Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen (1 Viewer)

Hobo · Aug 17, 2013

Paxman whenever ACL have tried to negotiate with SISU, SiSU shift their stance you can never get middle ground because they then take that as their new bartering point for a better deal. They renegade on everything, contradict themselves, threaten to sue people. They have never come out with a clear business plan. That is why we are still scratching our heads at their business plan. The only thing I am confident about is they could liquidate us at anytime. The club and fans means nothing to them, they are in it for money and assets!

Astute · Aug 17, 2013

Grendel said:
If that means football returns to Coventry it's a price worth paying. Or do you have other priorities?

Shall we wait and see if your beloved SISU manage to keep their hands on our club first now the truth is starting to come out?

TurkeyTrot · Aug 17, 2013

"hand them a franchise of the Ricoh for a set period, enough to earn back their investments and invest further in the team aspirations and a clause that has an end date that they must abide by. "

Even now, after all that's gone on you believe they would abide by some clause that has an end date. If they didn't like the clause you'd find yourself in litigation well before any end date!

letsallsingtogether · Aug 17, 2013

If they had been honest at the beginning and not so bolshie they would have already had a half share and been talking to buy the rest but they can't change their spots now it is to late the damage has already been done:blue::blue:

RoboCCFC90 said:
No it's not but they could get the ball rolling so to speak, it has to be said that something has to be done, this sitaution between the two parties has to end.

AJB1983 · Aug 17, 2013

And let's face it, every time fisher gets some media spotlight he takes every opportunity to have a go at acl and blame them and try and shift public opinion.
Hardly conducive to them saying 'yeah have the Ricoh, pleasure doing business. see how you do running it when you can't run a football club'

stupot07 · Aug 17, 2013

AJB1983 said:
And let's face it, every time fisher gets some media spotlight he takes every opportunity to have a go at acl and blame them and try and shift public opinion.
Hardly conducive to them saying 'yeah have the Ricoh, pleasure doing business. see how you do running it when you can't run a football club'

Both sides are bending the truth and trying to shift the blame and public opinion.

shmmeee · Aug 17, 2013

stupot07 said:
Both sides are bending the truth and trying to shift the blame and public opinion.

This kind of attitude I find either ignorantly useless or wilfully misleading.

Of course both sides play the PR game, the balance of dickheadedness swims firmly into Sisu territory.

It's equivalent to saying "hey man, both the allied and the nazis killed people you know". Technically true but kinda missing the point.

Steve.B50 · Aug 17, 2013

Very true Stupot,.
We as fans are divided in our thoughts and loyalties, very testing times.

stupot07 · Aug 17, 2013

shmmeee said:
This kind of attitude I find either ignorantly useless or wilfully misleading.

Of course both sides play the PR game, the balance of dickheadedness swims firmly into Sisu territory.

It's equivalent to saying "hey man, both the allied and the nazis killed people you know". Technically true but kinda missing the point.

Yet, everyone takes what ACL and PWKH statements as the gospel truth.

How can my post be wilfully misleading then go on to agree with me that both sides are playing a PR game?

chiefdave · Aug 17, 2013

TurkeyTrot said:
Even now, after all that's gone on you believe they would abide by some clause that has an end date. If they didn't like the clause you'd find yourself in litigation well before any end date!

this is the issue. if they'd come in on day one and said we need to change the rent deal or we need ownership to make the club sustainable chances are the vast majority of fans would have supported them. now it's a different story, we know what they're like! is anyone really confident that if they were handed the Ricoh they would think twice about doing CCFC over or honouring any agreement? those revenue streams would never reach CCFC, they'd all be going to SISU.

James Smith · Aug 17, 2013

skybluehugh said:
It has quite a lot to do with it. He is proposing that we sell/give (I believe he would want us to give it) a tax payer funded property that is worth million's to a HF. If he has not paid tax to the council, of course it will not affect him one bit. But it does effect all other tax payers. I am not one as I live in London, but 98% of my family do.

As Grendel has asked me to, and to be fair I do prefer to have proof of a statement made I'm going to ask you this. Do you have any proof to back up your claim that it is better for the council to hold on to the freehold of a multimillion pound stadium and associated land for the good of the taxpayers of Coventry rather than sell the freehold/land at her undisclosed price (which could be as low as £5m, and probably not more than £10m) to the owner of a London hedge fund?

Grendel · Aug 17, 2013

James Smith said:
As Grendel has asked me to, and to be fair I do prefer to have proof of a statement made I'm going to ask you this. Do you have any proof to back up your claim that it is better for the council to hold on to the freehold of a multimillion pound stadium and associated land for the good of the taxpayers of Coventry rather than sell the freehold/land at her undisclosed price (which could be as low as £5m, and probably not more than £10m) to the owner of a London hedge fund?

The hedge fund bit is ultimately irrelevant. You say the good of the taxpayer but I still don't know what that means - when you say good of the taxpayer do you mean;

Happiness and contentment - the joy of waking up every morning in the knowledge they own a community asset versus suicidal dispair they may feel at a nasty wasty hedge fund owning it

Financial gain - will the sale or retention alter the community charge

How do you define "good of the taxpayer" - what does it mean?

Sky Blues · Aug 17, 2013

James Smith said:
As Grendel has asked me to, and to be fair I do prefer to have proof of a statement made I'm going to ask you this. Do you have any proof to back up your claim that it is better for the council to hold on to the freehold of a multimillion pound stadium and associated land for the good of the taxpayers of Coventry rather than sell the freehold/land at her undisclosed price (which could be as low as £5m, and probably not more than £10m) to the owner of a London hedge fund?

So is the question: Do you sell a £115million stadium development* for around £5-10million?

Common sense suggests this doesn't really need an answer, but let's play it out anyway.

The first piece of land available for redevelopment that I come across for sale near the Ricoh has an asking price of £450,000 for 1.7 acres** so, for the sake of argument, let us use that as a guide price for the value of land in the area.

The Ricoh complex takes up more than 40 acres*** of the original circa 70-acre gasworks site*.

So 1 acre of land available as a redevelopment opportunity = £450,000 divided by 1.7 = £264,706.
Therefore at least 40 acres of land sold as a redevelopment opportunity = at least 40 times £264,706 = at least £10,588,240

So it would appear the council would get more money for selling the land for redevelopment than the suggested offer put in the question - and that is before you add in whatever value the stadium currently has.

*Source: http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
** Source: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-39997702.html
*** Source: http://www.ricoharena.com/about-us/

Grendel · Aug 17, 2013

Sky Blues said:
So is the question: Do you sell a £115million stadium development* for around £5-10million?

Common sense suggests this doesn't really need an answer, but let's play it out anyway.

The first piece of land available for redevelopment that I come across for sale near the Ricoh has an asking price of £450,000 for 1.7 acres** so, for the sake of argument, let us use that as a guide price for the value of land in the area.

The Ricoh complex takes up more than 40 acres*** of the original circa 70-acre gasworks site*.

So 1 acre of land available as a redevelopment opportunity = £450,000 divided by 1.7 = £264,706.
Therefore at least 40 acres of land sold as a redevelopment opportunity = at least 40 times £264,706 = at least £10,588,240

So it would appear the council would get more money for selling the land for redevelopment than the suggested offer put in the question - and that is before you add in whatever value the stadium currently has.

*Source: http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
** Source: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-39997702.html
*** Source: http://www.ricoharena.com/about-us/

Lots of assumptions there especially on value. It's not worth that I think. Lets say it is though - Is the individual tax payer better off of they sell it?

Look at in another way. Are the taxpayers of stoke happier or less happy that the council and the regeneration company handed them the Brittania for the mortgage value or are they seething it wasn't sold for real estate?

James Smith · Aug 17, 2013

Grendel said:
The hedge fund bit is ultimately irrelevant. You say the good of the taxpayer but I still don't know what that means - when you say good of the taxpayer do you mean;

Happiness and contentment - the joy of waking up every morning in the knowledge they own a community asset versus suicidal dispair they may feel at a nasty wasty hedge fund owning it

Financial gain - will the sale or retention alter the community charge

How do you define "good of the taxpayer" - what does it mean?

Okay when the Stadium complex and land is eventually sold it should make the council money that can be put to good use. In the mean time as you pointed out to me the loan to ACL is making the council a minor profit.

Danceswithhorses · Aug 17, 2013

IF the Ricoh was 'given' ie sold to SISU on favourable terms, all they would do is rent it to ccfc at a high rent, so SISU companies made profits-that's the nature of hedge funds.
If ccfc didn't pay, do you think SISU would be as benevolent as ACL have been ??
Personally id rather have ACL renting the Ricoh to CCFC, as there is at least, some accountability.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Aug 17, 2013

Danceswithhorses said:
IF the Ricoh was 'given' ie sold to SISU on favourable terms, all they would do is rent it to ccfc at a high rent, so SISU companies made profits-that's the nature of hedge funds.
If ccfc didn't pay, do you think SISU would be as benevolent as ACL have been ??
Personally id rather have ACL renting the Ricoh to CCFC, as there is at least, some accountability.

Any deal should be done in a way that has the clubs best interests and protects the club against SISU pulling a fast one

Id be happy for any deal to bring the club back to the Ricoh, be it a rental agreement with ACL or CCFC/SISU to get ownership of the Ricoh as long as the club(not SISU) gets a fair deal and is not being ripped off

I don't see why anyone should be against such a deal

cloughie · Aug 17, 2013

Danceswithhorses said:
IF the Ricoh was 'given' ie sold to SISU on favourable terms, all they would do is rent it to ccfc at a high rent, so SISU companies made profits-that's the nature of hedge funds.
If ccfc didn't pay, do you think SISU would be as benevolent as ACL have been ??
Personally id rather have ACL renting the Ricoh to CCFC, as there is at least, some accountability.

This is the issue that most seem to conveniently ignore, sisu owned means CCFC paying a unfavourable rent as previously , so what would the gain be to CCFC none

the only gain would be to the hedge fund owners

Incredible that some call for this to happen, once bitten twice shy

idm1975 · Aug 17, 2013

Grendel said:
What do you have in mind?

How about your house Grendel, i'm sure SISU would treat you well

torchomatic · Aug 17, 2013

GaryPendrysEyes said:
Sisu are a failed and unethical business, they should never be trusted with a key coventry asset.
If fans hold firm in boycotting Sisu and damaging their reputation they will be gone soon enough.
You don't appease bullies you man up and fight them.

Get used to playing out of the city then as I don't think they'll be going anywhere soon.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

idm1975 · Aug 18, 2013

torchomatic said:
Get used to playing out of the city then as I don't think they'll be going anywhere soon.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

I think you will find they have already gone!

ccfcway · Aug 18, 2013

has PWKH been on this thread ?

Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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