Stuart Linnell should be sacked (13 Viewers)

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

torchomatic said:
Never. And that won't change with the next lot either. Why? Because this club does not play on a level playing field financially compared to other clubs and while ACL exist we never will. If we wholly owned the Ricoh, kept all the revenue, but were still in the mess we find ourselves in then I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with you wearing my SISU OUT t-shirt.

While ACL are taking their sizeable slice then I will always side with the football club.

You shouldn't side with the club when it is in the wrong - I think that is the key difference between us Torch. Regardless of what is "good for CCFC", the club should not be behaving so unreasonably.

Having paid around £30m in emergency funding to the club to help finish the Ricoh, the council are entitled to a commercially reasonable return, which is what they have had. They should not be expected to provide us with a free, subsidized, or at-cost stadium. Nice if they do, yes - as other councils have done - but you can't accuse them if they do choose to make some money, that is their prerogative given their investment. Do you think a private landlord would be generous? No, because no-one in the private sector would entertain a £1m p/a return on a £30m investment.

My motto on CCFC is "love the team, hate the club" - I am open to persuasion but I do not feel obliged to support them in everything they do.

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
You shouldn't side with the club when it is in the wrong - I think that is the key difference between us Torch. Regardless of what is "good for CCFC", the club should not be behaving so unreasonably.

Having paid around £30m in emergency funding to the club to help finish the Ricoh, the council are entitled to a commercially reasonable return, which is what they have had. They should not be expected to provide us with a free, subsidized, or at-cost stadium. Nice if they do, yes - as other councils have done - but you can't accuse them if they do choose to make some money, that is their prerogative given their investment. Do you think a private landlord would be generous? No, because no-one in the private sector would entertain a £1m p/a return on a £30m investment.

My motto on CCFC is "love the team, hate the club" - I am open to persuasion but I do not feel obliged to support them in everything they do.

They paid £10million, and immediately got back £21million from the 50 year lease to ACL, which was what the loan was for from the Yorkshire, now £14million and owed to the Council now rather than the Yorkshire Bank.

Already not had too bad a return at all.

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
They paid £10million, and immediately got back £21million from the 50 year lease to ACL, which was what the loan was for from the Yorkshire, now £14million and owed to the Council now rather than the Yorkshire Bank.

Already not had too bad a return at all.

Wait, so where did the £21m come from?

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
Wait, so where did the £21m come from?

The loan that ACL took out for the 50 year lease, all the figures have been put up on here many times.

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The loan that ACL took out for the 50 year lease, all the figures have been put up on here many times.

So... a bank loan...not a free gift...and taken out by ACL, half owned by....the council. What's your point?

Beneath all the moving of money, the council put in the money - you say £10m but others have said up to £30m...and only had 7 years rent paid pack by CCFC, at around £1m p/a - not like they have done that well, is it?

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
So... a bank loan...not a free gift...and taken out by ACL, half owned by....the council. What's your point?

Beneath all the moving of money, the council put in the money - you say £10m but others have said up to £30m...and only had 7 years rent paid pack by CCFC, at around £1m p/a - not like they have done that well, is it?

I don't care what others have said, the council in their own report on the construction costs said that they had paid £10million.

If, as you say, ACL is half owned by the council, they then owed £10.5million of the £21million to the Yorkshire Bank at the start, they still received £11million of additional to their investment at the start.

They had already paid £7million of the £21million mortgage off in 7 years to the Yorkshire when the council took it over, hence now £14million being paid directly to the council.

Strange that you should mention that they have received around £7million rent from CCFC, which equates to what had been paid off the mortgage.

The council have been coining it in, wasn't it £21million from Compass for a ten year deal to ACL a few years ago? Wouldn't be paying that for a couple of concerts a year, no matter how much people at Rock Concerts might eat and drink!

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I don't care what others have said, the council in their own report on the construction costs said that they had paid £10million.

If, as you say, ACL is half owned by the council, they then owed £10.5million of the £21million to the Yorkshire Bank at the start, they still received £11million of additional to their investment at the start.

They had already paid £7million of the £21million mortgage off in 7 years to the Yorkshire when the council took it over, hence now £14million being paid directly to the council.

Strange that you should mention that they have received around £7million rent from CCFC, which equates to what had been paid off the mortgage.

The council have been coining it in, wasn't it £21million from Compass for a ten year deal to ACL a few years ago? Wouldn't be paying that for a couple of concerts a year, no matter how much people at Rock Concerts might eat and drink!

You are confusing the loan with revenue received

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
You are confusing the loan with revenue received

How? The loan was paid to the council through North Coventry Holdings(I think, they have a web of intertwined companies where the money seems to go round in perpetual motion in a manner that any Mayfair based Hedge-fund with companies in the Cayman Islands would be proud).

Just saying that the payments of the loan were equal to the rental income from CCFC, something you alluded to yourself.

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
How? The loan was paid to the council through North Coventry Holdings(I think, they have a web of intertwined companies where the money seems to go round in perpetual motion in a manner that any Mayfair based Hedge-fund with companies in the Cayman Islands would be proud).

Just saying that the payments of the loan were equal to the rental income from CCFC, something you alluded to yourself.

OK all this is over my head - maybe I am being thick or maybe this flu I have is making me dull-witted. Whatever, I can't follow your argument as the details are unfamiliar to any I have seen before.

Regardless, clearly ACL/the council are entitled to make some money out of a project they have paid so much for, especially as it was provided on a late, unexpected basis.

No evidence I have seen has convinced me that ACL have acted unethically - yes they have profited, but so what? SISU would have profited from their investment too if they had been competent. As far as I can see, ACL have no blame at all for our predicament they even in 204 and 2005 suggested a variable rent, which CCFC rejected on the expectation that we would go up, not down, and therefore not benefit.

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
OK all this is over my head - maybe I am being thick or maybe this flu I have is making me dull-witted. Whatever, I can't follow your argument as the details are unfamiliar to any I have seen before.

Regardless, clearly ACL/the council are entitled to make some money out of a project they have paid so much for, especially as it was provided on a late, unexpected basis.

No evidence I have seen has convinced me that ACL have acted unethically - yes they have profited, but so what? SISU would have profited from their investment too if they had been competent. As far as I can see, ACL have no blame at all for our predicament they even in 204 and 2005 suggested a variable rent, which CCFC rejected on the expectation that we would go up, not down, and therefore not benefit.

I just take issue with people banging on about the "huge" investment that the council made in the building of the Ricoh, when infact it was less than 10% of the construction costs, and immediately received their investment back and more.

Think that I saw on here recently that they don't want to sell the Freehold of the stadium at all to anybody else, and would would want £40million for just their half of ACL which of course is only the leasehold.

If this is the case(Not saying that it is, just what I've seen on here), then we may as well pack it in now as a football club as we will never, ever, be able to be self-sufficient whilst being at the Ricoh, and unlikely that anybody would be interested as taking us over as a club at all.

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

If I was the council, I would be tempted to buy Higgs out of their share, demolish the Ricoh and sell it for housing, whilst refusing planning permission to the club for a new ground. That would serve the club right for the way it has acted in unilaterally breaching the agreement - I can't blame ACL when they have offered a variable rent based on the league we play in that was in 2004-05, and rejected as an idea because we expected to be going up, not down. As I am a CCFC fan, I don't support that, but I wouldn't blame the council in all honesty if they did.

Anyone would think from reading some of the posts on here that CCFC is a charity case which deserves especially favourable terms, and that the council are out of order for behaving in a commercial way. That's exactly how councils should behave - too bad they don't do it more often!

TurkeyTrot · Mar 30, 2013

Well the councils been clueless in Coventry for forty years that I know of so they just might

Jack Griffin · Mar 30, 2013

We hear a lot of things about the price for this & that on this forum, if they have not been said in public by the body supposedly making the offer, then they are simply unsubstantiated rumours.

I know my view is that a £40M price is commercially unfeasible considering the profit ACL makes, if there is a sale I cannot believe it will be at that sort of price, besides I think there will be some sort of gurantee build it to prevent free sell-on, like Maton hinted, that sort of restriction lowers the price considerably.

Question, do Tesco own the freehold to the remaining Arena Park land, or is it still with the Council?
Question, who bought the land from British Gas and how much was paid. (I'm asking because I do not think it was CCFC or BR or Tesco, but it was the Council, but I'd like to be sure)

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
If I was the council, I would be tempted to buy Higgs out of their share, demolish the Ricoh and sell it for housing, whilst refusing planning permission to the club for a new ground. That would serve the club right for the way it has acted in unilaterally breaching the agreement - I can't blame ACL when they have offered a variable rent based on the league we play in that was in 2004-05, and rejected as an idea because we expected to be going up, not down. As I am a CCFC fan, I don't support that, but I wouldn't blame the council in all honesty if they did.

Anyone would think from reading some of the posts on here that CCFC is a charity case which deserves especially favourable terms, and that the council are out of order for behaving in a commercial way. That's exactly how councils should behave - too bad they don't do it more often!

And I'm the one who takes up unpopular causes?

Nick · Mar 30, 2013

Thorn was an awful manager, topic had gone majorly off topic so just thought id help

lordsummerisle · Mar 30, 2013

CJparker said:
If I was the council, I would be tempted to buy Higgs out of their share, demolish the Ricoh and sell it for housing, whilst refusing planning permission to the club for a new ground. That would serve the club right for the way it has acted in unilaterally breaching the agreement - I can't blame ACL when they have offered a variable rent based on the league we play in that was in 2004-05, and rejected as an idea because we expected to be going up, not down. As I am a CCFC fan, I don't support that, but I wouldn't blame the council in all honesty if they did.

Anyone would think from reading some of the posts on here that CCFC is a charity case which deserves especially favourable terms, and that the council are out of order for behaving in a commercial way. That's exactly how councils should behave - too bad they don't do it more often!

The thing is the council would want us to pay the demolition costs and then build the houses for them.

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
And I'm the one who takes up unpopular causes?

Read what I wrote boy - clearly says " I don't support that"

CJparker · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
The thing is the council would want us to pay the demolition costs and then build the houses for them.

Yeah but they know we would ignore the invoice even if we did "agree"

TurkeyTrot · Mar 30, 2013

Nick said:
Thorn was an awful manager, topic had gone majorly off topic so just thought id help

We've had three world wars and a nuclear holocaust thus far in this thread.
Think Linnell got blamed for the N Korea v S Korea conflict but that's about it.

Jack Griffin · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I just take issue with people banging on about the "huge" investment that the council made in the building of the Ricoh, when infact it was less than 10% of the construction costs, and immediately received their investment back and more.

I think you have got this totally wrong LSI (and Torchy)... read this article and you'll see that the Council borrowed the £21M to fund the shortfall in finance to build the stadium and ACL have been paying it back. That is what I said a week or so ago & got slapped down by Torchy, it is what I thought all along, the lease premium is simply to pay back a loan arranged by the Council as guarantor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3160822.stm

Council set to save stadium project
Graphic of the Arena complex, Coventry
The city council is one of the investors in the project
Coventry City Council is expected to approve £21m funding to rescue plans for a new football stadium.

Coventry City Football Club has lost £2m over plans to build the 32,000-seat Coventry Arena in Foleshill.

Construction company Birse pulled out of the project 18 months ago and the project's financial backer the Portuguese Bank pulled out last week.

All but £21m of the £113m needed has been found.
Coventry City Council is due to make a decision on the project on 16 October.

Former gasworks

A council spokesman said the council was in charge of the construction of the building and Arena Coventry would be running it.

"We are recommending that Laing O'Rourke build the stadium, which is the company responsible for the construction of the new Selfridges in Birmingham and the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff," he said.

"The council is set to decide whether to approve the remaining cash needed for the project which it will fund through a loan.

"This will then be paid back when the site is up and running."

Coventry City are scheduled to move into the stadium on the site of the former Foleshill gasworks in the summer of 2005.

This document also describes the £21M as a loan http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da... - ricoh arena development.pdf#search="arena"

PS I've head Linnell was the brains behind Operation 'Moonlight Sonata', allegedly that is...

Cov Kid Dave · Mar 30, 2013

I think Stuart with a BBC hat is trying to give an unbias view with a cross section of views but remember he also has a Coventry hat on like most supporters. We actually dont know the truth the farce that is SISU and ACL but I do think he has CCFC at heart. I think the guys in the media with that at Sky Blues at heart should be supported not heckled. I would like to see a strategy team of Gould,Linnell, Elliot and maybe even Geoffrey Robinson to try to help sort this mess

rupert_bear · Mar 30, 2013

Cov Kid Dave said:
I think Stuart with a BBC hat is trying to give an unbias view with a cross section of views but remember he also has a Coventry hat on like most supporters. We actually dont know the truth the farce that is SISU and ACL but I do think he has CCFC at heart. I think the guys in the media with that at Sky Blues at heart should be supported not heckled. I would like to see a strategy team of Gould,Linnell, Elliot and maybe even Geoffrey Robinson to try to help sort this mess

He's a Sheffield Wednesday supporter

Nick · Mar 30, 2013

Cov Kid Dave said:
I think Stuart with a BBC hat is trying to give an unbias view with a cross section of views but remember he also has a Coventry hat on like most supporters. We actually dont know the truth the farce that is SISU and ACL but I do think he has CCFC at heart. I think the guys in the media with that at Sky Blues at heart should be supported not heckled. I would like to see a strategy team of Gould,Linnell, Elliot and maybe even Geoffrey Robinson to try to help sort this mess

Was robinson not involved with the mess in the first place?

James Smith · Mar 30, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I just take issue with people banging on about the "huge" investment that the council made in the building of the Ricoh, when infact it was less than 10% of the construction costs, and immediately received their investment back and more.

Think that I saw on here recently that they don't want to sell the Freehold of the stadium at all to anybody else, and would would want £40million for just their half of ACL which of course is only the leasehold.

If this is the case(Not saying that it is, just what I've seen on here), then we may as well pack it in now as a football club as we will never, ever, be able to be self-sufficient whilst being at the Ricoh, and unlikely that anybody would be interested as taking us over as a club at all.

The only people to mention £40m has been the CET, neither ACL or the council have said that. The rent on the lease was at last offer down to £485k/year for the club plus the F&B revenues with the arrears spread over ten years so just over 10k a month.

The worry is that a new owner of the club might decide having obtained the freehold of the Ricoh to sell it and put us playing in some ground in the Midlands that is unoccupied. So as we have been debating on the councillor Maton thread what the new club owners need to do is be sold a 99 year lease where they get the benefits of all the arena revenue streams. This would be 365 days a year not just matchdays and they would effectively become or subsume ACL. The idea being that the club would be helped financially by the revenue from the Arena and hopefully be self sufficient or very close to. This is as close to owning the stadium freehold as the new owners will need and means they get the chance to develop the surrounding land to bring in more revenue.

skybluericoh · Mar 31, 2013

Spent some hours reading through this!! My thoughts ---- I've not had my season ticket for the last 2 seasons after 28 years, have not put much (about 4 games this season and a reduced price top) cash into the club as I do not want SISU here any more. I was please when they took over, the talked a sensible game, balance the books, buy in and develop young talent, sell on at a profit and re-invest to gradually build us up over a number of years......

I was a little concerned about the gun held to share holders heads 'hand over or you go to the wall' tactics, but hey ho, they were saving my football club. But then, as I see it, they started to bully ACL, withholding rent could have pushed them over and forced a cheap sale. But then came along the council doing a commercial deal to strengthen ACL's position, protecting any exposure that rate payers may have had. Still SISU wouldn't take revised terms, hence they threaten them with legal action, again no movement from SISU. There are two sides, three with the suffering fans, but one is more guilty than the other in my view.

If SISU had been running CCFC like a football club, I.E engaging the fans, not doing everything as 'undisclosed' I might be a current ST holder and not just a lapsed, but to learn they have ran up 60 million in debts, they are not fit to run a football club. This 60 mill I assume is not do to any interest to anyone other than internal funds as we were told many times we did not have an overdraft.

So SL you may think that they have mad some (a few or huge) mistakes, but for me and I have yet to speak to one single SISU supporter, one or two comments on this thread excepted, who wants them to stay. I'm in the ' if the worst was to happen now, it will be less painful than the slow death the club is going through at the moment' camp. As to whether you get the sack or not couldn't careless, but Gurney was head and shoulders above you, Clive and Geoff, both better than you.

Spencer · Mar 31, 2013

James Smith said:
The only people to mention £40m has been the CET, neither ACL or the council have said that. The rent on the lease was at last offer down to £485k/year for the club plus the F&B revenues with the arrears spread over ten years so just over 10k a month.

The worry is that a new owner of the club might decide having obtained the freehold of the Ricoh to sell it and put us playing in some ground in the Midlands that is unoccupied. So as we have been debating on the councillor Maton thread what the new club owners need to do is be sold a 99 year lease where they get the benefits of all the arena revenue streams. This would be 365 days a year not just matchdays and they would effectively become or subsume ACL. The idea being that the club would be helped financially by the revenue from the Arena and hopefully be self sufficient or very close to. This is as close to owning the stadium freehold as the new owners will need and means they get the chance to develop the surrounding land to bring in more revenue.

Why would any potential owner be interested in a 99 year lease? The only people that plan 99 years ahead are pension funds and the church.

I don't see any prospective owners looking to be here in 99 years time. All a lease does is devalue the value of the clubs holding each year. I also don't understand how the club can insist any prospective owner develops the area. That's why developers exist.

ampthill_sba · Mar 31, 2013

Please move this thread to none football area now....

James Smith · Mar 31, 2013

Spencer said:
Why would any potential owner be interested in a 99 year lease? The only people that plan 99 years ahead are pension funds and the church.

I don't see any prospective owners looking to be here in 99 years time. All a lease does is devalue the value of the clubs holding each year. I also don't understand how the club can insist any prospective owner develops the area. That's why developers exist.

PaxmanII explained it better than I can

Paxman II said:
No it doesn't. A long 99 year transferable lease is the next best thing to freehold! You can't use the bricks and mortar to raise capital so there is a layer of protection there also. They can raise against their lease value but not without Council (the freeholders consent) or that can be can be a clause not permitting it.
Basically they would attract all the investors they wanted to develop land and facilities and have all the sub leases from hotel to casino. They would rake it in in the name of the football club.
The council get a percentage back on top of a fair rent and they would get a premium from the new owners buying the new 99 year lease while still maintaining ownership of the freehold. A win win for the taxpayer and not a freebie for a new owner who would pay a handsome but not extortionate price for that lease. Council are free as it should be and the football club will thrive. The likes of Compass and others would negotiate their sub leases with the main lease holder (CCFC). With a 99 year lease the football club would even be able to put money in to facilities (with landlord consent) and not ask the council to pay for them. A full repairing and insuring lease in which the council merely must keep the general condition of the stadium (roof etc) in good order.

The question is why is ACL and the council dragging their feet on this now we have come to a head? Is it so difficult for people to get a grip and get on with it? Too many make mountains out of molehills in this country.

jan would the Trust be against such a fantastic proposal? I see why anyone should be.

SISU removed themselves from contention here thanks to their stellar negotiating techniques.

sw88 · Mar 31, 2013

ampthill_sba said:
Please move this thread to none football area now....

Can't believe it's such a popular thread!

Even our greatest footballing games haven't been this popular on here!

Bizarre

Spencer · Mar 31, 2013

James Smith said:
PaxmanII explained it better than I can

SISU are the sticking point here thanks to their stellar negotiating techniques.

It makes no sense. Developers look to upgrade the value of the land and then sell it on. CCFC aren't developers - it is a specialist field for a reason. It is a risky business and should be left to the experts.

Nonleagueherewecome · Mar 31, 2013

Nick said:
Thorn was an awful manager, topic had gone majorly off topic so just thought id help

Every good orchestrator needs a conductor

Nonleagueherewecome · Mar 31, 2013

Nick said:
Was robinson not involved with the mess in the first place?

Every good orchestra needs a conductor....

Paxman II · Mar 31, 2013

remember too a lease is re negotiable too at any time by consent. It could be extended after 20 years and a new higher premium set. So after 20 years it's now 79 year lease but an extension could put it back to 99 or even increase it. You sell a lease like this for plenty of money with an existence business with lots of good will. I know I've done it 3 times myself.
My first ever nightclub was a 21 year lease. Quite normal. I purchased it for £5,000. I invested another £5,000 , milked it for 4 years and sold the lease for £180,000 as a going concern. Are you getting the picture? The landlords were chuffed. they struggling with previous businesses going belly up but I gave them £5,000 a year in rent. It was stable and remained so to this day.
That model is the same for the Ricoh. It's just more complex and more valuable.

James Smith · Mar 31, 2013

Spencer said:
It makes no sense. Developers look to upgrade the value of the land and then sell it on. CCFC aren't developers - it is a specialist field for a reason. It is a risky business and should be left to the experts.

No you're missing the point here, it isn't that you're expecting someone to develop the surrounding land to sell it on for a profit it's to make other revenue streams available to the club. So for example the Arena could just have had the football stadium, no Hotel, no Jaguar Exhibition Hall and no Eon Lounge etc. However these things were developed so that the Arena would have revenue outside of the matches that are played in the stadium. ACL currently reinvest this in the Arena and don't take any money out in dividends. What ACL want to do so PWKH tells us is set out here

PWKH said:
ACL’s lease includes the car parks. It has always been the intention to develop the car parks. If you look back to my post of 21 May 2012 http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/thread...u-City-Council you will see that I talked about continuing the regeneration of the north east of Coventry.
I think that there are two strands that are entwined and they are important. For the Football Club to survive, let alone be successful, it needs to have its income at least match its outgoings. In order to match its outgoings it needs to increase its income or reduce its costs. The profits from ACL, as it is at the moment, would not be sufficient to fund the Club as it has been run since the late 1970s. ACL has been investing each year in the facilities inside the main building, now it needs to develop the surrounding land. With the surrounding land developed, ACL will generate greater profit. In order for the Club to share that non-football growth and profit it has to have a stake in the development. That will come about if CCFC buy the Charity’s share in ACL and then joins with its then partner, the City Council, in investing in the surrounding land. You ask why should the Football Club be interested in developing that land? The answer is simple: so that it can make more money. No football club can live on its gate and shirt sales. Adding burgers and pints is not the solution: earning 365 days a year is the solution. That can be achieved through investment in and around the Ricoh. I thought this was what all the fuss was about: CCFC having sold its stadium and not being able to generate income.

(My Bolding).

So what we need is for the administrator to find someone (maybe it's PH4 maybe it's someone else) who wants to buy CCFC ltd and then after that buy the charity share of ACL. What SISU do with CCFC Holdings is yet to be seen but as they don't seem keen to anyone at the moment we don't know what's going on.

Would be nice if Stuart asked someone from SISU/CCFC Holdings to come on the show on Monday and explain things to us. Especially why we have had 10 points deducted if the subsidiary had no connection to the playing side and where the Golden Share really is :facepalm:, (have they looked down the back of the sofa?) bet he doesn't get anyone though even if he asks nicely.

Nonleagueherewecome · Mar 31, 2013

How about we try staging a mass Mr Creosote re-enactment before every home game? We could then spend more than anyone in the Football League!

Stuart Linnell should be sacked (13 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency