paperwork. They must have known the case was without merit in the first place. Just one more hail Mary that crashed and burned.

Seems to be an abuse of the legal system. Although many companies & investors etc use the legal system in ways not intended by the law

Whilst i think the initial move to Northampton was a clever plan to break the lease, SISU have lost every court case, fractured a fan base, cost the club millions. They totally misjudged just about everything and got very very lucky in Fisher persuading MR to come back.

If anything your information makes me think even less of our owners

Did your source tell you when the missing information deadline was or when the EU said enough is enough? Around the time when they needed to return to Coventry perhaps? Because i suspect the undertakings SISU have had to give relate to all future legal challenges not just the EU one, could easily have taken months since to sort out.

Anyone involved in high level litigation will know that the mere existence of an ongoing case is a headache.

Try getting a commercial litigation lawyer to say: “it’s ok CCC, they’ve no chance, you’re home and dry”.

Nope.

There was risk to CCC in this case, I can’t see SISU letting the case wither without some kind of deal.

SISU IMO have got some kind of undertaking from CCC

It may be that CCC will sort out some equivalent grants / funding on the new venture, sort transport links etc.

I think a deal was done for SISU to let the case wither prior to heading back to CBS.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The truth is Sisu used legal process as a form of attrition. They use courts to drag their enemies through and to try and destabilise and create uncertainty. The Empress hates defeat and since the Sixfields defeat (which I am sure she was confident she would win) she has never let it go. She can't. It's in her DNA. She has used the club since then as a sideshow to try and win a increasingly losing battle

And now?

 

[Kneeza]

...Coventry Rugby don't have the capital for such a project. So they'd likely have to turn to external investment. Is a new training facility really that much of a priority for the university?

Capital or not, I really can't see Cov being interested, except for possibly occasional use of specialist, rehab maybe, facilities. Their training ground is the Butts, which has a small gym attached, and is likely to have more added as the West and North sides are built out.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Capital or not, I really can't see Cov being interested, except for possibly occasional use of specialist, rehab maybe, facilities. Their training ground is the Butts, which has a small gym attached, and is likely to have more added as the West and North sides are built out.

Yeah I wasn't really referring to them as a credible example - rather pointing out the limited number of potential 'partners' in the area that would be able to piggyback the project if the club suddenly dropped out.

 

[Grendel]

Anyone involved in high level litigation will know that the mere existence of an ongoing case is a headache.

Try getting a commercial litigation lawyer to say: “it’s ok CCC, they’ve no chance, you’re home and dry”.

Nope.

There was risk to CCC in this case, I can’t see SISU letting the case wither without some kind of deal.

SISU IMO have got some kind of undertaking from CCC

It may be that CCC will sort out some equivalent grants / funding on the new venture, sort transport links etc.

I think a deal was done for SISU to let the case wither prior to heading back to CBS.

Jesus Christ you really are stupid if you believe that

 

[Grendel]

And now?

It carries on - it will always carry on - the fake stadium as the lease depreciates the potential for another administration break this lease - it will never stop - why do you even try and defend this nonsense?

 

[The Philosopher]

Jesus Christ you really are stupid if you believe that

I’m not so stupid as to understand legal costs implications of just “dropping hands” without a deal. It’s often the costs in bringing / defending a case that outstrip the original argument.

Some kind of deal has been done to desist else CCC would be able to go straight after SISU for costs. I’m not sure what the U.K. v EU costs system is or if the appeal halted the costs pre-awarded.

Some kind of deal has been done (and let’s not forget it’s ultimately Coventry taxpayer paying CCC legal costs).

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Many clubs share with other sports.

Which teams in the top two divisions have their stadium used by other sports?

 

[JonesBob]

I don't see how it can. Warwick will just progress with their own plans, upscale or downscale accordingly... or bring in another partner.

I work in university business partnerships and believe Warwick are very serious about working with CCFC on building a new stadium. they have land that can be developed and this would seem like an ideal partnership. The reason Warwick are interested in doing this is both local and national. Locally they have a threat from Coventry University who are the most driven university in the UK. I am sure everyone is aware of how they have taken over building in the centre of the city and turned them into either accommodation or university buildings. Their recruitment for international students is also widely seen as being progressive and aggressive. All universities, including Russell Group, are part of the competition to recruit students from the UK and internationally especially as universities lost EU students who could get loans from the UK government. It is highly competitive and Warwick have had to join up with UCB in Birmingham to get their courses delivered there. Anywhere in the UK you will see that prime city and town centre land is owned by universities. Warwick would neither lose credibility nor sleep if CCFC chose not to work on this project, but people should remember Warwick have some of the greatest business minds working in the university in the Business Department. If CCFC and SISU wished for this to happen, and councils were in agreement, then it will happen.

 

[Grendel]

I’m not so stupid as to understand legal costs implications of just “dropping hands” without a deal. It’s often the costs in bringing / defending a case that outstrip the original argument.

Some kind of deal has been done to desist else CCC would be able to go straight after SISU for costs. I’m not sure what the U.K. v EU costs system is or if the appeal halted the costs pre-awarded.

Some kind of deal has been done (and let’s not forget it’s ultimately Coventry taxpayer paying CCC legal costs).

its the opposite way round you clown

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It carries on - it will always carry on - the fake stadium as the lease depreciates the potential for another administration break this lease - it will never stop - why do you even try and defend this nonsense?

I don’t believe I am defending anything

 

[Frostie]

Which teams in the top two divisions have their stadium used by other sports?

Bristol City, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brentford, Sheffield United, Hull.

I think?

 

[skybluetony176]

Its just another hapless and half arsed attempt by Seppalla to take over the lease that’s again hit the buffers. It’s funny politically you accuse Mr Johnson of diversion, lies and spin but lack the consistency when it comes to the ridiculous chancer Ms Seppalla

Didn’t you think she was so clever that she lost the court cases deliberately?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Bristol City, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brentford, Sheffield United, Hull.

I think?

You left out Coventry I think

 

[duffer]

I’m not so stupid as to understand legal costs implications of just “dropping hands” without a deal. It’s often the costs in bringing / defending a case that outstrip the original argument.

Some kind of deal has been done to desist else CCC would be able to go straight after SISU for costs. I’m not sure what the U.K. v EU costs system is or if the appeal halted the costs pre-awarded.

Some kind of deal has been done (and let’s not forget it’s ultimately Coventry taxpayer paying CCC legal costs).

I don't think there was any way of either side reclaiming costs for the EU complaint. It was never a court case as such.

However, you're spot on about the risk involved in an actual court case; there's no such thing as a certain outcome once you're in front of a judge, which is why so many cases settle out of court.

 

[skybluetony176]

Although I find a stadium in conjunction with UOW the only credible proposal for a stadium our owners have ever come up with I still can’t see it. Most likely project with UOW is a state of the art training ground, possibly with a new academy. Ryton can only be developed if the playing surfaces are replaced in Warwickshire, tick. Ryton worth a good few quid to fund, tick. Shared costs with another institution, tick. Qualify for numerous grants, tick. In contrast I can’t see where the funding will come from for a stadium. A stadium of any note anyway.

 

[duffer]

Bristol City, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brentford, Sheffield United, Hull.

I think?

Didn't know blades shared their ground, but I'm not disputing it.

What's key though, is how many of them rent without access to the other income streams?

I don't know the answer, but that's always the point that SISU/Fisher come back to.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Didn't know blades shared their ground, but I'm not disputing it.

What's key though, is how many of them rent without access to the other income streams?

I don't know the answer, but that's always the point that SISU/Fisher come back to.

Swansea just pay a nominal rent I believe

 

[duffer]

The one thing that has really annoyed me is this impression that the Cllrs give that they somehow had the right to do whatever they wanted with the Ricoh and the lease.

The stadium didn’t belong to Anne Lucas and co., it belonged to Coventry. As in the City of Coventry, the citizens of Coventry - the taxpayers. It was a community asset.

The elected officials have a duty to the people of Coventry to manage the assets of the City in the best way possible.

The question is simple: was £2.7m plus the £14m bank loan the best deal that the Council could get for the Coventry taxpayer?

To my mind, a simple :“SISU, stop messing around. We’ve had a bid from Wasps, will you pay more / do a joint deal / want to walk away?” would have been fair.

The underhanded behaviour of the deal, lack of transparency, technical dereliction of duty to the citizens of Coventry by not attempting to get the best sale price by the open market is concerning. Would SISU have paid more? Who knows. Bottom, line: they weren’t given the option. I expect those that are voted in to represent us to abide by fairness.

Has a community asset been sold on the cheap? The fact that Wasps were able to revalue it up very quickly speaks for itself.

The argument seems to be that Wasps brought business to the City. I’d counter that equivalent custom, if not more, was driven out of the City for a while.

The asset was sold on the cheap. I believe a better deal could have been done, more money to the council coffers. In the meantime, the same CCC has no qualms about asking for higher Council Tax.

100% this.

What really salted the wound was the Council's added claim that they wouldn't have sold the ground unless they were certain it would have no impact on CRFC or CCFC. That was shown as either complete bullshit or utter incompetence, possibly both!

 

[Frostie]

Swansea just pay a nominal rent I believe

About £300k per year I believe but that gives them complete control over pretty much everything & access to all the additional funding from sponsorship etc (they may give a % to the Council I believe).

That would be the ideal blueprint of how a successful partnership with a Council that genuinely had the football club (& taxpayers) interests at heart.

 

[duffer]

About £300k per year I believe but that gives them complete control over pretty much everything & access to all the additional funding from sponsorship etc (they may give a % to the Council I believe).

That would be the ideal blueprint of how a successful partnership with a Council that genuinely had the football club (& taxpayers) interests at heart.

Wikipedia says they took control of the stadium in 2018?

Swansea.com Stadium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So it's not just a rental deal...

Swansea City FC finally take full control of the Liberty Stadium

The Ospreys will continue to play at the venue following the agreement with Swansea Council

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[Frostie]

Wikipedia says they took control of the stadium in 2018?

Swansea.com Stadium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So it's not just a rental deal...

Swansea City FC finally take full control of the Liberty Stadium

The Ospreys will continue to play at the venue following the agreement with Swansea Council

www.walesonline.co.uk

Not certain, I thought they controlled/managed it all but Council ultimately still owned it

 

[The Philosopher]

Although I find a stadium in conjunction with UOW the only credible proposal for a stadium our owners have ever come up with I still can’t see it. Most likely project with UOW is a state of the art training ground, possibly with a new academy. Ryton can only be developed if the playing surfaces are replaced in Warwickshire, tick. Ryton worth a good few quid to fund, tick. Shared costs with another institution, tick. Qualify for numerous grants, tick. In contrast I can’t see where the funding will come from for a stadium. A stadium of any note anyway.

I’m not so sure I agree about the funding. Whenever grants are involved for big chunks and there’s an institution like Warwick Uni involved then funding isn’t impossible. Let’s not forget, CCFC will be seen as a sensible source of revenue for servicing debt. Add on the concessions like F&B outlets that might also tick over with however many students there outside of match day.

Having CCFC on campus as a part of the package to students studying sports science / analytics / physio etc might be a good thing.

Tie up a top grade academy status with the campus facilities? I’m sure there’s something in that. Grade A (or whatever they’re known as) academies qualify for money.

Brightest footballers who want to go to uni might be attracted to playing for CCFC and U23’s and go to uni?

The stadium might be useful for student games? National student Rugby / Hockey / quidditch (satire) finals and such? Side pitches for Hockey with back to back stands If there’s some way of incorporating a running / athletics track without it being too prohibitive? I can see logic in having shared facilities / swimming pools / AstroTurf etc.

I can actually see it working.

 

[wingy]

It's all well and good saying it was done for this party or that party to get favourable results but we miss a point.
Being that an institution like a university (an elite one) would always have any party it interacts with in a venture has to be whiter than white.