Supporters' group tells Coventry City FC owners to clarify stadium plans (15 Viewers)

Calista · Dec 4, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
The only defence I'll give of ACL is that they couldn't afford it either. Their £21m mortgage meant they needed income. The whole thing was donned from the off. You have to question why such a cheaply finished stadium cost £118m.

This for me is the absolute crux of it all. I don’t regard the high rent as a greedy fleecing of the club, but an inevitable consequence of the Council and the Higgs getting sucked into the whole unaffordable project. The same goes for the formula for buying back the club’s share. SISU absolutely knew the terms when they took over, but tried to move the goalposts later, which is probably how the relationships got so bad.

I assumed that buying into the stadium at the agreed price was part of the plan, and was frustrated that it never happened. If being the landlord was such a licence to print money, and half of that was up for grabs, why was Ranson always so relaxed about remaining purely as “exploited” tenants?

letsallsingtogether · Dec 4, 2015

chiefdave said:
That was Richardson's complaint wasn't it. That he had sorted the Tesco deal and had some agreement with CCC to get the land for next to nothing as it needed contaminating and they hijacked his deal for themselves. How much truth there is in that and how much is revisionist history I doubt we'll ever know.

Needed contaminating? Is that why they moved Sisu in

Well it worked......

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
That was Richardson's complaint wasn't it. That he had sorted the Tesco deal and had some agreement with CCC to get the land for next to nothing as it needed contaminating and they hijacked his deal for themselves. How much truth there is in that and how much is revisionist history I doubt we'll ever know.

So you believe Richardson?

He couldn't have come to an arrangement with CCC to buy the land as it didn't belong to CCC. The land purchase and decontamination was spoken about. But we didn't have a pot to piss in for any of it. We were loaned up to the hilt. He sold HR without any chance of getting a stadium built then rented HR back whilst using the money from HR to pay the bills for a few months. Yes Tesco's paid for the land and decontamination. But who was going to pay for the stadium? This is why CCC took over. Then 50% of ACL was handed over to our club. Then he let the 50% of ACL go to keep our club running for a little longer.

So what was his complaint?

Rusty Trombone · Dec 5, 2015

Astute said:
So what was his complaint?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/want-help-save-coventry-city-3026911

“The stadium was my big vision but it was never my vision that the club wouldn’t own it,” said the former City chief who, remarkably, has never set foot in the Ricoh Arena.
“I have no idea what happened after I left. I can show you the document where I did the deal with the Tesco chairman directly.
"We bought 88 acres from British Gas.

"I sold 30 of the 88 acres where it is now for £66.5m which was the highest price Tesco had ever paid for an out of London site. And there were no fees so the club didn’t pay anyone because I did it direct with Tesco, and that saved the club £3m in fees.

“I don’t know what happened after that but before long the whole thing had gone to the Higgs Charity and the Council.
"So I don’t know, did Tesco pay the money direct to the council? I’ve no idea. I’d love to know and to be honest the supporters should know because it was a huge deal at the time.”

It is understood that Richardson bought an option to buy the Foleshill gas works site but when that option ran out and he couldn’t raise the money to pay British Gas, the council stepped in and bought the land for £20m - including £12m to decontaminate it – and then sold it to Tesco, using the £40m profit to part-fund the construction of the stadium.

Richardson admitted: “I had left when the final deal was done, but that was going to be the best asset ever for the club.
"That was going to be the bedrock of the future of Coventry City Football Club and for some extraordinary reason that all went by the by and I have never, to this day, understood – and neither have I asked to be honest – why that ever happened.

“But it was absolutely crucial to the future of the club that it had ownership of the stadium and all the revenue streams. It was the key to everything.”

The land cost and sale figures don't agree to what Council reports say actually happened, and although he says he did the deal and later admits he'd left by the time it was done, I'm sure he feels he has a complaint.

Sick Boy · Dec 5, 2015

Not sure that the council can be relied upon for the truth either. Whatever way you look at it, our club has been screwed over.

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/want-help-save-coventry-city-3026911

“The stadium was my big vision but it was never my vision that the club wouldn’t own it,” said the former City chief who, remarkably, has never set foot in the Ricoh Arena.
“I have no idea what happened after I left. I can show you the document where I did the deal with the Tesco chairman directly.
"We bought 88 acres from British Gas.

"I sold 30 of the 88 acres where it is now for £66.5m which was the highest price Tesco had ever paid for an out of London site. And there were no fees so the club didn’t pay anyone because I did it direct with Tesco, and that saved the club £3m in fees.

“I don’t know what happened after that but before long the whole thing had gone to the Higgs Charity and the Council.
"So I don’t know, did Tesco pay the money direct to the council? I’ve no idea. I’d love to know and to be honest the supporters should know because it was a huge deal at the time.”

It is understood that Richardson bought an option to buy the Foleshill gas works site but when that option ran out and he couldn’t raise the money to pay British Gas, the council stepped in and bought the land for £20m - including £12m to decontaminate it – and then sold it to Tesco, using the £40m profit to part-fund the construction of the stadium.

Richardson admitted: “I had left when the final deal was done, but that was going to be the best asset ever for the club.
"That was going to be the bedrock of the future of Coventry City Football Club and for some extraordinary reason that all went by the by and I have never, to this day, understood – and neither have I asked to be honest – why that ever happened.

“But it was absolutely crucial to the future of the club that it had ownership of the stadium and all the revenue streams. It was the key to everything.”

The land cost and sale figures don't agree to what Council reports say actually happened, and although he says he did the deal and later admits he'd left by the time it was done, I'm sure he feels he has a complaint.

I'd always take anything he had/has to say with a pinch of salt but you have to say he did have a long term vision for the club. Problem was without premier league status it fell down. The project should have either been abandoned on relegation or mothballed until we we'd stabilised. If the Tesco and land deal with British gas was as good as he was making out surely we could have used the tesco's money to buy the land, have it levelled and decontaminated, Tesco could have taken ownership of their plot and developed it, we could have mothballed our plot and still have had enough money in the bank to retain ownership of HR? We would have then have been asset rich if nothing else.

What he's said doesn't add up to me. If I was being sceptical I'd say that the BG/Tesco deal was never destined to feather the bed of CCFC.

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
I'd always take anything he had/has to say with a pinch of salt but you have to say he did have a long term vision for the club. Problem was without premier league status it fell down. The project should have either been abandoned on relegation or mothballed until we we'd stabilised. If the Tesco and land deal with British gas was as good as he was making out surely we could have used the tesco's money to buy the land, have it levelled and decontaminated, Tesco could have taken ownership of their plot and developed it, we could have mothballed our plot and still have had enough money in the bank to retain ownership of HR? We would have then have been asset rich if nothing else.

What he's said doesn't add up to me. If I was being sceptical I'd say that the BG/Tesco deal was never destined to feather the bed of CCFC.

Of course it doesn't add up. He said he bought the land and sold some to Tescos. And we know 100% that it was CCC working with Tescos that bought the land. IIRC Tescos paid for the land and decontamination as part of getting planning permission.

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2015

Astute said:
Of course it doesn't add up. He said he bought the land and sold some to Tescos. And we know 100% that it was CCC working with Tescos that bought the land. IIRC Tescos paid for the land and decontamination as part of getting planning permission.

I meant his explanation of what the plan was in the first place not what actually happened. His explanation makes it sound so easy that it really is hard to see why it never happened as I said even if we mothballed what would have been our plot until a more stable time for the club. From what he's saying it should have been a self funding land deal that may or may not have just needed bank rolling for a short period of time.

If it was as easy as he seems to be making out in that interview why didn't it happen? That's the bit that doesn't add up to me.

Nick · Dec 5, 2015

Didn't Fletcher also say ccc were dodgy with it? Again, with a pinch of salt

Sick Boy · Dec 5, 2015

Nick said:
Didn't Fletcher also say ccc were dodgy with it? Again, with a pinch of salt

It wouldn't be a surprise, would it?

We are unlikely to ever really find out though, the Telegraph still like to claim that themselves and Gilbert were responsible for the club playing at the Ricoh, just joining the campaign a year too late.

I wouldn't hold your breath on them showing up the council.

Sick Boy · Dec 5, 2015

*despite

Can't edit posts on phone

Jack Griffin · Dec 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
That was Richardson's complaint wasn't it. That he had sorted the Tesco deal and had some agreement with CCC to get the land for next to nothing as it needed contaminating and they hijacked his deal for themselves. How much truth there is in that and how much is revisionist history I doubt we'll ever know.

A Dutch building company owned the land at one point. I attempted to go though this before and it left my head in a spin, it is no wonder you get a lot of misdirection on this site, easy to do isn't it. If that article is accurate it looks like HGB took advantage of the situation when the club failed to find £2M and they trousered an extra £18M.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/arena-2001-faqs-3172736

WHO OWNS THE LAND?

The original proposal for the area included a 40,000-seater stadium, leisure facilities, district shopping centre with a giant Tesco and a new railway station and carparking.

HBG (the Hollandsche Beton Groep NV) built the Gelredome Stadium for Vitesse Arnhem in Holland.

It also built the 53,000 seater Schalke stadium in Germany which has a retractable pitch too.

The firm in recent years took over British building firm Higgs and Hill and it bought the land from original owners British Gas last October.

Land Registry documents show HBG got involved from the outset when Coventry City Football Club (Holdings Ltd) and Arena 2001 signed an agreement on July 14, 2000 to buy the land from British Gas.

WHAT WILL IS COST?

THE cost of the whole redevelopment scheme was last year estimated by John McGuigan, Coventry City Council?s strategic director of development, at #180 million.

But it is the price to be paid for the HBG land, the majority of the site, which is crucial to the scheme going ahead.

They are believed to be asking for about #20 million.

The original agreement between British Gas, the club and the Arena, was that British Gas would sell the land for #2 million plus VAT plus inflation to the club.

The club would sell the land on at the same price to Arena 2001 who would pay British Gas to take down the three gasholders, renew and reroute an underground pipeline and provide a new governor station for controlling the gas supply.

chiefdave · Dec 5, 2015

Astute said:
So you believe Richardson?

He couldn't have come to an arrangement with CCC to buy the land as it didn't belong to CCC. The land purchase and decontamination was spoken about. But we didn't have a pot to piss in for any of it. We were loaned up to the hilt. He sold HR without any chance of getting a stadium built then rented HR back whilst using the money from HR to pay the bills for a few months. Yes Tesco's paid for the land and decontamination. But who was going to pay for the stadium? This is why CCC took over. Then 50% of ACL was handed over to our club. Then he let the 50% of ACL go to keep our club running for a little longer.

So what was his complaint?

Didn't say I believed Richardson, said that was what he claimed.

Paul Fletcher said:
Initially Coventry City FC were on their own. They had located a derelict 72-acre site within 500 yards of the M6 Motorway which would have cost around £20m to buy and decontaminate.

Before any work began, they agreed to sell 50 per cent of the site, around 35 acres, to Tesco for around £62.5m. This left a profit of around £40m to build themselves a new stadium.

They approached Coventry City Council for some funding, suggesting that this was now becoming a ‘community’ project for the city.
With hindsight, in my humble opinion, this was a massive error, and one which Coventry City FC may regret for the next 100 years. As the project evolved, Coventry City Council took more and more ownership of the project not trusting the football club in many aspects of the joint venture.

By the time I arrived in Coventry the deal had been struck; in simple terms it was going to be a joint venture between the football club and the council with both parties owning 50 per cent of the equity.

As the football club did not have the money to complete the purchase of the land, which would then enable them to sell off half of it to Tesco, it was agreed that Coventry City Council would purchase the land, then conclude the deal with Tesco, all as part of their joint venture agreement.

But mysteriously, once the purchase of the land and the sale to Tesco had been completed, Coventry City Council informed the football club that they were unable to share with them the profit from the sale of the land due to ‘state aid’ implications.

Bryan Richardson said:
"I have no idea what happened after I left. I can show you the document where I did the deal with the Tesco chairman directly."We bought 88 acres from British Gas.

"I sold 30 of the 88 acres where it is now for £66.5m which was the highest price Tesco had ever paid for an out of London site. And there were no fees so the club didn’t pay anyone because I did it direct with Tesco, and that saved the club £3m in fees.

“I don’t know what happened after that but before long the whole thing had gone to the Higgs Charity and the Council.

"So I don’t know, did Tesco pay the money direct to the council? I’ve no idea. I’d love to know and to be honest the supporters should know because it was a huge deal at the time.”

It is understood that Richardson bought an option to buy the Foleshill gas works site but when that option ran out and he couldn’t raise the money to pay British Gas, the council stepped in and bought the land for £20m - including £12m to decontaminate it – and then sold it to Tesco, using the £40m profit to part-fund the construction of the stadium.

Richardson admitted: “I had left when the final deal was done, but that was going to be the best asset ever for the club.

Sick Boy · Dec 5, 2015

...but...but...I was told that the council have always had the football club's interests at heart??

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
Didn't say I believed Richardson, said that was what he claimed.

The money left over from what Tescos paid wouldn't even cover the price of a pitch. It sounds more like pass the buck.

HR was sold and the money spent. We were heavily in debt. That is why we ended up with SISU. And the 50% of ACL we were given was more or less sold. There was about another 60m to be found to cover costs. We couldn't even afford the rent at HR or the Ricoh.

tisza · Dec 5, 2015

all these numbers from Fletcher & Richardson re:land purchase and decontamination are not close to being right. Land purchase, decontamination and infrastructure costs alone were just over 43 million and the Tesco sale was just under 60 million.

chiefdave · Dec 5, 2015

tisza said:
all these numbers from Fletcher & Richardson re:land purchase and decontamination are not close to being right. Land purchase, decontamination and infrastructure costs alone were just over 43 million and the Tesco sale was just under 60 million.

You're not comparing the same things.

chiefdave · Dec 5, 2015

Astute said:
The money left over from what Tescos paid wouldn't even cover the price of a pitch. It sounds more like pass the buck.

The pitch at Wembley was £100K, If the pitch at the Ricoh cost £40m its no wonder things don't add up!

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

chiefdave said:
The pitch at Wembley was £100K, If the pitch at the Ricoh cost £40m its no wonder things don't add up!

Why do you have to take what you know as untrue as the truth to have a dig at me or yet another cheap dig at CCC?

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

I fancy a laugh as stuck at work all day. Show us all where the purchase of the land and decontamination only cost 20m. And not just the he said she said crap.

Sick Boy · Dec 5, 2015

Why do you claim to blame both sides, yet get your knickers in a twist as soon as some criticise ccc?

fernandopartridge · Dec 5, 2015

Astute said:
I fancy a laugh as stuck at work all day. Show us all where the purchase of the land and decontamination only cost 20m. And not just the he said she said crap.

It was previously quoted (can't remember who) at approx £20m for the decontamination. It doesn't actually say it didn't cost that much as decontamination is lumped in with other costs.
The build cost at even £60m is significantly higher than comparable stadia, Walkers Stadium was £35m.

martcov · Dec 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
It was previously quoted (can't remember who) at approx £20m for the decontamination. It doesn't actually say it didn't cost that much as decontamination is lumped in with other costs.
The build cost at even £60m is significantly higher than comparable stadia, Walkers Stadium was £35m.

What is included in the 60m? Hotel, Casino, Exhibition Hall etc.? Does the Walker's have all that? ( Never been there )

fernandopartridge · Dec 5, 2015

martcov said:
What is included in the 60m? Hotel, Casino, Exhibition Hall etc.? Does the Walker's have all that? ( Never been there )

It's nearly twice as much. Granted the exhibition hall and excavation for underground casino would be high, it just seems not right to me. It's all a bit vague.

wingy · Dec 5, 2015

Yes pretty much £20M added to the cost there, which led to the need for the YB loan and our rent to cover it.
Not fair or right IMO
Could be argued on that basis the rent should never have been higher than an already heavy £800K

tisza · Dec 5, 2015

http://democraticservices.coventry....08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
It's nearly twice as much. Granted the exhibition hall and excavation for underground casino would be high, it just seems not right to me. It's all a bit vague.

Wasn't the Walkers site purchased already cleared and ready to build on? Have a feeling it was.

Jack Griffin · Dec 5, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Wasn't the Walkers site purchased already cleared and ready to build on? Have a feeling it was.

Some people always ready to compare 2 totally different things and cry foul. The devil is in the detail.

Astute · Dec 5, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Why do you claim to blame both sides, yet get your knickers in a twist as soon as some criticise ccc?

Or do you mean comes out with false claims and uses two people saying something that contradicts each other to tell me I am wrong?

I am all for finding out the truth. Making false claims only muddies the water. Then many believe the false claims to be true. Just like you stating that we had paid for the land when we hadn't. Did you know that we hadn't or had you heard that we had?

wingy · Dec 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
It's nearly twice as much. Granted the exhibition hall and excavation for underground casino would be high, it just seems not right to me. It's all a bit vague.

I just checked as I thought your £35M was a little south and recalled £38M, however wiki has it at 37 small margins but not quite a doubling for our build.
Clearly the extras at the Ricoh represent around £20M and subsequently the entirety of the build shortfall.
It can't ever have been right to expect the club to fund the servicing of that debt in whole,when being generous the CCC policy to generate business and jobs were responsible for at the very least half of it.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 5, 2015

wingy said:
,when being generous the CCC policy to generate business and jobs were responsible for at the very least half of it.

The main problem being, the only way the stadium build got passed by council was on the promise of extra regeneration around the area than originally planned. Once that happened, it was almost inevitable stadium and club would be working against each other when under separate ownership.

At the risk of being a stuck record, still baffled the club pushed for the stadium quite so much, as opposed to pushing for HR being returned to them.

fernandopartridge · Dec 5, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Wasn't the Walkers site purchased already cleared and ready to build on? Have a feeling it was.

Yes but if you add all those costs in the Ricoh was 3 times as much. The £35m would probably include purchase and clearing the site.

crowsnest · Dec 5, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
At the risk of being a stuck record, still baffled the club pushed for the stadium quite so much, as opposed to pushing for HR being returned to them.

Perhaps this will help
http://www.playthegame.org/news/new...wes-its-success-to-the-hillsborough-disaster/

fernandopartridge · Dec 5, 2015

crowsnest said:
Perhaps this will help
http://www.playthegame.org/news/new...wes-its-success-to-the-hillsborough-disaster/

Aye. Every seat at HR was replaced in the 90s as well. Wonder if the club got preferential pricing?

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
Yes but if you add all those costs in the Ricoh was 3 times as much. The £35m would probably include purchase and clearing the site.

Happy to be corrected but I was working alot in Leicester on various new build housing estates and I'm sure that the site had been levelled and cleared long before LCFC ever shown an interest in it. I remember driving past the site regularly for what seemed like the best part of a decade and can only remember the site being leveled and surrounded by site fencing. Again I'm happy to be proved wrong but I'm pretty sure that the site wasn't cleared to build a football stadium and the original developer went tits up before the original planned development could begin.

Supporters' group tells Coventry City FC owners to clarify stadium plans (15 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency