Ricoh Arena 'very profitable' even without Sky Blues (3 Viewers)

lewys33 · Aug 7, 2013

How can people suddenly change allegiance and start arguing that the council/ACL are not doing enough to get CCFC back at the Ricoh. Have people really forgotten the whole story who the real enemy is here?? Im not going to claim ACL/council are angels because of course they are not. But offering them to play for free at the Ricoh - Why on earth would anyone do that?! They offered them the Ricoh for £150,000 a year ........ how is that not acceptable??

I also cannot see how the Ricoh is not profitable :S a basic look at things show that they made £1mill profit when Coventry paid "nearly" the full amount of £1.3mill rent. Now obviously they are not getting the rent, however there are now no costs for matchdays (there are none!) and the council has bought the mortgage and reduced the payments. So how can it not be profitable?

chiefdave · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
OK then. Have it your way. If they were so profitable why did they need a family member, i.e. the council to pay off their mortgage and reduce their outgoings?

That's not the same argument, if you're asking could ACL have survived financially based on their old mortgage and prior to their internal restructuring that's a totally different question to asking what their status is now. Given that their auditors were happy to sign off on the basis that there is an ongoing business (something none of the SISU companies have yet managed) you would think there isn't an issue.

Really how big of a profit they make isn't an issue, in fact in all honesty it's not really that big of an issue if they make a loss some years, many businesses do and it doesn't mean they're in crisis or about to shut down.

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

I don't want to believe they are in financial trouble, I just think they will be without Coventry City playing there every couple of weeks bringing in what 300K people through the doors. And yes, I believe SISU - or whoever happens to own the club - should be given a slice of the Ricoh. That is vital for ACL and CCFC. To say otherwise is either foolish or dishonest.

Finally, finances of ACL have "absolutely nothing to do with the viability of our club". Are you sure? I think they're vital personally.

njdlawyer said:
..

Are those on this thread that want to believe that ACL are in financial trouble of the view that the Ricoh should be handed over to SISU / Otium for nothing / knockdown price thus saddling us with an underperforming and antagonistic hedge fund as owners for the foreseeable future?

Good or bad the finances of ACL have absolutely nothing to do with the future viability of our club

chiefdave · Aug 7, 2013

lewys33 said:
I also cannot see how the Ricoh is not profitable :S a basic look at things show that they made £1mill profit when Coventry paid "nearly" the full amount of £1.3mill rent. Now obviously they are not getting the rent, however there are now no costs for matchdays (there are none!) and the council has bought the mortgage and reduced the payments. So how can it not be profitable?

And of course none of us knows what, if any, business they had to turn away as it couldn't be accommodated alongside CCFC. I imagine if you're running a business event you don't really want to run it when 10K football fans are wandering around.

The other thought is does the fact that the pitch is not being played on week in week out make it more attractive for other events such as Rugby Semis, U21 games etc. The pitch will be in perfect condition pretty much all year round and there would be no issues with teams having access for training days.

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

I was replying directly to another post.

chiefdave said:
That's not the same argument, if you're asking could ACL have survived financially based on their old mortgage and prior to their internal restructuring that's a totally different question to asking what their status is now. Given that their auditors were happy to sign off on the basis that there is an ongoing business (something none of the SISU companies have yet managed) you would think there isn't an issue.

Really how big of a profit they make isn't an issue, in fact in all honesty it's not really that big of an issue if they make a loss some years, many businesses do and it doesn't mean they're in crisis or about to shut down.

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

Still can't fathom why so many people desperately back the Council rather than their Club, but there you go.

Manchester_sky_blue · Aug 7, 2013

lewys33 said:
How can people suddenly change allegiance and start arguing that the council/ACL are not doing enough to get CCFC back at the Ricoh. Have people really forgotten the whole story who the real enemy is here?? Im not going to claim ACL/council are angels because of course they are not. But offering them to play for free at the Ricoh - Why on earth would anyone do that?! They offered them the Ricoh for £150,000 a year ........ how is that not acceptable??

I also cannot see how the Ricoh is not profitable :S a basic look at things show that they made £1mill profit when Coventry paid "nearly" the full amount of £1.3mill rent. Now obviously they are not getting the rent, however there are now no costs for matchdays (there are none!) and the council has bought the mortgage and reduced the payments. So how can it not be profitable?

SISU were paying the matchday costs, not ACL so thats not relevant. I think the crux of the problem is that the revenues from football paid the basic costs of the stadium so that the profits from concerts and other events went straight in the coffers. Now they are going to have to stage far more events to make their break even point which is difficult given the huge number of rival venues that exist in the midlands.

Nick · Aug 7, 2013

Would the Casino etc not want reduced rent without the football team? Look how much more trade they did on matchdays...

Manchester_sky_blue · Aug 7, 2013

Nick said:
Would the Casino etc not want reduced rent without the football team? Look how much more trade they did on matchdays...

Thats another very valid point. The hotel as well, im guessing it will see a downturn in footfall.

njdlawyer · Aug 7, 2013

theferret said:
Of course they do, and to argue otherwise is absurd, unless you subscribe to the view that ownership, or part ownership of the ground we play in, should not be on the agenda of either current or future owners of the football club.

You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone on here who doesn't argue that uniting the stadium and football club under single ownership is vital for the long term viability of CCFC, and to a lesser extent ACL (but that is unclear).

It is therefore very relevant; relevant to whether ACL choose to sell, and relevant to how much they sell for. I suspect that will not be to SISU, but seeing as our agenda seems to be to get rid of them, then surely we all hope that any new owners would sit down and have that conversation with ACL on day one.

You misunderstand

The critical point determining the future and future viability of CCFC is NOW and the finances of ACL are of no relevance to that. It is a pointless waste of time debating the comments of Cllr Lucas

You are right in that FUTURE owners of the club will want / need an interest in the home ground (although there are many more successful clubs than us who rent) but I am talking about the current owners and the present situation. ACL will not (and I think most people agree should not) be forced into handing over the the Ricoh to SISU. Likewise SISU will not buy into it. Therefore there is an impasse and the state of ACL's finances do not and will not alter that one iota

theferret · Aug 7, 2013

chiefdave said:
That's not the same argument, if you're asking could ACL have survived financially based on their old mortgage and prior to their internal restructuring that's a totally different question to asking what their status is now. Given that their auditors were happy to sign off on the basis that there is an ongoing business (something none of the SISU companies have yet managed) you would think there isn't an issue.

Really how big of a profit they make isn't an issue, in fact in all honesty it's not really that big of an issue if they make a loss some years, many businesses do and it doesn't mean they're in crisis or about to shut down.

I've never quite understood why people make such a big deal about the auditors signing off the accounts. It's nothing more than an educated guess. I'm pretty sure the likes of HMV, Woolworths, JJB and Comet had their accounts signed off by auditors at some point before going belly up, but belly up they went. Anyone can make a business plan look viable on paper. That isn't to say I don't think ACL is viable, just that the accounts being signed off isn't, on its own, as significant as some make out.

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

There's been rumblings from a few local businesses just lately too stating how much they'll lose. Doubling galling after NTFC said the groundshare would be "great" for businesses in NTFC and now Lucas saying the Ricoh will be profitable. Good for them what about all the local businesses in the areas they are apparently desperate to regenerate?

Nick said:
Would the Casino etc not want reduced rent without the football team? Look how much more trade they did on matchdays...

SIR ERNIE · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
Still can't fathom why so many people desperately back the Council rather than their Club, but there you go.

I think most people back 'the club' assuming 'the club' means the footballing entity. It's the owners that most people are against.

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

Yes, I get that Ernie, but many seem to back ACL over the "footballing entity". Don't get it.

theferret · Aug 7, 2013

njdlawyer said:
You misunderstand

The critical point determining the future and future viability of CCFC is NOW and the finances of ACL are of no relevance to that. It is a pointless waste of time debating the comments of Cllr Lucas

You are right in that FUTURE owners of the club will want / need an interest in the home ground (although there are many more successful clubs than us who rent) but I am talking about the current owners and the present situation. ACL will not (and I think most people agree should not) be forced into handing over the the Ricoh to SISU. Likewise SISU will not buy into it. Therefore there is an impasse and the state of ACL's finances do not and will not alter that one iota

If it is the case that ACL will not sell to SISU under any circumstances, then I take your point, but then pointless debates are what internet message boards exist for, so there is no harm in discussing these matters. Not only that, the absence of an anchor tenant at the Ricoh will undoubtedly impact upon ACL's finances to some extent, and thus is bound to play a part in the terms of any future agreement with new owners; so they do remain relevant if we're talking about the 'future viability' (your words) of the football club, even if we do accept there is no prospect of a buy out while SISU remain.

One other point, you say there are other clubs that rent who are more successful. Indeed, but none of those clubs (correct me if I'm wrong) have a deal that is structured in the way the ACL/CCFC deal was. Other clubs pay rent to OPERATE their stadiums and therefore are able to benefit from day to day commercial activities. Our rental deal allowed for simply limited use of that stadium on approximately 25 occasions a year. No other club (although I'm not altogether sure how the Swansea arrangement is structured) has a deal where they play second fiddle to a stadium management company who take all other revenues - instead they ARE the stadium management companies.

James Smith · Aug 7, 2013

Whether they are profitable or not the fact is we're homeless and ground sharing miles away from our home. If Joy really did say we won't be back in the Ricoh unless you sell the Freehold to me at my price then we're likely to be homeless for a while. If this wasn't the case surely she would have issued defamation claims by now, thought she liked going to court, as that really would be libel. And what was her price, a book of Green Shield Stamps and 20 Marlborough Lights? Or something reasonable?

I don't believe for a second that SISU have any intention of building the White Elephant stadium, and never did. What Tim said in the forums was that we'd see the plans in a few weeks, and yet we still haven't - I wonder why that is? Also even if they were intent on building the White Elephant why screw us under FFP by moving to Sixfields where we'll take far less in revenue than we would at the Ricoh?

They could have stayed at the Ricoh, taken the last offer which was on offer and still built the damned thing whilst we played on in Coventry. That reinforces my view that Sisu are only after the Ricoh and would explain why they've made no attempt to try and rebuild the trust that was destroyed last season with ACL and the council - just resorted to the courts (which has gone well).

skybluehugh · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
Still can't fathom why so many people desperately back the Council rather than their Club, but there you go.

It is not about not backing the club, it is not allowing the CURRENT owners of the club getting their grubby little mits on the Ricoh. I agree it would need looking at IF we get new owners. but let them come to an agreement with ACL/CCC

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

Well as it seems SISU own the club and don't seem to be going anywhere not letting CCFC get their "grubby mits" on the Ricoh will only mean one thing: playing in Northampton. Maybe for years.

Not worth it for me.

skybluehugh said:
It is not about not backing the club, it is not allowing the CURRENT owners of the club getting their grubby little mits on the Ricoh. I agree it would need looking at IF we get new owners. but let them come to an agreement with ACL/CCC

James Smith · Aug 7, 2013

theferret said:
If it is the case that ACL will not sell to SISU under any circumstances, then I take your point, but then pointless debates are what internet message boards exist for, so there is no harm in discussing these matters. Not only that, the absence of an anchor tenant at the Ricoh will undoubtedly impact upon ACL's finances to some extent, and thus is bound to play a part in the terms of any future agreement with new owners; so they do remain relevant if we're talking about the 'future viability' (your words) of the football club, even if we do accept there is no prospect of a buy out while SISU remain.

One other point, you say there are other clubs that rent who are more successful. Indeed, but none of those clubs (correct me if I'm wrong) have a deal that is structured in the way the ACL/CCFC deal was. Other clubs pay rent to OPERATE their stadiums and therefore are able to benefit from day to day commercial activities. Our rental deal allowed for simply limited use of that stadium on approximately 25 occasions a year. No other club (although I'm not altogether sure how the Swansea arrangement is structured) has a deal where they play second fiddle to a stadium management company who take all other revenues - instead they ARE the stadium management companies.

But we had the opportunity to become the stadium operators and chose not to take the offer up.

skybluehugh · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
Well as it seems SISU own the club and don't seem to be going anywhere not letting CCFC get their "grubby mits" on the Ricoh will only mean one thing: playing in Northampton. Maybe for years.

Not worth it for me.

we are already playing in NORTHAMTON.

James Smith · Aug 7, 2013

James Smith said:
Whether they are profitable or not the fact is we're homeless and ground sharing miles away from our home. If Joy really did say we won't be back in the Ricoh unless you sell the Freehold to me at my price then we're likely to be homeless for a while. If this wasn't the case surely she would have issued defamation claims by now, thought she liked going to court, as that really would be libel. And what was her price, a book of Green Shield Stamps and 20 Marlborough Lights? Or something reasonable?

I don't believe for a second that SISU have any intention of building the White Elephant stadium, and never did. What Tim said in the forums was that we'd see the plans in a few weeks, and yet we still haven't - I wonder why that is? Also even if they were intent on building the White Elephant why screw us under FFP by moving to Sixfields where we'll take far less in revenue than we would at the Ricoh?

They could have stayed at the Ricoh, taken the last offer which was on offer and still built the damned thing whilst we played on in Coventry. That reinforces my view that Sisu are only after the Ricoh and would explain why they've made no attempt to try and rebuild the trust that was destroyed last season with ACL and the council - just resorted to the courts (which has gone well).

I wonder if things will change after Sunday and we know how many people travelled to Sixfields.

Nsgdm1 · Aug 7, 2013

mrbluesky87 said:
The problem is we over analyse everything. It doesnt matter whether ACL can manage with ot without CCFC, the statement was a clear "we will not sell any precentage of the Ricoh to Otium" however when they have disappeared we will gladly speak to the new owners and if we dont believe they are fit and proper then the same applies"
At least the council do a fit and proper test.

torchomatic said:
There's been rumblings from a few local businesses just lately too stating how much they'll lose. Doubling galling after NTFC said the groundshare would be "great" for businesses in NTFC and now Lucas saying the Ricoh will be profitable. Good for them what about all the local businesses in the areas they are apparently desperate to regenerate?

Perhaps SISU could buy them out to access f&B revenues

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

skybluehugh said:
we are already playing in NORTHAMTON.

I know and they will stay there if they cant get hold if part of the arena.

Its a straight choice at the moment.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

mrbluesky87 · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
I know and they will stay there if they cant get hold if part of the arena.

Its a straight choice at the moment.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Stay in Northampton then. Sorry but if thats the choice.

Nsgdm1 · Aug 7, 2013

mrbluesky87 said:
The problem is we over analyse everything. It doesnt matter whether ACL can manage with ot without CCFC, the statement was a clear "we will not sell any precentage of the Ricoh to Otium" however when they have disappeared we will gladly speak to the new owners and if we dont believe they are fit and proper then the same applies"
At least the council do a fit and proper test.

torchomatic said:
Well as it seems SISU own the club and don't seem to be going anywhere not letting CCFC get their "grubby mits" on the Ricoh will only mean one thing: playing in Northampton. Maybe for years.

Not worth it for me.

Can we be clear it is not about CCFC getting their grubby mits on the Ricoh it is about SISU not getting their grubby mits on the Ricoh as I am sure different owners would bring different approach to negotiations ,this is not being pro ACL and anti CCFC but why can you not agree that the best way forward would be for SISU to go first

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

Nsgdm1 said:
Can we be clear it is not about CCFC getting their grubby mits on the Ricoh it is about SISU not getting their grubby mits on the Ricoh as I am sure different owners would bring different approach to negotiations ,this is not being pro ACL and anti CCFC but why can you not agree that the best way forward would be for SISU to go first

I absolutely DO agree that ideally SISU should go first but that's not likely is it?

So given what others have said about our owner's 'dirty mits', they would prefer us to play in Northampton rather than a sisu owned Ricoh.

Not me. As far as I'm concerned the playing at the Ricoh takes precedence over anything else.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Nsgdm1 · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
I absolutely DO agree that ideally SISU should go first but that's not likely is it?

So given what others have said about our owner's 'dirty mits' they would prefer us to play in Northampton rather thab a sisu owned Ricoh.

Not me. As far as I'm concerned the playing at the Ricoh taked precedence over anything else.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Perhaps they should toss a coin to see who wins ,but the loser would probably dispute it in court

skybluehugh · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
I absolutely DO agree that ideally SISU should go first but that's not likely is it?

So given what others have said about our owner's 'dirty mits' they would prefer us to play in Northampton rather thab a sisu owned Ricoh.

Not me. As far as I'm concerned the playing at the Ricoh taked precedence over anything else.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

They will show as much interest in the club when they own the arena as they have without it. NONE

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

skybluehugh said:
They will show as much interest in the club when they own the arena as they have without it. NONE

So we'll stay at northampton then. Your ideal solution as the Ricoh will be empty, but at least dirty mits free.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

GaryPendrysEyes · Aug 7, 2013

ACL file and publish accounts every year (there's a Coventry novelty!), so come back in 1 year and see what the profit was.

For now we should be FAR more concerned about what our owners Sisu are up to....

skybluehugh · Aug 7, 2013

It just beggars belief that after all these Hedge Fund BASTARDS have done to our club, people STILL feel we should just rollover and give these so called people the very thing they have been after all along. I am sorry I love my club as much as any genuine Sky Blues on this board (I do believe there on owner plants on here) but I would rather see the so called owners loss every penny they can in NT. That is the only way we are going to get rid of them and get OUR club back

torchomatic · Aug 7, 2013

We need to get back to Coventry whether Sisu are still here or not. That is the priority. YOUR way will ensure CCFC stay OUTSIDE the City for potentially years to come. One thing at a time; get back to the Ricoh THEN get rid of SISU.

The "genuine City fans" line is pathetic and cheap.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

deanocity3 · Aug 7, 2013

As some one of you might know I work at the Tesco Arena park,When city played the ricoh we would take somewhere in the region of £20,000 + extra than normal
so by not playing there it will affect the store, even though Tesco can afford it other businesses like pubs and clubs etc can't.
it could snowball down the line,with council losing out on rates,rents etc if these businesses folded.
They must do more to get us back there.

Grendel · Aug 7, 2013

skybluehugh said:
It just beggars belief that after all these Hedge Fund BASTARDS have done to our club, people STILL feel we should just rollover and give these so called people the very thing they have been after all along. I am sorry I love my club as much as any genuine Sky Blues on this board (I do believe there on owner plants on here) but I would rather see the so called owners loss every penny they can in NT. That is the only way we are going to get rid of them and get OUR club back

Are you the love child of CJ Parker by any chance?

skybluehugh · Aug 7, 2013

torchomatic said:
We need to get back to Coventry whether Sisu are still here or not. That is the priority. YOUR way will ensure CCFC stay OUTSIDE the City for potentially years to come. One thing at a time; get back to the Ricoh THEN get rid of SISU.

The "genuine City fans" line is pathetic and cheap.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

As I plainly said I will say again I do believe not all the posters on here have the good of the club in their hearts. people like yourself and I may disagree on what or how is best for the club but that is because we do care about what happens to it. It was in no way a dig at people who have supported the club since being kids or later. it is the ones on here who are on here trying to back up what their bosses want said or planted on this site. can you really tell me people like True Sky Blue are real CCFC fans.

Ricoh Arena 'very profitable' even without Sky Blues (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency