From the Trust Q&A
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?
I believe Timothy's weasel words were about not having access to detailed past records (which of course didn't exist), but ACL were quite happy for them to look closely at records going forward.
There has been plenty of opportunity to do that since the negotiations broke down & to talk to Compass. SISU as we know haven't made any attempt to look or talk.. claiming they have 'no alternative' but to move.
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?
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."
Why do you insist on saying it will be 3 years away? Even they have conceded it will take up to 5 years and signed an option with NTFC to that effect. Do you genuinely believe they will get planning permission and build a new stadium within that 3 year timeframe? I wonder why you're trying to underplay what's happening here....
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:
For those that think building a smaller stadium can not be done financially you are also wrong. It will be financed by a developer and the mortgage on such would equate to far less than the rent they pay ACL for a stadium they are just tenants in?
We all had a fantastic day on the march yesterday,our plight was highlighted by thousands of city fans,then you get cranks like paxman trying to spoil things with shitty pro sisu crap. I bet you wouldn't of dared to spout any of this shit on the march yesterday eh pax? I doubt if you were even there eh. You and the other sisu crank greggo are in the minority. We don't need fans like you.Who in their right mind would trust SISU?
I think a lot of their investors do?
Difficult I know but under a tenancy agreement which they had, there is always plenty of legal manoeuvring available. Under a contractual ownership agreement there is less ambiguity and therefore less manoeuvring ability to defame as they have done to ACL as mere renters. It becomes less about trust then.
It's been stated 3 years. The fact they would have an option to extend is just an insurance if you like...nothing unusual there.
If they did stay away for as long as 5 years I would be very surprised as they are funding the period and would need to be back in Coventry with either a new stadium or a new deal with some ownership of the Ricoh.
For those who genuinely think ACL will survive as a stadium business as it's core foundation without the cities football club are in dream land.
For those that think building a smaller stadium can not be done financially you are also wrong. It will be financed by a developer and the mortgage on such would equate to far less than the rent they pay ACL for a stadium they are just tenants in? I think if a new stadium went up overnight most on here would have no problem? It can't get done over night, that's the only difference.
The much preferred alternate is to have at least a share in the Ricoh. ACL are running a show that dictates terms to the entertainers and no rights to anything without their explicit say so and when they do bend slightly it's simply not enough.
Do you want a council under ACL to continually deny any ownership of the cities stadium to the football club?
While I'm aware of the mistrust in SISU and their record of unfair handling they are still like anyone other company liable to follow an agreement if the right one was made. The fact ACL can't or won't find an agreement is a disturbing thought.
Sometimes in business you pull out when there seems no hope of agreement and continue with plan B.
I think a lot of their investors do?
Difficult I know but under a tenancy agreement which they had, there is always plenty of legal manoeuvring available. Under a contractual ownership agreement there is less ambiguity and therefore less manoeuvring ability to defame as they have done to ACL as mere renters. It becomes less about trust then.
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:
I think a lot of their investors do?
Difficult I know but under a tenancy agreement which they had, there is always plenty of legal manoeuvring available. Under a contractual ownership agreement there is less ambiguity and therefore less manoeuvring ability to defame as they have done to ACL as mere renters. It becomes less about trust then.
Surely you don't belive most of what you are saying there.
It has been stated 3 years by Fisher, there is little to no precedent in this being possible and many many examples of it taking many many years longer, we've already seen that we are months behind compared to what Fisher has already said. We were meant to have land by now, plans were meant to have been shown to the football league by now. There is NO chance whatsoever of us moving into a SISU built stadium in time for the 2016 season, none and I'd happily bet my house on it.
"For those who genuinely think ACL will survive as a stadium business as it's core foundation without the cities football club are in dream land." There loses are going to be much much less significant than the football clubs over the next few years. I do think they need us, but we need them way way more.
"For those that think building a smaller stadium can not be done financially you are also wrong. It will be financed by a developer and the mortgage on such would equate to far less than the rent they pay ACL for a stadium they are just tenants in? " This is just nonsence there is no chance of the mortgage being anywhere close to as low as 400k a year.
"I think if a new stadium went up overnight most on here would have no problem? It can't get done over night, that's the only difference. " The problems would be much less yes, we'd need to see the size and location of the stadium as well as who actually owned it, what rent and mortgage we'd been paying before we could decide weather there was a problem or not. But that hypothetical scenario is irrelevent, it's not possible and the 5 + years (I dont even belive it would be done in 5) will be fatal or at least exceptionally damaging.
"The much preferred alternate is to have at least a share in the Ricoh. ACL are running a show that dictates terms to the entertainers and no rights to anything without their explicit say so and when they do bend slightly it's simply not enough. " they had there chance at this, if they had brought the higgs share when they brought the club it would have already paid for itself.
"Do you want a council under ACL to continually deny any ownership of the cities stadium to the football club?" to the football club, no. To SISU yes.
"While I'm aware of the mistrust in SISU and their record of unfair handling they are still like anyone other company liable to follow an agreement if the right one was made. The fact ACL can't or won't find an agreement is a disturbing thought. " based of course on the fact they are honest and forthcoming, haven't broken agreements even legally binding ones in the past, have followed what the court has ordered from them, I could go on and on.
The problem is it will be 5 years, it is about trying to break ACL not about building a new stadium.
TF says you need to sell at the height of the business cycle.
We are apparently somewhere between 35-75 million in debt depending on who you believe.
If you spend 20-30 million on a new stadium when you sell you need to get a buyer prepared to spend 100 million just to get your money back.
Never mind the loses of 5 years in Northampton and the costs of all the legal battles.
This is about one - two years out of the Ricoh to see what happens to ACL.
If anyone thinks otherwise I am sorry but you are very very naive.
Then I am very, very naive ... but you knew that already, so that's not exactly breaking news.
As most of the new stadium costs are covered by selling off land, leases and mortgages a potential buyer won't have to table £100m. They will take over the loans/mortgages and pay sisu what they expect is a fair return on their investments. That may be around £40m and if the club and stadium are making progres and turn a collective profit of around £4-5m there will be buyers prepared to pay that.
Profit of £4-5m? You're madder than I thought.
In 5-7 years? I don't think so.
All I do is state facts. You come on and debunk them with pure fantasy and no factual back up to what you say?
That's one of the great problems in debate on these boards. Many live in sentimental land and simply state stuff without basis.
In 5-7 years? I don't think so.
If there is no agreement they may well build a new stadium. .
Then I am very, very naive ... but you knew that already, so that's not exactly breaking news.
As most of the new stadium costs are covered by selling off land, leases and mortgages a potential buyer won't have to table £100m. They will take over the loans/mortgages and pay sisu what they expect is a fair return on their investments. That may be around £40m and if the club and stadium are making progres and turn a collective profit of around £4-5m there will be buyers prepared to pay that.
Are you dry behind the lugs? More chance of us being amalgamated into Sky Blue Cobblers ................for ever.
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?