So you need another ground ........ Rotherham did it (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

Lets be clear from the start I am not posting this in support of TF's hair brain scheme..... Our club should be playing at the Ricoh. Keep CCFC in Coventry .... end of!

Thought it would be interesting to post a few details relating to the most recent case where a club moved out and built a new ground though

Rotherham used to be at Millmoor. They got in to trouble when to pay £3m debts off they sold the ground to rent back at £200k per annum. Also sold the training ground and rented off doncaster. After going into administration twice and in dispute with the landlord, they had to leave Millmoor for temporary use of the Don Valley Stadium whilst New York Stadium was built with a capacity of 12021 at a cost of £20m. Part of that cost £5m was paid for by a Council keen to keep the Club in its town. The Don Valley Stadium was less than 5 miles from the old Millmoor Ground

The key thing to this is to look at how the Football League viewed the situation.

taken from the Rotherham United Official site ........

A new Chairman, and farewell to Millmoor

On 6 August, just three days before the start of the season, the Football League threatened to block Rotherham (as well as Bournemouth) from participating in League Two for the 2008-09 season, because the club had not yet exited administration or completed the process of transferring ownership. The Football League ruled that accepting the 17-point deduction would be a condition the team must obey to be eligible to play, which was accepted.

In addition, Rotherham United were forced to leave Millmoor, their home of over 100 years, after disputes with the landlords. Being further into debt, Rotherham also sold their training ground at Hooten Roberts and now train at Doncaster Rovers' Keepmoat Stadium renting out one of their pitches.

This led to further complications after the Football League demanded a £750,000 bond for the team to play outside of the Town's boundaries for a maximum of four years. The club must move back to Rotherham within this time period, or face losing their Football League share.

http://www.themillers.co.uk/club/history/

All ended happily for Rotherham with their move to the New York Stadium in the heart of Rotherham.

btw the catering is done by contract with Lindley Venue Catering (also involved at Derby & Millwall plus others) which will mean that all the profits for the catering do not go to the club. http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co...ley-wins-6-1m-deal-at-rotherham-united-fc.htm

so applying the above to CCFC
- can the club/sisu convince the FL they have a case?
- will the football League allow it to maintain the integrity of the competition? (anyone know what the FL mean by that - is it just a phrase or does it have substance)
- have the club been forced out by the landlord?
- will the football league impose a time limit?
- will the football league required a similar bond of £750k? or more?
- can the club move back in to the city (anything more than 5 miles outside the city would seem to be a non starter for the FL)
- will the FL insist on being within the City boundaries?
- would the club have the support of the Coventry Council in building the new stadium or even improving the access infra structure?
- is there a clear viable and achievable plan now?
- does the move put league membership at risk?
- will it ever happen?

Just thoughts that TF might like to address and tell the fans the answers

CCFC in Coventry!

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If owning a new ground is the 'only way forward', then surely we are better agreeing a deal to stay at the Ricoh in the short term rather than pursuing this ridiculous ground share idea? It would make any need to go and present stuff to the League irrelevant, would keep crowds 'higher' (although I use that term only relative to groundshare attendances), and would be a lot more financially viable.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Well said.

I suppose the club haven't really got a choice, since it was ACL who rejected the opportunity to renegotiate.

 

[Noggin]

20 mill for a stadium way to small for us if we have any ambition left at all, so its going to be pretty expensive too.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well said.

I suppose the club haven't really got a choice, since it was ACL who rejected the opportunity to renegotiate.

Yes, it's all their fault, of course it is.

 

[Sub]

Well said.

I suppose the club haven't really got a choice, since it was ACL who rejected the opportunity to renegotiate.

did they bollocks ACL offered a deal, negotiated and lowered the price an awful lot and SISU said no ! so whos fault is that ? SISU's

 

[Noggin]

Well said.

I suppose the club haven't really got a choice, since it was ACL who rejected the opportunity to renegotiate.

the negotiation was done, even if one party was only doing it to distress the other, a final offer was put out and agreed, so holdings do have a choice they could meet that offer, we have no reason to belive that it's no longer availible do we? Since administration hasn't gone the way acl wanted presumably they would still take what they agreed.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Well said.

I suppose the club haven't really got a choice, since it was ACL who rejected the opportunity to renegotiate.

Am I dreaming then that ACL reduced rent etc .......... does that not constitute renegotiation? ....... and the club said it wasnt good enough........... seems to me that a successful negotiation requires two sides willing to compromise in an open and constructive manner........... but it was all ACL's fault :facepalm: (btw just to be clear that is not the same as saying in a backhand way it was all CCFC's fault)

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

If owning a new ground is the 'only way forward', then surely we are better agreeing a deal to stay at the Ricoh in the short term rather than pursuing this ridiculous ground share idea? It would make any need to go and present stuff to the League irrelevant, would keep crowds 'higher' (although I use that term only relative to groundshare attendances), and would be a lot more financially viable.

Like my post said, when CCFC/SISU came back (tail between legs) and asked for a renegotiation, it was ACL who rejected it, and that's when this ground share possibility escalated, ACL forced us out.

Ideally, we all want CCFC to own the RICOH outright, but, that does appear to be a very distant dream given that councillors like Maton have no intent on selling the RICOH, or if they sell, for a reasonable price? Probably not. I don't really want to leave the RICOH, but, owning our own stadium, in the long term, will be better than 400k p/a.

People have criticised SISU for having no long-term (or medium-term plan), which is reasonable, but if SISU intend to build a new stadium it would indicate they in fact do have a long-term plan.

Would've been so much easier had we just not left HR.

 

[SkyBlueHomer]

I was one of these 'lucky' people to receive the Tim Fisher call at the weekend & he did say Rotherham was the model they were basing a new stadium on. Start a smaller capacity extending as needed with areas including Multiple sites in Ansty, Baginton & Ryton, no information for exact sites though so not sure how workable any would be.

We certainly have a case as to move forward as a club we must have more of an income than we get but we know we'll get very little or no support from Coventry council.
Also if we are already £60-69m in debt how is this going to be financed unless SISU were prepared to pay for it themselves?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Am I dreaming then that ACL reduced rent etc .......... does that not constitute renegotiation? ....... and the club said it wasnt good enough........... seems to me that a successful negotiation requires two sides willing to compromise in an open and constructive manner........... but it was all ACL's fault :facepalm: (btw just to be clear that is not the same as saying in a backhand way it was all CCFC's fault)

But that was in the past, when SISU came back and asked for a renegotiation, it would suggest that they were willing to compromise, but because ACL rejected it, we don't know if SISU had intentions to compromise, if ACL had accepted and SISU didn't compromise etc. then that last comment would be perfectly valid, but that wasn't the case and so your comment is well, not necessarily relevant.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Like my post said, when CCFC/SISU came back (tail between legs) and asked for a renegotiation, it was ACL who rejected it, and that's when this ground share possibility escalated, ACL forced us out.

Ideally, we all want CCFC to own the RICOH outright, but, that does appear to be a very distant dream given that councillors like Maton have no intent on selling the RICOH, or if they sell, for a reasonable price? Probably not. I don't really want to leave the RICOH, but, owning our own stadium, in the long term, will be better than 400k p/a.

People have criticised SISU for having no long-term (or medium-term plan), which is reasonable, but if SISU intend to build a new stadium it would indicate they in fact do have a long-term plan.

Would've been so much easier had we just not left HR.

What proof do you have of this? A deal was agreed in January but reneged with the club using 'we only meant handshakes as a goodbye gesture' as a get-out. It's pathetic. I actually don't disapprove of building and owning a new ground (see other threads), but if this means loading another £30m of debt onto the club plus losses in the meantime which will be inevitable if we pursue this fecking stupid groundshare proposal, will the club ever see the full benefit?

SISU had no problem with ACL until they got us relegated again and wanted someone else to blame for their own shortcomings. A groundshare will secure another relegation in the time it takes to build any new ground, I assure you of that. Someone get the fookers out.

 

[procdoc]

Like my post said, when CCFC/SISU came back (tail between legs) and asked for a renegotiation, it was ACL who rejected it, and that's when this ground share possibility escalated, ACL forced us out.

Ideally, we all want CCFC to own the RICOH outright, but, that does appear to be a very distant dream given that councillors like Maton have no intent on selling the RICOH, or if they sell, for a reasonable price? Probably not. I don't really want to leave the RICOH, but, owning our own stadium, in the long term, will be better than 400k p/a.

People have criticised SISU for having no long-term (or medium-term plan), which is reasonable, but if SISU intend to build a new stadium it would indicate they in fact do have a long-term plan.

Would've been so much easier had we just not left HR.

Your pro-Sisu stance makes me sick. Anyone that supports a ground share deserve the misery Sisu are inflicting on us. Their actions are incomprehensible yet a minority of idiots like you back them to the hilt. You post utter tosh most of the time but this latest post takes the piss

 

[oldskyblue58]

just something to consider

TF in his interview this morning
"“We made the council fully aware of our intention to build a new stadium last December and it was reported in the media in January."

negotiations to agree the rent F&B's etc collapsed 29th January 2013. The point of those negotiations in that case were ? :thinking about:

the point of demanding renegotiations in February 2013 was ?

 

[Noggin]

But that was in the past, when SISU came back and asked for a renegotiation, it would suggest that they were willing to compromise, but because ACL rejected it, we don't know if SISU had intentions to compromise, if ACL had accepted and SISU didn't compromise etc. then that last comment would be perfectly valid, but that wasn't the case and so your comment is well, not necessarily relevant.

it does not suggest they were willing to compromise, it suggests they still wern't happy with a lowering of the rent to 1/3rd a deal they agreed and still wanted it to be reduced further.

But honestly it's stupid we are having to speculate it seems a very simple question to ask and the telegraph should have done so. What makes you think sisu would agree to that deal now though anyway when they wouldn't before.

ACL already did all the negotiating that was necessary, an exceptionally reasonable deal was produced, if acl have taken that away then its more fair for ccfc to say they have no choice but to leave but if the offer is still available ccfc still have the choice and its a massively better choice for the club that fisher is proposing.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yes, it's all their fault, of course it is.

Given that ACL rejected the approaches meaning that a deal for a rent agreement for CCFC at the RICOH could not be achieved, and no facility in Coventry is fit to host CCFC match fixtures, the logical thing to do is to move out of the city temporarily.

Would you like to propose an alternative?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

just something to consider

TF in his interview this morning
"“We made the council fully aware of our intention to build a new stadium last December and it was reported in the media in January."

negotiations to agree the rent F&B's etc collapsed 29th January 2013. The point of those negotiations in that case were ? :thinking about:

the point of demanding renegotiations was ?

Fisher is a master at the art of self-contradiction. One day it's 'SISU don't want to put any more in to cover losses', and the next it's 'SISU are happy to fund the losses for the next 3 years in order to build the new ground'. If I were a SISU investor I'd want some answers, not to dig deeper to continue pouring money into a black hole.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Given that ACL rejected the approaches meaning that a deal for a rent agreement for CCFC at the RICOH could not be achieved, and no facility in Coventry is fit to host CCFC match fixtures, the logical thing to do is to move out of the city temporarily.

Would you like to propose an alternative?

I will ask once more: where is your proof for this? Despite this supposed unwillingness for ACL to accommodate the club their negotiating stance saw them offer huge reductions and write off a fair chunk of the arrears Timmy racked up-that in my mind is not 'refusing to negotiate'.

The clear alternative is for the board to eat humble pie and negotiate a 3-4 year revised agreement with ACL which will see us stay at the Ricoh until any new ground is built. ACL say they want the club to stay, let's get round the table and make it happen for the short-moderate term.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

it does not suggest they were willing to compromise, it suggests they still wern't happy with a lowering of the rent to 1/3rd a deal they agreed and still wanted it to be reduced further.

But honestly it's stupid we are having to speculate it seems a very simple question to ask and the telegraph should have done so. What makes you think sisu would agree to that deal now though anyway when they wouldn't before.

ACL already did all the negotiating that was necessary, an exceptionally reasonable deal was produced, if acl have taken that away then its more fair for ccfc to say they have no choice but to leave but if the offer is still available ccfc still have the choice and its a massively better choice for the club that fisher is proposing.

The local media should have been doing some investigating on this whole fiasco, but I'm guessing they may not have a budget to facilitate this, I don't know.

Why does it not suggest they weren't going to compromise?

I personally think that the approach to renegotiate was a desperate attempt to stay in the city, because PO is well against SISU in general, but even more so against leaving the city, and if Fisher and co. have anything about them, they'd know the financially viability of moving is 0, so I think it is possible they may have compromised, but since ACL rejected those approaches, I can not say SISU would've compromised, but likewise, you can't say they wouldn't have, I don't see what ACL had to lose, but they did force the club out and that is a sorry fact.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The local media should have been doing some investigating on this whole fiasco, but I'm guessing they may not have a budget to facilitate this, I don't know.

Why does it not suggest they weren't going to compromise?

I personally think that the approach to renegotiate was a desperate attempt to stay in the city, because PO is well against SISU in general, but even more so against leaving the city, and if Fisher and co. have anything about them, they'd know the financially viability of moving is 0, so I think it is possible they may have compromised, but since ACL rejected those approaches, I can not say SISU would've compromised, but likewise, you can't say they wouldn't have, I don't see what ACL had to lose, but they did force the club out and that is a sorry fact.

Honestly, either prove this or stop saying it.

 

[Sub]

The local media should have been doing some investigating on this whole fiasco, but I'm guessing they may not have a budget to facilitate this, I don't know.

Why does it not suggest they weren't going to compromise?

I personally think that the approach to renegotiate was a desperate attempt to stay in the city, because PO is well against SISU in general, but even more so against leaving the city, and if Fisher and co. have anything about them, they'd know the financially viability of moving is 0, so I think it is possible they may have compromised, but since ACL rejected those approaches, I can not say SISU would've compromised, but likewise, you can't say they wouldn't have, I don't see what ACL had to lose, but they did force the club out and that is a sorry fact.

completly deluded!! ACL forced them out ?? how by offering a much better deal reduced rent, access to the match day food and parking. should they hand it all over for free ? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

[shy_tall_knight]

The Rotherham model is so different - old ground, they moved only 5 miles and the council supported the new stadium. The fans were also right behind the club.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The Rotherham model is so different - old ground, they moved only 5 miles and the council supported the new stadium. The fans were also right behind the club.

A fair number of fans said they'd never follow the club if they left Rotherham/Millmooor.

It was helped that the takeover was new, so no baggage with the new owners, but some of the terms over why they refused to stay at Millmoor were even more farcical than ours.

Turned out OK for them though.

 

[Noggin]

Why does it not suggest they weren't going to compromise?

The deal was already done, no more negotiation was necessary, it was acls final offer and it was a bloody good one, by saying we want to renegotiate its clear they still weren't happy with that deal and since acl won't go lower sisu say acl wont negotiate, but they already had, a massive amount and for a very long time.

Sisu are saying we have to move out, acl won't negotiate with us but as long as acl are happy with 400k at no negotiation is necessary.

It doesn't take any budget for the telegraph to say to Tim Fisher if ACL's offer is still on the table for 400k a month etc etc are you willing to take that? and ask ACL the same question if Fisher says yes.

But sisu clearly arn't happy to agree or they would have done it before a fortune was wasted on lawyers and administrators and if he isn't lieing (and when his lips are moving he normally is) on planning for a new stadium.

 

[chiefdave]

- can the club/sisu convince the FL they have a case?
- will the football League allow it to maintain the integrity of the competition? (anyone know what the FL mean by that - is it just a phrase or does it have substance)
- have the club been forced out by the landlord?
- will the football league impose a time limit?
- will the football league required a similar bond of £750k? or more?
- can the club move back in to the city (anything more than 5 miles outside the city would seem to be a non starter for the FL)
- will the FL insist on being within the City boundaries?
- would the club have the support of the Coventry Council in building the new stadium or even improving the access infra structure?
- is there a clear viable and achievable plan now?
- does the move put league membership at risk?
- will it ever happen?

the problem you have is you're not having to answer these questions in a court of law, you're dealing with the FL and they don't appear to have the teeth for any sort of confrontation with SISU. I can quite easily imagine a meeting between Fisher and the FL where he convinces them he is in the right on all the above. The trickiest one is the support of the council and his answer will more than likely be that they will move to just outside the city boundary which I can't see the FL having an issue with.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It doesn't take any budget for the telegraph to say to Tim Fisher if ACL's offer is still on the table for 400k a month etc etc are you willing to take that? and ask ACL the same question if Fisher says yes.

It doesn't, although the Trust already asked that question, and the club's answer was it was fine if if if if, so the ifs did for it.

Question though, if the club genuinely can't afford that offer and there is no further negotiation, what else are they to do? Personally I'd have thought as hinted above, ACL saying they would do a three year deal at whatever level it takes for them to break even, without prejudice to the arguments over the longer term contract.

ACL show they're reasonable.

Club stays in Coventry for three years.

We all see the new stadium actually rise before our eyes!

Everyone's happy.

Club owns own stadium and looks forward to wonderful future!

ACL can then go off and sort the Ricoh for other events, Coventry has two wonderful facilities!

And if, for some reason that's impossible to think of, the new stadium doesn't start being built, at least the shards of the club would still be in the city for someone to pick up.

Surely if ACL were to make that first move this would be a good thing, and would hurt nobody?

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

SBT, why should ACL negotiate with Fisher when they have been told by the league that the club is in administration. They should be talking deals with the administrator if any one, by re entering talks with Fisher they would be contradicting their leagally advised position. Until the share is proved to be elsewhere they can only negotiate with the legal entity which appears to own it. Are you openly backing through your assertions that ACL negotiate with a company that will only end up holding some worthless player registration?

 

[oldskyblue58]

the problem you have is you're not having to answer these questions in a court of law, you're dealing with the FL and they don't appear to have the teeth for any sort of confrontation with SISU. I can quite easily imagine a meeting between Fisher and the FL where he convinces them he is in the right on all the above. The trickiest one is the support of the council and his answer will more than likely be that they will move to just outside the city boundary which I can't see the FL having an issue with.

Think you are right chiefdave............ the FL i suspect are willing to roll over on this, unless we can put pressure on them eg from politicians over governance of the game

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I will ask once more: where is your proof for this? Despite this supposed unwillingness for ACL to accommodate the club their negotiating stance saw them offer huge reductions and write off a fair chunk of the arrears Timmy racked up-that in my mind is not 'refusing to negotiate'.

The clear alternative is for the board to eat humble pie and negotiate a 3-4 year revised agreement with ACL which will see us stay at the Ricoh until any new ground is built. ACL say they want the club to stay, let's get round the table and make it happen for the short-moderate term.

What I was saying that the club had eaten humble pie and asked to renegotiate, but ACL rejected that approach, so if what I have said is true, then whatis the alternative.

My proof was a CET article, I think the one where ACL confirmed negotiations were off, now, I found that article, but have had a problem because I think it's been closed, since when. Clicked on the link it goes to the home page of the CET, annoying because I can't extract the details, I did get a picture of the link I'm on about though:

 

[Noggin]

It doesn't, although the Trust already asked that question, and the club's answer was it was fine if if if if, so the ifs did for it.

yes there should be no ifs, a simple question, not are you willing to accept 400k, the question should be are you will to accept in full the deal that acl offered as their final offer? any if's pretty much mean there answer is no, in which case it's them in the wrong and not acl.

Question though, if the club genuinely can't afford that offer and there is no further negotiation, what else are they to do? Personally I'd have thought as hinted above, ACL saying they would do a three year deal at whatever level it takes for them to break even, without prejudice to the arguments over the longer term contract.

if the club can't afford that offer the club can't afford to build a new stadium the club certainly can't afford to move outside of the city for years. If the club truely want to build a new stadium they should accept ACL's offer at 400k and build themselves a new stadium in the mean time. That option is massivly massivly better financially than moving out of the city for 3 years.

ACL show they're reasonable.

Club stays in Coventry for three years.

We all see the new stadium actually rise before our eyes!

Everyone's happy.

Club owns own stadium and looks forward to wonderful future!

ACL can then go off and sort the Ricoh for other events, Coventry has two wonderful facilities!

And if, for some reason that's impossible to think of, the new stadium doesn't start being built, at least the shards of the club would still be in the city for someone to pick up.

Surely if ACL were to make that first move this would be a good thing, and would hurt nobody?

That wouldn't show they were reasonable, that would show acl were stupid, it would already be very bad news for acl if sisu said a few months back, great we will take the 400k deal and then started planning for their own stadium, but acl would have had to live with that. SISU would have gotten 100 times the support they are getting now.

So acl should write off all they are owed, and accept their losses from the lawyers and accept running costs only for 3 years while the company that tried to destroy them either does or does not build a stadium all the while running up greater and greater debts to our football club?

also again if sisu build a football stadium what reason to we have to belive that the football club will own it rather than putting it in its own ccfc named company

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That wouldn't show they were reasonable, that would show acl were stupid, it would already be very bad news for acl if sisu said a few months back, great we will take the 400k deal and then started planning for their own stadium, but acl would have had to live with that. SISU would have gotten 100 times the support they are getting now.

So acl should write off all they are owed, and accept their losses from the lawyers and accept running costs only for 3 years while the company that tried to destroy them either does or does not build a stadium all the while running up greater and greater debts to our football club?

That's why it would be without prejudice to the other arguments. If they could do it for the last 3 games of the season, they could do it now for 3 seasons.

Wouldn't be stupid though would it. ACL say they don't need the club, but they want a club as a community asset. Well here's their chance to show it! If their final offer to the club is genuinely the lowest they can go financially to break even and the club still don't want it then fine, ACL should cut the club off and find a more appropriate tenant.

And why would the club be in the wrong if they couldn't physically afford the final deal on table? (as you say, the ifs= 'no' ). Isn't that just what happens with negotiation and they're within their rights to accept it or not, just as ACL are within their rights to refuse to negotiate further or not?

If neither side can make a deal work, then isn't it entirely right the club gets itself another stadium in the city?

 

[Noggin]

What I was saying that the club had eaten humble pie and asked to renegotiate, but ACL rejected that approach, so if what I have said is true, then whatis the alternative.

My proof was a CET article, I think the one where ACL confirmed negotiations were off, now, I found that article, but have had a problem because I think it's been closed, since when. Clicked on the link it goes to the home page of the CET, annoying because I can't extract the details, I did get a picture of the link I'm on about though:

Again negotiations were off because negotiations were done, that was there final offer and it was an incredibly reasonable one, that doesn't mean the club had no alternative but to move, the club that the option to take the deal that was only 33% of what they had been paying. It boggles my mind that sisu could seriously have felt negotiations could have gone better than they did, the fact that still wasnt enough shows they never intended a deal (and they admitted as much really in the high court documents)

 

[The Penguin]

If neither side can make a deal work, then isn't it entirely right the club gets itself another stadium in the city?

Sure is.

In the city being the operative words.

And can we please get someone who has demonstrated a modicum of fucking competence to oversee it, because right now I wouldn't put Fisher in charge of moving my couch from one side of the lounge to the other, let alone the construction of a new football stadium.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

What I was saying that the club had eaten humble pie and asked to renegotiate, but ACL rejected that approach, so if what I have said is true, then whatis the alternative.

My proof was a CET article, I think the one where ACL confirmed negotiations were off, now, I found that article, but have had a problem because I think it's been closed, since when. Clicked on the link it goes to the home page of the CET, annoying because I can't extract the details, I did get a picture of the link I'm on about though:

I have put an alternative forward. Though if TF is being honest when he says that permission for a new ground was being sought in December, this is cold proof that he never had any intention of seeking a deal with ACL.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It boggles my mind that sisu could seriously have felt negotiations could have gone better than they did

Much as I hate to go all grendel here, other clubs have had better deals.

Also, other clubs have fallen from deals they can't fund, that were less than our deal offered.

(Making clear here, *note* this doesn't mean I can't accept ACL's offer is the best *they* can do from *their* perspective. Nor does it mean I approve of SISU's negotiating tactics, but it isn't entirely without basis to suggest the deal wouldn't be viable for the club)