Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Yes totally agree and our pain would have been over by now as well!
Yes totally agree and our pain would have been over by now as well!Yes they raised ~£22M to complete the build and left ACL having to pay it off.
The £14M is what is left to repay from that original loan (more or less).
If they'd never done the 2003 deal then CCC wouldn't be sitting owning a stadium and acting as guarantors to that £14M debt today.
I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).
Les Reid is a hack
So when you research a point and you describe someone as a hack - is that a term for an award winning journalist? Or is Les Reid not an award winning journalist? Are there two Les Reids?
You are in overdrive today Schmeee. Are the paymasters at Town Hall getting a bit stressed? Never mind - it will be over soon and then you can get back to the day job.
Private eye also labelled him a hack....
I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).
Spoken like a True Citizen.
You've just lost the JR - i thought the bail out was to protect the asset?
Are you saying it was to protect a company?
Yes they raised ~£22M to complete the build and left ACL having to pay it off.
The £14M is what is left to repay from that original loan (more or less).
If they'd never done the 2003 deal then CCC wouldn't be sitting owning a stadium and acting as guarantors to that £14M debt today.
I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).
Yes they raised ~£22M to complete the build and left ACL having to pay it off.
The £14M is what is left to repay from that original loan (more or less).
If they'd never done the 2003 deal then CCC wouldn't be sitting owning a stadium and acting as guarantors to that £14M debt today.
I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).
Are any Northampton Borough Council taxpayers concerned at their money being invested in a football stadium?
http://www.northampton.gov.uk/news/article/1602/redevelopment_for_sixfields_stadium
Are Otium content in using a facility that is being built using public funds?
Yes they raised ~£22M to complete the build and left ACL having to pay it off.
The £14M is what is left to repay from that original loan (more or less).
If they'd never done the 2003 deal then CCC wouldn't be sitting owning a stadium and acting as guarantors to that £14M debt today.
I also think that AEHC should never have paid ~£6.5m to keep the club afloat.
If both AEHC & CCC had shown tough love and left CCFC to fend for itself then maybe the decks would have been cleared and we wouldn't be in such a mess as today (though clearly a few years of pain would have resulted).
Amount of times NBC have bailed out Sixfields complex....... Zero
I never said there was an issue about council building Ricoh. Loads of councils build stadia for their sporting team, and in the case of Sixfields it is a community asset owned by the council. The difference is that all the others make it work because there are sensible plans in terms of revenue streams, the council are not left out of pocket, but the sporting organisation also has the opportunity to develop and be sustainable.
That's why it didn't work in Coventry. That's why it will never work in Coventry until that balance is planned for and implemented properly.
I never said there was an issue about council building Ricoh. Loads of councils build stadia for their sporting team, and in the case of Sixfields it is a community asset owned by the council. The difference is that all the others make it work because there are sensible plans in terms of revenue streams, the council are not left out of pocket, but the sporting organisation also has the opportunity to develop and be sustainable.
That's why it didn't work in Coventry. That's why it will never work in Coventry until that balance is planned for and implemented properly.
One or two yes, (even though its at no cost to the taxpayer anyway) as the original plans mentioned there have been changed at the last minute. We aren't getting the 10,000 seater stadium Cardoza has been promising for all these years anymore. Were getting extra corporate boxes (that apparently overlook tgi friday). The council website obviously needs updating.Are any Northampton Borough Council taxpayers concerned at their money being invested in a football stadium?
http://www.northampton.gov.uk/news/article/1602/redevelopment_for_sixfields_stadium
Are Otium content in using a facility that is being built using public funds?
How does that work LT ,where do the funds come from and get paid back?One or two yes, (even though its at no cost to the taxpayer anyway) as the original plans mentioned there have been changed at the last minute. We aren't getting the 10,000 seater stadium Cardoza has been promising for all these years anymore. Were getting extra corporate boxes (that apparently overlook tgi friday). The council website obviously needs updating.
The club had access to the revenue streams via the half-share in ACL. The one that they had to sell to the AEHC because they were going bust.
The one that SISU didn't bother trying to buy back until years after they'd arrived on the scene, and even then on buy-now, pay-later terms. If it was so key to the club, why did it take them so long, one wonders.
Once again, forgive me, but it seems you're blaming the Council for the club's failures. The Council didn't force them to sell their share in ACL, or even stop them buying it back. Anyway, I'll lay off mate, you can come to your own conclusions...
I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of due diligence done initially - another SISU failing.
I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of due diligence done initially - another SISU failing.
From what I can work out the Council and club as a private company in a joint venture, apply for a loan from the Homes and Communities Agency. The club then pays the Council back the money by developing the land around sixfields for housing etc. The club will make money from their hotel/conference facilities/boxes/gym and offices and guess who owns the company thats got the contract to do the building work? David Cardoza.How does that work LT ,where do the funds come from and get paid back?
From what I can work out the Council and club as a private company in a joint venture, apply for a loan from the Homes and Communities Agency. The club then pays the Council back the money by developing the land around sixfields for housing etc. The club will make money from their hotel/conference facilities/boxes/gym and offices and guess who owns the company thats got the contract to do the building work? David Cardoza.
From what I've read on here (and am happy to be corrected) we've always had the option to buy back the share off the Higgs, the previous non Sisu board could have done it if they'd had the funds. The price was to be calculated by a formula that stopped either side from getting stuffed if the value rose or fell dramatically. I would guess that the price would have been cheaper when Sisu acquired us than it would be now, although that is a total guess. That was one of the reasons I was enthusiastic about Sisu coming in, I assumed they would buy back the share asap. Even to me as someone who knows very little about accounting/finance* cutting the costs and maximising the revenue seems like the obvious thing to do. The share would also have given us two seats on the ACL board and the ability to influence things at the Ricoh.I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of due diligence done initially - another SISU failing.
From what I've read on here (and am happy to be corrected) we've always had the option to buy back the share off the Higgs, the previous non Sisu board could have done it if they'd had the funds. The price was to be calculated by a formula that stopped either side from getting stuffed if the value rose or fell dramatically. I would guess that the price would have been cheaper when Sisu acquired us than it would be now, although that is a total guess. That was one of the reasons I was enthusiastic about Sisu coming in, I assumed they would buy back the share asap. Even to me as someone who knows very little about accounting/finance* cutting the costs and maximising the revenue seems like the obvious thing to do. The share would also have given us two seats on the ACL board and the ability to influence things at the Ricoh.
* until recently the only double entry I'd ever heard of was something you didn't discuss in polite company, not an accountancy term.
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?