Ricoh (1 Viewer)

[Sba180]

Right, we pretty much know that joyless has crashed in and told ACL tgat she wants the arena with no negotiations on price. What we dont know but is a fair punt is that SISU are trying to distress ACL to pick up the arena cheaply.
So, why dont ACL turn round and say to SISU "you want the arena, no negotiation, here's our price, take it or leave it?"

 

---

[stupot07]

Right, we pretty much know that joyless has crashed in and told ACL tgat she wants the arena with no negotiations on price. What we dont know but is a fair punt is that SISU are trying to distress ACL to pick up the arena cheaply.
So, why dont ACL turn round and say to SISU "you want the arena, no negotiation, here's our price, take it or leave it?"

That is a FACT, ACL said so.

 

[Flying Fokker]

It's only leasehold so should not be a major issue. £50 million plus should do it.

 

[skybluetony176]

if shitsu are serious why don't they make their bid public?

i suspect that it is probably that ridiculous they will be laughed out of Coventry.

 

[RFC]

Prefer the atmosphere at Sixfields, much, much better than the Ricoh and the players are responding accordingly IMHO!
PUSB - PUSB - PUSB - PUSB

 

[NorthernWisdom]

if shitsu are serious why don't they make their bid public?

What bid?

Nobody's actually talking to each other to negotiate anything, so there is no bid as far as I can see.

 

[italiahorse]

It would be nice if both sides put their cards on the table so we can see who is the villain is. I think I know who it is but it's difficult to be 100% sure.

 

[skybluetony176]

What bid?

Nobody's actually talking to each other to negotiate anything, so there is no bid as far as I can see.

So if shitsu haven't bid then why have they taken the team away from Coventry, they were eventually offered a reasonable rent offer (and yes it was too late) either they want the club to have its own ground or they don't. their is a perfectly good ground already built in the city which you say they haven't bid for, all the sites they have talked about either the councils or owners have said they have had no contact from the club or anyone representing the club with the exception of Brandon, which is never going to happen as they will never get the change of use approved, so it all just bullshit.

get em out and stay out

 

[NorthernWisdom]

they were eventually offered a reasonable rent offer

They weren't.

One side being in the wrong unfortunately hasn't stopped the other side playing silly PR games.

 

[Sba180]

That is a FACT, ACL said so.

Actually timmy said it didn't he?

Do you know what? Im asking a question and your sarcasm is uncalled for .... PAL

 

[stupot07]

Actually timmy said it didn't he?

Do you know what? Im asking a question and your sarcasm is uncalled for .... PAL

No don't think timmy fishface said it. I apologise for my sarcasm.

 

[Nick]

It would be nice if both sides put their cards on the table so we can see who is the villain is. I think I know who it is but it's difficult to be 100% sure.

Exactly, that would really screw the other over if they went to the press and said "this is what we want to offer" so it is all out in the open.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Exactly, that would really screw the other over if they went to the press and said "this is what we want to offer" so it is all out in the open.

Would it though?

tbh, do you know what a football stadium's worth? I don't!

not like they come along often on the market, and even then there's often an 'ah, but' to follow.

Ultimately a stadium's only worth what someone's prepared to pay, and what someone's prepared to sell for... which of course is why we're here in the first place, as both sides try to shift those figures to their advantage!

 

[shmmeee]

They weren't.

One side being in the wrong unfortunately hasn't stopped the other side playing silly PR games.

Says you

Whatever the offer was (even if it was no offer) it's better financially for the club than moving to Northampton.

Lets be honest, the right way to do this is to start distressing ACL AFTER your stadium is ready, not before you've even thought about it.

 

[Spionkop]

skybluetony, agree with you. Just one point. Re Brandon. The council have had NO contact whatsoever from Sisu. This from a councillor's mouth.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Says you

Whatever the offer was (even if it was no offer) it's better financially for the club than moving to Northampton.

Lets be honest, the right way to do this is to start distressing ACL AFTER your stadium is ready, not before you've even thought about it.

But then they might just notice a stadium going up somewhere else, unless SISU employ some *really* good landscapers

 

[shmmeee]

Would it though?

tbh, do you know what a football stadium's worth? I don't!

not like they come along often on the market, and even then there's often an 'ah, but' to follow.

Ultimately a stadium's only worth what someone's prepared to pay, and what someone's prepared to sell for... which of course is why we're here in the first place, as both sides try to shift those figures to their advantage!

The value of Higgs share is what was agreed years ago. If they don't want to pay it and don't want to pay the rent and want to take their ball and go home that's fine, but make sure you have a place to stay before storming out of your mums shouting that you hate her.

 

[shmmeee]

But then they might just notice a stadium going up somewhere else, unless SISU employ some *really* good landscapers

So what? We're off anyway. If of course this is all about the club not being able to afford to play at the Ricoh without owning it and not just a negotiating tactic that rips the club to shreds in the process.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

No one in their right mind would offer a failed and unethical business (Sisu) a key Coventry asset (the Ricoh). CCC know it would be a disaster.
That is compounded by the fact Sisu wont negotiate in any case, they want the Ricoh on a low price, non-negotiable basis.

 

[theferret]

The value of Higgs share is what was agreed years ago. If they don't want to pay it and don't want to pay the rent and want to take their ball and go home that's fine, but make sure you have a place to stay before storming out of your mums shouting that you hate her.

They offered that money, it was agreed to and signed by all parties. The council walked away, thus the 'option' to buy the Higgs share was denied them. What should they have done after that? Just interested to know what you would have done after having the rug pulled from under your feet like that?

 

[skybluetony176]

skybluetony, agree with you. Just one point. Re Brandon. The council have had NO contact whatsoever from Sisu. This from a councillor's mouth.

follow the link, its down at the bottom of the story when it starts talking about planning permission


http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/speedway-stay-brandon-despite-coventry-5325534

 

[NorthernWisdom]

So what? We're off anyway. If of course this is all about the club not being able to afford to play at the Ricoh without owning it and not just a negotiating tactic that rips the club to shreds in the process.

In terms of, do you think ACL would have said no no, just rip up the contract and move into your rival stadium?

Somehow I don't necessarily think building a stadium in the vicinity would have gone any more smoothly.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The value of Higgs share is what was agreed years ago. If they don't want to pay it and don't want to pay the rent and want to take their ball and go home that's fine, but make sure you have a place to stay before storming out of your mums shouting that you hate her.

a) the value of the Higgs share wasn't agreed years ago, a formula to determine the value was agreed... and also a formula to determine the value of half of ACL.

b) That could also be vetoed by the council. It would (have been/be) nice if somebody had got a definitive answer out of the council as to whether or not they would have vetoed any deal (I must find that quote btw. Give me an hour of very boringly reading various peoples' posts, as it's not coming up on the search);

c) I'm really not convinced half a stadium management company is a great deal. Never have been, even from when it was planned to be built (was agaionst the club signing over the rights to it at the time, seen nothing yet to suggest I was wrong!). Seems I'm not alone in that either, as Ranson decided the option wasn't worth taking up. I find the whole concept of football club not owning football stadiumn rather incongruous tbh. It works in other countries, but in this country there's far more a culture of ownership that teams depend on.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

They offered that money, it was agreed to and signed by all parties.

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that it never got so far as any kind of firm offers.

 

[theferret]

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that it never got so far as any kind of firm offers.

Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:

"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."

"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."

"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

 

[NorthernWisdom]

We're back to he said, she said though aren't we?

 

[NorthernWisdom]

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

Also, as per t'other thread (or this one? Utterly lost!) not really convinced this is a particularly helpful solution for the club anyway, so a little surprised if Fisher was advocating this...

Edit: Was this thread, just a mere couple of posts above...ointlaugh:

Point remains it's a curious paradigm shift from the club...

 

[shmmeee]

They offered that money, it was agreed to and signed by all parties. The council walked away, thus the 'option' to buy the Higgs share was denied them. What should they have done after that? Just interested to know what you would have done after having the rug pulled from under your feet like that?

Woah woah woah. You're conflating the talks with Higgs (that Sisu walked away from) with the talks with the Council to distress ACL.

The Council have never had an opinion on the Higgs shares as the deal didn't get far enough to require their approval. Granted it would've needed it, but I get the impression at the time CCC were happy to sell shares in ACL but not give total control, hence the breakdown.

Edit: to answer your question: Id have the good grace and business sense to know I gambled and it didn't pay off and to go back to the original plan of buying into ACL rather than trying to get the totality.

My complete guess is what turned CCC off the 100% ACL deal was some sign it would give Sisu an in on the freehold or at least a better legal position to do things the council didn't agree with.

 

[Spionkop]

Skybluetony, thanks for the link. It does confirm. No contact with Warwickshire at all. Cheers.

 

[theferret]

We're back to he said, she said though aren't we?

Indeed. But it is amazing how many people are unaware of this, especially as it has been SISU's biggest gripe the whole time. It many respects, the dispute started then, and what we have seen since is SISU throw their toys so far out of the cot they are half way to Mars by now. SISU were clearly enraged by that and the gloves have been off ever since. Since this non-deal lies at the very heart of the whole dispute, it would be nice if ACL commented on it and put it to bed. Why wasn't that deal good enough for them? What deal would they have accepted? Is there no prospect of this ever being revisited?

If they are saying they will never sell to SISU on any terms (I'm talking management company not freehold), then how do we realistically expect the club to return? I am convinced SISU would rather the whole thing come crashing down than pay a penny more in rent.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

it would be nice if ACL commented on it

Please God, no more statements!

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Businesses deal with signed contracts (like the rental contract), which are defined and agreed in writing. The rest is he said/she said flim flam.

But if you are looking at who to TRUST I will go with an accountable Coventry Council (especailly when there are cross party decisions) and a well established Coventry charity- rather than a shady Cayman centred hedge fund, with an owner we have never seen, who doesnt pay rent or file accounts, and who plays the system in ways that are not obviously to the clubs benefit (70m debt springs to mind).

 

[shmmeee]

a) the value of the Higgs share wasn't agreed years ago, a formula to determine the value was agreed... and also a formula to determine the value of half of ACL.

b) That could also be vetoed by the council. It would (have been/be) nice if somebody had got a definitive answer out of the council as to whether or not they would have vetoed any deal (I must find that quote btw. Give me an hour of very boringly reading various peoples' posts, as it's not coming up on the search);

c) I'm really not convinced half a stadium management company is a great deal. Never have been, even from when it was planned to be built (was agaionst the club signing over the rights to it at the time, seen nothing yet to suggest I was wrong!). Seems I'm not alone in that either, as Ranson decided the option wasn't worth taking up. I find the whole concept of football club not owning football stadiumn rather incongruous tbh. It works in other countries, but in this country there's far more a culture of ownership that teams depend on.

The Higgs formula was £6.5m plus an amount based on how long Higgs had held the share so the sooner they bought it the better.

You may be right about the 50% share, though I'm not convinced we'd be any better off with 100% of a smaller venue either.

Fisher claims that the club went cold on Higgs because they couldn't agree rent, but that makes no sense. Firstly how would the council offer better ret and secondly how would an outgoing partner have an influence on the rent the business charges.

For me they went to the council because they thought they could bypass the Higgs formula and get it cheaper (essentially free). Nice try but the council didn't go for it. Swallow or pride and move on.

At the back of all this is the slight worry were just not sustainable as a club, in which case put us down cos I don't want to hang around for years watching it die on life support.

 

[simple_simon]

Prefer the atmosphere at Sixfields, much, much better than the Ricoh and the players are responding accordingly IMHO!
PUSB - PUSB - PUSB - PUSB

Much more atmosphere on the hill.

 

[theferret]

Woah woah woah. You're conflating the talks with Higgs (that Sisu walked away from) with the talks with the Council to distress ACL.

The Council have never had an opinion on the Higgs shares as the deal didn't get far enough to require their approval. Granted it would've needed it, but I get the impression at the time CCC were happy to sell shares in ACL but not give total control, hence the breakdown.

Edit: to answer your question: Id have the good grace and business sense to know I gambled and it didn't pay off and to go back to the original plan of buying into ACL rather than trying to get the totality.

My complete guess is what turned CCC off the 100% ACL deal was some sign it would give Sisu an in on the freehold or at least a better legal position to do things the council didn't agree with.

It was 50% of ACL - which 50% has not been made clear, but I suspect it was probably a buy out of the council owned stake which was valued at £14 million in effect. I'm not sure how they were trying to distress ACL - the bank were about for foreclose and they offered to settle the mortgage in full. Seems a fair offer to me?