The council turned down requests for this from Paul Fletcher & co. Why are you so desperate to defend them??
Yes, I guess a sliding scale would also include a rise for the PL and as the management at the time expected a quick return it felt like a good deal.
So CCC saved the day, provided 1000's of jobs and turned a derelict area of town into what it is today ?
Yet no contribution to club or community ?
The council turned down requests for this from Paul Fletcher & co. Why are you so desperate to defend them??
"you are my council, my only council..."...."Potholes!! Get into 'em, fill 'em up"!!
Then moved a London rugby club in.
Then moved a London rugby club in.
Regardless what we think now the early days of CCC involvement should be applauded.
OK, OK...
I don't think that, although it's not really their fault.
Firstly, they were always up front (or at least Dave Nellist, who had the casting vote was) about the project being about urban regeneration first, football club second. That was why the ground was built, not because it would help a football club.
One could surmise that's where and how Robinson could have sold the idea in the first place, too... but we fall into speculation there.
The problem with urban (re)generation is that central government expects such things to pay their way. That hampers the local government, forces them to put in place ridiculous deals that aren't to the benefit of the club in community, but are about the balance sheet. I can, incidentally, believe that certain elements of the council signed off the build with the best of intentions, but central government dictats would always stymie any effort. Those elements also signed off with a lot better intentions than the club board, which was all about a stay of execution, and therefore positioned the Ricoh or bust as sole strategy, conveniently forgetting they held the option to buy back Highfield Road, and conveniently forgetting that while the club held rights over the site, the club could always be passed on for someone elseto pick up the baton. That, of course, didn't suit the agenda of the board at the time.
Now urban regeneration is all very well, but it doesn't always take into account the needs of a club. The gasworks site probably not the best site available in truth (Parkside as mentioned) but did suit a political aim too. Club, as ever, comes second.
Of course at the time, public opinion was very much for the Ricoh being built, so for the vote to be as close as it was certainly suggests that it wasn't built just for cheap votes. The vote was hoever close as much because of misgivings (probably fair, too) about the cost to the public purse - hence the commitments to regeneration at the last minute, hence ridiculous deals.
If we go back to then, then CCC certainly come out of that better than the football club's board in terms of motivation, but it';s still arguable that the club was first on their priorities. And, like it or not, to gain that the other options were marginilised in order to make it seem like it was Ricoh or bust.
When it wasn't.
Very much as I see it except for one thing. CCC didn't choose the location. They took over the plans started by Richardson.
Grendel, who would have paid to get HR back?
No commentary or opinion just an update
Striking off for CCFC Ltd is set for 14 August 2015
Appleton has filed his final report to the creditors. In total the major costs of administration and liquidation were
Administrator/Liquidation fees £678,906 (he didn't get paid another £2728 because there were no funds available)
Legal & Professional fees £444,951
Investigation by accountants £30,000 (results = "inconclusive")
PR firm £30,000
ARVO repaid £273,773
Unsecured creditors repaid £72,440
Funds for the administration and liquidation mainly came from the purchase of CCFC Ltd assets by Otium of £1.5m. Otium also further contributed £16797 to cover costs of potential purchase of shares under the option last October that failed.
The annual return for Otium was due 19/05/15 it is currently overdue
ACL year end extended to 30/06/15 in line with the Wasps Holdings Ltd year end
Per the terms of new charge now on ACL and Arena Coventry 2006 ltd as part of bond issue accounts are to be published 4 months after year end
The memorandums of satisfaction re CCC loans to ACL have been filed - loans all repaid
Not strictly true. The CCFC plans were Parkside or Foleshill. They were encouraged to choose Foleshill by the council for one reason or another though you'd suspect that the ex gas works were a much harder sell for prospective developers.
Would either of these allowed enough land for all of the surrounding builds which paid for the majority of the build? And also a lot more of the costs were paid for by grants because of the state of the land. The total costs that had to be paid were just under 12m IIRC.
For reminder on actual costs see 2006
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...57-ricoh-arena-timeline?showall=1&limitstart=
So it was nearly 13m that CCC put in then. The biggest joke is that our club put in 1.7m towards the costs and paid a high rent which went towards debt payments on behalf of ACL just for Wasps to get it all.
Not strictly true. The CCFC plans were Parkside or Foleshill. They were encouraged to choose Foleshill by the council for one reason or another though you'd suspect that the ex gas works were a much harder sell for prospective developers.
Don't forget that we also had 50% of ACL around that time so some rent and takings were effectively going to us.
Is that so fp? My memory isn't brilliant these days, and I don't recall that at all.
Is that so fp? My memory isn't brilliant these days, and I don't recall that at all.
Yes, this is going back to about 1997.
Don't forget that we also had 50% of ACL around that time so some rent and takings were effectively going to us.
Grendel, who would have paid to get HR back?
Not strictly true. The CCFC plans were Parkside or Foleshill. They were encouraged to choose Foleshill by the council for one reason or another though you'd suspect that the ex gas works were a much harder sell for prospective developers.
The basketball team turned down a place at the Sky Dome
Wasn't it the case that any profit made by ACL was to be used to make overpayments on the loan so we wouldn't have received a penny from our 50% stake until that was paid off?
Would be interesting to see total spend on the project from the time Richardson dreamt it up to now and see how the amounts put in by us (including rent), CCC, Higgs and Wasps compare. I suspect we would find that we have put in the most yet have ended up with nothing.
The Crusaders did play a game at the SkyDome but had all sorts of problems with moisture on the playing surface. Think the idea was abandoned after that.
Only 50% as we were only given 50% of ACL. But we didn't have the 50% of ACL when paying the rent until we purchased it back either so not exactly true.
There has been so many twists and turns since we sold HR that anyone can make things look however they want to and will have evidence to back up their claims. No wonder we can't agree between ourselves what exactly has gone on or who is to blame the most.
Not strictly true. The CCFC plans were Parkside or Foleshill. They were encouraged to choose Foleshill by the council for one reason or another though you'd suspect that the ex gas works were a much harder sell for prospective developers.
Very much as I see it except for one thing. CCC didn't choose the location. They took over the plans started by Richardson.
Grendel, who would have paid to get HR back?
Don't forget that we also had 50% of ACL around that time so some rent and takings were effectively going to us.
Wrong. All revenue was ploughed straight back in in order to reduce the loan value. This actually is why in isolation the Higgs share was always worthless.
If you have a business with a loan, paying it off is still to your credit surely.
You can either take an income or pay off the loan. You can still take the incomes for Fair Play rules.
Basic business ? or have I missed something ?
Higgs share worthless) . I'll tell Wasps when I see them !!
It's all down in black and white either in the document above, which also has references to where the information comes from, or in the JR document.
If you want the facts they are there for examination.
What is not there is the reasons they took the various actions and that will always be up for debate.
Your statement above saying we were only given 50% infers we should have been given 100%. Even though the CCFC management at the time messed up big time.
Q. Why we could not keep control of the project is still a mystery to me. On paper a stadium worth £100M for investing £20M should easily be financed.
Q. Did CCFC line up buying the land from British Gas but had to let the Council do it ? That seems crucial.
The club would have done.
What should have happened is the club should have gone into administration - at that point it would actually have been a strong purchase proposition. It still was attracting reasonable crowds in the championship.
At that point new owners could have excercised the clause. The sale of the rights was pivotal and stupid. The club ended up paying penalty clauses to the builder which ultimately cost more than they received anyway.
Parts of the CU technology park (formerly RR Parkside) were already being occupied by 1998, I rather think an opportunity to use the Parkside site never really existed in practice as there would have been 5 or more years of discussion & planning before that stage and probably CCFC had no money to purchase or lease the land (if CU actually paid, they may well have got a nice fat EU grant).
Around the same time the arena project got outline planning http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/club-information/timeline/357-ricoh-arena-timeline, this scheme probably hinged upon the receipt of loadsa money from Tesco for part of the land. Followed as we now know by all sorts of 'cashflow' and 'funding' issues that led to the current unsatisfactory situation.
Parts of the CU technology park (formerly RR Parkside) were already being occupied by 1998, I rather think an opportunity to use the Parkside site never really existed in practice as there would have been 5 or more years of discussion & planning before that stage and probably CCFC had no money to purchase or lease the land (if CU actually paid, they may well have got a nice fat EU grant).
Around the same time the arena project got outline planning http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/club-information/timeline/357-ricoh-arena-timeline, this scheme probably hinged upon the receipt of loadsa money from Tesco for part of the land. Followed as we now know by all sorts of 'cashflow' and 'funding' issues that led to the current unsatisfactory situation.
Getting the finance sounds easy but as In our current guise Is proving difficult
IIRC a Spanish bank pulled out
The clubs debt levels were enormous at the time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?