Supporters' group tells Coventry City FC owners to clarify stadium plans (3 Viewers)

[Astute]

That was one of the scare stories Astute and others used to throw around. Don't sell the Ricoh to SISU as they'll just borrow against it!





Yes, another who's apparently not bothered by Wasps.

Why is it that you always quote my name when you mention this but never quote anyone that you normally agree everything with? I was not alone with not wanting them to get their hands on it. I wanted CCC to keep the Ricoh for our football club. SISU are not our football club. They will do whatever they need to get money raised for their shareholders. And this includes going against what is best for our club and ourselves. And if you want to say I am wrong here explain Northampton.

Yes I was weary of them raising a lot of money against the Ricoh and then dumping our club. But I am glad that Wasps have done the same. A lot of people have invested in a scheme where they will make a lot of money.........but if Wasps can't find nearly 50m in 7 years the ground could be up for grabs. If their supporters don't turn up and they can't find new ones then their future in Coventry will be in doubt. The bloke running them took 10m out what he loaned the club. If he knew the venture was going to work why did he take the money out?

So why is it always me that you name and constantly have digs for my views? The last time was only a few days ago. And you ended up agreeing with me. Try this list of people to have a dig at.

By the way, I believe the only way forward is for the club to eventually own the stadium. But SISU are not responsible enough to be given it. The council should not sell to them until they can prove they have the clubs best interests at heart or we have new owners.

Yes, the club owning the stadium, but not Sisu though!

As has been said before, the council and ACL will be prepared to deal with owners they can trust.

Why on earth would you believe that any income streams would be put into the infrastructure of the club? :thinking about: Sisu is a hedge fund. Get in, make money, fook off. They don't care about the club.

Template:

Dear Mutton

I realise you are a low-life wannabe politician who spends more time getting fat at business lunches than actually working and who is not only a waste of taxpayers money, but like much of local government is a complete waste of oxygen, however I was wondering if you could get off your fat lazy arse and without using any brown paper bags of used currency, get involved with the rent arrangements at the Ricoh Arena (the big soul-less bowl on the outskirts of Coventry near the M6).

I'm sure you're aware of a corrupt bunch of fraudsters who have many names and many owners and hide behind the front of a hedge fund called SISU. They are more untrustworthy than a local counciller and stole the club from the fans and owners because nobody else was interested. They are paying a lot of rent after your predecessors and the inept mismanagment of a previous Coventry City regime, struck the worst possible financial deal in the history of business but then it was involving a coke snorting politician and a West Brom fan who didn't care.

Basically what happened was that your council decided that the club hadn't been shafted hard enough and needed a real kick in bollocks whilst it was lying on the floor and pretty much took all of the ground, naming rights revenue, cash from the Tesco sale and all of the revenue streams for a deal equivalent to the £1 Gary Hoffman and his chinese contacts are now trying to buy the club back for.

Anyhow I digress, to this end, SISU (we'll call them that for the sake of consistency) have decided that as they have mismanaged the team on the pitch and now the potential revenue has been slashed, that the ridiculously high rent deal is now unsustainable and need a reduction.

Therefore as one crook to another, please can you resolve between you the possibilty of reducing the rent to market value, but ensuring that SISU NEVER get even the tiniest part of any ownership in the soul-less bowl.

If you could achieve this without increasing the council tax due by the whole of Coventry, then that would be the best scenario, although I believe the residents have still yet to see the benefit of the millions of pounds that the council has stole from the football club, so if you could also enlighten me on that, then I would be most grateful.

Yours sincerely

Mr C.O. Ventry

Can someone with access to a PC start an epetition. Think it is worth doing. Something along the lines of:

Coventry City Council should block any attempt by SISU, the hedge fund that currently owns Coventry City Football Club, to buy a share in the Ricoh Arena (or in Arena Coventry Ltd), which is 50% owned by the council.

SISU have shown they are incapable of running a football club in a fit and proper manner. Their constant threats to liquidate the club could leave the City of Coventry without a football club and without a stadium if it was signed over.

Instead, other options such as decreasing the over-inflated rent or giving the club access to revenue streams in the stadium should be investigated.

I agree on a few points - a rent reduction won't be enough. Access to revenue streams are vital.

But I think with the current situation everything will be considered at the negotiation tables and all contracts and agreements may become subjects for renegotiation.
So it could well be that the best achievable outcome for all parties are a set of complete new contracts where tthe club end up owning 1/3 of the arena.
The clubs stake should be bought at a fair price by the club using new funds from sisu.

This way sisu won't have control over the stadium, but the club will gain access to new revenue streams. Add a rent reduction and break-even should become achieveable soon.

So a few more names to add to mine Torch And all taken from the threads that you and Nick put on this thread. No searching from me. But the funniest was how Dongo was defending SISU so much

 

---

[torchomatic]

Why is it that you always quote my name when you mention this but never quote anyone that you normally agree everything with? I was not alone with not wanting them to get their hands on it. I wanted CCC to keep the Ricoh for our football club. SISU are not our football club. They will do whatever they need to get money raised for their shareholders. And this includes going against what is best for our club and ourselves. And if you want to say I am wrong here explain Northampton.

Yes I was weary of them raising a lot of money against the Ricoh and then dumping our club. But I am glad that Wasps have done the same. A lot of people have invested in a scheme where they will make a lot of money.........but if Wasps can't find nearly 50m in 7 years the ground could be up for grabs. If their supporters don't turn up and they can't find new ones then their future in Coventry will be in doubt. The bloke running them took 10m out what he loaned the club. If he knew the venture was going to work why did he take the money out?

So why is it always me that you name and constantly have digs for my views? The last time was only a few days ago. And you ended up agreeing with me. Try this list of people to have a dig at.











So a few more names to add to mine Torch And all taken from the threads that you and Nick put on this thread. No searching from me. But the funniest was how Dongo was defending SISU so much

Sorry Astute i know i always use you as an example but i can't remember other names when this little topic regularly rears its head. I know you're not the only one and i apologise for dragging your name up. Again.

As a punishment i will have this to remind me all day.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Esoterica]

You getting some hand cream for Christmas Torch?

 

[torchomatic]

Cheeky. We're just good friends.

You getting some hand cream for Christmas Torch?

 

[Nick]

Going to be in trouble when your wife sees that!

 

[fernandopartridge]

You do know that the £1.2M would be the rent in the PL as well don't you ?

No. There was a built in escalator. It would have gone up to circa £1.9m.

 

[martcov]

No. There was a built in escalator. It would have gone up to circa £1.9m.

I thought they decided on a fixed sum and that the sliding scale no longer applied. That was a problem with relegation, it didn't go down for league 1.

 

[italiahorse]

No. There was a built in escalator. It would have gone up to circa £1.9m.

No. I'm right.
They had a choice of a fixed £1.2M or a sliding scale of £1.2M in the Championship increasing for PL (£1.9M?) and down for L1 (?)
They chose the first :facepalm:

 

[Captain Dart]

I thought they decided on a fixed sum and that the sliding scale no longer applied. That was a problem with relegation, it didn't go down for league 1.

That'll never happen, oh shit!

 

[Ian1779]

No. I'm right.
They had a choice of a fixed £1.2M or a sliding scale of £1.2M in the Championship increasing for PL (£1.9M?) and down for L1 (?)
They chose the first :facepalm:

How gracious of the council....Like choosing between a gunshot or stabwound

 

[stupot07]

I thought they decided on a fixed sum and that the sliding scale no longer applied. That was a problem with relegation, it didn't go down for league 1.

It was a problem in the championship - extortionate level of rent and no access to matchday and 365 day revenues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[fernandopartridge]

No. I'm right.
They had a choice of a fixed £1.2M or a sliding scale of £1.2M in the Championship increasing for PL (£1.9M?) and down for L1 (?)
They chose the first :facepalm:

Evidence?

 

[James Smith]

Evidence?

I think someone said that Sir Higgs had suggested the sliding scale and the club rejected it.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think someone said that Sir Higgs had suggested the sliding scale and the club rejected it.

Perhaps but where is the evidence for it?

 

[James Smith]

Perhaps but where is the evidence for it?

Actually don't know how you would find out might try Geoffrey Robinson MP, Joe Elliot etc.

 

[stupot07]

Perhaps but where is the evidence for it?

Very good point, there's no one really in the club who was around and involved in those discussions to dispute these 'facts'. There's certainly not been any figures banded about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Sure I'd seen that in paperwork before

 

[Moff]

Not up to speed on this, but was there a choice ?

Yep, when we were originally sold there was at least one other interetsed party, which the council vetoed as SISU were their preferred bidder for the club.

 

[Sick Boy]

Didn't the club initially go to the council asking for a rent reduction when we first moved to the Ricoh?

Even in the Championship it was unsustainable, yet they refused to help the club out. Much better to bleed as much money from us and then sell to a franchise London rugby club for what? 4 years rent money?

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, they did SB. Ten years ago this month so just a few months after we moved in. I remember mentioning it to PWKH but he wasn't very forthcoming.

 

[chiefdave]

Yep, when we were originally sold there was at least one other interetsed party, which the council vetoed as SISU were their preferred bidder for the club.

There was at least 2 other interested parties. Manhattan Group and Sharpiro. Both lost interest after meeting with the council as both had identified stadium ownership as key.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes, they did SB. Ten years ago this month so just a few months after we moved in. I remember mentioning it to PWKH but he wasn't very forthcoming.

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.

 

[Astute]

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.

Paying for the land and decontamination of it cost a large proportion of the total cost.

 

[Sick Boy]

Didn't the club pay for both the land and the decontamination?

 

[chiefdave]

Paying for the land and decontamination of it cost a large proportion of the total cost.

Land acquisition, decontamination and infrastructure, site profiling, fees, joint venture operating costs and interest payable during the construction period came to £52.5m.

 

[Astute]

Land acquisition, decontamination and infrastructure, site profiling, fees, joint venture operating costs and interest payable during the construction period came to £52.5m.

Which is just 6.5m off half of the cost.

 

[Astute]

Didn't the club pay for both the land and the decontamination?

Not that old chestnut again

No we didn't although it seemed at one stage that most on here though we did. Tescos paid for it to get planning permission and land to build on the site.

 

[Nick]

What was it that Fletcher said happened in his book?

 

[Sick Boy]

Not that old chestnut again

No we didn't although it seemed at one stage that most on here though we did. Tescos paid for it to get planning permission and land to build on the site.

I was under the impression that a certain someone sold the land onto Tesco. Allegedly, of course.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - arena construction completion report.pdf

Link to a breakdown of stadium costs and income. Detailed breakdown on the last page.

 

[James Smith]

I was under the impression that a certain someone sold the land onto Tesco. Allegedly, of course.

I'm fairly certain OSB58,said that we never owned the land and therefore whilst a certain someone might have allegedly found Tesco as a buyer of the land.... That certain someone couldn't have allegedly sold them the land.

 

[chiefdave]

I'm fairly certain OSB58,said that we never owned the land and therefore whilst a certain someone might have allegedly found Tesco as a buyer of the land.... That certain someone couldn't have allegedly sold them the land.

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.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I think someone said that Sir Higgs had suggested the sliding scale and the club rejected it.

From the Trust Q & A, March 2013, no figures quoted, but the principle of sliding scale mentioned.

6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?
ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.
CCFC: Not sure of historic negotiations
7: Is the rent at £400k in League 1 acceptable ?
ACL: Yes
CCFC: Yes [if other accompanying terms are kept to]
8: Have rents for Championship and Premiership been offered and agreed?
ACL: Yes, all part of the HOT verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. Requirement for extra spectator payments subsequently withdrawn verbally.
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.

​http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...le?id=227:full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc

 

[fernandopartridge]

Paying for the land and decontamination of it cost a large proportion of the total cost.

Edit, read the subsequent post

 

[James Smith]

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.

Allegedly!