Pkh (1 Viewer)

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Call me old fashioned, but a football club dealing in football, with its own stadium, while a property developer deals in property entirely separately seems best to me.

Why should, after all, property be developed around the Ricoh? If it's a property developer we're after, if they regenerate the Swanswell, they should be handed the keys to the club? Or maybe they should have saved the Leofric?

It puts an overly onerous task on finding an appropriate owner (property developers tend to like making money out of property after all) and detracts from the fact that a football club owner can be a perfectly decent owner without having to build a hulking great hotel. Diversify sports clubs, take away their focus from what they are, and they're also liable to forget the reason why they exist.

The specifics of the set-up could be drawn along those lines but we are all wanting the club to benefit 100% from everything the Ricoh hosts, including non-footballing events. If you want that then someone with non-footballing expertise to get us the maximum benefit of this enterprise is necessary. Property development is but one way of achieving this-I don't know the ins and outs of every part of what the Ricoh does on a daily basis so I can't say for sure.

People want us to get everything we can from the Ricoh but are opposed to an owner who would help us to achieve this-forgive me for being confused. All the money going to the club will put a better team on the field, draw in better crowds and be a proper money earner alongside everything else. It's all self-fulfilling.

Grappa · Jul 1, 2013

dongonzalos said:
The point I make for example is
If the majority of Nuneaton fans would like to do it. Then if I were Mr Haskell I would consider it.
If I were ACL I would also consider it if Coventry City were removed from the Ricoh. As it will give them another option.
It is not the same as it what is happening to CCFC as the Nuneaton are potentially are facing going under. They would have a new multi millionaire owner. Who wants to get them back to back promotions. They would move to a state of the art stadium 5 miles away.

At a club that a lot if them already regularly visit.

Again it should only happen if most if the fans wanted it.

You have no idea like I don't to how they would react.

Is this serious?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Grappa said:
Did you give him a hearty back-slap for the cross invoicing that you go on about so much?

"Top cross-invoicing, Pete!" High 5!

To be fair it would have given our FFP figures a much rosier look but hey-ho.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
People want us to get everything we can from the Ricoh but are opposed to an owner who would help us to achieve this-forgive me for being confused.

My point is simple, the best owner for a football club is not necessarily a property developer.

Indeed, the track record of property developers getting involved in football for the property is chequered at best.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

wingy said:
There Is a problem In the equation somewhere involving the profit levels in ACL where It becomes liable to pay some sort of Superate once over a profit level of around £3.5M.
Whether that negates the desire to get over that line Is open to question as they'd be swiftly down to £2.5M. Who Is the beneficiary of that rate CCC/Govt?
CCC has already benifited to the Tune of £1M. Lagbi money Per An I believe as a result of the whole development,I'm sure If they were that Beneficiary they'd rather have It ,so a possible source of Friction? the fact that CCC benefits to this £1M. if taken overall does kind of offsets Its new loan agreement with ACL.

The rebate that CCC paid back to the Club circa £400K. may make a significant dent in that ,and If It had to be backdated would be a body blow I'm sure ,factors such as this are no doubt playing their part in the stances of all the various parties.

Funny thing is this is where SISU's account fiddling capabilities would come in very handy. As I said earlier it isn't possible for both CCFC and ACL to use the revenue at the same time so some other arrangement would need drawing up.

procdoc · Jul 1, 2013

dongonzalos said:
The point I make for example is
If the majority of Nuneaton fans would like to do it. Then if I were Mr Haskell I would consider it.
If I were ACL I would also consider it if Coventry City were removed from the Ricoh. As it will give them another option.
It is not the same as it what is happening to CCFC as the Nuneaton are potentially are facing going under. They would have a new multi millionaire owner. Who wants to get them back to back promotions. They would move to a state of the art stadium 5 miles away.

At a club that a lot if them already regularly visit.

Again it should only happen if most if the fans wanted it.

You have no idea like I don't to how they would react.

Although I see your point Nuneaton being moved to the Ricoh wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. They simply haven't got a big enough fanbase to justify playing at a stadium of premier league quality. Coventry haven't even got that at the moment.
Nuneaton are at best a League 2 club as proven throughout their history.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Covcraig@bury said:
Broken, this says it all. 30 people turned up for the Trusts AGM. That's what it's so called members think of them.

Having said that , instead of calling it an AGM just call it a (Protest) !

Totally Embarrassing

Dont know where you got 30 from but why should it matter to you because you dont matter to me your skin crawling?

Grendel · Jul 1, 2013

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Brilliant so what we do is build another stadium eh great idea of course the new stadium will be free no debt loaded onto the club:facepalm:

So you believe that someone should by the Ricoh with a huge mortgage and then as part of the deal be forced to put an even bigger mortgage on the club by building a hotel?

If a hotel is such a great idea and the idyllic location known as sunny car park C is such an obvious draw why haven't the council managed to get an existing hotel chain to build there anyway? I'm sure they could do guided tours for guests around the charming streets of Holbrooks and conclude with an idyllic lunch at the Parkgate or, if the weather permits, a longer stroll to the Convoy to sample their heute cuisine.

CJ_covblaze · Jul 1, 2013

Peter did mention something about a new sport coming into the arena. A midlands Superleague franchise has been muted for some time. Even been suggestions of playing 4 or 5 games down here between the current sides throughout the season to try to gauge interest.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
My point is simple, the best owner for a football club is not necessarily a property developer.

Indeed, the track record of property developers getting involved in football for the property is chequered at best.

How many have taken on a club with a stadium as ripe for development as ours? The developer would not necessarily be involved on a day to day basis either-this being why SISU have employed various muppets and TF to run the club as they see fit.

wingy · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I don't think anyone has ever come forward for the freehold itself as presumably the council would put an enormous price upon it. Those views were indeed from a few councillors but it's difficult to establish the council's official stance as leadership changes on a semi regular basis. The Higgs share is indeed for the leasehold.

The Freehold according to the Completion report was valued at a Paltry £660K. because of the length of lease ,Rising as the lease elapses ,so a potential reason for knocking back the Idea of a 125 yr lease.
The major value currently lies in the lease and ACL as a company IMO.:thinking about:

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
People seem to be going off on wild tangents. If you want all the money that the stadium makes then that means you take responsibility for making it as successful a venue as physically possible-and an owner with property acumen would be an ideal vehicle for achieving this.

That's an entirely different scenario. Chicken and egg.

Buy ACL and buy the freehold then develop the surrounding area to improve business.

Not - buy half of ACL, build a hotel, then try to buy the other half of ACL, then try to buy the freehold....

Nothing to stop the council refusing to ever sell their half of ACL let alone the freehold.

The only time the club should be responsible for building a hotel and developing the land is if they own both the Ricoh and surrounding land.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Grendel said:
So you believe that someone should by the Ricoh with a huge mortgage and then as part of the deal be forced to put an even bigger mortgage on the club by building a hotel?

If a hotel is such a great idea and the idyllic location known as sunny car park C is such an obvious draw why haven't the council managed to get an existing hotel chain to build there anyway? I'm sure they could do guided tours for guests around the charming streets of Holbrooks and conclude with an idyllic lunch at the Parkgate or, if the weather permits, a longer stroll to the Convoy to sample their heute cuisine.

Again, nobody said that. We are assuming that this hypothetical owner has enough of their own funds to cover the bill.

letsallsingtogether · Jul 1, 2013

Dingle we all know about your opinion you and you prodigy PSGM1 are just demented you believe doing nothing will turn out right for the club? Any way it was standing room only tonight found out some good things tonight yes I was there thanks to you I joined the Trust best thing I have ever done.

Shame you couldn't afford to join would have paid for you never mind maybe mommy will give you an extra quid on your birthday :facepalm::facepalm:

Covcraig@bury said:
Cashless,

Only 150 Trust members turned up at the Ricoh on Saturday . And I bet most of them wasn't members so best have a pop at the other 2050 members that didn't turn up.

I think a lot of people signed up and paid their £1 to the Trust like most people put their small change in the charity box in the pub.
A pointless organisation that is not and never will be the voice of Ccfc fans. My opinion .

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
That's an entirely different scenario. Chicken and egg.

Buy ACL and buy the freehold then develop the surrounding area to improve business.

Not - buy half of ACL, build a hotel, then try to buy the other half of ACL, then try to buy the freehold....

Nothing to stop the council refusing to ever sell their half of ACL let alone the freehold.

The only time the club should be responsible for building a hotel and developing the land is if they own both the Ricoh and surrounding land.

Think that is more or less what I'm trying to say but so caught up with hypothetical spanners being thrown in the hypothetical works it's hard to keep up.

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2013

dongonzalos said:
The point I make for example is
If the majority of Nuneaton fans would like to do it. Then if I were Mr Haskell I would consider it.
If I were ACL I would also consider it if Coventry City were removed from the Ricoh. As it will give them another option.
It is not the same as it what is happening to CCFC as the Nuneaton are potentially are facing going under. They would have a new multi millionaire owner. Who wants to get them back to back promotions. They would move to a state of the art stadium 5 miles away.

At a club that a lot of them already regularly visit.

Again it should only happen if most of the fans wanted it.

You have no idea like I don't, to how they would react.

The majority won't want to.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
My point is simple, the best owner for a football club is not necessarily a property developer.

Indeed, the track record of property developers getting involved in football for the property is chequered at best.

Yes and Hedge fund owners have a brilliant track record

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

wingy said:
The Freehold according to the Completion report was valued at a Paltry £660K. because of the length of lease ,Rising as the lease elapses ,so a potential reason for knocking back the Idea of a 125 yr lease.
The major value currently lies in the lease and ACL as accompany IMO.:thinking about:

Right now anyone who takes on ACL also takes on the £14m loan to the council and would need to settle this in addition to acquiring the freehold.

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2013

Grappa said:
Is this serious?

Yes, don seems to be obsessed with this, they'd be called Nuneaton sky blues

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 1, 2013

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Yes and Hedge fund owners have a brilliant track record

What's that got to do with anything!??

One crap set of owners who want to make cash from the club, so therefore all other potential owners are great?!?

That's how we got here in the first place with such disjointed thinking.

Might be nice if the next owner of our club quite fancied owning our fiootball club because they wanted a football club really, not an investment opportunity, nor a property opportunity.

dongonzalos · Jul 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
The majority won't want to.

You don't know that for a fact, that is your assumption

lordsummerisle · Jul 1, 2013

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Yes and Hedge fund owners have a brilliant track record

Which is why some of us never wanted a hedge-fund owner in charge of the club.

Covcraig@bury · Jul 1, 2013

Originally Posted by Covcraig@bury:
Broken, this says it all. 30 people turned up for the Trusts AGM. That's what it's so called members think of them.

Having said that , instead of calling it an AGM just call it a (Protest) !

Totally Embarrassing
Dont know where you got 30 from but why should it matter to you because you dont matter to me your skin crawling?

Reply
Best read this post in full you numb twat ,before you make yourself look a bigger prick than you already are .

dongonzalos · Jul 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
Yes, don seems to be obsessed with this.

Yes can't sleep at night without dreaming about it

Grendel · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Again, nobody said that. We are assuming that this hypothetical owner has enough of their own funds to cover the bill.

No developer on earth would do that if there was a loss making football club it could load the debt onto.

lordsummerisle · Jul 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
Yes, don seems to be obsessed with this, they'd be called Nuneaton sky blues

Yet earlier on here he says I've twisted what he says?

Total mentalist.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

Grendel said:
No developer on earth would do that if there was a loss making football club it could load the debt onto.

Are you experienced in the field? Even if the costs were put on the football club the debt would still be to the owner.

dongonzalos · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Again, nobody said that. We are assuming that this hypothetical owner has enough of their own funds to cover the bill.

Manipulation of your point again!

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Think that is more or less what I'm trying to say but so caught up with hypothetical spanners being thrown in the hypothetical works it's hard to keep up.

Which then goes back to my original point that its not the clubs responsibility and ACL shouldn't be trying to use it to stipulate who does or doesn't own us, as essentially it would only be the clubs responsibility if ACL no longer exists and the club owned the stadium.

procdoc · Jul 1, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Are you experienced in the field?

I'd be surprised if he is

dongonzalos · Jul 1, 2013

Grendel said:
No developer on earth would do that if there was a loss making football club it could load the debt onto.

Sounds familiar
No investor in the world would want to buy CCFC.....

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
Which then goes back to my original point that its not the clubs responsibility and ACL shouldn't be trying to use it to stipulate who does or doesn't own us, as essentially it would only be the clubs responsibility if ACL no longer exists and the club owned the stadium.

Which is what I said-I don't accept ACL interfering with who takes over the club however I'm arguing this more from who I think would be the best owner for the club in the scenario you mention.

Covcraig@bury · Jul 1, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
Dingle we all know about your opinion you and you prodigy PSGM1 are just demented you believe doing nothing will turn out right for the club? Any way it was standing room only tonight found out some good things tonight yes I was there thanks to you I joined the Trust best thing I have ever done.

Shame you couldn't afford to join would have paid for you never mind maybe mommy will give you an extra quid on your birthday :facepalm::facepalm:

Best thing you've ever done ???
You really need to get out a bit more.

dongonzalos · Jul 1, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Which is why some of us never wanted a hedge-fund owner in charge of the club.

Gosh did you really warn people that SISU was bad news at the beginning Lord? Why have you never mentioned this before?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 1, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Manipulation of your point again!

Better go and read the PWKH Bible (book of Cross Invoicing). The shrine shuts at 11 on weekdays so have to make do.

Pkh (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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

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