J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Sounds like SISU have a 40 year plan before investment shows any ROI?
I don't think so..
So where would we be better off (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
Sounds like SISU have a 40 year plan before investment shows any ROI?
I don't think so..
Bluegloucester
New Member
Do you honestly think our current owners will wait til a loan is repaid to get a return?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Do I believe this stadium will get built? No.
Bluegloucester
New Member
Then stop spouting crap
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
But it's a hypothetical question where owning your ground even though its more basic and smaller (RICOH is too big anyway) than the RICOH, is better than renting the RICOH.
Bluegloucester
New Member
At 400k pa it is cheaper at the Ricoh, we will lose a fortune just by moving out for three years. We will not get finance for the build, it's a non starter, hypothetical or otherwise. Unless we are given a stadium by the stadium fairy.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Again there is so much sentiment blocking peoples views here. It's not about sentiment but business sense.
I'm sorry to all of you who harp on about it's our club and they can't do that to us syndrome. Well I feel the same generally but the difference is I have to put that aside and think of the sustainability of the football club in the long term whoever owns them!
To that end currently we are a 3rd tier club and maybe a 2nd tier during the next few years at least baring any miraculous double season promotion charge! Unlikely to have that scenario from our standing start tbh. So a few years yet then before we see a sniff of the prem.
A 15,000 seat stadium is excellent at this level. We average somewhere around that on a good day at the Ricoh with the rest half empty.
Now factor in a stadium design that includes modules that increase the capacity 10k at a time in very quick fashion and you have the perfect stadium for where we are now and the future, when it happens.
Now a mortgaged loan on that debt to build the stadium (not getting into detail here) would be considerably less than the 1.3m in rent we pay to use the Ricoh.
The stadium would belong to the Sky Blues - a true home. ALL income including extra activities such as Rugby, concerts, conferencing, shops and further development on site such as hotels etc will bring in plenty of revenue for the football club in a way that ACL do with the Ricoh.
This would make the football club sustainable without doubt and increase revenue levels with each step up the leagues we make as we increase the stadium capacity and footfall. This I might add is all year round not 23 days of match day tickets! he difference is vast!
The stadium traffic and footfall would be no greater or less where proposed, than the Ricoh is. I remember so many saying the Ricoh was way out of town, its a disaster etc? Well not the case and would not be here either.
Now lets flip that a moment.
IF and it seems a big IF, the council finally wake up before being left with a potential white elephant on their hands, they can come to some sort of agreement with owners of the football club to have outright lease ownership of the Ricoh at a fair premium, then I see no reason whatsoever in the above aforementioned plan.
It really is that simple. Perhaps one day the football club will be super rich and buy the Ricoh freehold when the council see that maintenance and the rest of it are not worth taxpayers troubles. But for now a 99 year or so lease, with outright ownership of all income streams would be a perfect answer. The rent for this at market value would most likely be back around that 1.2m figure again but under a completely different scenario where the football club is now in control of all income to benefit the club.
That second option is the preferred option and best way forward for the city of Coventry and the council who own the Ricoh.
Lets be clear, the full lease granted would have caveats attached that would clarify the rights of the income streams to benefit the football club and not superficially benefit the owners of the football club. Crucial point there.
The only benefit written in on that lease benefitting the owners of the football club and the lease holder would be the right to have the lease transferrable. In aother words, saleable. Don't forget the owners would have paid a substantial premium for the lease and a market value rent.
Each time the sale of the club happened for example, the new owners take control of the lease as set out which will include that caveate that the income streams must all benefit the football club.
This brings me to wonder why we have ACL? There should be no place for them. They in this scenario are defunct and would be disbanded.
The council will continue to own the freehold and whatever incremental deal on annual rent they contracted in the lease, dependent on success of the communities football club. Hit the premier league, raised rent, sustained length in the premiership, raised rent etc but would have sensible caps so not to outstrip market value.
So finally we have as we know attempts at buying the club and as far as we know a 50% share in ACL. That is simply not sustainable for the football clubs future under current arrangements offered as we knew them. Haskell or anyone else knows there must be more than that down the road available or they would not take it on. The council may agree a future plan similar to what I outlined above but they could do that with anyone even SISU if they wanted too.
The council need to get their heads out of their backsides and come at this from a different perspective. They so far have misunderstood the ownership and meaning of a football club within their community, what it brings to a big city, what it means to the people of the city, those taxpayers and supporters.
Just wish everyone would stop dicking around and get something concrete laid down...and I preferably don't mean the new build!
End rant.
I'm sorry to all of you who harp on about it's our club and they can't do that to us syndrome. Well I feel the same generally but the difference is I have to put that aside and think of the sustainability of the football club in the long term whoever owns them!
To that end currently we are a 3rd tier club and maybe a 2nd tier during the next few years at least baring any miraculous double season promotion charge! Unlikely to have that scenario from our standing start tbh. So a few years yet then before we see a sniff of the prem.
A 15,000 seat stadium is excellent at this level. We average somewhere around that on a good day at the Ricoh with the rest half empty.
Now factor in a stadium design that includes modules that increase the capacity 10k at a time in very quick fashion and you have the perfect stadium for where we are now and the future, when it happens.
Now a mortgaged loan on that debt to build the stadium (not getting into detail here) would be considerably less than the 1.3m in rent we pay to use the Ricoh.
The stadium would belong to the Sky Blues - a true home. ALL income including extra activities such as Rugby, concerts, conferencing, shops and further development on site such as hotels etc will bring in plenty of revenue for the football club in a way that ACL do with the Ricoh.
This would make the football club sustainable without doubt and increase revenue levels with each step up the leagues we make as we increase the stadium capacity and footfall. This I might add is all year round not 23 days of match day tickets! he difference is vast!
The stadium traffic and footfall would be no greater or less where proposed, than the Ricoh is. I remember so many saying the Ricoh was way out of town, its a disaster etc? Well not the case and would not be here either.
Now lets flip that a moment.
IF and it seems a big IF, the council finally wake up before being left with a potential white elephant on their hands, they can come to some sort of agreement with owners of the football club to have outright lease ownership of the Ricoh at a fair premium, then I see no reason whatsoever in the above aforementioned plan.
It really is that simple. Perhaps one day the football club will be super rich and buy the Ricoh freehold when the council see that maintenance and the rest of it are not worth taxpayers troubles. But for now a 99 year or so lease, with outright ownership of all income streams would be a perfect answer. The rent for this at market value would most likely be back around that 1.2m figure again but under a completely different scenario where the football club is now in control of all income to benefit the club.
That second option is the preferred option and best way forward for the city of Coventry and the council who own the Ricoh.
Lets be clear, the full lease granted would have caveats attached that would clarify the rights of the income streams to benefit the football club and not superficially benefit the owners of the football club. Crucial point there.
The only benefit written in on that lease benefitting the owners of the football club and the lease holder would be the right to have the lease transferrable. In aother words, saleable. Don't forget the owners would have paid a substantial premium for the lease and a market value rent.
Each time the sale of the club happened for example, the new owners take control of the lease as set out which will include that caveate that the income streams must all benefit the football club.
This brings me to wonder why we have ACL? There should be no place for them. They in this scenario are defunct and would be disbanded.
The council will continue to own the freehold and whatever incremental deal on annual rent they contracted in the lease, dependent on success of the communities football club. Hit the premier league, raised rent, sustained length in the premiership, raised rent etc but would have sensible caps so not to outstrip market value.
So finally we have as we know attempts at buying the club and as far as we know a 50% share in ACL. That is simply not sustainable for the football clubs future under current arrangements offered as we knew them. Haskell or anyone else knows there must be more than that down the road available or they would not take it on. The council may agree a future plan similar to what I outlined above but they could do that with anyone even SISU if they wanted too.
The council need to get their heads out of their backsides and come at this from a different perspective. They so far have misunderstood the ownership and meaning of a football club within their community, what it brings to a big city, what it means to the people of the city, those taxpayers and supporters.
Just wish everyone would stop dicking around and get something concrete laid down...and I preferably don't mean the new build!
End rant.
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
100% No for so many reason.
15,000 NO Better than Ricoh NO 4 miles from centre but not in Coventry NO
Pointless
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Most peoples gripe with the Ricoh is that its not Highfield Road.
Well this new stadium will be even less like Highfield Road than the Ricoh.
Well this new stadium will be even less like Highfield Road than the Ricoh.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Its not given to us free, so depending on the loan interest it could be more than the Ricoh rent.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well under the original agreement which the club had to strike to force any reduction they would over a 30 year period has to pay £39 million In rental payments as well has having restricted income.
As for the capacity there is always an option to expand grounds if success comes. Reality is for 40 years the club has once managed 21,000 as an average. If demand did exceed supply that's no bad thing either and pricing policy would determine revenue is maintained.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Not long ago you or one of your SISU supporting buddies was moaning that £24M (CCC part) + £6M (Higgs part) to buy the Ricoh was unacceptable, but you are arguing that £30M to build a new stadium is a good plan... pull the other one!
Last edited by a moderator:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't have been buying the Ricoh they would have be buying ACL and the 42 year lease.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
42 years, LOL pound to a penny Joy & myself will have shuffled of this mortal coil by then, besides I'm sure after 25 years of operation the Arena would fall into the laps of the lease holders..
James Smith
Well-Known Member
The Emirates is a different kettle of fish entirely as it has (and the area already had) excellent public transport connections in London to both the tube and the rail network as well as buses. People don't generally travel by car they travel by public transport and that was always the plan (I know I looked at a flat near there).The Emirates works quite well for them!
SkyBlueHomer
New Member
Sorry if this has been raised before but not reading in depth through 16 pages.
Has anyone actually done a circular map online to see just how far it covers. For those who havent, it covers up to north Junc 3 M6, outskirts of Kenilworth & Ryton, almost as far a Combee Abbey & half way to Meriden on A45, don't get excited about City Centre grounds. I still think Ansty Park & seeing the space available when I drove past old Peugeot site there's plenty yet undeveloped (don't know if its spoken for though) are favorites for any new ground. The concern of mine assuming Ricoh survives without CCFC & this new ground is built how can we be any better off with income from just roughly 1 game every other week during the season, nothing out of season. TF was asked this last week but his response was I don't care about the Ricoh, not actually answering this question. We would then have 2 grounds in the Coventry area competing for business. The days of an income once every other week from football stadiums have long gone with the assoociated costs running a club now.
To those with more financial competence/accountants than I have would this actually be viable based on the repayments?
Has anyone actually done a circular map online to see just how far it covers. For those who havent, it covers up to north Junc 3 M6, outskirts of Kenilworth & Ryton, almost as far a Combee Abbey & half way to Meriden on A45, don't get excited about City Centre grounds. I still think Ansty Park & seeing the space available when I drove past old Peugeot site there's plenty yet undeveloped (don't know if its spoken for though) are favorites for any new ground. The concern of mine assuming Ricoh survives without CCFC & this new ground is built how can we be any better off with income from just roughly 1 game every other week during the season, nothing out of season. TF was asked this last week but his response was I don't care about the Ricoh, not actually answering this question. We would then have 2 grounds in the Coventry area competing for business. The days of an income once every other week from football stadiums have long gone with the assoociated costs running a club now.
To those with more financial competence/accountants than I have would this actually be viable based on the repayments?
Egbastons venture into the events industry to give it year round income has come at a cost of £32M. minimum.They also have signed a deal with Compass that Delivers a shared Income/Turnover of £10M. per an. whether this proves anything who knows .
James Smith
Well-Known Member
How do we know that ACL weren't prepared to negotiate on the rent, did SISU/ccfc ask them before embarking on the rent boycott?
I wonder if anyone actually knows the answer to this, because if they didn't talk to ACL then it does beg the question why not?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The club tried re negotiating the rent 3 months after moving in and the answer was no
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
I thought I'd read that there had been discussions and that a different model had ben offered (not sure whether formally or informally) whereby the rent varied dependant on which division we were in.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Why has Tim never mentioned this :facepalm: and do you have a source for that?
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
That was pre SISU and rejected by CCFC as they said they would come straight back up.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Sir Higgs proposed that well before Sisu took over and the club board rejected it. PWKH mentioned it, I'll try and find the post.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I thought.
I was replying to Grendel's comment that "the club tried negotiating the rent 3 months after moving in and the answer was no".
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's PWKH version. Geoffrey Robinson as I'm sure you are aware has given a very different account.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So the rent for Highfield road. (Nothing to do with ACL) was 900k a year.
This was used as the template for the Ricoh.
Also for the rent to rise and fall depending on attendances (rejected by the club)
This was used as the template for the Ricoh.
Also for the rent to rise and fall depending on attendances (rejected by the club)
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Where is Mr Robinson's very different account?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Geoffry Robinson may well have a different account but don't forget that he is liable for £¼ million as a rent guarantor http://www.football.co.uk/coventry_..._be_liable_in_ricoh_rent_row_rss3669211.shtml I'm not suggesting he has any ulterior motives in any of this, just that he could lose that amount if ACL decided to ask for it.Sky Blue Trust said:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Also don't forget the Mark Thomas show
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So the Highfield road rent was set on a commercial calculation and nothing to do with the sale?
Really, who did we pay it to then?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I thought it was to the developers who had bought Highfield Road and that was if memory serves Taylor Wimpey. Might be wrong though.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So in other words the rent set had nothing to do with commercial rental value but an arrangement with the purchaser who had already transferred a cash value to the club?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
No idea I'm afraid, don't know enough about it to be able to comment not sure if the details were ever made public.
Last edited:
