Questions and 'Answers' (1 Viewer)

[TheRoyalScam]

Here's a copy of the Sky Blues Trust's 'Questions and Answers' e-mail I received today:

Questions and answers about talks on a return for CCFC to the Ricoh Arena
In early December 2013, there were numerous conflicting statements reported in the press about a possible return by Coventry City Football Club to play at the Ricoh Arena. Of course, all supporters of the Club would welcome that but the various claims and counter-claims left everyone confused and, sadly, still in the dark as to what, exactly, was and is going on.
To try to clarify the position, The Sky Blue Trust, on 3 December 2013, wrote to ACL, Coventry City Council, Otium/CCFC and the Football League, asking a number of questions of each. We have now received replies from three of the four organisations and a partial comment from Otium/CCFC. The questions asked and replies rec ives are all set out below:

ACL
Q1. Have you ever asked the Football League to broker rental talks with Otium Entertainment Group Ltd? If so, when?
A1. ACL has never requested the Football League to broker rental talks with OEG.
Q2. Did ACL ever provide proposals for the Football League to put to Otium Entertainment Group that included a rent free period for the 2013/14 season?
A2. On 5 November 2013, ACL directly handed to Shaun Harvey CEO of the Football League, an offer letter for the Directors of Otium Entertainment Group, which was accepted by the Football League. Mr Harvey later confirmed he had passed the offer letter to Otium’s Directors. The offer provided for a rent free period commencing 1 January 2014, to the end of the 13/14 season.

Q3. What period did those proposals cover?
A3. The proposals covered the period commencing 1 January 2014 to the end of the 13/14 season, and extended to the entire 14/15 and 15/16 seasons.
Q4. Did the proposals conveyed to the Football League include any rights to match day incomes? If not, could these match day incomes be purchased by the club at extra cost?
A4. The proposals did not include any match day revenues given the rental levels offered. A previous deal including match-day revenues was rejected by the clubearlier in the year. Any purchasing of revenues would be subject to discussion by ACL/Compass and the IECE JV, which ACL owns 77%.
Q5. What do match day expenses cover? Please define the costs involved?
A5. Match-day costs include, contributions towards the groundsman ( previously employed by the club and now by ACL), the pitch treatments, the equipment to maintain the pitch, a contribution towards match-day utilities, hygiene, maintenance staff, waste disposal, statutory compliance, match-day stadium safety and control room management. The proposal excluded police, West Midlands Ambulance, St Johns Ambulance, medical personnel, ticketing staff, stewards as these remain an obligation of the football club, which has always been the case, and would be a requirement at any other venue. Costs for the remainder of 13/14 season would equate to £8,470 per match and for 14/15 and 15/16 seasons £12,316 per match.
Q6. Are you prepared to discuss with CCFC a new rental deal at the Ricoh Arena even on a short term basis?
A6. The tenure of the proposal is defined as short term, as it covers 2.5 years. We would be receptive to considering longer term arrangements, subject to appropriate financial guarantees.
Q7. Have you placed any time limits on the possibility of discussions?
A7. ACL have not imposed any time limits, however ACL continue to secure contracts for the use of the pitch for the remainder of this season and from August 2014 onwards. In mid November the Football League advised Otium to respond directly to ACL regarding the offer made on 5 November, as of 6 December ACL had not received a response.The Football League have also advised that OEG have stated, “for the first time in over a decade Otium feel that the destiny of the club as a commercial/sustainable entity is in their own hands, which has a value to them that surpasses the lost revenues they suffer playing in Northampton.”
Coventry City Council
Q1. Has the council ever made any rental proposals to CCFC, Otium Entertainment Group or SISU?
A1. Rent is an issue between ACl and CCFC/Otium. You will be aware already of the various offers that ACL has made.
Q2. Have the council excluded any potential option to settle the dispute?
A2. No. Many options of course would require the consent of the other shareholder.
Q3. Has the freehold interest in the Ricoh Arena site ever been valued by the Council?
A3. Not as far as I am aware, certainly not in the last few years.
Q4. Are the Council prepared to discuss further with CCFC & ACL the return of the club to the City?
A4. Yes.
Q5. Has the Council estimated the loss of revenue to the local economy of CCFC playing outside the City? If so what is the estimate?
A5. No.

The Football League
Questions
1. Were the Football League ever asked to broker talks between CCFC/Otium and ACL?
2. Who asked the Football League to broker talks and when?
3. Did the Football League receive proposals from ACL that included an immediate return to the Ricoh Arena on a rent free basis this season?
4. Were the ACL proposals (including rent free period) put to Otium/CCFC by the Football League?
5. If so, who from the Football League put the proposals to Otium/CCFC?
6. To whom at Otium/CCFC were the proposal put and when?
7. Did Otium/CCFC reject those proposals?
8. If so, what reasons did CCFC give for the rejection?
Answer

As you know, The Football League have made it a condition of continued membership for Coventry City that the Club must return to Coventry.
Throughout the dispute between SISU/Otium and ACL, The Football League has actively encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences so that we can get the club playing back in Coventry sooner rather than later for the good of the Club, its supporters and the wider community. Therefore to answer your first two questions we took this
initiative ourselves and did not need to be asked. Ultimately, if there has been an offer from one of the parties to the other, I believe it is a matter for them to comment upon rather than The Football League. You will be aware how fraught this relationship has been without us adding to that tension.
CCFC/Otium
Questions
1. Have you ever received proposals from the Football League for them to broker talks with ACL on a rental deal of any kind?
2. If so, did the Football League proposed talks include any offer from ACL of a rent free period?
3. If so, did you inform the Football League that you rejected the proposal for talks and any rental offer? If so on what basis did you reject those proposals?
4. What is the business case that makes remaining at Sixfields more viable than even a short term return to the Ricoh?
5. In addition to the rent paid at Sixfields, does CCFC pay match day costs?
6. What, if any, match day revenue does CCFC receive whilst at Sixfields?
7. Please define clearly the reasons why the only solution is for CCFC to own the freehold of its stadium? Surely, it is income streams that are of prime importance to the football club? That doesn’t necessarily mean freehold ownership as such receipts could be secured under a leasehold arrangement.
8. Are you willing to look at anything other than freehold ownership?
9. Will Otium Entertainment Group Limited, its directors or owners enter into any discussions with ACL regarding rental agreements?
Answers
Tim Fisher declined to answer the questions. However the following note was added to the minutes of the Supporters Consultation Group meeting on 4 December 2013:
Additional Note added post meeting following clarification from Tim Fisher.Can you add clarity to the ‘Free’ Offer from ACL?
ACL are mixing match day costs and rent. At Northampton, Rent includes; all stadium related first team match day services including pitch maintenance, utilities, refuse collection and covers the following facilities - the pitch, the stadium, the stadium seating, the changing rooms, hospitality suites and banqueting areas, match day staff facilities, media facilities.
The stadium also provide all catering staff, all grounds men. The licensee (the club) separately provide stewards, crowd doctor, crowd ambulance, player ambulance.
The ACL proposal comprised a license fee of per match plus match day costs, defined as charges to maintain and manage pitch, utilities, waste, hygiene, match day stadium maintenance salaries, statutory service contracts. The total is north of 12K per match. This is, of course, rent/facility fee.
What is the financial justification of playing at Northampton?
The original rationale and premise for Sixfields was the ensuring an ability to fulfil our fixtures. Without this the club would have catastrophically failed. The rationale for Northampton is not financially driven in the short term. Any return to the Ricoh on an interim rental deal would be very difficult. Notwithstanding, the improper purpose, the un-connected creditor put down the club for a mere 200K monies owed - caused a 20 point loss and threatened the club's very existence.
6 January 2014

 

---

[gally9]

Just read through the email myself.. so bloody confusing, but paints ACL etc in the corner of the good i think.. More tit for tat.. bloody sick of it

 

[grego_gee]

FL: "Ultimately, if there has been an offer from one of the parties to the other, I believe it is a matter for them to comment upon rather than The Football League. You will be aware how fraught this relationship has been without us adding to that tension."

A very sensitive comment - one that the trust would do well to note and emulate!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

So in a summary then Tim Fisher wouldn't answer any of the questions - Not a surprise.

The Football League chose not to give any answers in the fear of getting mixed up in the situation - Again not a surprise.

The Council have never had the Freehold valued, but they also haven't even estimated the loss of CCFC not playing in Coventry has on the local economy.

ACL have stated about their rental offers, but it has been said by Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala the Club will not return under a tenancy agreement.

All in all, a waste of fucking time and nothing new to see.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

A very sensitive comment - one that the trust would do well to note and emulate!

Agree 100% Grego.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

A very sensitive comment - one that the trust would do well to note and emulate!

Perhaps your comments should be directed at Mr Fisher given the final paragraph of his comments.

 

[AndreasB]

"Please define clearly the reasons why the only solution is for CCFC to own the freehold of its stadium? Surely, it is income streams that are of prime importance to the football club? That doesn’t necessarily mean freehold ownership as such receipts could be secured under a leasehold arrangement."

Trust cant even ask a question without introducing pejoritive editorialising. Sisu are not going to answer your questions anymore and you know why. So why bother?

 

[sky_blue_up_north]

The most interesting statement statement is from the the FL:
As you know, The Football League have made it a condition of continued membership for Coventry City that the Club must return to Coventry.

Note its says return to Coventry, no just outside or anywhere else.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

"Please define clearly the reasons why the only solution is for CCFC to own the freehold of its stadium? Surely, it is income streams that are of prime importance to the football club? That doesn’t necessarily mean freehold ownership as such receipts could be secured under a leasehold arrangement."

Trust cant even ask a question without introducing pejoritive editorialising. Sisu are not going to answer your questions anymore and you know why. So why bother?

Why do you consider that to be perjorative?

Mr Fisher has frequently stated that the only viable model (my paraphrase) is freehold ownership.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why this is so and to point out that "additional income streams" which have frequently been referenced in similar contexts could equally be accessed via an appropriate leasehold arrangement.

 

[bigfatronssba]

"Please define clearly the reasons why the only solution is for CCFC to own the freehold of its stadium? Surely, it is income streams that are of prime importance to the football club? That doesn’t necessarily mean freehold ownership as such receipts could be secured under a leasehold arrangement."

Trust cant even ask a question without introducing pejoritive editorialising. Sisu are not going to answer your questions anymore and you know why. So why bother?

That question should keep being asked until it is answered.

If you have faith in Mr Fishers view, then please answer the question yourself.

 

[The Gentleman]

Perhaps your comments should be directed at Mr Fisher given the final paragraph of his comments.

Mr Fisher cannot answers questions at this time, he is desperately trying to finish building the new stadium design out of all the Lego he got for Christmas in time for the forum on the 9th Jan.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Why do you consider that to be perjorative?

Mr Fisher has frequently stated that the only viable model (my paraphrase) is freehold ownership.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why this is so and to point out that "additional income streams" which have frequently been referenced in similar contexts could equally be accessed via an appropriate leasehold arrangement.

That question should keep being asked until it is answered.

If you have faith in Mr Fishers view, then please answer the question yourself.

Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala have both previously stated that they want to maximise the stadium's revenue streams, which they feel the Club should be receiving, now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue, they want a venue that can help achieve this in the same way that ACL are trying to maximise their revenue streams at the Ricoh now that the Club isn't playing there.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala have both previously stated that they want to maximise the stadium's revenue streams, which they feel the Club should be receiving, now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue, they want a venue that can help achieve this in the same way that ACL are trying to maximise their revenue streams at the Ricoh now that the Club isn't playing there.

I can completely understand that stance, but it's the logical leap that this "must/can only" be achieved through freehold ownership that I have yet to see explained.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala have both previously stated that they want to maximise the stadium's revenue streams, which they feel the Club should be receiving, now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue, they want a venue that can help achieve this in the same way that ACL are trying to maximise their revenue streams at the Ricoh now that the Club isn't playing there.

That still doesn't answer the question.

 

[The Gentleman]

Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala have both previously stated that they want to maximise the stadium's revenue streams, which they feel the Club should be receiving, now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue, they want a venue that can help achieve this in the same way that ACL are trying to maximise their revenue streams at the Ricoh now that the Club isn't playing there.

If that is the case, what other revenue streams would you think they are taking about then ?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I can completely understand that stance, but it's the logical leap that this "must/can only" be achieved through freehold ownership that I have yet to see explained.

It's obvious with respect to the Ricoh that to own the Freehold, Sisu want a number of things,

1. To have all the revenues that the owning the Freehold of the Arena can bring.
2. Cut ACL out the picture.
3. Dependant to play with the figures as they (Sisu) such please.

 

[chiefdave]

I think it's a worthwhile exercise. At the very least some of the things mentioned in recent weeks are now there in black and white. In the event of either side distorting from these facts we now have this to refer back to. To me it paints both ACL and CCC in a better light than SISU. They have been prepared to answer the questions in a seemingly honest and open manner, the FL have predictible hidden away trying not to get any blame for anything and SISU wouldn't even respond!

Looking at Fishers quotes from the meeting minutes the following stand out for me:

ACL are mixing match day costs and rent.

Not sure they are, I think he is the one getting mixed up. ACL are clearly saying here is a rent offer and here are the match day costs. They may well be included in the rent at Sixfields but does he really think they are getting them for nothing or is it just the case that Northampton have factored them into the rent? To use everyone's favourite house analogy you would pay more rent for a house where it included bills than one where it didn't. You're paying the same overall just in a different manner. Of course matchday costs at the Ricoh will be higher, that's just common sense given that the attendances will be ten times that of Sixfields.

Any return to the Ricoh on an interim rental deal would be very difficult.

This seems to be a SISU favourite, state something as fact without any reasoning behind it. Why would it be difficult? Even if they were tied in for this season say we're coming back next year and will take you up on your short term rent deal while we build the new ground. You only have to have the most basic grasp on maths to see this would leave the club better off by millions. To state the move to Northampton is not financial when they whole thing supposedly started over a bit of pie money is astounding. To me this just further shows SISU do not want a reasonable deal. SISU complained there wasn't a short term deal offer being made by ACL, one is made and they reject it! This has been the same pattern all along, SISU ask for something, ACL offer it, SISU say that wasn't actually what we wanted we want this as well and round in a circle we go.

Notwithstanding, the improper purpose, the un-connected creditor put down the club for a mere 200K monies owed - caused a 20 point loss and threatened the club's very existence.

Or alternatively the club could have paid the 'mere 200K' and admin would never have been an option. Besides which it was SISU who actually put us into admin hence why we ended up with Appleton as administrator.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

If that is the case, what other revenue streams would you think they are taking about then ?

With respect to the Ricoh I think they want it all, the hotel, the casino, the conference centre.. All of it.

 

[lamtara2006]

ACL and CCC were both prepared to answer questions put on behalf of Fans by the Sky Blue Trust, even the FL answered within limits. 'Tim Fisher declined to answer questions.' Once again, Otium / Sisu demonstrate the lack of respect that they have for supporters.

 

[chiefdave]

1. To have all the revenues that the owning the Freehold of the Arena can bring.

Ownership of the freehold brings zero revenue until ACLs lease is up for renewal which is something like 40 years off. To get the revenues you need the leasehold which is currently ownered by ACL. Of course we had an option to buy 50% of that back which SISU never exercised instead putting an offer in to Higgs that despite being below the formula value was accepted only for SISU to never follow through. Hence why Higgs are taking action to recover legal costs from SISU.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

It's obvious with respect to the Ricoh that to own the Freehold, Sisu want a number of things,

1. To have all the revenues that the owning the Freehold of the Arena can bring.
2. Cut ACL out the picture.
3. Dependant to play with the figures as they (Sisu) such please.

1&2 could be achieved by a leasehold agreement.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 3.

 

[kmj5000]

A very sensitive comment - one that the trust would do well to note and emulate!

But OTIUM have declined to comment and continue to keep everyone in the dark!

They didn't even have the courtesy to respond to the rent offer from ACL, despite being asked to do so by the FL.

 

[bigfatronssba]

It's obvious with respect to the Ricoh that to own the Freehold, Sisu want a number of things,

1. To have all the revenues that the owning the Freehold of the Arena can bring.
2. Cut ACL out the picture.
3. Dependant to play with the figures as they (Sisu) such please.

With regard to point 1, can you please state what revenues the freeholder gets that the leaseholder doesn't?

 

[lordsummerisle]

I thought this was going to be a Sham 69 thread.

Don't have as many of those on here as I'd like.

 

[sky blue john]

I don't understand what Fisher is moaning about for the sake of twenty points they saved 200k and managed to break the lease agreement ?????

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I thought this was going to be a Sham 69 thread.

Don't have as many of those on here as I'd like.

We have quite a few that end up as Shambles.

I guess it's not really the same thing..........

 

[RoboCCFC90]

1&2 could be achieved by a leasehold agreement.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 3.

As previously said the leasehold has a 40 year life on it, would ACL sell it, is there's to sell?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

As previously said the leasehold has a 40 year life on it, would ACL sell it, is there's to sell?

Well if ACL and their lease remained in place unchanged, what would be the point of owning the freehold?

 

[chiefdave]

As previously said the leasehold has a 40 year life on it, would ACL sell it, is there's to sell?

ACL wouldn't sell the lease you would purchase ACL.

Well Higgs agreed to sell their 50% to SISU but SISU never followed through on the deal. That would have surely been a good place to start. SISU have never made an offer to purchase the councils half of ACL outright.

If you think the lease ownership will stay with ACL (under it's current ownership) then the only benefit to SISU of owning the freehold is that they can use it to secure debt against, it will bring nothing in revenue for many years.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Well if ACL and their lease remained in place unchanged, what would be the point of owning the freehold?

Fair point.

 

[thaiskyblue]

I thought this was going to be a Sham 69 thread.

Don't have as many of those on here as I'd like.

what like, "tell us the truth ", that would be a good start.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

If a deal were to be done for the Ricoh, there would appear to be 3 possibilities:

1. A short term deal, pretty much along the lines proposed by ACL. This would allow SISU to benefit from increased revenues and would also massively reduce the risk of alienating a large part of the customer base (also known as "fans"). On CWR some time ago Mr Labovitz (excuse spelling) pretty much ruled this out as he said that this would put the business at risk (my paraphrase). He did not offer any serious explanation for this statement.

2. Purchase the freehold and ACL. As previously noted there is no short term point in purchasing the freehold if ACL remains in its current form.

3. Agree a new leasehold arrangement and as part of that deal, effectively buy out ACL. The new arrangement could then be drawn up to give access to all revenue streams.

If 1 is ruled out by SISU, we are left with 2 or 3 or a five (?) year stay in Northampton.

Personally, I believe that the last option would be a disaster for the club. So could 2 or 3 happen?

I think that a leasehold deal would be more likely than a freehold sale, which is why I worry when statements along the lines that only a freehold deal would be viable are accepted without question.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

RoboCCFC90...Tim Fisher and Joy Seppala have both previously stated that they want to maximise the stadium's revenue streams, which they feel the Club should be receiving,........ (now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue,)......................................................................................................Ermmmmm, I think you'll find that's EXACTLY what Fisher and Sepalla were whining about!

 

[chiefdave]

now I am sure they are not saying it's all about the pie money and parking revenue

What else are they taking about then? If you look at the artists impression of the proposed stadium it doesn't look like there's space for a conferernce centre or casino or anything else for that matter so it can't be those revenues they need. Given the lower capacity it would be highly unlikley they would attract stadium shows away from the likes of the Ricoh and Villa Park so it can't be them, what else is there?

 

[sky blue john]

If its outside Coventry what are they looking to do blead the 1500 season ticket holders dry once every two weeks ????
How much is that likely to be worth ????