Pkh (2 Viewers)

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2013

It doens't seem a great deal to have to agree to regeneration. Ignoring the issue of not owning the freehold (what happens when the lease expires?), a potential new owner would be looking at £14m to pay off the council loan, around £5m to buy out Higgs plus at least that again to buy the council out to gain full ownership of ACL. Then there's the cost of actually building the hotel (according to google a 100 bed travellodge costs around £10m) before they see any profit. I'm not an expert in the hotel business but I can see it taking a while for a 200 bed hotel to make a return on a £35m investement.

Thats of course assuming there is actually a demand for it and that's the reason people are using the NEC rather than the Ricoh. If there's not then what? More debt for CCFC?

The idea that the club needs to do it so they have access to a revenue stream makes no sense to me, why can't ACL build it and then sell it as part of the Ricoh package in the future? If they're losing business because of it that would surely be a good idea.

Very concerning that ACL seem open to moving another team into the Ricoh, even if it's not relocating an exisiting team out of their home area (would be intresting to see the reaction to that given the reaction to moving CCFC out of Cov) something like a Super League team would surely have a huge impact on Cov rugby club. Also not to sure why they can't consider having both CCFC and another team there as other grounds do.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Jul 2, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
No sour grapes there though eh?

Something almost unheard of on this forum!

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

chiefdave said:
It doens't seem a great deal to have to agree to regeneration. Ignoring the issue of not owning the freehold (what happens when the lease expires?), a potential new owner would be looking at £14m to pay off the council loan, around £5m to buy out Higgs plus at least that again to buy the council out to gain full ownership of ACL. Then there's the cost of actually building the hotel (according to google a 100 bed travellodge costs around £10m) before they see any profit. I'm not an expert in the hotel business but I can see it taking a while for a 200 bed hotel to make a return on a £35m investement.

Thats of course assuming there is actually a demand for it and that's the reason people are using the NEC rather than the Ricoh. If there's not then what? More debt for CCFC?

The idea that the club needs to do it so they have access to a revenue stream makes no sense to me, why can't ACL build it and then sell it as part of the Ricoh package in the future? If they're losing business because of it that would surely be a good idea.

Very concerning that ACL seem open to moving another team into the Ricoh, even if it's not relocating an exisiting team out of their home area (would be intresting to see the reaction to that given the reaction to moving CCFC out of Cov) something like a Super League team would surely have a huge impact on Cov rugby club. Also not to sure why they can't consider having both CCFC and another team there as other grounds do.

If the club wants full ownership and all the money that the complex makes then it needs to have a vested interest in making the place as successful as can be. This does not necessarily have to be pursued down the avenue of property development although this would be one of the more obvious choices. As for why ACL have not done this already-not sure although up until recently most of their money was going on repayments to the bank. With more lenient conditions from the council they might have more leeway.

wingy · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If the club wants full ownership and all the money that the complex makes then it needs to have a vested interest in making the place as successful as can be. This does not necessarily have to be pursued down the avenue of property development although this would be one of the more obvious choices. As for why ACL have not done this already-not sure although up until recently most of their money was going on repayments to the bank. With more lenient conditions from the council they might have more leeway.

They were Paying down the YB loan at an accelerated rate ,something I'm trying to do as I don't want to be paying It @ 70.

chiefdave · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If the club wants full ownership and all the money that the complex makes then it needs to have a vested interest in making the place as successful as can be. This does not necessarily have to be pursued down the avenue of property development although this would be one of the more obvious choices. As for why ACL have not done this already-not sure although up until recently most of their money was going on repayments to the bank. With more lenient conditions from the council they might have more leeway.

Problem is it's not being presented as an 'if the club want to do this they may increase revenue', it appears that infrastructure investment is being made a prerequisite to purchase (presumably at full market value) a 50% share in a company that is £14m in debt, seemingly about to lose its anchor tenant and without that tenants rent quite possibly struggling to break even.
Even if ACL aren't going to do it themselves why are other hotel chains not looking to develop, if not on the Ricoh site at least nearby, the fact that they aren't would be of concern to me if I was a possible investor.

Not saying that a future owner of CCFC shouldn’t be looking at options like this to increase revenue but I don’t feel it is helpful to make it a condition of ownership.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

chiefdave said:
Problem is it's not being presented as an 'if the club want to do this they may increase revenue', it appears that infrastructure investment is being made a prerequisite to purchase (presumably at full market value) a 50% share in a company that is £14m in debt, seemingly about to lose its anchor tenant and without that tenants rent quite possibly struggling to break even.
Even if ACL aren't going to do it themselves why are other hotel chains not looking to develop, if not on the Ricoh site at least nearby, the fact that they aren't would be of concern to me if I was a possible investor.

Not saying that a future owner of CCFC shouldn’t be looking at options like this to increase revenue but I don’t feel it is helpful to make it a condition of ownership.

Agree with you on that one however clearly someone with some idea of maximising the profitability of the venue would be an ideal candidate. The reality is we're a million miles away from getting into such a position so it is for now a thought experiment.

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If the club wants full ownership and all the money that the complex makes then it needs to have a vested interest in making the place as successful as can be. This does not necessarily have to be pursued down the avenue of property development although this would be one of the more obvious choices. As for why ACL have not done this already-not sure although up until recently most of their money was going on repayments to the bank. With more lenient conditions from the council they might have more leeway.

BSB from what I am reading you are stating that if CCFC buys into the Ricoh then they should look at property development simply because it's been highlighted by ACL as beneficial to improve revenue growth? What happens if a owner, PH4, SISU or Joe Bloggs decides that he doesn't need to build a Hotel?

ACL have highlighted this surely for there own beneficial gain, but does this really consider a better future for CCFC? Yes it might seem ideal to spend £10 - £20 Million on a Hotel to strengthen revenue growth, but surely that money would be best be spent on producing a good team and spending it on the on field within the rules of FFP? £10 - £20 Million could surely (If spent the right way) could build us as a good Championship side if spent wisely?

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Agree with you on that one however clearly someone with some idea of maximising the profitability of the venue would be an ideal candidate.

There's the horrible disconnect that the ideal candidate for the council isn't necessarily the ideal candidate for the club. It might be, it might be indeed, but it's by no means a certainty in any way.

And this, as much as anything, is the consequence of club and stadium being split in the first place, the council tries to close off opportunities for us to have a range of bidders, because it has its own agenda as much as SISU have theirs.

Unfortunately in all this, the club becomes a plaything, an inconsequence in it all.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
BSB from what I am reading you are stating that if CCFC buys into the Ricoh then they should look at property development simply because it's been highlighted by ACL as beneficial to improve revenue growth? What happens if a owner, PH4, SISU or Joe Bloggs decides that he doesn't need to build a Hotel?

ACL have highlighted this surely for there own beneficial gain, but does this really consider a better future for CCFC? Yes it might seem ideal to spend £10 - £20 Million on a Hotel to strengthen revenue growth, but surely that money would be best be spent on producing a good team and spending it on the on field within the rules of FFP? £10 - £20 Million could surely (If spent the right way) could build us as a good Championship side if spent wisely?

Not quite what I'm saying-property development is one way to go however it may not be the only way to maximise the stadium's success. I don't know every facet of the Ricoh's business so it's hard to say what other opportunities exist for developing it. I would primarily want any owner to do things like getting us a Category 1 academy, top class training facilities and so on, but ultimately any such owner will want this not to come from their own pockets but the club's. Getting as much money from the stadium as possible is our vehicle to a better future.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
There's the horrible disconnect that the ideal candidate for the council isn't necessarily the ideal candidate for the club. It might be, it might be indeed, but it's by no means a certainty in any way.

And this, as much as anything, is the consequence of club and stadium being split in the first place, the council tries to close off opportunities for us to have a range of bidders, because it has its own agenda as much as SISU have theirs.

Unfortunately in all this, the club becomes a plaything, an inconsequence in it all.

I don't see how ACL or CCC can directly influence who takes over the club. As I've said before I don't agree whatsoever with any manipulating of the bidding process along those lines however if we truly aspire to one day own the ground in its entirety then at some point or another we need someone with the expertise to maximise its success. This doesn't strictly have to be in property.

blueflint · Jul 2, 2013

chiefdave said:
Well given that Cov Rugby club aren't likely candidates can we take from this that ACL are in favour of moving sporting clubs away from their home area? Seems a bit at odds with the uproar around moving CCFC out of the city.

not sure what point he's trying to make here, at best there will be a handful of these shows a year, hardly going to impact on unemployment in the city is it?

I've never understood, why when this is presented as a license to print money, ACL or some other company don't build a hotel either on the Ricoh site or nearby. Think they'll also need an airport and a train station to properly compete with the NEC.

What does this mean? Surely it doesn't follow that if Ltd gets liquidated the Ricoh is sold off to the highest bidder, why would ownership of the Ricoh be impacted at all? As they were keen to keep telling us they don't need CCFC.

Whilst I think the vast majority of the blame lies with SISU I have long felt ACL / CCC are also to blame and turning up (I presume unannounced as I'm a trust member and had no idea he was attending) to preach to the converted, as lets face it the Trust has become a SISU out organisation, seems like an opportunistic attempt at points scoring given the silence of recent weeks.

cant agree with you on any of that it comes over that you dont support the trust in anything at all

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

This is one of the reasons why not owning our own stadium is such a rubbish idea. Why should a football club regenerate areas of a town or city. Surely, that's up to the Council? If it becomes a prerequisite on any deal, then again, I think it's a pretty rubbish idea. What next? Get the Club to do the roads or collect the bins?

RoboCCFC90 said:
BSB from what I am reading you are stating that if CCFC buys into the Ricoh then they should look at property development simply because it's been highlighted by ACL as beneficial to improve revenue growth? What happens if a owner, PH4, SISU or Joe Bloggs decides that he doesn't need to build a Hotel?

ACL have highlighted this surely for there own beneficial gain, but does this really consider a better future for CCFC? Yes it might seem ideal to spend £10 - £20 Million on a Hotel to strengthen revenue growth, but surely that money would be best be spent on producing a good team and spending it on the on field within the rules of FFP? £10 - £20 Million could surely (If spent the right way) could build us as a good Championship side if spent wisely?

true sky blue · Jul 2, 2013

23 pages of complete drivel

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I don't see how ACL or CCC can directly influence who takes over the club.

Like it or not, you'd have to be a mentalist to buy the club without stadium and/or stadium company.

As CCC have the power to sell half, and the power to veto the other half, they can put conditions, and they do indeed seem to put the conditions of regeneration within there, wanting a club owner to commit money to something other than merely club and stadium.

This, to my mind, is downright wrong, and I was hoping that the happy consequence of this sorry mess would be that certain parties would be far more amenable to giving up their half of the stadium company without the conditions of redevelopment (it could be argued after all that SISU don't want the stadium, they want to get out and the ability to buy club and stadium makes the club far more saleable than merely club, and events such as these should focus peoples' minds about the need to be flexible when selling).

Unfortunately, there seems to be little movement on that, the conditions still seem to be there. I don't see why, just like CCFC now have a super complicated structure, stadium management and 'land pockets' can't be split. If owner of the club wants to buy the regeneration opportunities too fine, but if not let someone else buy it and just bloody do it, as they say. Meanwhile, the club can exist, subsist, and actually get round to building back its infrastructure, which has been ravaged for the past 15 years, and remember the fact it's a football club, not a teaching school for derivatives and Quantiative Finance, nor a place for check shirts, tea drinking, and whistling at pert young bottoms while up some scaffolding.

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

Did he elaborate on the "talks" still going on with PH4?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Like it or not, you'd have to be a mentalist to buy the club without stadium and/or stadium company.

As CCC have the power to sell half, and the power to veto the other half, they can put conditions, and they do indeed seem to put the conditions of regeneration within there, wanting a club owner to commit money to something other than merely club and stadium.

This, to my mind, is downright wrong, and I was hoping that the happy consequence of this sorry mess would be that certain parties would be far more amenable to giving up their half of the stadium company without the conditions of redevelopment (it could be argued after all that SISU don't want the stadium, they want to get out and the ability to buy club and stadium makes the club far more saleable than merely club, and events such as these should focus peoples' minds about the need to be flexible when selling).

Unfortunately, there seems to be little movement on that, the conditions still seem to be there. I don't see why, just like CCFC now have a super complicated structure, stadium management and 'land pockets' can't be split. If owner of the club wants to buy the regeneration opportunities too fine, but if not let someone else buy it and just bloody do it, as they say. Meanwhile, the club can exist, subsist, and actually get round to building back its infrastructure, which has been ravaged for the past 15 years, and remember the fact it's a football club, not a teaching school for derivatives and Quantiative Finance, nor a place for check shirts, tea drinking, and whistling at pert young bottoms while up some scaffolding.

Yep, agree with that. However-we are the ones who lumbered ourselves with such a situation all those years ago and these are the consequences. Again-if we want everything the stadium makes then we have a vested interest in making the whole complex as successful as we can. This does play in with what the council wants for regeneration to an extent however they would no longer be in the picture at such a point and we would primarily be doing it for the club's benefit.

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

And this is why I get so cross with ACL. Yes, it was the fault of Richardson, Robinson, McGinnity, Hover, Elliot and the rest that we are in this mess, but really ACL certainly know how to take advantage. Not only do they have us by the balls over rent but they also have caveats that ensure someone else regenerates the land around the area for them. It’s not right and makes the job of finding a new owner even harder.

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Yep, agree with that. However-we are the ones who lumbered ourselves with such a situation all those years ago and these are the consequences. Again-if we want everything the stadium makes then we have a vested interest in making the whole complex as successful as we can. This does play in with what the council wants for regeneration to an extent however they would no longer be in the picture at such a point and we would primarily be doing it for the club's benefit.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Yep, agree with that. However-we are the ones who lumbered ourselves with such a situation all those years ago and these are the consequences.

Not denying that, although I don't think it's the council's right to interfere in who gets to own the club and stadium, beyond the desire to ensure on them moving on, club and stadium are still under control of club/club is not exploited with a large rent

In fact, the council (much as the Higgs charity seem to have tried to do?) should be actively encouraging the club to buy their part of the management company (for a fair price of course!) without any conditions beyond that, in terms of a bigger picture of regeneration.

Land is all the territory of the bougeoisie anyway

rightumpty · Jul 2, 2013

Then it would be Twatter

wingy · Jul 2, 2013

Theres a lot of sense being talked on this page .

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Not denying that, although I don't think it's the council's right to interfere in who gets to own the club and stadium, beyond the desire to ensure on them moving on, club and stadium are still under control of club/club is not exploited with a large rent

In fact, the council (much as the Higgs charity seem to have tried to do?) should be actively encouraging the club to buy their part of the management company (for a fair price of course!) without any conditions beyond that, in terms of a bigger picture of regeneration.

Land is all the territory of the bougeoisie anyway

Last time I heard the charity was indeed very keen to sell so it can use the money for its charitable purposes and discussions along those lines were being held last summer but never continued.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
And this is why I get so cross with ACL. Yes, it was the fault of Richardson, Robinson, McGinnity, Hover, Elliot and the rest that we are in this mess, but really ACL certainly know how to take advantage. Not only do they have us by the balls over rent but they also have caveats that ensure someone else regenerates the land around the area for them. It’s not right and makes the job of finding a new owner even harder.

The way I look at it the 'regeneration' projects being done would primarily be for our own benefit. The council gets what it wants in terms of boosting north Coventry but we then also maximise the income we could make for ourselves. Once the council is gone from then on it would be about the club.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Last time I heard the charity was indeed very keen to sell so it can use the money for its charitable purposes and discussions along those lines were being held last summer but never continued.

Yep, in the grand scheme of things they do appear (to an outsider at least) to have been the ones most caught in the middle of all this... which is doubly unfortunate as they're the ones with least motive to skew things one way or another!

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

Mmm...CCPD rather than CCFC, perhaps?

.

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The way I look at it the 'regeneration' projects being done would primarily be for our own benefit. The council gets what it wants in terms of boosting north Coventry but we then also maximise the income we could make for ourselves. Once the council is gone from then on it would be about the club.

wingy · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Mmm...CCPD rather than CCFC, perhaps?

.

Fair enough Torch but If this was WDC would you feel a bit different?

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
This is one of the reasons why not owning our own stadium is such a rubbish idea. Why should a football club regenerate areas of a town or city. Surely, that's up to the Council? If it becomes a prerequisite on any deal, then again, I think it's a pretty rubbish idea. What next? Get the Club to do the roads or collect the bins?

100% Agree with you Torch.

The owner of CCFC shouldn't have to build Hotels and what not unless he feels it's absolutely beneficial to him and the club. I don't think any owner who would come in would build a hotel, we talk about the arena being able to hold top calibre events there are so many reasons why they won't hold the sort of events that the NEC do.

On the basis of ACL it might help if they had a well maintained and succesful Football club playing at the Ricoh, but although most of the blame lies with SISU, I can't see to many people being fond of ACL at this point either.

Remember ACL success brings £££££££.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Mmm...CCPD rather than CCFC, perhaps?

.

If we own the whole complex we're responsible for the whole complex. Who's to say that we can't be 'mes que un club' as our more esteemed Catalonian friends would say.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jul 2, 2013

Well, I've just waded through 24+ pages of this.....

....and my conclusion remains the same as it has been for ages.

ACL, SISU & CCC are all run by a right bunch of utter cunts.....NONE of them have the interests of the club at heart.....

Fuck them all.

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

Absolutely not, Wingy. We are a football club. we aren't property developers.

wingy said:
Fair enough Torch but If this was WDC would you feel a bit different?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
Absolutely not, Wingy. We are a football club. we aren't property developers.

We also aren't a hedge fund-we are run by one. If a developer took over the club it would be the same.

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

The difference being we can’t help who takes us on. However, if the person who takes us on solely because they want to increase their property portfolio then it’s a bad idea. Similarly, it’s a bad idea if ACL only sell to a certain party because they promise to knock up a couple of hotels.

In either scenario, the club - the bit that is most important to us remember - is just an add-on. Like a few extra texts with your mobile contract.

“Sorry, we can’t get that new striker, because we have to retile all the bathrooms” in the Mutton Plaza Hotel.

Brighton Sky Blue said:
We also aren't a hedge fund-we are run by one. If a developer took over the club it would be the same.

shropshirecov · Jul 2, 2013

Originally posted by chiefdave:

"I've never understood, why when this is presented as a license to print money, ACL or some other company don't build a hotel either on the Ricoh site or nearby. Think they'll also need an airport and a train station to properly compete with the NEC."

Several local businesses were desperate for planning permission to be granted for a permanent passenger terminal at Coventry Airport, it got refused and it was a chance missed. Dunno what the plan is with the Ricoh Station. Is it still going ahead?

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 2, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
We also aren't a hedge fund-we are run by one. If a developer took over the club it would be the same.

We're not a hedge fund indeed, but peoples' areas of expertise can provide an insight into motivation for owning a club, of course. I struggled to believe a hedge fund had desires to own a sporting empire, struggle to believe the same about property developers either.

And on the wider sense, and worth pointing out again, the problem with these kinds of debates is sayiong 'ah, but our current owners are shit' is where it falls down.

Thankfully (at last!) just about everybody accepts that our current owners are shit. But when they took over, so keen were people to get rid of the unholy Robinson effort (let's not forget in terms of damage to the club, that era was probably worse than now - at least the current lot have nothing left to flog after they finished with it!) that SISU were embraced, welcomed... because the previous owners were shit, and bad for the club.

So concerns about future owners doesn't deny the present owners are shit and bad for the club, but nor should that be a retort to quell concerns about future owners. If we don't get it right, do we really want to have to go through this all over again in 5 years, having all taken all the books out about Land Law possible?

torchomatic · Jul 2, 2013

Blame those delightful NIMBYs in Stoneleigh for that. Flying from Cov on holiday used to be great.

shropshirecov said:
Originally posted by chiefdave:

"I've never understood, why when this is presented as a license to print money, ACL or some other company don't build a hotel either on the Ricoh site or nearby. Think they'll also need an airport and a train station to properly compete with the NEC."

Several local businesses were desperate for planning permission to be granted for a permanent passenger terminal at Coventry Airport, it got refused and it was a chance missed. Dunno what the plan is with the Ricoh Station. Is it still going ahead?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 2, 2013

torchomatic said:
The difference being we can’t help who takes us on. However, if the person who takes us on solely because they want to increase their property portfolio then it’s a bad idea. Similarly, it’s a bad idea if ACL only sell to a certain party because they promise to knock up a couple of hotels.

In either scenario, the club - the bit that is most important to us remember - is just an add-on. Like a few extra texts with your mobile contract.

“Sorry, we can’t get that new striker, because we have to retile all the bathrooms” in the Mutton Plaza Hotel.

The club wouldn't be just an extra bit if it was pulling in over 20,000 a week and with more money coming in on a weekly basis than the hotel or whatever else someone might wish to build. We all agree that the club needs access to money the stadium makes-if we want to benefit from all of it, and we do, then an owner who understands the best way to maximise such benefit is what we're after. The money going into the club from such a deal would make it in theory self reliant and capable of funding itself-that is what we want, isn't it?

Pkh (2 Viewers)

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

true sky blue

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New 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

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency