J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Sounds like SISU have a 40 year plan before investment shows any ROI?
I don't think so..
What maths when there aren't any figures to add up?!
If the club has lost c. 10m in renting the RICOH already, in less than 10 years, how is that sustainable? That's 10m we would've saved had we owned our stadium.
Owning or renting! Owning is more economically viable in the long term - 10, 20, 30 years, over some period of time owning your stadium become more economically viable than renting. That's what we all (should) want, a long term plan for a successful club.
If you think it's just about parking and F&B then you seriously don't have a clue.
That's why I said in the long term, when the mortgage is paid - I've explicitly said that.
Do you honestly think our current owners will wait til a loan is repaid to get a return?
Do I believe this stadium will get built? No.
Then stop spouting crap
Then stop spouting crap
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.
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 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%)?
Its not given to us free, so depending on the loan interest it could be more than the Ricoh rent.
Do I believe this stadium will get built? No.
Not long ago you or one of your SISU supporting buddies was moaning that £24M + £6M 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!
They wouldn't have been buying the Ricoh they would have be buying ACL and the 42 year lease.
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!
imp:
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?
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?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.
Does anyone know when we first approached ACL over the rent? Was it before or after we were relegated, was it before or after the rent boycott? We should have approached and negotiated with ACL before we were relegated letting them know that the rent was too high for the gates we were getting. Then when we were relegated ACL may well have been sympathetic to the fact that our gates would probably be lower in this league and agreed to better terms (that they could afford to offer).
This is of course all supposition but given ACL didn't kick us out (and haven't yet) or threaten Admin until we threatened to liquidate Ltd it seems reasonable. Oh and Tim did threaten to liquidate us by saying
Tim Fisher via The Guardian said:ACL have been robust in their external statements that they are not in negotiations with us anymore and that negotiations have stopped," Fisher said. "We are at a tipping point and insolvent liquidation cannot be reasonably avoided."They need to re-enter negotiations pronto or we file. We'll have no option because there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation. We entered the twilight zone on the 22 February [when ACL said negotiations were off] and the twilight zone will become the dead of night very soon unless negotiations are re-entered. We have to show our lawyers that negotiations are ongoing."
Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/11/coventry-city-administration-ricoh-arena 11 March 2013
and has stated on occasions that
Source: http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-new-stadium-after-departure-from-Ricoh-ArenaTim Fisher via Sky Sports said:“People have to understand we do not posture, we do not threaten, because that is not how you do business, you only do business in good faith. Always"
So therefore ACL had to take him at his word and the directors had to take steps to protect the business.
Rent negotiations are a part of normal business, rent boycotts are not. If you don't tell someone that something is wrong then how do they know?
So does anyone know when we first approached ACL over the rent?
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?
The club tried re negotiating the rent 3 months after moving in and the answer was no
The club tried re negotiating the rent 3 months after moving in and the answer was no
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.
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.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.
That was pre SISU and rejected by CCFC as they said they would come straight back up.
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.
Way back when, when McGinnity was Chairman, the late Sir Derek Higgs proposed a new rent structure. He was director of CCFC and ACL. His rent proposal was to have a base rent set for each League with increases linked to attendance. McGinnity and Hover, then Chief Executive of CCFC, rejected this outright as although there were reductions for Championship, League One etc, there would have been an increase in the base in the Premiership.
Robinson made some half-hearted attempts to open a discussion on rent but he too would not accept anything like the Higgs proposal. The important thing for ACL was to set up a structure that was sustainable, Robinson just wanted to set part of the rent aside until they could pay it one sunny day in the future.The advantage of the Higgs proposal was that there would have been a direct link to the Club's income.
That's PWKH version. Geoffrey Robinson as I'm sure you are aware has given a very different account.
That's PWKH version. Geoffrey Robinson as I'm sure you are aware has given a very different account.
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:6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.
CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations
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)
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?
I thought it was to the developers who had bought Highfield Road and that was if memory serves Taylor Wimpey.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?