Ricoh Bid Rejected by Alan Higs charity (2 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

"The Charity does not have the substance necessary to be a long term strategic partner for the City Council, and the Trustees cannot tie all its funds up in the Ricoh. The Charity has completed its job at the Ricoh and now needs to move out of the way to allow a partner with greater investment strength to partner the City Council.

This is the bit I dont get if SISU offer what ever figure the charity want tomorrow. The charity will say yes. How does the charity know that SISU can then fund the club in the long term.

They offered the righ money for CCFC and promised to have us in the prem in 3 years. After 1 year they realised they did not have sufficient funds to achieve this."

What if they do the same again. Raise enough moeny to buy half the stadium with a plan to sell it in a year. However yet a again they get their plan wrong and we suffer.

Why do the charity say well that is up to the council to say if they are suitable partners or not.

Why dont the charity agree with the council and make it all simplier and say here is the asking price and the conditions you have to meet about future funding as agreed by us the seller and the council your future partner.

Go away and come back if you can meet both these conditions if you cant then forget it.

 

---

[CCFC123]

I wouldn't be pleasently surprised if the charity has the same attitude regarding SISU like the council has. Sisu cant be trusted and they wont be investing in CCFC.

SISU have cryed wolf once to often.

 

[dongonzalos]

the council and charity are completely separate entities .... each will have their own objectives and valuations in this. The Charity does not need to tell the council how much they will sell their shares for or the terms attached.

There is and has to be a process in this. It is pointless the Council wasting any time on this if the shares owned by the charity are not available to be sold or SISU cant make an acceptable offer.

When it gets to the council it isnt about Mr Mutton saying yes or no it will be done at a full council meeting - that is the right way to do it and takes time

I would far rather they take their time and get it right than rush it through and get it wrong, leaving the Ricoh vulnerable to SISU.

Time is not an issue for either the Charity or Council ........ it is for CCFC .......... why ? because it has taken its owners over 5 years to address the issue ...... yet they expect others to work to a deal in weeks ? It is not up to ACL, The Charity or Council to ensure the financial security of of CCFC (a private company) - yes they have a vested interest in a prosperous club but they have no control in it

I can kinda see your point and I know they are different entities.

However the Charity say they are not supposed to be here for the long term, so this was always going to happen at some point.

The valuation will always be a variable factor depending on the time that someone puts a bid in.

However the terms and conditions set by the council could be set right now.

As if it does not happen with SISU it is going to happen at somepoint as the charity do not want to be there long term.

So why instead of potential buyers coming in making test the water bids.

Why dont the council and the charity as current partners of the ricoh.
Sit down and bang out what conditions they would want any future buyer of the charity's shares to have.

Also whilst the council are at it they should bang out what conditions are required of any buyer of the wholee package as that will come up in the future as well.

Then the deal is written out with the variable factor as the valuation.

I know it sounds a bit neieve but would this not be a faster process than SISU trying to negiotiate with 2 groups and them putting in offers to be accepted or rejected.

Instead we are telling them what we want and they can say of they can ever realsitically achieve it or not.

The council wont be wasting their time as this will be needed sometime in the future anyway.

Also by doing this we really will for once know what SISU can and cant do.

Also anyone who is considering buying out SISU or considering picking up the peices if SISU put the club into liquidation. Will know what they will need to come up with to do business with the charity and the council.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry OSB it is very rare that I disagree with you but read this quote from the charity itself

"The role of the Charity was to save the project from extinction as CCFC had failed at every stage to come up with the money. It was always recognised by the City Council and the Charity that the Football Club was a vital part of Coventry, but neither could provide the level of investment in the way necessary to assist in saving a poorly managed Football Club"

Now I appreciate if there was not also the fact by saving the football club you also get regeneration into the north of the city it would not have happened.
However I also feel if it was another project that was going down the pan that did not mean ensuring that Coventry had a football club then the charity may not have got involved. As the city having a football club is very important factor to any big city.
It makes your city recognisable especially if the team is in the premiership. Man City and Man utd do wonders for Manchester. Manchester has moved into the second biggest tourist location in the UK. This is been largely attributed to the fame of the two football clubs.
Not that CCFC is particuarly helping Coventry at the moment

but the project was to build the stadium complex ...... it was not to support the football club in the sense of it playing..... even when ccfc started the stadium it was more than just building a football ground, see the council minutes regarding the objectives of the project it was those that the charity bought into.

The deal that SISU want is all about ensuring the club continues to play and first and foremost that they recover their investors loans, it has nothing to do with regeneration - they are being forced into that.

of course the charity and council recognise the importance of the club to the city - that does not mean they can risk or continue to risk charitable or public monies on it. Right now their investment is wholly invested in the venue - it always has been. Right now CCFC is not a positive to the stadium.... it is if anything somewhat of a black spot almost embarrassment to it....... that despite the efforts and hoops that the Charity ACL and Council have gone through to support the club.

That statement does not over ride the legal objectives of the Charity which pre date any involvement in the stadium by about 25 years. The charity could only get involved if the investment matched those objectives, and i would guess there were plenty of hoops to jump through to be able to do it (Charities Commission, HMRC, Trustees etc). This was always going to be a short term investment by the Charity, and the project had to provide much more than a football stadium for them to get it signed off

The Charity & Council always took the view that in providing the Ricoh they were providing much more than a football stadium for CCFC and something much greater than that for the city. So it has proven

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Looks like shitsu have there excuse for relegation and not investing in the squad this season all ready made for them.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think the Council have made their criteria very clear...... they want a partner that can provide finance to develop the area further and continue regular investment. They have made it clear that ACL is not about to be stripped of income to support a loss making club. THey have made it clear that the football business must be viable and properly funded. They have made it clear that there will be no payment of dividends until the loans are paid off. They have made it clear they wont allow the Stadium to be put at risk by SISU or other owner. All of this is public knowledge available to SISU or any other third party.

It seems to me it is up to SISU or any other investor to match up or shut up

Doesnt look like they are delaying much to be honest ...... but the process has to be followed because council & government regs require it ....... and it cant happen until a separate deal is concluded with the Charity. What the Charity sells for or the terms is nothing to do with the Council and the price does not require their approval..... they have to approve who though and the terms of their involvement

But we all know there have been joint talks dongonzalos ........... they have discussed this with SISU/CCFC many times........... so they know the terms the rest is fine print

 

[dongonzalos]

Fair comment

 

[ashbyjan]

I think the bottom line in all the negotiations is that even if the Higgs Trusts price and conditions are met convincing the council that SISU are a company they can trust, do business with and also have the finance and intention to invest in the regeneration of that area is unlikely. The council has a commitment to the regeneration of the complex and the creation of jobs etc and whoever they partner with in ACL must also have that aim and on their past track record and simply the type of company they are (hedge fund - in/out as quickly as possible slashing and burning for a profit) the idea that they will suddenly become long term investors and property developers is hard to believe. Yes the council knows the club is important to the city in general but their priority is to the whole city and its residents and the thought of some company coming in and ruining this whole complex is unthinkable and certainly no vote winner.

I really believe that SISU's only interest in buying the Higgs half of ACL is that it actually gives them something worthwhile to sell as the club certainly is not, no assets and tickets and training ground mortgaged.

 

[CCFC123]

I think the bottom line in all the negotiations is that even if the Higgs Trusts price and conditions are met convincing the council that SISU are a company they can trust, do business with and also have the finance and intention to invest in the regeneration of that area is unlikely. The council has a commitment to the regeneration of the complex and the creation of jobs etc and whoever they partner with in ACL must also have that aim and on their past track record and simply the type of company they are (hedge fund - in/out as quickly as possible slashing and burning for a profit) the idea that they will suddenly become long term investors and property developers is hard to believe. Yes the council knows the club is important to the city in general but their priority is to the whole city and its residents and the thought of some company coming in and ruining this whole complex is unthinkable and certainly no vote winner.

I really believe that SISU's only interest in buying the Higgs half of ACL is that it actually gives them something worthwhile to sell as the club certainly is not, no assets and tickets and training ground mortgaged.

