Grendel
Well-Known Member
So what? Are you saying we should have paid the same for Garry macsheffrey when we bought him back as it would be wrong to pay nothing?
Only one thing is stopping us playing at the Ricoh - Joy Seppala (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MichaelCCFC
- Start date
So what? Are you saying we should have paid the same for Garry macsheffrey when we bought him back as it would be wrong to pay nothing?
I read somewhere ( I think the court transcript ) that Compass invested 4 million in improving the catering facilities. I think they might want compensation for that and it doesn't matter who offers it - should they ever decide to sell their investment. That is a bit different to paying less for a player who is a bit older and hasn't lived up to expectations. If you keep saying you need the revenue desparately, you drive up the price of the F & B rights - a bit like going to a creditor bank with your wallet hanging out ... so to speak.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's two ways of looking at the issue of who gets matchday revenues and I'm not sure in either scenario it really holds much relevance.
Scenario A) SISU are telling the truth and the new stadium project is progressing and is 'plan A'. That means we need a temporary home for 2 seasons. We know that, even under the old rental deal, the club would be significantly better off at the Ricoh so while it would be nice to receive the additional revenues I think not returning if you don't get them is not a commercially sound argument.
Scenario B) SISU are lying and there is no new ground. Their only plan is to distress ACL to the point of putting them out of business and then hope that CCC offer the lease out for sale again and SISU are the successful bidder at a very low price. There's zero chance of the club returning to the Ricoh on a temporary deal as that has the opposite impact to that required by SISU's plan, therefore again additional revenues are irrelevant.
It only becomes relevant if SISU are wishing to return the club to the Ricoh on a permanent basis and there has been nothing to indicate this is the case. If that was what I wanted to achieve I would pay Higgs the previously agreed amount to buy back the 50% and offer to repay the loan in return for the councils 50% share and an extension of the lease. CCC have some security by retaining the freehold, the club have access to all revenue streams at around 50% of the cost of building a new stadium and of course unlike a new stadium the Ricoh is available immediatly.
The share, at least as originally sold to Higgs, was for 50% of ACL (you could say 50% of ACL revenues or profit but I'm not sure how relevant that is as all profits to date have been used to make overpayments on the loan) but with 100% of all matchday revenues. Of course now there is the IEC deal but logically you would still get 50% of ACL and then 100% of all matchday revenues received by ACL, from memory the IEC deal sees ACL get around 80%.
Also worth remembering that the rent quoted, at least in the past, included provision of services (such as parking) which were sold on at a profit by the club so another revenue stream for them there.
Scenario A) SISU are telling the truth and the new stadium project is progressing and is 'plan A'. That means we need a temporary home for 2 seasons. We know that, even under the old rental deal, the club would be significantly better off at the Ricoh so while it would be nice to receive the additional revenues I think not returning if you don't get them is not a commercially sound argument.
Scenario B) SISU are lying and there is no new ground. Their only plan is to distress ACL to the point of putting them out of business and then hope that CCC offer the lease out for sale again and SISU are the successful bidder at a very low price. There's zero chance of the club returning to the Ricoh on a temporary deal as that has the opposite impact to that required by SISU's plan, therefore again additional revenues are irrelevant.
It only becomes relevant if SISU are wishing to return the club to the Ricoh on a permanent basis and there has been nothing to indicate this is the case. If that was what I wanted to achieve I would pay Higgs the previously agreed amount to buy back the 50% and offer to repay the loan in return for the councils 50% share and an extension of the lease. CCC have some security by retaining the freehold, the club have access to all revenue streams at around 50% of the cost of building a new stadium and of course unlike a new stadium the Ricoh is available immediatly.
The share, at least as originally sold to Higgs, was for 50% of ACL (you could say 50% of ACL revenues or profit but I'm not sure how relevant that is as all profits to date have been used to make overpayments on the loan) but with 100% of all matchday revenues. Of course now there is the IEC deal but logically you would still get 50% of ACL and then 100% of all matchday revenues received by ACL, from memory the IEC deal sees ACL get around 80%.
Also worth remembering that the rent quoted, at least in the past, included provision of services (such as parking) which were sold on at a profit by the club so another revenue stream for them there.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
On that logic we will need to wait for all the existing Ricoh contracts to expire!
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Now if Italia's quote is accurate:
The Club should go to Cov City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Trust and say this is what we will pay for ACL, because of X, Y & Z. With any luck that will deem to be fair negotiations.
Or the Club could build a Stadium for circa £25,000,000.
I know what I would do.
Astute
Well-Known Member
The excuses on behalf of SISU are getting worse.
So this Rugger franchise that isn't happening would want revenues from the whole arena so SISU should get them for free?
Our club sold them to Higgs for 6.5m and offered it back for 5.5m If SISU want our club to have them back they should pay Higgs the 5.5m as agreed or f#ck off and waste money building a stadium that won't get built. Why should their investors gain over Higgs just because of their bullying tactics?
So this Rugger franchise that isn't happening would want revenues from the whole arena so SISU should get them for free?
Our club sold them to Higgs for 6.5m and offered it back for 5.5m If SISU want our club to have them back they should pay Higgs the 5.5m as agreed or f#ck off and waste money building a stadium that won't get built. Why should their investors gain over Higgs just because of their bullying tactics?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but that is irrelevant for two reasons:
A) Contracts don't cease to exist every time ownership of a business changes.
B) Sisu did due diligence on the club when buying it. They accepted that they had no entitlement to revenue streams.
And yes the same should apply to both. If a random rugby team decides to take the short term approach and sell its revenue streams for 50 pieces of silver then they would have no entitlement to income streams either.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I'm saying market rate should be paid.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I don't see why we're going down this avenue.
Why on earth would anybody be happy for a random franchise (with equally zero affinity to the city - I'd present as a pretty likely scenario an occasion where the Rugby club sold off those revenues under the guise of not relocating yet again... only for them to promptly relocate anyway!) to receive revenues from a commercial entity in ACL, for next-to-nothing, but not the football club? A Rugby club can do their due diligence and not move in if they don't want to pay £6mil, £10mil, whatever...
At least CCFC has some connection to the city of Coventry!
And at the moment they hold no contract with ACL. Therefore, they are coming to this situation in exactly the same position as random Rugby club!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Higgs share doesn't entitle them to any revenues so I'm not sure what tangent you are on now.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
).
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant. The company that owns the club is entirely different to the one that sold the revenues.
You seem to be saying if a new owner bought the club and would only return if the revenues were free then you wouldn't want that but if say, Saracens were enticed here in the same basis you would.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
It doesn't make any difference who sold the rights, CCFC, SISU. What matters is who owns those rights. If its ACL and Compas then its down to CCFC/SISU/Otium to buy or barter for them. Put in a respectable offer.
Otherwise, we may as well phone Tim up and ask if he'll hand over CCFC and the Golden Share to fans. I mean, screw it, surely we're more entitled to own the club than a hedge fund?
Otherwise, we may as well phone Tim up and ask if he'll hand over CCFC and the Golden Share to fans. I mean, screw it, surely we're more entitled to own the club than a hedge fund?
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
Maybe that is why acl hasn't been able to attract a new tenant, as they wanted all monies and the perspective new tenant has told acl where to go
chickentikkamasala
Well-Known Member
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You clearly don't understand what that contract is for. It is not about match day revenues it is running services on the whole site day in day out including the hotel (but not the Casino, that is a separate contract).
Last edited by a moderator:
Astute
Well-Known Member
But as Grendel says 'irrelevant' as he doesn't have a proper answer.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So if ACL don't have the right to any profits who does?
Or is it because ACL have always used profits to pay down the mortgage and expand and improve what is already at the arena that you don't like?
So who will get the naming rights money? Giving some money back to Tesco's? Are they getting the car park money as well?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
They must be a little pissed at the fact there is no football team there.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Maybe this would be another stumbling block. If SISU had part of ACL they wouldn't be using the profits (their share at least) to pay down the mortgage would they. To be fair you wouldn't expect any owner to do that if the money was there to put into the football club.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
That isn't my problem.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Did I say it was?
Do you think that SISU's priority is investing in the football club? It seems from the court transscripts that SISU want nothing less than a stake in the stadium - and are still working towards that goal by wanting leave to appeal and hope through that to further distress ACL. That seems to be more important than achieving sporting success on the football field.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
They will make far more money with footballing success on the field then they ever will elsewhere at the Ricoh.
Yes, I agree. But....I don't think that is the priority. The priority seems to be distressing ACL and humiliating the council with the hope of a huge damages claim making more money in a shorter time than by trying to build up a football team. I really think that Joy has lost it and is possibly "bonkers" as Tim apparently said.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
How can you negotiate about revenues before a return Robo? Surely as Michael puts it, a return to the Ricoh is the first step before anything else. Talk about revenues after you have started talking about a return/offer but the ball is firmly in Sisu's court and until they finally stop fucking about and start talking positively about a return then all of the focus should be on Sisu to force them to do something.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Because the Club won't return to the Ricoh without them so we are led to believe.
As the argument has been stated throughout this thread there is no reason why the Club can't buy out ACL and return to the Ricoh with that done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
You're missing my point, you need to talk about a return first and foremost and only Sisu are capable of starting that so in my opinion all of the pressure needs to be at Sisu's door to start talking about a return to the Ricoh. Once they have established that, then they can talk about revenues and other things. I think that under the latest offers from ACL or KCIC even without access to matchday revenues have been found to be better at the Ricoh rather than Sixfields so talk about a return first and go from there.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If the council constructed a ground from scratch and sought to attract tenants do you think they would offer revenues as an inducement to be a tenant?
skybluefred
New Member
So lets assume you had a new mansion built at a cost of £5 million pounds, and you paid £4.5 million up front and took a mortgage out for £500,000.
You then decide to sell said property--would your asking price be 500,000 and if not why not.
Nick
Administrator
Surely it would depend on market value?
It may well go up to £10 million, but it may go down to £1 million.
Isn't that the "fair" price? Although I guess it is hard to estimate the Ricoh stuff compared to a house!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If I was them I would set up a management company to pull all these revenues together more efficiently and let the club have 50% of that company.
They would then have access to revenues.
After all the club could always sell their share for say £7M and then a few years later I guess they could expect to get it back for nothing.
I suggest they get a charity to buy it on trust because nobody would care if they lost any money.
Last edited:
skybluefred
New Member
Not so--The Ricoh cost £120 million to build---so why should a share in ACL give anybody a 50% stake in the Ricoh.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
If somebody was selling/renting something then they might use revenues as an inducement. Our case is not that simple and you know that and at present nobody knows exactly what it is that Sisu will do next. So my point is valid in that Sisu need to approach ACL to tell them what they want to do as in if they want to buy/rent or whatever but they need to approach ACL to do this and say we are interested in a return. From there they can say what they want about revenues etc but the first move needs to be done by Sisu about a return.
Nick
Administrator
Surely build cost doesn't matter, it should be some sort of valuation of here and now.
I doubt houses built in the 70's cost 150k to build but sell for that.