So where would we be better off (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

I was going to post this in a thread from a comment by steveb50 but thought I would open it up as I think the theory behind the question is relevant to a lot of people's thought processes.

The question is;

If the football club could um August walk into a 15,000 stadium fully owned less than 4 miles from the city centre would that be better than staying at the Ricoh?

To me its 100% yes.

letsallsingtogether · Jun 1, 2013

Only if they Knock down the houses and rebuild HR :blue:

Grendel said:
I was going to post this in a thread from a comment by steveb50 but thought I would open it up as I think the theory behind the question is relevant to a lot of people's thought processes.

The question is;

If the football club could um August walk into a 15,000 stadium fully owned less than 4 miles from the city centre would that be better than staying at the Ricoh?

To me its 100% yes.

Bennosdancingfeet · Jun 1, 2013

Less than a mile from the city centre would be my ideal

wingy · Jun 1, 2013

Why 15000? Compare Apples with Apples for balance.

Flying Fokker · Jun 1, 2013

No from me. I get you points but the Ricoh is already there. The only solution is stay where we are. Work something out with the current owners and just get back to the football side of the club. We don't have that 15k stadium so reality has to kick in. Ricoh for me.

quinn1971 · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
I was going to post this in a thread from a comment by steveb50 but thought I would open it up as I think the theory behind the question is relevant to a lot of people's thought processes.

The question is;

If the football club could um August walk into a 15,000 stadium fully owned less than 4 miles from the city centre would that be better than staying at the Ricoh?

To me its 100% yes.

It's a no from me.at some point in the near future the club will own the ricoh.it has to.

SkyBlueBen · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
I was going to post this in a thread from a comment by steveb50 but thought I would open it up as I think the theory behind the question is relevant to a lot of people's thought processes.

The question is;

If the football club could um August walk into a 15,000 stadium fully owned less than 4 miles from the city centre would that be better than staying at the Ricoh?

To me its 100% yes.

How on earth will we get a "fully owned" football stadium? You presumably mean loaned or mortgaged? If we are to take on further debt I'd prefer it to be for The Ricoh where we would have ability to earn income more than 25 days a year.

Tonylinc · Jun 1, 2013

I can see the football club owning 100% of the Ricoh BUT not with the current owners.

sky blue john · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
I was going to post this in a thread from a comment by steveb50 but thought I would open it up as I think the theory behind the question is relevant to a lot of people's thought processes.

The question is;

If the football club could um August walk into a 15,000 stadium fully owned less than 4 miles from the city centre would that be better than staying at the Ricoh?

To me its 100% yes.

pointless as usual Grendel !!!

Steve.B50 · Jun 1, 2013

I cannot answer this as might be classes as me having an ulterior motive.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

Tonylinc said:
I can see the football club owning 100% of the Ricoh BUT not with the current owners.

You think the council will sell for a fair price to CCFC? Bearing in mind Cllor Maton said he doesn't want CCFC to own the RICOH, just one man's comments, but, it could be reflective of the mood of the council.

Bennets Afro · Jun 1, 2013

We wouldn't own the Ricoh Taylor. We would own the lease. We don't need to own the bricks and mortar with a long lease and full income which will happen one day

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlueBen said:
How on earth will we get a "fully owned" football stadium? You presumably mean loaned or mortgaged? If we are to take on further debt I'd prefer it to be for The Ricoh where we would have ability to earn income more than 25 days a year.

But we only earn off 23 days a year anyway, but minus the rent revenue we'd get off F&B, parking* etc. than at the RICOH, plus the rent we have to pay.

We'd still be able to hold conferences, would only be a small audience but we'd still get some money from it.

The question isn't whether we get a share in ACL, it's fully owned ground or rented ground - economically, a smaller, 100% owned grounding better than a 0% owned ground for 1.28 p/a with no revenue - completely unsustainable.

*I know there's an arrangement with ACL for this but it's an example of what we'd get if we moved.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

Bennets Afro said:
We wouldn't own the Ricoh Taylor. We would own the lease. We don't need to own the bricks and mortar with a long lease and full income which will happen one day

If we owned ACL we'd own the RICOH because ACL would probably be dissolved after.

oakey · Jun 1, 2013

You can follow the move if you want, SBTaylor. Most of our fans have already moved once and won't be doing so again.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

oakey said:
You can follow the move if you want, SBTaylor. Most of our fans have already moved once and won't be doing so again.

Where did I say I followed it? I just said it's more economically viable than renting...

I never said its more viable than buying a share in ACL, then maybe 100% one day in my lifetime off a stadium that is a goldmine (that's why rich people have considered investing in us, same for SISU as PH4, and Asian consortium, they want the land around it!) I just compared the 2 scenarios properly.

Economically, owning your home (in our case our stadium) is better than renting it in the long term.

Bennets Afro · Jun 1, 2013

ACL don't own the Ricoh only the lease.

Jim · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
If we owned ACL we'd own the RICOH because ACL would probably be dissolved after.

No we wouldn't. ACL don't own the Ricoh either, they lease the freehold.

SkyBlueBen · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
But we only earn off 23 days a year anyway, but minus the rent revenue we'd get off F&B, parking* etc. than at the RICOH, plus the rent we have to pay.

We'd still be able to hold conferences, would only be a small audience but we'd still get some money from it.

The question isn't whether we get a share in ACL, it's fully owned ground or rented ground - economically, a smaller, 100% owned grounding better than a 0% owned ground for 1.28 p/a with no revenue - completely unsustainable.

*I know there's an arrangement with ACL for this but it's an example of what we'd get if we moved.

I quoted 25 to allow for a couple of cup games! Probably more! My point is the ground wouldn't be "fully owned" Who is going to pay for this fantasy ground? There would still be loan repayments or interest or management fees! And the 1.28 figure is no longer relevant. Better offers have been made.

play_in_skyblue_stripes · Jun 1, 2013

To me 100% NO.

A 15 000 stadium is a joke an totally underestimating a city as one of the largest 10 in England and also proven top level pedigree.

A 15 000 capacity condems Coventry to being an also ran club wth no way back to ever being sustainable at top level. Being outside the city too and ground share is another matter entirely.

The new stadium at Rocoh was the way forward for the club away from Highfield Road. Just because the club has been ran so badly from Richardson and all and SISU does
make the original decision to leave HR wrong. With that capacity we would be someone like Swindon.

Coventry legitimally were in top flight for longer than anyone apart from Everton and Liverpool in 2001, EVERYONE remember that!!!!

So to your question ABSOLUTELY NOT! Ricoh is a great stadium just need to fans to turn up there and a FRESH start from all angles.

Jim · Jun 1, 2013

New owners would at the very least be able to negotiate a rent figure of £400k pa as this has effectively been set as MV by ACL in making the offer to SISU back in January. The £1.2m pa really needs to be forgotten about.

James Smith · Jun 1, 2013

The reason that the Ricoh is being improved both in physical and financial terms by ACL is so that our club can get year round income rather than just the matchdays. So no I'd be happier with us at the Ricoh where we have the potential to gain more once we own the lease and the associated revenues.

stupot07 · Jun 1, 2013

James Smith said:
The reason that the Ricoh is being improved both in physical and financial terms by ACL is so that our club can get year round income rather than just the matchdays. So no I'd be happier with us at the Ricoh where we have the potential to gain more once we own the lease and the associated revenues.

The club don't get any income from match days let alone from all year around. The club certainly isn't the reason for these improvements to the area complex.

oakey · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Where did I say I followed it? I just said it's more economically viable than renting...

I never said its more viable than buying a share in ACL, then maybe 100% one day in my lifetime off a stadium that is a goldmine (that's why rich people have considered investing in us, same for SISU as PH4, and Asian consortium, they want the land around it!) I just compared the 2 scenarios properly.

Economically, owning your home (in our case our stadium) is better than renting it in the long term.

Owning your own home rather than renting is not, necessarily better in the long term if,
1. The value of the property goes down
2. The interest on your loan is high but rental value is low.
3. You cannot sell the property you own.
4. You die before the long term is reached.
I could go on but you get my point.

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

play_in_skyblue_stripes said:
To me 100% NO.

A 15 000 stadium is a joke an totally underestimating a city as one of the largest 10 in England and also proven top level pedigree.

A 15 000 capacity condems Coventry to being an also ran club wth no way back to ever being sustainable at top level. Being outside the city too and ground share is another matter entirely.

The new stadium at Rocoh was the way forward for the club away from Highfield Road. Just because the club has been ran so badly from Richardson and all and SISU does
make the original decision to leave HR wrong. With that capacity we would be someone like Swindon.

Coventry legitimally were in top flight for longer than anyone apart from Everton and Liverpool in 2001, EVERYONE remember that!!!!

So to your question ABSOLUTELY NOT! Ricoh is a great stadium just need to fans to turn up there and a FRESH start from all angles.

You can't even get basic facts right. Everton Liverpool and arsenal I think you'll find.

Delboycov · Jun 1, 2013

You aspire to continue to be tin pot you more than likely stay tin pot...The potential of the club the size of ours warrants far more than a 15,000 stadium playing outside Coventry. It's a no from me....Mind you If we are stuck with these cowboys then they might as well build a 5,000 stadium as there will only be the ever decreasing band of sympathisers who will go.

James Smith · Jun 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
The club don't get any income from match days let alone from all year around. The club certainly isn't the reason for these improvements to the area complex.

So why are they making the improvements to the arena then?

PWKH said:
It always was, and is still, the hope that CCFC become owners of the Ricoh. CCFC under McGinnity and Robinson had that opportunity and could not take it because they did not have the money to buy back their share. Seppala, when she took over CCFC had that opportunity. She has tried to re-unite CCFC and the stadium by other means.

If, or when, the two are together the Club will have the best money making stadium in the country. No other stadium has the conference and banqueting facilities together with exhibition halls, now on two levels, plus hotel and casino surrounded by development land. There are no other 365 day a year stadiums with all those parts. Some have some, most have none: the Ricoh is the model for future stability in football.

This is the target outcome: CCFC in and part of the Ricoh.

Delboycov · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
You can't even get basic facts right. Everton Liverpool and arsenal I think you'll find.

In fairness Grendel that is the only thing he didn't get right....

Jack Griffin · Jun 2, 2013

No, the way forward is for CCFC to have responsible owners who want to take the club back to the Premiership and to do that they need a Premiership standard stadium, there is one in Coventry already.

Can you explain why you want the club to be a championship/league one yo yo club, that is what a 15K stadium would result in.

dadgad · Jun 2, 2013

Delboycov:
Beware the pedant.
Actually beware anyone who thinks that three years ground share in exchange for a 'ground' that is just pie in the sky.....for they are not of sound mind.

@richh87 · Jun 2, 2013

What a stupid thread. Is this fictitious 15,000 seater stadium coming free? Thought not. Just another 30mil worth of debt we can be saddled with while SISU cap the club's potential at 15k. It's a big fat NO from me, and a shake of the head that someone can be this stupid.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 2, 2013

@richh87 said:
What a stupid thread. Is this fictitious 15,000 seater stadium coming free? Thought not. Just another 30mil worth of debt we can be saddled with while SISU cap the club's potential at 15k. It's a big fat NO from me, and a shake of the head that someone can be this stupid.

How do we economically benefit from the RICOH whilst renting (purely renting it, nothing else) it?

Then, how would would that outweigh owning your own stadium (assuming we own 100%)?

SkyBlueUkeman · Jun 2, 2013

Oh Grendel... Grendel Grendel Grendel...

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 2, 2013

oakey said:
Owning your own home rather than renting is not, necessarily better in the long term if,
1. The value of the property goes down
2. The interest on your loan is high but rental value is low.
3. You cannot sell the property you own.
4. You die before the long term is reached.
I could go on but you get my point.

Good points, but, not relevant to my point because it would be a home you intend to keep for the your life, not what you'd develop before selling.

Delboycov · Jun 2, 2013

WE will never own anything under SISU...all we'll be doing with any new ground is increasing CCFC's (our) 'fantasy' debt to them...

So where would we be better off (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency