The Freehold at the Ricoh (7 Viewers)

The point I am making is there is a myth being peddled here by Fisher, SISU, Les Reid etc that the freehold ownership is essential for the well being of CCFC. That it is the only solution. It isnt, as many of the posters above agree. That myth is either peddled because of other agendas away from the club itself (eg SISU). by reporters that assume the only deal is the freehold but ignore the lease ACL currently hold with right to income or by people who think it is the only way because they havent really looked at it properly. Basically what SISU are saying is we have the club and the only way we come back is by a cheap deal on freehold ownership. That might work if ACL/Council were in a downward spiral as far as the Ricoh is concerned but are they? But freehold ownership isnt what is essential to CCFC the income streams are - and CCFC is what we care about isnt it ..... not SISU, ACL, Council etc etc

So given that the next questions are who needs the freehold and do those needs match the clubs or is there another reason?

and

to discount the value of the stadium and to sell to the "club" benefits who? who would actually gain by the discount? Why should they benefit? and such a deal would guarantee CCFC what exactly?

So if the parties have CCFC purely in mind the solution is not to do a deal on the freehold it is to do a deal on a long cheap lease and the income sources now owned by IEC Experience Ltd. Isnt it?

Deleted member 5849 said:

Have SISU actually peddled that though?

Their judicial review case makes the case that the part of the point of them taking on the debt was that in return they'd get a longer lease, of 125 years.

Click to expand...

That would be a 125yr lease for CCFC or ACL? It was ACL's debt they were taking on. But that was a year ago. Recent "info" seems to suggest that they require the freehold

they talk of stadium ownership not leases nowadays

Then they should have no problem in taking up the discussions brokered by the Trust then should they and making a business proposal to acl to return

well the only thing that ACL can offer is a rental deal and the possibility of buying income streams ..... ACL itself cant offer ownership of the stadium or of its own shares

but like you say both sides have to draw a line on the past.... and both sides have to offer compromise together with open minds

slyblue57 said:

Mark Labovitz was interviewed on CWR and he totally rejected the claims made that Seppala had stated freehold or nothing. He stated that he was at the meeting and it was deffinately not said.

Click to expand...

In which case they should have no problem approaching ACL to discuss a rent should they ?

Would suggest as I, Paxman and others have suggested in the past a long lease for the football club at a low rental. Would give the club some tenure, stability and extra worth. They can then negotiate or acquire rights to other incomes and add more worth. The club would benefit. If it is about the club finances and putting a team on the pitch they dont need the freehold in any case.

what is the betting that any talks flounder because other forms of ownership are demanded but not offered or agreed. But do we CCFC need any other form of ownership if we can get ownership of long lease and match day income streams?

It is difficult to see what their plan is. I think they have shielded the club away from claims from ACL for the lease etc but in so doing have given themselves potential for a headache. By breaking away from the old lease they have broken connection to the stadium too. Have a feeling that the plan may have been as simple as ACL would run out of funds without the club and be falling over themselves to get the club back, that the council and charity would be more than eager to give up at least some ownership for fear of getting no value at all. That hasnt happened to date.

Where do they go from here? Personally I can not see them entering in to meaningful negotiations on the rent - just do not see that as the SISU objective even if it does work for CCFC. I do not think ACL are in any mood to roll over by discounting rents to a pittance, but they are interested in a sensible rental arrangement and I am pretty sure neither the Charity nor Council have any interest in selling ownership in ACL or freehold to SISU.

We are back to who has the deepest pockets. SISU could I guess revert to legal actions say against the stakeholders in ACL, or the signatories to the 2003 share sale, or any or all of the individuals involved say by trying to get them struck off as directors, or other offices (just guessing). On the other side of things ACL will not want to get involved in costly legal actions or PR battles - they cost too much to maintain. They will concentrate on building the other side of their business. They have brought some significant new business in and there are other sources that are going to be returning. Events wise they will be putting on some larger ones but also smaller ones that keep the place ticking.

From the SISU side of things I would be desperate to find out the current ACL financials (may 2013 accounts wont be filed until Feb 2014 I would guess,) of course the council audit committee is an opportunity for info to leak but I see no reason why ACL have to attend, there is as far as I know no legal reason that they have to. That information would all help SISU determine their next steps. For now they will take the hit at Sixfields until something moves in their favour at the Ricoh. They will bide their time hoping pressure financially and also importantly recently public pressure mounts on ACL & its stakeholders. There is a definite steering of opinion going on in my view - but not unexpected

ACL will be going all out to get new business in, not just for the stadium. The thing that is repeatedly overlooked is the restructuring they have been doing over the last 20 months. They have halved the loan repayments, removed 3 of the top senior executives, shifted the stadium operation to IEC Experience ltd to become a joint venture with Compass not a supply contract, other staff have reduced and their functions run by Compass. There is no loss of £1.3m rent because included in that are the match day costs under licence no matches no costs plus there have been and will be events instead that if nothing else soften the blow. The legal costs etc must have hurt but if they have said enough and drawn a line then it isnt a growing hurt. IEC are getting new business and starting to recruit staff. They are building in non reliance on CCFC and that should concern SISU but doesnt stop CCFC coming back

That all points to nothing changing soon

It all looks like to me that this will rumble on in terms of the stadium and CCFC coming back. Until there is a game changer one way or another in respect of ACL/stadium

Could they bring CCFC back to the Ricoh next month yes of course they could but it suits one side to wait it out and the other side not to give more ground. Slightly different to how it was but are we any closer to a solution? not sure we are its just things are calmer.

if they liquidate both CCFC Ltd and CCFC H Ltd I am not sure they have to file any accounts. Of course they still need to file for Otium and SBS&L. Are we not supposed to hear from Appleton about liquidation this week?

There comes a point that they will have to weigh the potential benefits against the actual costs - when that no longer makes sense to them then that is a end game solution. Options will be return as tenant, move elsewhere, sell up, liquidate