Agreed. The council and ACL will all have been talking behind the scenes and come to a obvious decision that they dont trust SISU. They (SISU) lie, lie,lie,lie,lie and lie even more. Everytime they make a statement its a lie.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

The game of chess reaches its endgame.

The white team has the following pieces:

King: The Ricoh Arena
Queen: ACL - a well-run, profitable business with the scope to expand
Rook: Coventry City Council which has a 50% stake in ACL, as well as owning the freehold on The Ricoh Arena, and the ability to veto any undesirable buyers of ACL
Knight: the Higgs Charity which also has a 50% stake in ACL

The black team has two pieces:

King: SISU
Pawn: Coventry City Football Club - the Black King doesn't really care about its pawn, as we have witnessed over the last four to five years. It's real aim is to seize ultimate control of the White King.......








The game must reach a conclusion soon - I know who I'm backing.

 

[gally9]

I dont like the sound of this at all

 

[mexico88]

Where do you start to answer this?

Let's just note that the one fact you quote is nonsense - 18k average attendance in 1967/68 - I have to assume that the whole thing is a wind-up.

My bad - I just took a guess. However, not my point at all... My point was just based around filling a ground with fans in order to pay for a successful team - it wasn't supposed to be a factual history lesson. Yawn.

Here's the facts for you to run through and anal-ize in your spare time. 18-19,000 is typically the average historical attendance for ccfc - dropping to as low as 10,000 in 1980. Just to make you aware, the more people that buy a ticket and merchandise - the more 'revenue' comes in to build a successful business. It's really quite simple.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/aveeng70.htm

69/70 32,000
70/71 26,000
71/72 23,000
72/73 24,000
73/74 23,000
74/75 19,000
75/76 19,000

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

I think the bottom line in all the negotiations is that even if the Higgs Trusts price and conditions are met convincing the council that SISU are a company they can trust, do business with and also have the finance and intention to invest in the regeneration of that area is unlikely. The council has a commitment to the regeneration of the complex and the creation of jobs etc and whoever they partner with in ACL must also have that aim and on their past track record and simply the type of company they are (hedge fund - in/out as quickly as possible slashing and burning for a profit) the idea that they will suddenly become long term investors and property developers is hard to believe. Yes the council knows the club is important to the city in general but their priority is to the whole city and its residents and the thought of some company coming in and ruining this whole complex is unthinkable and certainly no vote winner.

I really believe that SISU's only interest in buying the Higgs half of ACL is that it actually gives them something worthwhile to sell as the club certainly is not, no assets and tickets and training ground mortgaged.

OR...when you are in a hole, keep digging yourself in, deeper and deeper! There really is nothing worse than a sore loser who doesn't play by the rules. In Scam's Chess game, they'd be moving every piece like it was a Queen & would use magnets to stop the clock on their turn!

 

[ashbyjan]

The speed SISU are digging at we will be playing in the Hyundai A-League against Perth Glory etc

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

My bad - I just took a guess. However, not my point at all... My point was just based around filling a ground with fans in order to pay for a successful team - it wasn't supposed to be a factual history lesson. Yawn.

Here's the facts for you to run through and anal-ize in your spare time. 18-19,000 is typically the average historical attendance for ccfc - dropping to as low as 10,000 in 1980. Just to make you aware, the more people that buy a ticket and merchandise - the more 'revenue' comes in to build a successful business. It's really quite simple.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/aveeng70.htm

69/70 32,000
70/71 26,000
71/72 23,000
72/73 24,000
73/74 23,000
74/75 19,000
75/76 19,000

Can't be bothered with the figures, but if you look at the years SISU have been here, attendances have been in steady year-on-year decline from the early 20,000's. Their original stated aim was very much "speculate to accumulate"-you won't make money with a Championship football club, you need to spend money and get on that Premiership Gravy Train. By investing in good players, you get better attendances as the team gets better and more successful. People always say "well, it's chicken and egg, isn't it? What comes first, investment to attract the fans, or fans to attract the investors"? Well I don't think I've known a case in the modern era where a side started with a big fan-base and then gained success: Chelsea & Man City are mid-table top flight clubs, if that, in terms of pre-success/investment fanbase. Fulham L1/L2. Wigan L2-BSP: they were getting 4,000 in the old Division 4 before Whelan!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

The speed SISU are digging at we will be playing in the Hyundai A-League against Perth Glory etc

Honestly, my Aussie mates would laugh at us considering ourselves so good!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The game of chess reaches its endgame.

The white team has the following pieces:

King: The Ricoh Arena
Queen: ACL - a well-run, profitable business with the scope to expand
Rook: Coventry City Council which has a 50% stake in ACL, as well as owning the freehold on The Ricoh Arena, and the ability to veto any undesirable buyers of ACL
Knight: the Higgs Charity which also has a 50% stake in ACL

The black team has two pieces:

King: SISU
Pawn: Coventry City Football Club - the Black King doesn't really care about its pawn, as we have witnessed over the last four to five years. It's real aim is to seize ultimate control of the White King.......








The game must reach a conclusion soon - I know who I'm backing.

The king can't win unless its pawn gets promoted, but with the pawn under a transfer embargo and short on players, this seems unlikely. imp:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

The king can't win unless its pawn gets promoted, but with the pawn under a transfer embargo and short on players, this seems unlikely. imp:

Black has a lot of other pieces on the table, including a Steel Queen, but these pieces are invisible.

 

[dongonzalos]

Very good analogy. However you missed a bit where the black team points at an imaginary object then whilst the white teams head is turned they move the pieces around.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

My bad - I just took a guess. However, not my point at all... My point was just based around filling a ground with fans in order to pay for a successful team - it wasn't supposed to be a factual history lesson. Yawn.

Here's the facts for you to run through and anal-ize in your spare time. 18-19,000 is typically the average historical attendance for ccfc - dropping to as low as 10,000 in 1980. Just to make you aware, the more people that buy a ticket and merchandise - the more 'revenue' comes in to build a successful business. It's really quite simple.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/aveeng70.htm

69/70 32,000
70/71 26,000
71/72 23,000
72/73 24,000
73/74 23,000
74/75 19,000
75/76 19,000

You just took a guess - and got it so wrong as to be embarressing for most people

And then you miss the point - by miles.....

The crowds in 67/68 were way above your "guess", because the club was successful then. The crowds have fallen since because we have been unusually unsuccessful.

"Just to make you aware", the more successful the team, the higher the crowds. "It's really quite simple."

Personally I'm not convinced that selling all the best players generally leads to success. I think it's more likely to lead to smaller crowds. :facepalm:

 

[Sub]

You just took a guess - and got it so wrong as to be embarressing for most people

And then you miss the point - by miles.....

The crowds in 67/68 were way above your "guess", because the club was successful then. The crowds have fallen since because we have been unusually unsuccessful.

"Just to make you aware", the more successful the team, the higher the crowds. "It's really quite simple."

Personally I'm not convinced that selling all the best players generally leads to success. I think it's more likely to lead to smaller crowds. :facepalm:

i dont know how you can say that DTD :thinking about::thinking about: according to orange ken and various SISU puppet directors, the team with the smallest wages budget and smallest transfer budget and least investment in the team and sell all thier best players and do not replace them do well and dont get relegated and get bigger crowds ointlaugh::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

[mexico88]

You just took a guess - and got it so wrong as to be embarressing for most people

And then you miss the point - by miles.....

The crowds in 67/68 were way above your "guess", because the club was successful then. The crowds have fallen since because we have been unusually unsuccessful.

"Just to make you aware", the more successful the team, the higher the crowds. "It's really quite simple."

Personally I'm not convinced that selling all the best players generally leads to success. I think it's more likely to lead to smaller crowds. :facepalm:

Dude, you're not getting this are you?

I'm wasnt justifying attendances, nor explaining them. I'm just saying that the more tickets we sell, the more money the club receives and therefore doesn't have to sell its players to keep its head above water. It's too late for SISU, hence me saying we have to learn something from this as fans moving forward and always get behind the team and stop being fickle.

If you want to keep looking at the attendances and statistics, feel free, I'm sure your wife will find other things to do.

I'll see you down the ground when we start being successful - as it's clear that you think you only need to support the team when it's winning. Good example for the kids by the way!

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Dude, you're not getting this are you?

I'm wasnt justifying attendances, nor explaining them. I'm just saying that the more tickets we sell, the more money the club receives and therefore doesn't have to sell its players to keep its head above water. It's too late for SISU, hence me saying we have to learn something from this as fans moving forward and always get behind the team and stop being fickle.

If you want to keep looking at the attendances and statistics, feel free, I'm sure your wife will find other things to do.

I'll see you down the ground when we start being successful - as it's clear that you think you only need to support the team when it's winning. Good example for the kids by the way!

I originally posted against your comment because I thought your response to Jan was more than a little disrespectful to someone who's actually trying to do some good for the club (in addition to being arrogant, poorly argued and of course inaccurate).

I suppose it would probably have been easier to say - if you post like a tw@t, expect to be treated as one.

As for "not getting it" - I can only bow to your expertese in that matter .

Oh, and if you want to start comparing length of support and years of season tickets purchased, feel free.

 

[mexico88]

I originally posted against your comment because I thought your response to Jan was more than a little disrespectful to someone who's actually trying to do some good for the club (in addition to being arrogant, poorly argued and of course inaccurate).

I suppose it would probably have been easier to say - if you post like a tw@t, expect to be treated as one.

As for "not getting it" - I can only bow to your expertese in that matter .

Oh, and if you want to start comparing length of support and years of season tickets purchased, feel free.

OK you're still not getting it.

The only thing you and I could ever possibly have to compare is the size of penis on head.

YOU WIN!

I bow to you my friend...

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

OK you're still not getting it.

The only thing you and I could ever possibly have to compare is the size of penis on head.

YOU WIN!

I bow to you my friend...

Case proven m'lud

 

[skyblueinBaku]

I think you've said it there - the goal you've set is too high. In my opinion, it's not time to back the trust.

Even if you were a credible alternative - I wouldn't want you responsible for the safeguarding of the football club while it makes transition. That's not a personal jab - I would want someone highly skilled in business/sports affairs, not a team of passionate amateurs. Groups and organisations like the trust seem to 'get in the way' in these kind of circumstances. I do however love your enthusiasm and respect that.

I keep trying to help you out here... your efforts (and the trust) would be much more useful (and appreciated) if you spent the same efforts revising your a goal of finding a new buyer for the club. I for one would back you all the way and even give you time and effort. Perhaps setting some objectives and an action plan for individuals to follow for finding such a buyer.

Mexico. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and Noah was an amateur.

 

[IrishSkyBlue]

what i cant understand with sisu id their losing 500k a month yet still wanna play dodge ball with buying staduim and prob make more loss but cant put that 10mill into accounts and singings, i think officially we have number 1 cunts of owners in the english leagues :jerkit:

 

[mexico88]

Mexico. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and Noah was an amateur.

Hahaha. But Noah had the guidance of God - and God is a villa fan.

Is that blasphemy?

 

[Tank Top]

The thought of SISU/Finance, getting "one"of thier tacky little fingers on a part share of the RICOH, makes my Stomach Churn.
why do some posters, still think, that after all the broken pledges by sisu/finance, that it will be our salvation, in the form of extra revenue streams, for the improvement of the squad.
does anyone really imagine that this will be the case.
SISU/Finance, have not, at any stage since their Takeover, expressed any interest, or desire to rebuild CCFC to its former status, on the contrary, they have allowed us to nose dive into the third division of English Football, without any attempt to prevent it.
There can be little doubt, that SISU would love a stake in the Ricoh, if they can beg it, but not for the betterment of the football club, but to enrich the bank accounts of the Investors.
I pray to God, that every attempt by sisu/finance, to buy a share of the stadium is solidly BlackBalled, by the Higgs trust, and that the "Imposters" SISU/ finance,remain unloved, and totally unwanted by the fans of this football Club.
The comment, has been made that SiSu don't give a damn, about us getting relegated, in fact it probably suits their budget that we did, But do we really need this Kind of mind set, at the Helm of our Football Club.