OK so tell me what exactly and realisticly should happen next? (1 Viewer)

Paxman II · Jul 21, 2013

ccfcway: perhaps they have? Do you know something from the inside? Or are you talking about a building plan as opposed to plans for the football club?

Look lets not split hairs.

Just think about this...

If you had to rent a stadium you know the football club had a large part in getting done in the first place and had no right to share the stadium's income that you largely bring to it and the council or it's management company refused to be more overt to making a share of incomes possible would you not then at some point attempt to show such council that without you they could not survive themselves every well? And in the process hope for a deal to eventually be forced out of them and if not make a new plan B to take your business elsewhere for the very survival of the football club and your business interest?

ccfcway · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
ccfcway: perhaps they have? Do you know something from the inside? Or are you talking about a building plan as opposed to plans for the football club?

Look lets not split hairs.

Just think about this...

If you had to rent a stadium you know the football club had a large part in getting done in the first place and had no right to share the stadium's income that you largely bring to it and the council or it's management company refused to be more overt to making a share of incomes possible would you not then at some point attempt to show such council that without you they could not survive themselves every well? And in the process hope for a deal to eventually be forced out of them and if not make a new plan B to take your business elsewhere for the very survival of the football club and your business interest?

they havent even secured a site. How can they submit plans ? TF said last week they are down to one or two sites..

ccfcway · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
ccfcway: perhaps they have? Do you know something from the inside? Or are you talking about a building plan as opposed to plans for the football club?

Look lets not split hairs.

Just think about this...

If you had to rent a stadium you know the football club had a large part in getting done in the first place and had no right to share the stadium's income that you largely bring to it and the council or it's management company refused to be more overt to making a share of incomes possible would you not then at some point attempt to show such council that without you they could not survive themselves every well? And in the process hope for a deal to eventually be forced out of them and if not make a new plan B to take your business elsewhere for the very survival of the football club and your business interest?

even if i 100% agreed with you. I wouldnt move for 3-5 - how ever many years

Paxman II · Jul 21, 2013

Don't get me wrong I hate the fact it will be 3 years away ground sharing. I hate the fact the council can't step in and try and do something for it's people and football fans to at least let SISU play for free at the Ricoh. How could they then refuse that and how could the FL refuse sense in it too?
3 years is a long time and much can happen. If the club were there for 3 years for free the income for ACL would be much the same. Without the football club they have a serious problem with the contracts they have negotiated and any sponsorships such as Ricoh etc. the hotel, casino, compass to name a few. Ask yourself seriously why have they simply not made that blanket offer and told the football league last Monday?

grego_gee · Jul 21, 2013

the goalposts have moved.
SISU tried to negotiate a resonable rent. When the best deal TF could take back to JS was 400k, (20m for the 50yr term), they realised they could build a new stadium for similar outlay.
The Ricoh is a fine stadium but its viability is dependant upon the football club. The Ricoh empty is of little value without the ability to regularly fill it - which is what the football club have. They can and will take that ability to a new venue if forced. They are not interested in the Ricoh itself as an empty stadium, they are now even less interested in aquiring ACL!.

The ability to fill it, is worth more than the empty stadium.

Even if the council try to make it viable without the club, they would be cutting off their nose to not want the business generated by the club inside the city boundary!

imp:

Gary.j · Jul 21, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
There is already a model. AFC Wimbledon showed what can be done...

Keep fighting..

Absolutely!

https://www.facebook.com/Coventry1883

Gary.j · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
What a friegtening thought! You have the money go buy them out then. It's a business when all said and done...it's not your club or mine.

If a "business" alienated the majority of it's customers, would it not be possible for said customers to abandon that business and start up their own enterprise?

And, I disagree, it IS my club, maybe that's why I, like thousands today, am not prepared to ever give up on it!

There is nothing for you to fear Paxman, we will hold your hand every step of the way.

BrisbaneBronco · Jul 21, 2013

My hope is that PH1V or one of the other bidders are still around and willing to buy a stake in the Ricoh and buy ACL.
I also hope that the FA step in and look further into our predicament.
We must play in Coventry and the only place at present fit for the purpose is the Ricoh. There is no alternative in Coventry.
In my opinion, the football club should not be bound by any obligation to CCC or ACL.
As for SISU. They are awful owners, but I do understand their motives for leaving the Ricoh ie to distress ACL/CCC.
If anything underhand has gone on regarding third party ownership, transferring assets etc, then someone has got to be able to prove this. FL, etc cannot act on hearsay.
Why doesn't someone like John Clarke do something? surely he was in the know.

metalsheep · Jul 21, 2013

grego_gee said:
the goalposts have moved.
SISU tried to negotiate a resonable rent. When the best deal TF could take back to JS was 400k, (20m for the 50yr term), they realised they could build a new stadium for similar outlay.
The Ricoh is a fine stadium but its viability is dependant upon the football club. The Ricoh empty is of little value without the ability to regularly fill it - which is what the football club have. They can and will take that ability to a new venue if forced. They are not interested in the Ricoh itself as an empty stadium, they are now even less interested in aquiring ACL!.

The ability to fill it, is worth more than the empty stadium.

Even if the council try to make it viable without the club, they would be cutting off their nose to not want the business generated by the club inside the city boundary!

imp:

blueflint · Jul 21, 2013

have you not bothered to read any posts on here the last twelve months your talking utter shite they only need one concert to get the same as the football club put in in a season

blueflint · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Personal feelings must be put to one side and one company deal with the other and the deal must reflect one of those options.

can only feel sad for you if you really think SISU could ever be trusted to run the stadium and the club all they would do is asset strip has they have done already with my club :blue:

blueflint · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
What a friegtening thought! You have the money go buy them out then. It's a business when all said and done...it's not your club or mine. I don't think we witnessed the heart and soul of the club yesterday. We witnessed a summers day with two lady Godiva's and some willing people out to enjoy themselves for the cause. Credit to them but it was not 20k, 30k or 50k was it?

One aspect of all this is the continuous amount of post that suggest to know that SISU will not build a stadium, the same people who said SISU won't ground share - they will play at the Ricoh. Well so far SISU are simple doing what they said. They said they will fund the 3 years. They said they have a plan to build and have their (Coventry City's) own stadium unencumbered by a council hell bent on not surrendering any part of the Ricoh stadium or even getting close to sharing the revenue streams from it with the very club it needs.
The deal some talk about was not agreed. (we know about the handshake saga, like everything else but most want to believe ACL) Fisher stated they wanted open access to the F&B books but ACL couldn't do it? Turns out ACL are 77% owners of the Compass shenanigan's too? My goodness who's been blindsiding who?

they certainly have blinded you m8 are you really serious in your unfounded belief in SISU that you can't see how bad they are

stupot07 · Jul 21, 2013

blueflint said:
have you not bothered to read any posts on here the last twelve months your talking utter shite they only need one concert to get the same as the football club put in in a season

If that's so, why did they only make £1m profit in 2011/12 given the take that did 3 concerts and kings of Leon did 1 that summer, and we had paid £1.2m in rent and £1m in F&B's?

CCFC_GT · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
Protest is one thing and lots of sentiment only mask to realities at play.
For those that believe in all this protesting will have an effect please then explain how it will change anything and which of these protagonist are right, which are wrong, what would you try and do if you were in either of their shoes?
Is it right to demand a club return to the Ricoh where they have been ripped off by ACL and their demands are as equally threatening as SISU's?
Should SISU swallow hard and go back on all they have stood for and said and help repair a frightened ACL without a football club at the stadium?

For the fans sake I hope there is a solution. You can't though make a judgement based on pure sentiment.
For example how many believe that ACL has a lot to concede before they get SISU to stay and what and how far should that go? The fact must be said while everyone says Coventry must play in Coventry is it not time then for ACL to act appropriately to persuade SISU there is a way forward?

I don't back SISU's stance but I do feel we have two business's trying to do what they think best for them long term but one side must end up giving more than the other for a solution I'm afraid. I think that implies ACL have to accept the reality and give SISU a better deal to stay. I just think that in time whoever owned the football club that will be a requirement repeated again and again.

I believe the protest held yesterday does serve to unite fans in terms of boycotting matches and starving SISU of income, to put pressure on SISU to do a deal that does not involve playing home games anywhere other than Coventry.

In order for ACL to offer any better deal SISU would need to return to the negotiating table which JS has refused to do. Why do you think that is?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman-actually look at the details of what was rejected by SISU in January and look at the financial prospects of going to Northampton. The numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of staying at the Ricoh even if it means giving those bully boys at ACL £400k which I know would be heartbreaking for you to contemplate.

Northampton are providing their own caterers so they will be getting the pie money. At the Ricoh, ACL's share of this would be given to us. Ticket sales-enormously in favour of the Ricoh even allowing for 23 full houses on those Sundays at Northampton.

Now ask yourself: why would you be prepared to dent your own finances to such an extent rather than accept the deal? Answer: Because it won't bust ACL.

Sky Blue Harry H · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
If you don't like it then lets hear your valiant solution?

Come on then Paxman.........................let's see if Tim Fisher & 'friends' builds his 'Field of Dreams' (by the way, the promised plans are overdue - surprise (not)) and.............if he's daft enough to build it.....let's see if they come (not while Tim and his 'friends' are there). If you kick a hornet's nest, prepare to be stung.:blue:

italiahorse · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
If you don't like it then lets hear your valiant solution?

It's so easy.
Don't go to Northampton.
Show SISU we don't want their stupid plan and they will have to change it.
Stick together like yesterday and the FL will need to review it.
SISU are playing on your loyalty and manipulating you.

Sky Blue Harry H · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
Don't get me wrong I hate the fact it will be 3 years away ground sharing. I hate the fact the council can't step in and try and do something for it's people and football fans to at least let SISU play for free at the Ricoh. How could they then refuse that and how could the FL refuse sense in it too?
3 years is a long time and much can happen. If the club were there for 3 years for free the income for ACL would be much the same. Without the football club they have a serious problem with the contracts they have negotiated and any sponsorships such as Ricoh etc. the hotel, casino, compass to name a few. Ask yourself seriously why have they simply not made that blanket offer and told the football league last Monday?

You rent your second home to someone, who - despite a legal agreement, doesn't pay it for a year. They move out and I write to you suggesting that you let them back in for 3 years free of charge until they get themselves sorted (they're building their own place - at least that's what they told me). Oh and by the way, they want a share of the ice cream business that operates out of the shop that you own next door. The reason you should do this mate is because the local shops are going to lose out on the money your tenants spend. OK with that - if not, why not?

italiahorse · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
Don't get me wrong I hate the fact it will be 3 years away ground sharing. I hate the fact the council can't step in and try and do something for it's people and football fans to at least let SISU play for free at the Ricoh. How could they then refuse that and how could the FL refuse sense in it too?
3 years is a long time and much can happen. If the club were there for 3 years for free the income for ACL would be much the same. Without the football club they have a serious problem with the contracts they have negotiated and any sponsorships such as Ricoh etc. the hotel, casino, compass to name a few. Ask yourself seriously why have they simply not made that blanket offer and told the football league last Monday?

Have I heard you right ?
Play at the Ricoh for free while they build a new stadium.
You've been brainwashed.
Another poster to add to my avoid list.

sky_blue_up_north · Jul 21, 2013

Lets make this clear there are no plans for a new stadium, SISU are trying to get the Ricoh for next to nothing. SISU are refusing to negotiate any terms. This move is the end of Coventry City in the City of Coventry. We have more chance of merging with NTFC, take the the blinkers off we have to fight to stay in Coventry. SISU have shown they are terrible owners, never submit the accounts on time, we are in a constant embargo, their stand two seasons ago forced us to relegation. If you beleive in Cov been in Cov you have to oppose this move and anything else SISU are involved with.

grego_gee · Jul 21, 2013

italiahorse said:
It's so easy.
Don't go to Northampton.
Show SISU we don't want their stupid plan and they will have to change it.
Stick together like yesterday and the FL will need to review it.
SISU are playing on your loyalty and manipulating you.

ok, explain how that policy can be used to hurt SISU! without hurting the club first?
the starved revenue will have an immediate and critical effect on the small, FFP limited budget of the team!
It is unlikely to even dent the financial might of SISU?

ABOVE ALL ELSE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING THE TEAM FIRST!

imp:

blueflint · Jul 21, 2013

stupot07 said:
If that's so, why did they only make £1m profit in 2011/12 given the take that did 3 concerts and kings of Leon did 1 that summer, and we had paid £1.2m in rent and £1m in F&B's?

and SISU paid no rent still made a profit tho

CCFC_GT · Jul 21, 2013

grego_gee said:
ok, explain how that policy can be used to hurt SISU! without hurting the club first?
the starved revenue will have an immediate and critical effect on the small, FFP limited budget of the team!
It is unlikely to even dent the financial might of SISU?

imp:

No one is suggesting we can hurt SISU without impacting on the club, but by its action in taking the club away from Coventry SISU has given us fans no other option but to make it as painful for SISU as we can.

We don't need to dent the financial might of SISU, but we do need to hit them as hard as we can financially by starving them of income through the club, to increase their operating losses in pursuing this madness.

Jack Griffin · Jul 21, 2013

grego_gee said:
ok, explain how that policy can be used to hurt SISU! without hurting the club first?
the starved revenue will have an immediate and critical effect on the small, FFP limited budget of the team!
It is unlikely to even dent the financial might of SISU?

ABOVE ALL ELSE WE SHOULD BE PUTTING THE TEAM FIRST!

imp:

What Sepalla is counting on is that she can hurt the club & the fans will stick with her.

It is Sepalla that is inflicting the pain and is the source of the disease.. not the fans.. even if it is painful in the short term we know we can recover and get to a better place.

NOPM

Sky Blue Kid · Jul 21, 2013

@ grego_gee.... We don't need to take on the financial might of SISU? We need need to show they are not fit and proper owners to the Government, FA, and FL. Not award the GS to Otium, but to a owner who has the football club at heart. PH IV would do for me. He's a property developer but I believe he would "Do the right thing " for CCFC.

stupot07 · Jul 21, 2013

blueflint said:
and SISU paid no rent still made a profit tho

Sorry but you're wrong, sisu did pay the full rent that financial year (2011-12), ACL made £1m profit while sisu had paid £1.2m in rent.

"THE COMPANY that runs the Ricoh Arena has posted annual profits of over £1million.

The accounts reveal a turnover of £7,782,519 with an operating profit of £1,086,886 for the year ending May 31 2012 - £600,000 more than the previous year.

ACL claim the accounts provide a solid platform for growth in the coming years despite the profit including the full £1.2million paid by the club in rent before it stop paying."

Spionkop · Jul 21, 2013

Keep digging that hole Stupot.

Jack Griffin · Jul 21, 2013

stupot07 said:
Sorry but you're wrong, sisu did pay the full rent that financial year (2011-12), ACL made £1m profit while sisu had paid £1.2m in rent.

The equation has been changed now since the debt has been restructured.. so your argument fails to cut the mustard.. it really is weak thinking from you to argue along those lines.

Perhaps you can work out how much CCFC debts will increase next year now they've chosen to hurt their own business by reducing their customer base dramatically by moving away from their traditional source of income?

stupot07 · Jul 21, 2013

Spionkop said:
Keep digging that hole Stupot.

Not found out how to use the ignore function?

stupot07 · Jul 21, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
The equation has been changed now since the debt has been restructured.. so your argument fails to cut the mustard.. it really is weak thinking from you to argue along those lines.

Perhaps you can work out how much CCFC debts will increase next year now they've chosen to hurt their own business by reducing their customer base dramatically by moving away from their traditional source of income?

What's that got to do with it? I was responding to blueflint who said 1 concert equates the whole of what ccfc paid to ACL in a year. 2011-12 - 3x take that concerts and 1x kings of Leon, plus £1.2m rent paid and ACL only made £1m profit. Yes debt has been restructured, but concerts haven't been the golden egg to ACL. Again this isn't pro-sisu this is pointing out ACL need the club.

Noggin · Jul 21, 2013

I think the Ricoh need the football club but I don't think it's anywhere near as much as the football club needs the Ricoh.

jas365 · Jul 21, 2013

theferret said:
But there is no coming back from this point. They have now lost all credibility. Taking the club to Northampton will be far more costly than had they gone through with the deal they had already agreed to, so it makes no sense.

The simple fact is, people will not travel to Northampton, they just won't and they will learn that soon enough. Go through with this and they will be left with a football club that generates almost no revenue and a fan base that will not wait around for a new stadium to be built - they simply won't.

I'm no fan of ACL, and the original rent deal was indeed a terrible one, but SISUs stewardship of this club (from day one) has been a disaster - the wheels had come off long before this shit-storm. They cannot recover from this position. It's over for them. They should make it clear that they recognise the wishes of the people that matter (us) and enter new talks. Make a deal (even for one season), put the club on the market, do the best deal they can and get the hell out.

Excellent post Ferret, agree 100%, particularly with respect to the fanbase and our continued support.

I'm so pissed off with the situation I've taken up the offer of a ticket for the test match at Old Trafford the day we play at Crawley on the opening day of the season. This is coming from someone who has missed 4 away games in 23 years. I would NEVER have done this before, but am just so utterly deflated by the whole thing it wasn't even that difficult a decision.

Noggin · Jul 21, 2013

grego_gee said:
the goalposts have moved.
SISU tried to negotiate a resonable rent. When the best deal TF could take back to JS was 400k, (20m for the 50yr term), they realised they could build a new stadium for similar outlay.
The Ricoh is a fine stadium but its viability is dependant upon the football club. The Ricoh empty is of little value without the ability to regularly fill it - which is what the football club have. They can and will take that ability to a new venue if forced. They are not interested in the Ricoh itself as an empty stadium, they are now even less interested in aquiring ACL!.

The ability to fill it, is worth more than the empty stadium.

Even if the council try to make it viable without the club, they would be cutting off their nose to not want the business generated by the club inside the city boundary!

imp:

They can't build a stadium for the same outlay as the 400k rent, not even close. Your numbers also completely forget the fact that the football club spending 5 years away are going to be about 20 mill worse off than staying at the Ricoh. and so those 5 years would have paid the rent for the 50 you are talking about.

The 400k was an infinitely better deal than anything they have organised themselves, assuming there is no ulterior motive to the decision then the decision is absolute lunacy.

Of course this has already been gone over to you dozens of times, the numbers have been provided to you dozens of times, you are so set in your position that you clearly didn't reason yourself into, as for it to be almost pointless conversing with you. There is only 2 people who can with a straight face say we paid 800k rent last year, you and Tim Fisher.

James Smith · Jul 21, 2013

Paxman II said:
What a friegtening thought! You have the money go buy them out then. It's a business when all said and done...it's not your club or mine. I don't think we witnessed the heart and soul of the club yesterday. We witnessed a summers day with two lady Godiva's and some willing people out to enjoy themselves for the cause. Credit to them but it was not 20k, 30k or 50k was it?

One aspect of all this is the continuous amount of post that suggest to know that SISU will not build a stadium, the same people who said SISU won't ground share - they will play at the Ricoh. Well so far SISU are simple doing what they said. They said they will fund the 3 years. They said they have a plan to build and have their (Coventry City's) own stadium unencumbered by a council hell bent on not surrendering any part of the Ricoh stadium or even getting close to sharing the revenue streams from it with the very club it needs.
The deal some talk about was not agreed. (we know about the handshake saga, like everything else but most want to believe ACL) Fisher stated they wanted open access to the F&B books but ACL couldn't do it? Turns out ACL are 77% owners of the Compass shenanigan's too? My goodness who's been blindsiding who?

From the Trust Q&A

Q&A on SBT website said:
12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?

ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 9,259 Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903. ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations?

CCFC: CCFC would have to negotiate with ACL partner Compass but if after 3 months Compass would not agree access to this level of revenue indicated by ACL, we would ask that the rent be reduced by £100k

But according to that SISU/CCFC were offered acces to the F&B books and would allow cross invoicing, where did you see or hear Young Timothy say that ACL couldn't do it?

James Smith · Jul 21, 2013

Sky Blue Harry H said:
You rent your second home to someone, who - despite a legal agreement, doesn't pay it for a year. They move out and I write to you suggesting that you let them back in for 3 years free of charge until they get themselves sorted (they're building their own place - at least that's what they told me). Oh and by the way, they want a share of the ice cream business that operates out of the shop that you own next door. The reason you should do this mate is because the local shops are going to lose out on the money your tenants spend. OK with that - if not, why not?

I've just had a change of tenants at my flat that I rent and before moving in the new tenants were attempting to get the price of the rent down. They negotiated (with my managing agents) and it ended up that I would replace the sofa in the lounge (because it was on the proverbial last legs) and I'd get the amount of rent a week that I'd asked for originally. The key to it all was negotiations, something SISU seem to find very difficult to do.

OK so tell me what exactly and realisticly should happen next? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency