Part from Paul Fletcher's Book (2 Viewers)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 15, 2014

torchomatic said:
Surely, it's not simplistic but just a concise version of events? A bit like saying in 1939 there was a war and it lasted for six years until 1945. The end.

I know it may be objectionable to you but Fletcher really should know as he was on the inside.

We'll never know the truth of any of it though, will we?

Let me put it this way. OSB58's explanation gives a new slant on Fletcher's line: 'At that time the Ricoh Arena had been valued at around £37m, therefore valuing Coventry City’s shareholding at around £18.5m, making the £4m purchase a snip' doesn't it? Fletcher will have knowledge, but also an angle. In light of OSB58's input, how would you describe Fletcher's description of events? Disingenuous?

As for your latter point - as underlined - I agree. That's why I haven't used any terms in association with either party such as 'shafted' or 'screwed'. I simply offered a sequence of events that could have arrived at the outcome we all now acknowledge

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 15, 2014

mrtickle said:
I don't care the owners mismanaged the club. I care the club is now in the shit because of it. I care that It appears the council benefitted. They don't like the new owners (and I'm with them on that) but they seem to have forgotten the fans. This city needs the club in the city. The council may well end up with a white elephant and the club might end up doomed.

Also, I get so annoyed with the amount of fans that seem gleeful that we are so in the shit. The same ones like to slag the team when we are poor and seem happy we loose.

Rant over.

Can't fault any of what you have wrote. The key points here are, fans suffer, and ultimately the council will end up suffering in the long run if they either force the club out of the city or force it bust. Yeah we don't like the owners of the club, but for the love of god try and figure out a way to do a deal that satisfies both parties.

CCC have said no freehold deal. Sisu have said they would consider a very long rent. There is clearly some middle ground here somehow...

Nick · Jan 15, 2014

shmmeee said:
We'll they couldn't. What I don't get is how did it get that far? Why didn't anyone pull out? I think that's also misleading, the "profits" from why I can tell were used to build the Ricoh. They would either be spent by us or the council. But happy to be proven wrong.

By the way as far as I know the council found the site not the club. This version of events doesn't quite match up with my memories at the time. I'm at work now but I'll ask around a few people who were about at the time and see if I can find anything out.

That is what I mean, why did it get past the point of return before the state aid thing was found?

oldskyblue58 · Jan 15, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
The club or BR found a deal whereby spend 20m + 12m decontaminating they will get a 60m return from Tesco.

The club then agrees to enter a 50-50 deal with CCC sharing the above deal. Rather than getting a loan for their share of the land deal (16m) which would have cemented 50% ownership of everything they let the council complete the deal on their behalf and we have been getting screwed ever since one way or another...

It certainly puts the whole who funded the building of the Ricoh into a different light doesn't it. I can almost understand why the club would rather look to build a new stadium if not for the pain we will all suffer in the interim. Maybe the club really does need to move on....

you could look at it that way ........

or ......the club had an option on the land that because of the £27m total debts and a negative group balance sheet of £12.1m, on going growing losses they could not follow through on. They could not get the millions required to go further. The CCFC option on the land lapsed 2001/02.

Council said they would help and accept what the club had spent so far less the associated debts as the clubs investment in a joint venture The council purchased the land and sold part to Tesco, (it was CCC's to sell CCFC could not have bought it). At that point to gift CCFC a share of that profit would have constituted state aid (see what is presently happening to other clubs round Europe). But the money was needed to build the stadium in any case

They could have really shafted CCFC and not built a stadium at all but didn't all the proceeds and more went into the build and they agreed a 50:50 joint venture company to run the stadium so CCFC would share the incomes but it meant the club lost the capital asset of the stadium complex (CCFC simply didn't have the financial means to do it).

Not too long after that with losses growing (2003 £5m 2004 £8m) and total debts increasing to £23m by31/05/2003 CCFC had to look for solutions. The only one that was available was to sell their interest in ACL to Higgs Charity. It cashed in £ 6.5m of assets for much needed cash to pay other debts But the club was given the option to buy back once it had sorted its finances out

depends how you look at it really doesn't it ............

Bill Glazier · Jan 15, 2014

Has anyone ever had a response from Sisu as to why they didn't take up that 50%? I've always been mystified as they would effectively been buying £18 million for £6million.

RPHunt · Jan 15, 2014

"But mysteriously, once the purchase of the land and the sale to Tesco had been completed, Coventry City Council informed the football club that they were unable to share with them the profit from the sale of the land due to ‘state aid’ implications."

The "profit" from the sale of the land was actually used to build the Ricoh along with another £20m from a loan plus money in grants.

If the club had received a share, would it have been invested in the Ricoh or would it have found its way into the pockets of people at the club as reward fees or debt repayment?

Supposing the council had given the club a share of the profits, what kind of public outcry would there have been about a Labour council giving money to a company in which a former Labour minister had a rather large stake? State aid would have been the least of the allegations, I suspect.

torchomatic · Jan 15, 2014

To be honest, as long as the Council did alright out of it I don't care. Good on 'em.

covcity4life · Jan 15, 2014

torchomatic said:
To be honest, as long as the Council did alright out of it I don't care. Good on 'em.

nothing like a council win is there?...fuck 3 pts on a saturday

AJB1983 · Jan 15, 2014

Hobo said:
Yes and he said on a radio interview being a go between was a nightmare. SISU didn't trust him as they thought he was working for ACL. ACL didn't trust him because they thought he was in the SISU camp.

Sorry but that's simply not true. Fletcher left CCFC once sisu took over. Had nothing to do with them.
Fletcher's got a bit of a habit of telling mistruths, also the second he left acl to work for CCFC he started slagging them off...,

torchomatic · Jan 15, 2014

Lies, damned lies, eh?

AJB1983 said:
Sorry but that's simply not true. Fletcher left CCFC once sisu took over. Had nothing to do with them.
Fletcher's got a bit of a habit of telling mistruths, also the second he left acl to work for CCFC he started slagging them off...,

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 15, 2014

covcity4life said:
nothing like a council win is there?...fuck 3 pts on a saturday

Ah, the cheeky insinuation that if you oppose SISU's recent actions you don't care about the football like you 'proper' fans, eh? The biggest crime being the current owners actions have made the footballing irrelevant and/or inaccessible to those with a moral barometer. But hey, fuck that and 'support the lads' eh?

mrtickle · Jan 15, 2014

Bill Glazier said:
Has anyone ever had a response from Sisu as to why they didn't take up that 50%? I've always been mystified as they would effectively been buying £18 million for £6million.

I believe the 50% was of ACL. The way ACL is set up there are no profits to be gained until the mortgage is paid.

I still don't get the ACL has to be part of the package. I'm no legal expert but I'm sure they could dissolve it as part of the sale.

covcity4life · Jan 15, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Ah, the cheeky insinuation that if you oppose SISU's recent actions you don't care about the football like you 'proper' fans, eh? The biggest crime being the current owners actions have made the footballing irrelevant and/or inaccessible to those with a moral barometer. But hey, fuck that and 'support the lads' eh?

still blaming just one side? wow

speedie87 · Jan 15, 2014

maybe a stupid question, but why didn't tesco just buy the land in the first place, they could have saved a fortune?!

covcity4life · Jan 15, 2014

speedie87 said:
maybe a stupid question, but why didn't tesco just buy the land in the first place, they could have saved a fortune?!

i did wonder that

i guess maybe they were only alerted to it after ccfc got in there first?

imagine this shit didnt happen, we could be in prem with a super stadium, heck maybe even the europa league!

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

The key part of this, to my mind, is that CCFC never bought the land - just the option to buy the land. That option was about to expire when the council stepped in.

Why did it need to step in? Because CCFC ran out of money. If the council didn't step in the whole thing dies before it's started.

If the council really wanted to stitch up CCFC, the smart play might have been to let the option expire and then pick up the land without any input from the club. There would have been no obligation at that point to build the stadium at all.

Instead they committed public funds, got the build finished with the stadium, and then offered the club 50% of all of the income streams for the price of a couple of decent players. And CCFC still couldn't come up with the money.

The one consistent theme in this whole sorry saga is that CCFC could never fulfil their side of the bargain. Every time they could have had a great deal for a relatively low investment they were too broke to take advantage of it, and someone had to bail them out.

What Paul Fletcher seems to suggest is that the Council agreed to pay taxpayer money to purchase the land and then hand over half of the profit to CCFC upon developing and selling it. I'd like to see some evidence of that. If the land is purchased by the Council it becomes a public asset. Personally I can't see any way that legally they could then hand over half of what they make on the sale of it.

And whilst I'm thinking about it - what 'profit' did the council make? The total build, including the stadium, was £118m or so. All of the money from the sale of the land went into that build. All the council have really got to show for it is the freehold. Against that they put in £10m in a direct grant, and hold a mortgage for £14m against ACL. I don't see that anyone made much money out of this (except the builders).

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 15, 2014

mrtickle said:
I believe the 50% was of ACL. The way ACL is set up there are no profits to be gained until the mortgage is paid.

I still don't get the ACL has to be part of the package. I'm no legal expert but I'm sure they could dissolve it as part of the sale.

They could yes, but per AL statement on radio today she believes Higgs are not interested in a sale... and I suppose that probably stems back to the deal that fell through. Once bitten twice shy and all that...

Jack Griffin · Jan 15, 2014

Regrettably CCC took over the arena project and completed it.

If only they'd have said to CCFC, "that is your problem" then CCFC would have gone into administration owning nothing.

Stupid callous Council.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
They could yes, but per AL statement on radio today she believes Higgs are not interested in a sale... and I suppose that probably stems back to the deal that fell through. Once bitten twice shy and all that...

Apologies, but no, the council can't dissolve ACL. They do not have a controlling interest, and ACL is a separate legal entity. If the Council and Higgs agreed to wind up ACL, I suppose it could happen. Why would they though, both parties have a significant investment in what is supposedly a profitable company.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 15, 2014

covcity4life said:
still blaming just one side? wow

I have never said that. Only one side moved us to Sixfields, breaking generations of football in this great city. Disagree with that? Wow!

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

Does Paul Fletcher mention in his book about his signature being on the original rental agreement?

Ashdown1 · Jan 15, 2014

Its all fairly simple and straightforward to me. The clubs relegation from the Prem just as the more lucrative TV deals were washing around from SKY, and that coupled with the collapse of ITV digital and a huge wage bill hanging over them from paying poorly performing players a Kings ransom meant that the City never had a pot to piss in and to keep the banks and lenders off their case they had to sell the shirts off their backs to actually detract from administration. In helping the club survive and complete construction of the new facility, the council took advantage of the situation in both control of lucrative income streams and overall equity of the site and adjoining land.
The real culprits in all this are the Chairmen and managers who ran the club so insolvently for so long in order to stay at the top level and those fans who demanded irrespective of long term stability that the club paid unaffordable wages to 'Stars' to keep us in the limelight. If we had been managed more effectively at this time we could have had a club more like WBA.
We were victims of mismanagement { Strachan you prick} on the pitch and off it as well, coupled with really unfortunate timing and events but also crucially in negotiating in 2004/05 the deal that would have been made on rent and F & B's etc.
Since 2005 the rot didn't stop as a succession of chairman and managers continued to piss away the clubs sparse funds on poor players with astronomical wages and still the new and naïve regime from Mayfair didn't get a grip from 2007 either............................most of us purport to know the rest ?!

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Ashdown1 said:
Its all fairly simple and straightforward to me. The clubs relegation from the Prem just as the more lucrative TV deals were washing around from SKY, and that coupled with the collapse of ITV digital and a huge wage bill hanging over them from paying poorly performing players a Kings ransom meant that the City never had a pot to piss in and to keep the banks and lenders off their case they had to sell the shirts off their backs to actually detract from administration. In helping the club survive and complete construction of the new facility, the council took advantage of the situation in both control of lucrative income streams and overall equity of the site and adjoining land.
The real culprits in all this are the Chairmen and managers who ran the club so insolvently for so long in order to stay at the top level and those fans who demanded irrespective of long term stability that the club paid unaffordable wages to 'Stars' to keep us in the limelight. If we had been managed more effectively at this time we could have had a club more like WBA.
We were victims of mismanagement { Strachan you prick} on the pitch and off it as well, coupled with really unfortunate timing and events but also crucially in negotiating in 2004/05 the deal that would have been made on rent and F & B's etc.
Since 2005 the rot didn't stop as a succession of chairman and managers continued to piss away the clubs sparse funds on poor players with astronomical wages and still the new and naïve regime from Mayfair didn't get a grip from 2007 either............................most of us purport to know the rest ?!

I'd agree with most of this except the 'took advantage' part. The council paid for the land, and built the stadium. Then they offered fifty percent of it back to the club at a frankly remarkable price. The club both sold that 50%, and the rights to the income streams. And now they seem to want it all back (plus the other 50%!) for next to nothing or we'll be stuck in Northampton for the foreseeable future until Arena Timmy is built.

Who's taking advantage of who here?

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

speedie87 said:
maybe a stupid question, but why didn't tesco just buy the land in the first place, they could have saved a fortune?!

A complete guess but I would say the land wasn't zoned for development prior to the Arena project and the re-zoning occurred as part of the project as a means to providing funding in just the way it did.

A lot easier on the planning front for them as well when it's part of a bigger project.

asb · Jan 15, 2014

covcity4life said:
nothing like a council win is there?...fuck 3 pts on a saturday

covcity4life said:
still blaming just one side? wow

Strange that blaming just the council is seen as not blaming just one side, in your world.

torchomatic said:
To be honest, as long as the Council did alright out of it I don't care. Good on 'em.

Right all those councillors getting backhanders, making millions of the back of one stolen deal. I also hear that they have solid gold toilets. Or maybe they never benefited because...

duffer said:
...And whilst I'm thinking about it - what 'profit' did the council make? The total build, including the stadium, was £118m or so. All of the money from the sale of the land went into that build. All the council have really got to show for it is the freehold. Against that they put in £10m in a direct grant, and hold a mortgage for £14m against ACL. I don't see that anyone made much money out of this (except the builders).

Maybe the Council was attempting to help a financial mismanaged club that was haemorrhaging cash and while it had big dreams it had no way of achieving any of it without someone else taking the greater financial risks.

It is not the councils fault that previous owners had made mistakes after the council attempted to help them. If i had handed them a way to gain a joint income and they then tried to cash in on it for a short term gain I would then be amazed if I was blamed for their own mismanagement. And even more confused that the option to get that back was never taken up, by a new 'better' management that works in finance.

I bet that the council sometimes thinks...

Jack Griffin said:
Regrettably CCC took over the arena project and completed it.

If only they'd have said to CCFC, "that is your problem" then CCFC would have gone into administration owning nothing.

Stupid callous Council.

Then again if they had done that you all would have then been blaming the Council for not caring about the club.

Worth remembering that this is all pre SISU. Any dislike of SISU is based on their own actions. Any dislike of ACL and the Council is based on actions since SISU have taken over, and their failure to cut through all the SISU game playing. As far as I am concerned the blame for this part of CCFC history is squarely in the court of the previous owners / management of CCFC.

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

mrtickle said:
I believe the 50% was of ACL. The way ACL is set up there are no profits to be gained until the mortgage is paid.

I still don't get the ACL has to be part of the package. I'm no legal expert but I'm sure they could dissolve it as part of the sale.

Who is "they"?

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

What I love about these threads is one side of the argument is full paragraphs, well explained, properly spelt.

The other is cheap one liners that don't make much sense.

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

shmmeee said:
What I love about these threads is one side of the argument is full paragraphs, well explained, properly spelt.

The other is cheap one liners that don't make much sense.

Go away smelly head.

Ashdown1 · Jan 15, 2014

duffer said:
I'd agree with most of this except the 'took advantage' part. The council paid for the land, and built the stadium. Then they offered fifty percent of it back to the club at a frankly remarkable price. The club both sold that 50%, and the rights to the income streams. And now they seem to want it all back (plus the other 50%!) for next to nothing or we'll be stuck in Northampton for the foreseeable future until Arena Timmy is built.

Who's taking advantage of who here?

I have no sympathy for the hedge fund whatsoever and their immoral actions but it would have been helpful if the club at the time had some stronger negotiators to at least gain benefit from the footfall that they would inevitably bring and pay a more reasonable rental fee. The football club were let down badly at the time when we needed strong and wilful leaders who were not just primarily self interested.

Jack Griffin · Jan 15, 2014

asb said:
Then again if they had done that you all would have then been blaming the Council for not caring about the club.

Well actually I lobbied my local Councillor at the time to support the Arena deal, in hindsight I realise it was a mistake.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Well actually I lobbied my local Councillor at the time to support the Arena deal, in hindsight I realise it was a mistake.

Me too, Jack - me too.

The bitter irony, if the council hadn't got involved then maybe we'd still be at HR and in a much better place. (Although we'd obviously would either have been renting it at £1m/season (iirc), or trying to buy back the freehold from a private developer, having sold it five years prior to the Arena opening).

Edit: In reality we'd have probably just have gone bust though - and without any ground at all God knows where we might have ended up. I suppose I might even have played for them then, down the Memorial Park.

2nd Edit: On the upside, with these clowns in charge it could happen yet.

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Well actually I lobbied my local Councillor at the time to support the Arena deal, in hindsight I realise it was a mistake.

There was a local poll done at the time jointly by the Coventry Telegraph and Mercia which stated 90% of local people wanted the council to continue building the Ricoh without the club having any ownership.

CCFC, the Telegraph, CWR, the fans, and other local media all got what they wanted with the Ricoh deal. Not many would admit it now though.

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

duffer said:
Me too, Jack - me too.

The bitter irony, if the council hadn't got involved then maybe we'd still be at HR and in a much better place. (Although we'd obviously would either have been renting it at £1m/season (iirc), or trying to buy back the freehold from a private developer, having sold it five years prior to the Arena opening).

They would have gone bust in 2003. But they would have gone into admin owning half of the Ricoh project, which would have made them very attractive to investors.

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

Ashdown1 said:
I have no sympathy for the hedge fund whatsoever and their immoral actions but it would have been helpful if the club at the time had some stronger negotiators to at least gain benefit from the footfall that they would inevitably bring and pay a more reasonable rental fee. The football club were let down badly at the time when we needed strong and wilful leaders who were not just primarily self interested.

They did!

Rent aside, CCFC got a great deal. 100% of the match day revenue, 50% of the rest. We'd have been laughing.

The real question is how the fuck did a Championship club not manage to raise £6m to keep the stadium?

I mean FFS if McGinnity had got the buckets out and promised shit like a suite named after you if you donated a certain amount we'd have had the cash for whatever we needed it for in no time.

Absolute insanity and pretty much sounded the death knell for the club. How long after did we have to sell to Sisu because "the clocks ticking"? What if we'd bit the bullet and gone into admin proud owners of half of a successful stadium? Bet we'd have had a few better offers then.

Note to self: keep reading till the end I the thread.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Ashdown1 said:
I have no sympathy for the hedge fund whatsoever and their immoral actions but it would have been helpful if the club at the time had some stronger negotiators to at least gain benefit from the footfall that they would inevitably bring and pay a more reasonable rental fee. The football club were let down badly at the time when we needed strong and wilful leaders who were not just primarily self interested.

Appreciate what you're saying, but I still don't think £1.2m was an extortionate rent for a £50/60m stadium. An interest only loan for that amount would probably have been at least as much if not higher. The enormous error was selling the income streams, but by then we were so against the wall that there was no other choice I guess.

I note that in fairness Higgs offered a set formula to sell back the 50% they bought, you can't really ask for a straighter deal than that. Pity SISU didn't take that option immediately on buying the club perhaps.

Part from Paul Fletcher's Book (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

CCFC Finance Director

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency