The Perfect Scenario... (1 Viewer)

Samo · Mar 15, 2013

What if...
ACL/CCC & Higgs have already agread a deal in principle, allowing a new owner to buy into the arena, develop the surrounding area and get access to the funding streams. This allows a new investor to buy the club safe in the knowedge that they will be able to take it forward. We know ACL are ready to talk about a deal, they just need someone reasonable to talk to! So they apply for administration in the knowledge that they have a partner waiting in the wings. Yes I know it's pie in the sky but it's possible.
I do think though, as many do on here, that Joy is not quite done yet and there may be some more twists and turns... I hope I'm wrong!

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 15, 2013

Perfect doesn't exist..

Unfortunately Fairytale stories are fiction and no more, I unfortunately can't see it being as easy as you make out Samo..

Life doesn't work that way, but keep the faith!

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

It does seem the perfect scenario, but as you state Joy may not be finished yet. This all depends on "the Investor" securing the club and the ground, we are buggered if Sisu buy the club from the administrators, though I can't see this happening.

Waldorf · Mar 15, 2013

I have a number of contacts in the council, both politicians an paid officials. From talking to them, what I believe is:
1. The council would not block the sale of the Higgs shares in ACL and would sell rheir own, providing that the buyer: a) developed the surrounding land, and the produced a credible business plan for the stable future of both the club and the arena.
2, I believe they would also be open to extending the lease that ACL has, probaably to 99 or 125 years.

I suspect (and I stress suspect) that they would want to see the arena lease in the ownership of the club, not anyone else, and not legally transferrable. That would give the club a secure future and ALL the revenue streams, including income from concerts and conferences.

The problem with SISU's offer for ACL some time back, was that they couldn't provide a credible business plan, just some warm words and vague promises.

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 15, 2013

Waldorf said:
I have a number of contacts in the council, both politicians an paid officials. From talking to them, what I believe is:
1. The council would not block the sale of the Higgs shares in ACL and would sell rheir own, providing that the buyer: a) developed the surrounding land, and the produced a credible business plan for the stable future of both the club and the arena.
2, I believe they would also be open to extending the lease that ACL has, probaably to 99 or 125 years.

I suspect (and I stress suspect) that they would want to see the arena lease in the ownership of the club, not anyone else, and not legally transferrable. That would give the club a secure future and ALL the revenue streams, including income from concerts and conferences.

The problem with SISU's offer for ACL some time back, was that they couldn't provide a credible business plan, just some warm words and vague promises.

Thats what i have heard too

dongonzalos · Mar 15, 2013

Waldorf said:
I have a number of contacts in the council, both politicians an paid officials. From talking to them, what I believe is:
1. The council would not block the sale of the Higgs shares in ACL and would sell rheir own, providing that the buyer: a) developed the surrounding land, and the produced a credible business plan for the stable future of both the club and the arena.
2, I believe they would also be open to extending the lease that ACL has, probaably to 99 or 125 years.

I suspect (and I stress suspect) that they would want to see the arena lease in the ownership of the club, not anyone else, and not legally transferrable. That would give the club a secure future and ALL the revenue streams, including income from concerts and conferences.

The problem with SISU's offer for ACL some time back, was that they couldn't provide a credible business plan, just some warm words and vague promises.

Yes heard the same

Godiva · Mar 15, 2013

Waldorf said:
I have a number of contacts in the council, both politicians an paid officials. From talking to them, what I believe is:
1. The council would not block the sale of the Higgs shares in ACL and would sell rheir own, providing that the buyer: a) developed the surrounding land, and the produced a credible business plan for the stable future of both the club and the arena.
2, I believe they would also be open to extending the lease that ACL has, probaably to 99 or 125 years.

I suspect (and I stress suspect) that they would want to see the arena lease in the ownership of the club, not anyone else, and not legally transferrable. That would give the club a secure future and ALL the revenue streams, including income from concerts and conferences.

The problem with SISU's offer for ACL some time back, was that they couldn't provide a credible business plan, just some warm words and vague promises.

That would then be the perfect scenario for the council and Higgs ... but ... as stated by other posters, perfect doesn't exist.

I don't get why ccc are insisting in coupling club ownership to land and area developing. There are companies specialized in running sports clubs and do land and property development at the same time, but theren't that many.

Maybe the council and Higgs will have to accept an owner who just want the club and ACL and concentrate on that. Or would they then say no and in effect liquidate the club?

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 15, 2013

Godiva said:
That would then be the perfect scenario for the council and Higgs ... but ... as stated by other posters, perfect doesn't exist.

I don't get why ccc are insisting in coupling club ownership to land and area developing. There are companies specialized in running sports clubs and do land and property development at the same time, but theren't that many.

Maybe the council and Higgs will have to accept an owner who just want the club and ACL and concentrate on that. Or would they then say no and in effect liquidate the club?

Good question. My contacts are confident

Paxman II · Mar 15, 2013

Yes that's a perfect world right?

So if such a perfect scenario is possible why has there been no buyers?

If I ran a business and my landlords were seeking to usurp me themselves I'd be mighty pissed and my lawyers would be very busy!

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

Paxman II said:
Yes that's a perfect world right?

So if such a perfect scenario is possible why has there been no buyers?

If I ran a business and my landlords were seeking to usurp me themselves I'd be mighty pissed and my lawyers would be very busy!

Or has/is there?

theferret · Mar 15, 2013

Where is all this land they speak about anyway?

There isn't that much. Some of it is earmarked for a train station. Some of it that fronts the A444 near to Tesco is to be built on soon with two new restaurants, the land at RG Social Club has already been purchased by a developer, and land next to Arena Park is owned by Tesco (at least a fair chunk of it is). Unless they mean the scrap yard and industrial units would be moved?

Nobody has really every explained what is meant by 'developing surrounding land'. What do the council have in mind? More retail? That would be a disaster for the city. Housing? Maybe, but surely you would just sell the land to a housing developer. Another hotel? Perhaps. It would be nice to know what they mean by all this seeing as they constantly tell us how important it all is.

shropshirecov · Mar 15, 2013

Unless someone owns the stadium or can rent ir for free and keep the revenues it generates, Coventry City Football Club won't be an attractive proposition for anyone.

Perhaps if one day ACL said ccfc use it during the football season and pay for the maintanance etc, and we'll have it for concerts in the summer, you keep the money you raise we'll keep what we make. Symbiotic relationship. Let the council worry about the loan on it as they benefit from the money the 2 businesses would bring into the local economy.

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

I think they mean the scrapyard and the surrounding land to build additional hotel and leisure facilities.

coundonskyblue · Mar 15, 2013

It is the scrapyards and car park C (the one on the opposite side of the A444). Plans were for a hotel to be built on car park C site, with a new car park being buit under the hotel.

As for the scrapyards, I dont know what the plan is/was, but they certainly need to go. They look awful on one of the main entrances into the City.

hutch1972 · Mar 15, 2013

Samo said:
What if...
ACL/CCC & Higgs have already agread a deal in principle, allowing a new owner to buy into the arena, develop the surrounding area and get access to the funding streams. This allows a new investor to buy the club safe in the knowedge that they will be able to take it forward. We know ACL are ready to talk about a deal, they just need someone reasonable to talk to! So they apply for administration in the knowledge that they have a partner waiting in the wings. Yes I know it's pie in the sky but it's possible.
I do think though, as many do on here, that Joy is not quite done yet and there may be some more twists and turns... I hope I'm wrong!

I have said before on previous threads, why the feck should anybody have to do the councils job for them by developing the surrounding land. Would you take over a business in town only to find you have to re-lay all the roads and build a hotel next door.

coundonskyblue · Mar 15, 2013

<p>

hutch1972 said:
I have said before on previous threads, why the feck should anybody have to do the councils job for them by developing the surrounding land. Would you take over a business in town only to find you have to re-lay all the roads and build a hotel next door.

That land belongs to acl, it was sold to acl on the condition it was redeveloped. Much in the same way that Tesco had to pay for the junction improvements on the a444.

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

coundonskyblue said:
<p>

That land belongs to acl, it was sold to acl on the condition it was redeveloped. Much in the same way that Tesco had to pay for the junction improvements on the a444.

What land CSB?

coundonskyblue · Mar 15, 2013

<p>

Bluegloucester said:
What land CSB?

Car park C

dadgad · Mar 15, 2013

What about that land on the other side of the railway track?
Who owns that?

Black6Osprey · Mar 15, 2013

coundonskyblue said:
<p>

That land belongs to acl, it was sold to acl on the condition it was redeveloped. Much in the same way that Tesco had to pay for the junction improvements on the a444.

Dear me , ACL reneging on the original agreement. Are you sure?

Spencer · Mar 15, 2013

I'm not sure that ACL hold the hand that people believe.

In order to force administration ACL will have to demonstrate that SISU cannot pay debts as they fall properly due. All SISU have to demonstrate is that they have the means to pay and that the reason that they aren't paying is because they do not believe that there is a debt, ie they have a crystallised dispute that can be adjudicated on (whether this be in court or some other form of dispute resolution will depend upon the wording of the contract between the parties).

Undoubtedly, ACL will argue that SISU cannot pay or why would they threaten liquidation? SISU will counter this by saying they were using their bargaining power and that ACL would have known this (ie all is fair in business). I actually think the court would agree with SISU.

In fairness this was probably the only move ACL had as they couldn't contemplate spending masses of solicitors fees suing the club having been told, "touch us and we'll liquidate" as this would have been seen throwing good (taxpayers money) after bad.

rupert_bear · Mar 15, 2013

Warwickshire council own the land where Leekes are. The land known as the Red Hills Longford side of the railtrack has been earmarked for development for years, whether that is part of any deal not sure but if flattened would be a large expanse of land. Not sure who owns the scrapyard land and Rowley Autos but all those industrial units are earmarked to go

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

Spencer said:
I'm not sure that ACL hold the hand that people believe.

In order to force administration ACL will have to demonstrate that SISU cannot pay debts as they fall properly due. All SISU have to demonstrate is that they have the means to pay and that the reason that they aren't paying is because they do not believe that there is a debt, ie they have a crystallised dispute that can be adjudicated on (whether this be in court or some other form of dispute resolution will depend upon the wording of the contract between the parties).

Undoubtedly, ACL will argue that SISU cannot pay or why would they threaten liquidation? SISU will counter this by saying they were using their bargaining power and that ACL would have known this (ie all is fair in business). I actually think the court would agree with SISU.

In fairness this was probably the only move ACL had as they couldn't contemplate spending masses of solicitors fees suing the club having been told, "touch us and we'll liquidate" as this would have been seen throwing good (taxpayers money) after bad.

ACL have a valid court order requiring payment by CCFC, the time to argue that they will not pay has passed. CCFC has to pay or face administration.

Spencer · Mar 15, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
ACL have a valid court order requiring payment by CCFC, the time to argue that they will not pay has passed. CCFC has to pay or face administration.

Do they? I don't believe so. An application for administration is a mile away from a court order.

I have advised clients who have had winding up petitions made against them. Generally, these are issued as the "debtor", incorrectly, believes an unwillingness to pay means an inability to pay. They are entirely different things and are decided in entirely different ways. As I said all you have to do is demonstrate an ability to pay.

SISU haven't been calling for mediation for nothing - it is the first step on the protocol.

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

Spencer said:
Do they? I don't believe so. An application for administration is a mile away from a court order.

I have advised clients who have had winding up petitions made against them. Generally, these are issued as the "debtor", incorrectly, believes an unwillingness to pay means an inability to pay. They are entirely different things and are decided in entirely different ways. As I said all you have to do is demonstrate an ability to pay.

SISU haven't been calling for mediation for nothing - it is the first step on the protocol.

You've missed the point, ACL have already gone to court over the unpaid rent. The found in their favour, it is now a case of pay up or administration. An 11th hour call for mediation is too little, too late.

Welcome to the forum.

rupert_bear · Mar 15, 2013

Spencer said:
I'm not sure that ACL hold the hand that people believe.

In order to force administration ACL will have to demonstrate that SISU cannot pay debts as they fall properly due. All SISU have to demonstrate is that they have the means to pay and that the reason that they aren't paying is because they do not believe that there is a debt, ie they have a crystallised dispute that can be adjudicated on (whether this be in court or some other form of dispute resolution will depend upon the wording of the contract between the parties).

Undoubtedly, ACL will argue that SISU cannot pay or why would they threaten liquidation? SISU will counter this by saying they were using their bargaining power and that ACL would have known this (ie all is fair in business). I actually think the court would agree with SISU.

In fairness this was probably the only move ACL had as they couldn't contemplate spending masses of solicitors fees suing the club having been told, "touch us and we'll liquidate" as this would have been seen throwing good (taxpayers money) after bad.

But SISU haven't submitted it's accounts to Companies House on time which is against the law must have a bareing i would have thought

Spencer · Mar 15, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
You've missed the point, ACL have already gone to court over the unpaid rent. The found in their favour, it is now a case of pay up or administration. An 11th hour call for mediation is too little, too late.

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you.

Unless I've missed something (which I may have - it wouldn't be the first time) I understood negotiations had broken down. I don't believe the dispute has gone to court.

I guess we'll find out in time.

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

Spencer said:
Thank you.

Unless I've missed something (which I may have - it wouldn't be the first time) I understood negotiations had broken down. I don't believe the dispute has gone to court.

I guess we'll find out in time.

It went to court in December.

Sick Boy · Mar 15, 2013

Why should a football club be responsible for developing land?

Surely supporters of clubs would be insistent on this money being invested in the football club?

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

We are only football fans, if an investor bought the Ricoh, it would be in their interest to have more hotel rooms for conferences etc. The extra income could be spent on the team.

Spencer · Mar 15, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
It went to court in December.

Did it?

I've just had a quick look on the telegraph website and negotiations were still on-going in February.

There are debt orders in place but, again, these don't mean the debt is due - that has to be either agreed by some means or decided by a court.

mattylad · Mar 15, 2013

Sick Boy said:
Why should a football club be responsible for developing land?

Surely supporters of clubs would be insistent on this money being invested in the football club?

ACL were formed on the premis that it would run the ricoh and develop the surrounding area, the truth is they have failed in their primary responsibility just as much as SISU have with the football side of things

Spencer · Mar 15, 2013

Sick Boy said:
Why should a football club be responsible for developing land?

Surely supporters of clubs would be insistent on this money being invested in the football club?

Agreed.

And why would the council want to sell it with the ground? Surely, a property developer would realise a better profit (and, therefore, pay a better price) than an owner of a football club (who could be from any background).

Bluegloucester · Mar 15, 2013

Spencer said:
Did it?

I've just had a quick look on the telegraph website and negotiations were still on-going in February.

There are debt orders in place but, again, these don't mean the debt is due - that has to be either agreed by some means or decided by a court.

There have been no negotiations, Fisher has put paid to that.

Sick Boy · Mar 15, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
We are only football fans, if an investor bought the Ricoh, it would be in their interest to have more hotel rooms for conferences etc. The extra income could be spent on the team.

How many rooms are in the Ricoh arena already?

The Perfect Scenario... (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Super Moderator

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Super Moderator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency