Turn the lights off (2 Viewers)

hutch1972 · Dec 28, 2012

elephanttears said:
total tosh, acl was not formed to ensure ccfc had a home it was formed so greedy little men could get their hands in the pot it was a pure and simple money making decision.

Never a truer word spoken, it would be interesting to know just how many of the original employees are still around ? Acl, the council ,the Higgs charity were all supposed to be CUSTODIANS of the ground ,not the owners . Somewhere along the line it has gone very wrong.
Paul Fletcher recently revealed ccfc has probably put in 70 mill since moving there and yet own nothing ! it has become a way for our council to regenerate even more of the area without spending a bean.

Grendel · Dec 28, 2012

Tonylinc said:
And do you really think that that matters to them so long as they get their grubby little hands on the one asset that has any value????/

Why are the grubby hands always little? Notice this from a few posters - is this a phrase to prove you are a member of the SBT? You know, bit like a masonic handshake kind of thing eh?

CJparker · Dec 29, 2012

No, it was formed so that the council, having stepped in and spent millions on helping CCFC build a home, could get sufficient recompense for their unanticipated troubles.

People on here seem to think that the council owe CCFC a free stadium / rent. Get real, in business, there is no such thing as a free lunch. CCFC fucked up, the council wiped their arse for them and then set up ACL as a way of getting payback. Now the terms don;t suit us and we're running off crying "unreasonable" - it's pathetic and embarrassing.

As for greed, how about receiving an offer of 2/3 rent reduction plus extras plus 10 years to repay the arreas, and turning it down flat. SISU are 100% in the wrong and didn't have the decency to accept an over-generous offer when it was put to them.

Gaz · Dec 29, 2012

Sisu aren't 100% in the wrong on this.
To say the rent is unreasonable, is not pathetic
It's realistic.
The rent reduction offer is not generous either as its not a fixed price, it's more like a temporary reduction.

We are paying considerbly more rent than a lot of others, which then puts us at a disadvantage to other teams in our league.

Sisu have made some awful decisions since taking us over, but trying to reduce our ridiculous rent costs that we were being charged, isn't one of them.

Astute · Dec 29, 2012

gaz said:
Sisu aren't 100% in the wrong on this.
To say the rent is unreasonable, is not pathetic
It's realistic.
The rent reduction offer is not generous either as its not a fixed price, it's more like a temporary reduction.

We are paying considerbly more rent than a lot of others, which then puts us at a disadvantage to other teams in our league.

Sisu have made some awful decisions since taking us over, but trying to reduce our ridiculous rent costs that we were being charged, isn't one of them.

So are a lot of clubs being paid to play at their grounds? We are not paying rent.

SISU have been made an offer that is about what they pay one player, Wood, to play for us. I will say again. My problem isn't trying to get a rent reduction. It is not paying rent at all. It will soon be a year since the last payment was made. How can this ever come to an agreement to transfer the lease to SISU if they won't get into meaningful talks.

Otis · Dec 29, 2012

This is one of my main gripes.

If CCFC believe the rent should be say £200,000, why on earth don't they just pay the £200,000 and argue about the rest aCL are asking for? Surely that would make more sense than simply refusing to pay anything!

Think about it, if we paid £200,000 there would be a lot more sympathy on here and from fans and from outsiders in general. There would be a 'That's all we can afford to pay' kind of stance and that would appear quite reasonable to a great many people.

To pay nothing though and gamble with our own very future is very reckless.

Said this many times. If CCFC think they have a very valid case and £200,000 would seem to be about on par with what it probably should be, then pay the bloody £200,000 and stop this fiasco and the gambling of our future. It would also have the fans in general I feel more likely to be backing the club and putting pressure on ACL and the council!

Covstu · Dec 29, 2012

I would agree Otis, at least it would be some form of 'olive branch' to look like they want to resolve this matter in some form. I hear all this talk about not moving from HR etc and totally get it but when the Ricoh was being built every single fan was excited about playing our football there, it has just sadly coincided with dodgy ownership and inevitable relegation. If we were playing there in 1996 for example we would all have happy memories of the place.

Otis · Dec 29, 2012

I am one of the few who much prefers the Ricoh to HR.

It's a great stadium and has fantastic views. Once the rail station is built it will become so much easier to get to too.

It's just the fact that we don't own it that has caused all the trouble.

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2012

I agree Otis, I to prefer the unrestricted views of the Ricoh and the large concourse underneath to HR. I do miss not being able to park on the road for free though!

Otis · Dec 29, 2012

Just park in Tesco's for free instead!!

And you are now aware that there are parking meters on the streets of Cov. You can be bound sure they would have been put up around HR too!

lordsummerisle · Dec 29, 2012

It's watching City sober that makes watching Coventry at the Ricoh less enjoyable for me, barely watched a game at HR without being pissed which made it a much more enjoyable experience no matter what was happening on the pitch.

SkyblueBazza · Dec 29, 2012

Just posted a thought on another thread so apologies for repeating myself...

What rent do Queens Park FC (SFL3 & amateurs) pay for Hampden Park, the National Stadium of Scotland & FIFA class 4...52k capacity...gates around 400

Otis · Dec 29, 2012

Being drunk certainly has helped over the years on watching City hasn't it.

It's like being given anesthetic before an operation that you keep having to have every two weeks.

Godiva · Dec 29, 2012

If the cost of running ACL and ccfc combined exceeds the total revenue the companies can earn combined, then there's too little money to keep both alive. One will probably have to fold - or be taken over by the other. I can't see ACL taking over ccfc.

The offer ACL has made of a rent at £400k plus matcday expenses plus a 5 year instalment plan for the outstanding rent means the club will have to pay about £800k per year. It's way too much. But going below that will put ACL into a loss making position and if they give up on the outstanding rent they surrender a huge chunck of the total profit they have made in their lifetime. And that may hurt the value calculation and lead to the bank raising the interest rate or call in the mortgage.

The ACL can issue the winding up petition - the club will go into administration and ACL will never receive the outstanding rent and are left with the above scenario and without their main tenant. This will lead to decreased revenue and put ACL into an immidiate loss making position. The bank will call in the loan and ACL will probably end up in administration themself.
That scenario is a total lose-lose situation for the city.

Merging ACL into ccfc may be the only sensible solution there is. The profit ACL makes will pull the club closer to a break-even position and secure the future.

Gynnsthetonic · Dec 29, 2012

Richardson and his cronies are to blame, with a bit of work Highfield Rd could of been a 28000 seater stadium, the whole club in my eyes is ruined throwing away our history like that, a new ground built could be cheaper than buying the Ricoh. Hopefully Cov rugger and London Wasps merge and they can have the Ricoh, Cov Bees could use it, what about a midland based Rugby League side during the summer, Speedway grand Prix, monster trucks

Otis · Dec 29, 2012

Godiva said:
If the cost of running ACL and ccfc combined exceeds the total revenue the companies can earn combined, then there's too little money to keep both alive. One will probably have to fold - or be taken over by the other. I can't see ACL taking over ccfc.

The offer ACL has made of a rent at £400k plus matcday expenses plus a 5 year instalment plan for the outstanding rent means the club will have to pay about £800k per year. It's way too much. But going below that will put ACL into a loss making position and if they give up on the outstanding rent they surrender a huge chunck of the total profit they have made in their lifetime. And that may hurt the value calculation and lead to the bank raising the interest rate or call in the mortgage.

The ACL can issue the winding up petition - the club will go into administration and ACL will never receive the outstanding rent and are left with the above scenario and without their main tenant. This will lead to decreased revenue and put ACL into an immidiate loss making position. The bank will call in the loan and ACL will probably end up in administration themself.
That scenario is a total lose-lose situation for the city.

Merging ACL into ccfc may be the only sensible solution there is. The profit ACL makes will pull the club closer to a break-even position and secure the future.

Could that feasibly ever happen though you think?

Grendel · Dec 29, 2012

Otis said:
Could that feasibly ever happen though you think?

It is what seems to have effectively happened at Doncaster. This year the club was handed all management responsibilities of the stadium (and all income streams)

crowsnest · Dec 29, 2012

Gynnsthetonic said:
Richardson and his cronies are to blame, with a bit of work Highfield Rd could of been a 28000 seater stadium, the whole club in my eyes is ruined throwing away our history like that, a new ground built could be cheaper than buying the Ricoh. Hopefully Cov rugger and London Wasps merge and they can have the Ricoh, Cov Bees could use it, what about a midland based Rugby League side during the summer, Speedway grand Prix, monster trucks

There were plans to redevelop the sky blue stand and the club bought land to do this and build an indoor arena for other events and had got the basketball team to agree to move there.

But the council / local residents objected.

sky blue john · Dec 29, 2012

Grendel said:
It is what seems to have effectively happened at Doncaster. This year the club was handed all management responsibilities of the stadium (and all income streams)

This is not going to happen though the Doncaster scenario is the council were making a 2-300k loss each year. They were happy to get it off their hands.

The ricoh is a multi event stadium with lots of profit making events.

If the figures that have been banded about are correct ccfc is responsible for 17% of acl turnover. acl turnover 17 million so the ccfc revenue part of that is about 3 million.
So even without this they are still turning over 14 million with no profit ?
If these figures are correct then acl don't need ccfc.

torchomatic · Dec 29, 2012

No backhanders for the Councillors then?

crowsnest said:
But the council / local residents objected.

torchomatic · Dec 29, 2012

Of course they do.

sky blue john said:
If these figures are correct then acl don't need ccfc.

crowsnest · Dec 29, 2012

torchomatic said:
No backhanders for the Councillors then?

Their first response was "this would be a great time to introduce restricted parking"

Godiva · Dec 29, 2012

sky blue john said:
This is not going to happen though the Doncaster scenario is the council were making a 2-300k loss each year. They were happy to get it off their hands.

The ricoh is a multi event stadium with lots of profit making events.

If the figures that have been banded about are correct ccfc is responsible for 17% of acl turnover. acl turnover 17 million so the ccfc revenue part of that is about 3 million.
So even without this they are still turning over 14 million with no profit ?
If these figures are correct then acl don't need ccfc.

oldskyblue58 said:
Trading profits ACL
2006 loss £3.4m
2007 profit £870k
2008 profit £8k
2009 loss £1.7m (profit on accounts shows £3.2m which includes a one off benefit of £4.9m from reorganising the lease and group)
2010 profit £546k
2011 profit £471k

(source - Companies House)

I make that a total surplus in 6 years of £1.695m for ACL .......... during which time the football club group under SISU and previous owners has lost £41.5m

ACL dont even turnover 17m in a year let alone make it. Certainly would not have dug CCFC out of the deep hole the club has made for themselves

Remove ccfc from the Ricoh and ACL would lose a lot - directly and indirectly.

Lord_Nampil · Dec 29, 2012

torchomatic said:
No backhanders for the Councillors then?

I remember when i was at School the club tried to buy the houses behind the West Stand, IF the Gas Works Land couldn't be purchased! The thing that annoys me lots is the new stand we built on the Kop was way to small and badly designed! So much more could have been down with that stand it was a wasted opportunity and looking back part of the reason we are where we are now!

BurbageSkyBlues · Dec 29, 2012

Godiva said:
If the cost of running ACL and ccfc combined exceeds the total revenue the companies can earn combined, then there's too little money to keep both alive. One will probably have to fold - or be taken over by the other. I can't see ACL taking over ccfc.

The offer ACL has made of a rent at £400k plus matcday expenses plus a 5 year instalment plan for the outstanding rent means the club will have to pay about £800k per year. It's way too much. But going below that will put ACL into a loss making position and if they give up on the outstanding rent they surrender a huge chunck of the total profit they have made in their lifetime. And that may hurt the value calculation and lead to the bank raising the interest rate or call in the mortgage.

The ACL can issue the winding up petition - the club will go into administration and ACL will never receive the outstanding rent and are left with the above scenario and without their main tenant. This will lead to decreased revenue and put ACL into an immidiate loss making position. The bank will call in the loan and ACL will probably end up in administration themself.
That scenario is a total lose-lose situation for the city.

Merging ACL into ccfc may be the only sensible solution there is. The profit ACL makes will pull the club closer to a break-even position and secure the future.

Godiva, the scenario you paint is reasonable, apart from the final comment. The profit that ACL makes is on the basis that CCFC pays the existing rent. If the club were to own the arena, then that profit margin would disappear if we did not pay ourselves a rent!

Ashdown1 · Dec 29, 2012

Godiva in lets all bow down to SISU's demands shocker again. Do you honestly think that SISU want the club and stadium under the same holding company?? They will separate and sell for profit and f@ck off.

Astute · Dec 29, 2012

Starting again with another stadium would cost too much. We need to sort out ownership with the Ricoh. It should be big enough for what we ever need.

The first and main part is getting the lease. In the short term it would be the same as ownership. SISU are playing hardball. I hope at worse they are just holding on until next season when I hope we will be back in the Championship and will have a larger income.

Godiva · Dec 29, 2012

BurbageSkyBlues said:
Godiva, the scenario you paint is reasonable, apart from the final comment. The profit that ACL makes is on the basis that CCFC pays the existing rent. If the club were to own the arena, then that profit margin would disappear if we did not pay ourselves a rent!

If ACL makes £500k profit per year - that profit would improve ccfc's result equaly.
Add to that the possibilities the ACL says the Ricoh holds - although they have failed to exploit them yet - and a new professionel management with new ideas and new energy, then it may improve the ccfc's result further.

dongonzalos · Dec 29, 2012

Godiva said:
If ACL makes £500k profit per year - that profit would improve ccfc's result equaly.
Add to that the possibilities the ACL says the Ricoh holds - although they have failed to exploit them yet - and a new professionel management with new ideas and new energy, then it may improve the ccfc's result further.

Godiva is there a possible scenario in which SISU gain a form of control of the Ricoh in whatever capacity. That then allows them to either not invest in the loss making football club or close the club down and still somehow recoup money via the Ricoh.
Be it the land, be it the stadium, be it as a conference facility etc.

torchomatic · Dec 29, 2012

SISU would never close the club down. That scenario only exists in fevered imaginations.

dongonzalos said:
Godiva is there a possible scenario in which SISU gain a form of control of the Ricoh in whatever capacity. That then allows them to either not invest in the loss making football club or close the club down and still somehow recoup money via the Ricoh.
Be it the land, be it the stadium, be it as a conference facility etc.

Godiva · Dec 29, 2012

Ashdown1 said:
Godiva in lets all bow down to SISU's demands shocker again. Do you honestly think that SISU want the club and stadium under the same holding company?? They will separate and sell for profit and f@ck off.

In theory they could make a profit from re-selling ACL, but it wouldn't cover the £40m+ they have invested. Maybe 10-15% or so, but that's about it (they have to take over the mortgage as well). So that would make absolutely no sense. In addition that would only create the same situation as is today - ccfc and the areana not being one unit - and they know how difficult that is for the club.

The only way they can recoup their investment is for the club to make a profit that would make the club worth more than their investment. It will probably take many years and require PL promotion.

But even if ccfc owns the areana, that does not exclude a seperate sisu fund to exploit the building possibilities in the area.

Godiva · Dec 29, 2012

dongonzalos said:
Godiva is there a possible scenario in which SISU gain a form of control of the Ricoh in whatever capacity. That then allows them to either not invest in the loss making football club or close the club down and still somehow recoup money via the Ricoh.
Be it the land, be it the stadium, be it as a conference facility etc.

I can't see why they would - they have worked very hard on getting to break-even since they took control and got rid of Ranson, Hoffman and Elliot. And I believe they are a lot closer to that goal than most think - at least cashflow wise. It should be possible to cover most, if not all, cashflow shortage through player sales. If we get promoted I think the club is well beyond that mark.

Sisu will sell when they receive an offer that more than covers their investments and if they think they can use their money more wisely (make more profit) on other activities.

Gaz · Dec 29, 2012

Astute said:
How can this ever come to an agreement to transfer the lease to SISU if they won't get into meaningful talks.

The rent is being withheld to force meaningful talks.
The clubs needs a better offer than ACL's temporary reduction offer that isn't going to get us anywhere long term.

Grendel · Dec 29, 2012

torchomatic said:
SISU would never close the club down. That scenario only exists in fevered imaginations.

Unfortunately there are many people on here with such imaginations and contrived conspiracy theories.

The actual stadiums earning potential is severely restricted without the football club. If the club became successful then it's overall potential will increase significantly.

It's a rather juvenile scare tactic with zero evidence to support it.

No doubt someone will reply using the phrase "grubby little mitts"

dongonzalos · Dec 29, 2012

To be honest with you. When you say they have worked hard at getting to break even point.

Is this is a possibility ........

The relegation would help getting to break even point.
Players wages signing only free transfers and still been slightly competitive.
Relegation would also help with the rent argument.
Now the council still have a very powerful card. The veto.
They said they would agree nothing with SISU.
Unless SISU invested in a competitive playing squad.
Invested in the community and showed a plan to contribute to regenerating the north side of the city.

I think there is a very hard core of cov fans who would have turned up no matter what 8-10k.

I think SISU expected this to be the average attendance this season.
I think the relegation was SISU working hard at getting to a break even point including this rent issue and a bigger plan.

I think the investment in players was forced upon SISU as highlighted by JS's comments recently to the council about keeping up her end of the bargain.
The fact she sees investing in her football club as keeping up her end of the bargain if frightening in itself.
The fact Waggot has very suddenly took an interest in the community side of things. Something he apparently was not doing till six weeks ago. Is also quite transparent.

It concerns me greatly that people who will do certain things to get something else.

I would love to believe that it is to get Coventry to the prem but I don't.

I hope we get back to the championship without SISU having a stake in the club.

I hope once we are there, ie where we were when they including joy took over and promised us the premiership.

I hope then ACL say to SISU deliver the premiership here is the deal at a championship price all but signed. You get us there and we will sign half of it over at the championship value.

How is that for and incentive

Turn the lights off (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency