torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh, don't tell me...has Lucas placed the community asset into the grubby mitts of a different filthy hedge fund? Nah, she wouldn't do that. Would she?
Last edited:
You missed out saving a community asset from the grubby mitts of a filthy hedge fund
The £21m is the loan
You are not aware of any of the other details at all
You have obviously not read the court document. Item 9
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/uploads/other/01_07_2014_01_48_11_01.07.14.pdf
£21M is the loan, but was also the one off payment that ACL made instead of paying an annual rent on the lease.
The unknown is whether the 10% 'super rent' on profits over £3.75M and 50% on £7.75M is still in the lease agreement.
All we know is that Wasps paid £1M to extend the existing lease to 250 years.
May make sense as £1M seems a pittance for a stadium over that length of time without some rental payment.
Or why it was necessary to break the lease.
As its a new lease agreement and is clearly made attractive to the leaseholder it's highly unlikely such a clause is in the lease and even if it is some good old management charges can keep profits below that figure.
You have obviously not read the court document. Item 9
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/uploads/other/01_07_2014_01_48_11_01.07.14.pdf
£21M is the loan, but was also the one off payment that ACL made instead of paying an annual rent on the lease.
The unknown is whether the 10% 'super rent' on profits over £3.75M and 50% on £7.75M is still in the lease agreement.
All we know is that Wasps paid £1M to extend the existing lease to 250 years.
May make sense as £1M seems a pittance for a stadium over that length of time without some rental payment.
Thing is though Wasps haven't bought in on the original either they got 250 years! So why couldn't the club negotiate better terms too? especially when they first came in and had decent leverage on the situation
Because they:
Over-estimated the strength of their position ("the only game in town"....)
Over-estimated the impact of the JR
Under-estimated the will of the council to fight them in court (I got the impression from ML that they expected a "deal on the court steps")
and over-riding everything,
Under-estimated the need to negotiate sensibly and present themselves as a partner that could be worked with
Cllr Taylor said:Cllr Taylor set out four tests which potential buyers would have to pass before the arena was sold.
First, investors wanting to buy the Sky Blues and the arena would have to show their deal was agreed by both the football club and its bank, the Co-operative Bank.
Secondly, they'd have to promise to use the Ricoh Arena to regenerate the north of Coventry.
Thirdly, the new investor would have to bring extra management expertise and strength to running both the club and the venue.
Lastly, they'd have to show they'd enough money to do a deal which didn't short-change the joint owners of the Ricoh Arena.
tbf when they came in, there was going to be no option to move on a deal anyway.
Now at the time when SISU came in, ACL would have been far more secure about the terms of the deal with the club already in place, and there wasn't the political will from the council to sell their half either.
You're right, of course, when they first came in was the time they should have been moving heaven and earth to *make* a deal happen (if only they'd shown the same determination they have recently eh!) but then, as we know, football doesn't work that way. If you're given the chance of a Freddie Eastwood and the promise of goals to fire your team into the top flight, or a chunk for a deposit on a stadium management company... we know which one will win out(!) both as the popular option among the fans (maybe less now!) and also for an owner who wants a gamble for a return.
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this very minor point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
How's that piece of genius working out for ya?
Amazing you can look at that and not blame the people who soured a working relationship and took their ball because they thought they were irreplaceable. Wasps have shown SISU up for the incompetent amateurs they are. They did in a year or two what we couldn't in 7. You need to suck your sour grapes up and focus on the people who are ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH LEADING THIS CLUB.
Is there any ridiculous decision from Sisu you won't defend? Did your bin not get put back in the right place once or something?
Hasn't the ideology of the likes of you, Grendel and the rest fucked this club up enough? Some of us just want a football team not a weapon to fight your political wars.
Sick of the lot of you. As far as I'm concerned you're the worst of the lot. The fans are the only ones with the club at heart by definition and instead you see the club as a tool to follow ridiculous political beliefs.
Frankly I think the one thing we've seen over the last two years is that the last thing the club should do is what you and Grendel think they should.
Following your genius business advice is what got us here. Maybe it's time to stop.
It's the forum equivalent of him screaming "Oh my God! Look behind you!" You turn round, there's nothing there. You turn back and Italia's gone. Diversion.
They won't be making £3.75m profit will they? That will be piled back into funding wasps losses. Wasps won't be paying any 'super rent'. And anyway, is really is peanuts isn't it, if they make £4.75m they'll only paying £100k. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this very minor point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
£21M was the one off payment for the 50 year lease instead of paying £1.9M a year rent.
However, in the old agreement they still payed 'super rent' based on profits over £3.75M (Yet to be reached ?)
As far as I am aware the £1M paid by Wasps extends the lease to 250 years but the 'super rent' is still payable.
I guess until the deal or accounts are published we will never know.
The reason is that if their is no rent paid it is indeed a poor deal for the tax payer.
I'm only putting the published facts on the table to try and understand the situation.
Just winging on about Wasps with no facts and 'uneducated guesses' is not for me, but you guys carry on.
The reason is that if their is no rent paid it is indeed a poor deal for the tax payer.
I'm only putting the published facts on the table to try and understand the situation.
Just winging on about Wasps with no facts and 'uneducated guesses' is not for me, but you guys carry on.
Ahem
How's that piece of genius working out for ya?
Amazing you can look at that and not blame the people who soured a working relationship and took their ball because they thought they were irreplaceable. Wasps have shown SISU up for the incompetent amateurs they are. They did in a year or two what we couldn't in 7. You need to suck your sour grapes up and focus on the people who are ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH LEADING THIS CLUB.
Is there any ridiculous decision from Sisu you won't defend? Did your bin not get put back in the right place once or something?
Hasn't the ideology of the likes of you, Grendel and the rest fucked this club up enough? Some of us just want a football team not a weapon to fight your political wars.
Sick of the lot of you. As far as I'm concerned you're the worst of the lot. The fans are the only ones with the club at heart by definition and instead you see the club as a tool to follow ridiculous political beliefs.
Frankly I think the one thing we've seen over the last two years is that the last thing the club should do is what you and Grendel think they should.
Following your genius business advice is what got us here. Maybe it's time to stop.
If it is the same as the current clauses, how much 'super rent' do you think wasps will be paying?
We'll carry on whinging, you can keep your fingers in your ears in denial.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I guess that ACL could limit those profits below that amount but that would mean increasing spending (costs) within ACL. In effect not creaming it off.
Two things Godiva
Believe when Fisher or Deliue through Fisher first asked the question Daniel Gidney quoted £24 M as the price
However if someone could find the CT article for clarity as the last time I mentioned this there was confusion as to whether It was for ACL or just income rights
Secondly Mr Alvey a forward thinking chap scuppered the possibility of getting YB to discount
£24M doesn't seem a bad deal considering where we are now and what we've through to get here
In a position far worse than back then
As you know in the original lease it was 10% on profits over £3.75M and rising for bigger profits.
I guess that ACL could limit those profits below that amount but that would mean increasing spending (costs) within ACL. In effect not creaming it off.
What do you hope to achieve by whinging about Wasps taking over the Ricoh ? It's done, we're not happy, we can't change anything, move on.
We know PWKH, ACL, Councillors, sisu, ccfc etc look at this and other sites. Us moaning about it at least shows them that we're not happy about the situation and we feel that we have been let down.
We could go down your route and look apathetic. You seemed to get over it quite quickly I remember you saying you would go to the first match to 'soak up the atmosphere' when the ink was barely dry in the deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Isn't it weird that concern for the "children's charity" and "the Coventry taxpayer" seems to have mysteriously evaporated...
I have actually been converted by Grendel to the position that the charity had made an investment in ACL (as Sisu did in our club) and the value of investments can go up as well as down. If they lose money then that's tough luck but the same applies to Sisu and our club. The Higgs own half of ACL and can sell to whoever they like (now personally I'd hope that this was to the club but....) just as Sisu can (or not) with our club.
As for the council, well they're not my council (and two faced hypocrites to boot) so who cares - with apologies to the taxpyers who do car.e
Actually they can't be sold to anyone can they?
How depressing is this
Ccfc paid 7 years rent + £570k CVA.
7x £1.3m + £570k = c£9.7m for matchday (c25 days) and no/little access to revenue.
Wasps will have paid £5.5m for 100% shares and £1m to extend the lease for 200 years. £6.5m for the lot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So why did sisu not put in an offer in at the beginning?
Joy told us she had no idea what the rent was, until Ken asked her for more money?
I find that hard to believe
So why did sisu not put in an offer in at the beginning?
Joy told us she had no idea what the rent was, until Ken asked her for more money?
I find that hard to believe
So why did sisu not put in an offer in at the beginning?
Joy told us she had no idea what the rent was, until Ken asked her for more money?
I find that hard to believe
As discussed lots of times; the original plan was to improve the team to get us to the promise land. We were then going to start thinking of the Ricoh.
At the beginning, buy the Ricoh, increase revenue which in turn gives you more dough to improve the team. Sadly that would have meant that they couldn't try and get it all on the cheap because you're not telling me that they weren't thinking about getting the Ricoh on the cheap earlier than 2012, supposedly hard nosed business people so that would have been there first thought rather than anything positive to do with CCFC.
Two things Godiva
Believe when Fisher or Deliue through Fisher first asked the question Daniel Gidney quoted £24 M as the price
However if someone could find the CT article for clarity as the last time I mentioned this there was confusion as to whether It was for ACL or just income rights
Secondly Mr Alvey a forward thinking chap scuppered the possibility of getting YB to discount
£24M doesn't seem a bad deal considering where we are now and what we've through to get here
In a position far worse than back then
At the beginning, buy the Ricoh, increase revenue which in turn gives you more dough to improve the team. Sadly that would have meant that they couldn't try and get it all on the cheap because you're not telling me that they weren't thinking about getting the Ricoh on the cheap earlier than 2012, supposedly hard nosed business people so that would have been there first thought rather than anything positive to do with CCFC.
In all honesty - they were probably sold the idea of buy a 'big' underperforming club... chuck some money in and get promoted. Sell on for far more that they paid. That would have been the Ranson spiel.
Probably never really though about buying Ricoh as they would have sold up and gone relatively quickly. And lets be honest given some of the conditions of ownership set out apparently (having to regenerate area for example it probably didn't figure as a viable option in the short term)
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?