D
We Took The Ricoh for Granted (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter bringbackrattles
- Start date
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Sorry wrong we average 19124 in the league and only 1 game over 25k, and that was wolves (27,992). In fact including this game there was only 3 over 23k (Leicester and Colcehster.
Yes, we also had a big cup tie against WBA, but really for the purposes of this kind of thing you should only focus on league attendances....unless you want the likes of Arlesley and Morecombe to also distort the figures too.
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
HR was a pain to get too and a pain to get away from.
The East stand and its facilities were top class but the other 3 stands were dire.
Over the years I had my car broke into several times whilst parking in the streets for night matches.
The Ricoh addressed all the above.
When I attended the Ricoh I felt it belonged to the club and the positive conversations with visiting supporters always made me feel proud.
I never bothered with ownership.
I did however avoid paying the high prices for food and beverage as unlike HR the profit never went to CCFC.
I did enjoy meeting up in the Casino before and after the matches.
In both venues I just got absorbed in the whole days experience and looked forward to it during the week.
In both venues if we were loosing it was quiet and noisy if we were winning.
To answer the OP and others, in both cases I never asked about her home life, health or problems I just enjoyed her company.
We can make the Ricoh what we want regardless of whether we own it or rent it.
We need to buy into the revenue streams.
The East stand and its facilities were top class but the other 3 stands were dire.
Over the years I had my car broke into several times whilst parking in the streets for night matches.
The Ricoh addressed all the above.
When I attended the Ricoh I felt it belonged to the club and the positive conversations with visiting supporters always made me feel proud.
I never bothered with ownership.
I did however avoid paying the high prices for food and beverage as unlike HR the profit never went to CCFC.
I did enjoy meeting up in the Casino before and after the matches.
In both venues I just got absorbed in the whole days experience and looked forward to it during the week.
In both venues if we were loosing it was quiet and noisy if we were winning.
To answer the OP and others, in both cases I never asked about her home life, health or problems I just enjoyed her company.
We can make the Ricoh what we want regardless of whether we own it or rent it.
We need to buy into the revenue streams.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Really?
Okay. Each and every to their own. The more success we have there the more it will feel like home for me.
If it ever becomes fortress Ricoh I think we'll all love the place to bits.
bringbackrattles
Well-Known Member
Going back to Highfield Road loved the Spion Kop then the West End then embraced the Ricoh (female analogy again) just love being in a ground with other City fans watching my team,to me I've never asked for much just enjoy being a Coventry City supporter. Been in Highfield Road when 28,000 was the average,but also when it was around about 10,000.Being a Coventry City fan of fifty years you just take it that crowds will go up and down,it's no big deal,but not having a "home" ground is !
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There's only three problems with the Ricoh as I see it. One, we haven't created a history to be proud of there yet since we've been there, in fact we've done the exact opposite. If we got a promotion or a cup of any sort while we've been there we'd feel a bit more romantic about it. Two, the seating layout is shit. And three, we're not playing there.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If we still owned 50% of ACL would we?
What if we'd never hired Andy Thorn? Or sold McAllister and Keane? Or sacked Black? Or kept hold of Jimmy Hill?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There is however a general principle that we'd have been a lot more attractive to options other than Venture Capitalists...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ditto half of ACL. Selling that was worse than selling HR, yet McGinnity never gets the same abuse Richardson does for selling HR.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Nah, ACL is always a fragile setup to my mind, regardless.
McGinnity should get more abuse for the fact that the option to buy back Highfield Road was taken up by him... only for it to be sold straight back to property developers for a small profit, to pay the bills for a month or two.
Had we kept it, and abandoned dreams of a Ricoh project, we wouldn't be here now.
It's remarkable how many short termist deals were made to avoid the club falling into administration, and the investors losing their grip (yep, it does indeed sound familiar!)... and that includes the sale of ACL's half share to Higgs. Downright crazy. Of course we're not allowed to discuss the elephant in the room there... so we won't
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If we'd owned 50% of ACL I fail to see the argument. CCFC would not have owned ACL it would have had shares in a company where the veto was with the other half. The rent was set at £1.3 million plus matchday costs.
The revenue to CCFC would have been no benefit as the veto stated no dividends payable.
So your logic puzzles me as to why this would make a difference?
Anyway question not answered - would we be at Sixfields if we still owned Highfield road?
Still don't see owning half of ACL as any benefit to CCFC either. Can you explain that one?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Not worth the debate it is all history and what might have happened is all fantasy and speculation.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It's a nonsense question, just like the others I asked. You can't point to one point and say that was it, that's what fucked us up.
Neither you nor I know what the situation would have been had Higgs not stepped in. You keep going on about a veto, but forget that CCFC would've had equal veto, they also would've been in control of what rent was offered. Plus they'd have got 100% of match day revenue.
Your entire position is based on your hatred for the council and this belief (that's been proven wrong at every turn) that they would've fucked the club over.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Question.
Is it abuse for a council to acknowledge that what they choose to do is entirely right and proper within their remit, but also to suggest that their aims and objectives are not necessarily compatible with the football club?
Even going back to the initial Ricoh build, the vote to carry their involvement was only won when it became more skewed to urban redevelopment than football stadium.
Now of course it probably should... that's what councils do (or should do), but I'm not sure *that* helps the football club. McGinnity pushing the 'Ricoh build goes ahead or the club dies' line is just about as bad as any blackmail SISU have done, IMNSHO... it's just he got his way.
Does that then make me anti-council? Or does it just make me think their objectives are incompatible, until pressure is placed on them to demonstrate why it could work for them to *be* compatible. What do you reckon? Reckon I've said enough to head off any council hatred accusations that may come my way next with this, or must I try harder?
(And how annoyed I am to have to bat off before it arrives the 'aha! but SISU's objectives aren't compatible with a football club!' line that someone will throw in which, tbh, I have also always said from the very beginning
I'm either fatalistic, overly negative... realistic, or a fabulous judge of future success or failure )
Last edited by a moderator:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why when backed into a corner do you resort to diversion and abuse?
I am actually interested in the comment on half of ACL. I think its a big red herring and still is. Why if we owned half would we have been better off. Why also was the deal as good as other councils when the rent was 10 times theirs even if we owned ACL?
The past - lets not talk about it? But people in here are - they negate Highfield road
Why will you not answer the questions?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
My comment for Grendel was custom ordered NW, and dealing specifically with his notion that the club wouldn't have been allowed to do anything because of a veto that both sides had. My point is simply that the Ricoh would've been more aligned with CCFC's aims had CCFC owned half of it. I think that's a fairly uncontentious statement, don't you?
Once the club sold their half, they gave up their seat at the table. No use whining that it isn't going your way then really, is it?
I don't want to get into this, but there's a word of difference between doing what the club want, doing what's best for the club and helping the club out. If the club wanted an arena run entirely for their benefit then they should've not only not sold half of it, they should've bought out the other half. Of course a 50/50 project isn't going to be 100/0 in terms of outcomes, that's ridiculous.
Once the club sold their half, they gave up their seat at the table. No use whining that it isn't going your way then really, is it?
I don't want to get into this, but there's a word of difference between doing what the club want, doing what's best for the club and helping the club out. If the club wanted an arena run entirely for their benefit then they should've not only not sold half of it, they should've bought out the other half. Of course a 50/50 project isn't going to be 100/0 in terms of outcomes, that's ridiculous.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
But then of course the other half wasn't for sale, and so the circles begin
In the long run, if this all focusses minds on sorting out a workable solution that sees the club put first, this could all be a blessing in (a large) disguise if it removes previously entrenched thinking and opens minds to the possibilities of other solutions. The signs are actually positive from the council's side that this starts to happen.
As ever, we shall see...
But it's kind of lazy to throw the anti-council thing out, even to Grendel. My own personal view would be a more socialist council, taxing more, spending more, doing projects for the social good. I'm all for state intervention, me
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Where have I diverted or abused G?
What question do you want answering? If we still owned HR would we be at Sixfields? Obviously not.
As I pointed out repeatedly, the question is just as valid as "if we hadn't been relegated" or "if we hadn't sold half of ACL" or a million other "what if"s, it doesn't really add anything. Bringing up Sixfields is nothing more than an appeal to emotion, the two are unrelated. We're at Sixfields because of Sisu's business reasons, nothing to do with the football club. If the Ricoh isn't working then we can build a new ground while still there. We're at Sixfields with the sole purpose of distressing ACL to pick up the Ricoh on the cheap.
