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?
Yes he is, and on that I agree with him in principle.
However ccfc did sell it's rights to income streams. That is clear to see.
Can some one tell us what revenue streams the club get if they buy back the ACL shares from the Higgs charity for 6.5m as has been quoted on here?
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?
SISU didn't however.
So what differentiates them from a random Rugby club? Surely the same should apply for both, be it they should both be entitled to revenue streams for next-to-nowt... or neither should!
(£10.8M min according to court papers)
SISU didn't however.
So what differentiates them from a random Rugby club? Surely the same should apply for both, be it they should both be entitled to revenue streams for next-to-nowt... or neither should!
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?
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.
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 what? Are you saying we should have paid the same for Gary McSheffrey when we bought him back if the seller didn't want to sell, but we had a clause to buy him back at purchase price plus interest?
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.
The Higgs share doesn't entitle them to any revenues so I'm not sure what tangent you are on now.
The match day income streams. All ticket income goes to CCFC. Match day packages and food (yorkshire bank suite etc) are sold to CCFC who then sell on at a profit. Car parking sold on to CCFC then resold by them at a profit. Kiosk income (and costs) belong to joint venture. Sponsorship income for ground/name belongs to ACL (it is their property after all CCFC sold those rights) Ricoh deal rolls on until 2025. Advertising split between CCFC and ACL.
I'm surprised Compass haven't terminated their contract with ACL given CCFC's desertion of the Ricoh. Aside from an annual concert, they aren't getting a bean and haven't done since the end of 2012/13. It's a pretty worthless contract at this moment in time.
http://www.stadia-magazine.com/news.php?NewsID=11615
Compass Group signs £125 million Ricoh Arena deal
Compass Group UK & Ireland has signed a £125 million catering and facilities management deal with the Ricoh Arena in the UK. The contract includes catering for the next 10 years, as well as a full facilities service across the venue. Compass Group will be responsible for hotel management, housekeeping, security, guest services, portering and the venue’s sales and marketing operation.
The Ricoh Arena is the home of Coventry City FC, and has hosted concerts by Take That and Oasis. The Jaguar Hall attracted more than 100 major events over the last 12 months including conferences, exhibitions, banquets, product launches and Christmas parties. It can host concerts for 8,000 as an indoor arena, and also includes an integrated hotel and health club and casino.
“This is the first time any support services company has entered into such a wide-ranging multiservices deal in the leisure industry in the UK,” said Daniel Gidney, chief executive of the Ricoh Arena.
“We have major joint ventures at other sporting venues which take in catering and facilities, but this is the first time we have entered into such a deep integrated facilities management deal for multiple services with an operating company,” said Matthew Thompson, managing director, sport, leisure & hospitality for Compass.
The club had rights to some income streams under the old agreement with ACL.
The Higgs share doesn't entitle them to any revenues so I'm not sure what tangent you are on now.
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).
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?
They must be a little pissed at the fact there is no football team there.
That isn't my problem.
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.
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.
They will make far more money with footballing success on the field then they ever will elsewhere at the Ricoh.
CCFC still need to be profiting from the Matchday Revenues, something they need to negotiate with ACL, maybe you could look into that Michael?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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!
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?
Not so--The Ricoh cost £120 million to build---so why should a share in ACL give anybody a 50% stake in the Ricoh.
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?