And again, the £1.3m rent was set (with agreement from the club) AFTER CCFC sold their share of ACL. You are comparing apples with oranges. You can't compare the deal the club had when it wasn't at the table with one it could've had as half owner.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
But then of course the other half wasn't for sale, and so the circles begin
In the long run, if this all focusses minds on sorting out a workable solution that sees the club put first, this could all be a blessing in (a large) disguise if it removes previously entrenched thinking and opens minds to the possibilities of other solutions. The signs are actually positive from the council's side that this starts to happen.
As ever, we shall see...
But it's kind of lazy to throw the anti-council thing out, even to Grendel. My own personal view would be a more socialist council, taxing more, spending more, doing projects for the social good. I'm all for state intervention, me
It's not lazy at all sorry. Grendel's position is purely conjecture, he arrives at the conclusion that the council would've vetoed the club's wishes in a 50/50 arrangement. However all history shows that the council are very willing to try and help the club out. Hence it's a reasonable suggestion that the fact Grendel is choosing the worse possible outcome of several possible outcomes is because his thinking is coloured by his dislike of the council.
And I'm not sure what the other half being for sale has to do with anything, or even that it's true. The article you posted up as proof is nothing of the sort, Mutton says in it that if a good offer came in they could change their policy.
And again, I'm not accusing you of hating the council, that's a custom comment for G due to his posting history.
And I'm afraid that I should've been out the door 20 minutes ago and there's probably a cold chinese waiting for me now, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave it there.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Fair enough
This board makes one paranoid however, when the slightest comment brings out the ranters (tbf not you... on me anyway )Should take a coat with you then!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
If there genuinely is no benefit to owning ½ of ACL then it makes the offer by Joy to buy it from the Higgs even more puzzling. Why offer so much money when it would be of no benefit, that doesn't make sense the last offer was for over two million wasn't it.Are you 100% certain that the rights to the Pie Money that we sold with the ½ share wouldn't be sold back with the sale of the share?
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If we were still in the premier league would we be in division 3?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
A very poor response. If we were in division 3 at Highfield road would we then have moved to Sixfields?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How can food revenues be in the deal? They are now part of a separate company?
Buying half of ACL for £2 million may be worth something to sisu in terms of strategy and revenues but how would it have actually helped the club? It has no say on rent and none of the f and b revenues can be transferred back to the club.
I guess the key issue here is if the owners of CCFC and the council owned half who has the veto. I cannot believe they both have it as an article of association based on that could lead to strangulation. Someone on the board must have the vote. PWKH will know. I suspect others know. We don't. Its that which determines the real value of the half share.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
ACL own 77% of the company that operates the food etc, Compass own the other 23% which they paid £4m for.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So basically 'we' don't know for definite, but Joy might, as might the Higgs but they might well not be saying anything because of the ongoing legal stuff. However if the rights are all now sewn up in IEC it reinforces the stupidity of not buying the share back sooner, before the creation of IEC.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Re the veto.... http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-open-talks-over-3036573
Agreement documents on stadium's ownership
Two agreement documents are in place regarding the stadium’s ownership, one being a Shareholders Agreement between the Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council in which everything is equal with both having the right of veto of any potential sale of each other’s shares.
The other document is an Option Agreement between the Higgs Charity and the football club. The football club has an option to buy back half the stadium currently being looked after by the Higgs Charity.
Those shares in ACL – the company that runs the stadium – are held in a company called Football Investors Ltd and under the Option Agreement, Coventry City FC have an option to buy that company.
The club does not have an option agreement in place to buy the council’s half of the Arena.
Edit, obviously the bit about the option agreement is now out of date.
Agreement documents on stadium's ownership
Two agreement documents are in place regarding the stadium’s ownership, one being a Shareholders Agreement between the Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council in which everything is equal with both having the right of veto of any potential sale of each other’s shares.
The other document is an Option Agreement between the Higgs Charity and the football club. The football club has an option to buy back half the stadium currently being looked after by the Higgs Charity.
Those shares in ACL – the company that runs the stadium – are held in a company called Football Investors Ltd and under the Option Agreement, Coventry City FC have an option to buy that company.
The club does not have an option agreement in place to buy the council’s half of the Arena.
Edit, obviously the bit about the option agreement is now out of date.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
if you're gran had balls would she be your grandad?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sorry? Why would buying a half share of one company have ever provided revenues to a separate company?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Strange how i have agreed to become more sensible in my posts and you still remain juvenile.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I didn't realise that it was a serious question.
I never agreed to make more sensible posts so I don't know why you find it strange that my posts are juvenile.