I don't think SISU does "fair"?
Astute............yes it was a poor offer from the take it or leave from JS that ACL/CCC left but then why are we still talking about it then?
Get a mediator in to oversee negotiations Fisher has called for one in the past, if CCC are looking at getting a fair deal then they won't have any qualms about a mediator.
Outstanding post, OSB.
My personal opinion is this:
Wait for at least a year before panicking about the loss of CCFC, to determine both SISU's true determination to hold onto the club in the face of mounting losses, and whether ACL actually can return a profit. Either a change of ownership, or a profitable ACL might make the need to sell the Ricoh redundant.
If it turns out that ACL are losing money, and SISU are truly determined to hold onto CCFC, then the council should listen to offers to all comers for their share in ACL as a business, and their interest in the Ricoh. If there's an offer that allows them to recover their investment, I'd want them to take it, but the Council should not treat SISU as either a preferential bidder, or refuse to entertain offers from them. The best way to determine the market value of something is to offer it to the market.
If however there isn't an offer that allows them to recover their investment in this way, then the Council should reconsider the site in total - and see whether knocking it all down and developing it as housing and/or commercial makes more sense for the city. The one thing I don't want is for the Council to subsidise CCFC (again) because of the club's continued mismanagement.
Nobody agrees or likes what's happening but there is not a knight in shining Armour going to solve this problem - We have potentially our club playing 5 years away from our city, Financial fair play rules going to kick in shortly which on the face of it will break even this young team up as our income against wages props a lower league side up at best
Is it the worst thing in the world to sell the stadium to SISU who obviously are not everyone's cup of tea but cannily they were the knights in shining Armour 8 years ago when they took the reins they have shown quite ruthless resolve in turning the club upside down and sorting it out and still putting a team on the field to compete in this league at wages which if playing at the Ricoh and owned would make the club profitable and sale-able which is probably their future aim as that is what they do for a living
Would they be any worse than all the owners previously who somehow managed to give up our beloved Highfield road for peanuts and showered us with debt that SISU took on as there was nobody else
I do not attend Northampton for the sole reason that out of principal i am not watching home games in someone else's town but is it time that everyone got behind the idea of SISU buying the stadium under some type of agreement drawn up on a sale that somehow ensures the clubs future security and clauses that keep the team playing in our City
Could 'Sell to SISU' be the new phrase that would give us all a glimmer of hope that we have been looking for
I hope your not forgetting Duffer that the stadium isn't the only part of the business that sits up there and I am pointing out the Casino and the Hotel, they are part of the complex indeed, however there is more to consider than just the stadia.
"Should the council sell the Ricoh Arena to Sisu so Sky Blues can play in Coventry? "
...
you could equally ask
Should SISU accept a rent deal at the Ricoh to bring CCFC back to Coventry?
I voted yes, simply because i see selling to them is probably the quickest way to get City home !
I asked this before, ask again, what is to stop the sale of the stadium only and nothing else? leasehold freehold, either way, but just the stadium, the footballing side of the complex, ACL/HIGGS keep hold of everything else, the club gets the stadium the land it sits on and imediate parking and nothing else?
tbf, an informed guesstimate is at least a start for a debate on value?
As it stands (as you've often said yourself) how the hell can any of us even come close to knowing what a stadium is actually 'worth'? CBRE may not answer that question, but it at least starts off the chain to finding out, and moves things forward...
So what about the the lounges eg e-on or yorkshire, who would they belong to? they have dual usage. How many car parking spaces? who has rights of way? If the club gets the lounges how do they get entry? etc etc ............. i know what you are saying and it would seem a simple thing but not sure it is.
Does it though because unless it is somewhere close to the CCC or ACL expectations then they will simply say no thanks. Taking any bets on it being a high valuation?
Of course not, but isn't the curse of literalism what stops this progressing all the time?
Aren't all the best haggles achieved by something poles apart that then gradually come closer together? Why are we even taking the 'no to a lease' literally, and why aren't ACL offering them a fantastic deal for 4 years from next season while they build a new ground, for example?
What happens in this whole charade however is one side says something, the other side chooses (because it suits their entrenched position to do so) to throw their hands in the air, say it's out of the question... and the opportunity for dialogue that presents itself from that initial statement, however ludicrous that statement appears on the surface, dissipates.
And that happens both ways, because it suits both sides to not talk to each other. Well shouldn't the basis for talking be grasped when it comes up, each time it does come up, rather than a flat rebuttal and maintaining the status quo?
Got to look deeper and ask why
Inded. Applies full stop for everything doesn't it? And obviously any valuation is designed to force an agenda that way.
But I don't think being open minded to the idea of a sale either means a sale must happen, or that a sale must happen on those terms. I do however think that as long as both sides dig their feet in full-stop it helps either... and both sides can either look at the other, thumb their nose and say nah nah na na nahhh or they can accept some movement, and actually engage on those terms.
The skirmish doesn't have to mean submission, after all.
Agreed.
The feeling I get from this is that in the past any offer made by ACL and negotiated with SISU as their(ACLs) bottom line has been viewed as SISU's starting point to get a better deal. I think what the CCC and ACL have now done is said we wont keep doing that, if you want it, come to us with an offer, we will look at it and respond to it. People can make their own minds up as to whether thats a good stance or not but I do think it is part of where we are
Hence CBRE coming up with a valuation then.
It's pretty obvious how this will play out, isn't it?
CBRE, paid by SISU, will come (or have already come) to a low valuation to validate an under-market bid by SISU.
SISU will ramp up the PR to put pressure on the Council to sell at this price. They've already started on this, or so it would seem.
Lets hope they create a basis for a reasonable and tempting offer then. Councils do not usually sell freehold. If it is the freehold SISU want
It'd be interesting to see what the VOA values it at.
Interesting, ACL has appealed against the RV for the Ricoh - must be trying to reduce their Business Rates. Ironic really as one partner in ACL is the recipient of business rates anyway (although I think they mostly go back to central government anyway).
Got a feeling the CBRE valuation is more likely to be the basis of a PR campaign that says professional valuers have valued it at this much, we will pay that but the CCC wont do a deal, could be wrong but time will tell I guess..............
Got a feeling the CBRE valuation is more likely to be the basis of a PR campaign that says professional valuers have valued it at this much, we will pay that but the CCC wont do a deal, could be wrong but time will tell I guess..............
Which is where if CCC had anything about them, they'd embrace a valuation as an opportunity to talk to them. If a strategy was really that obvious, it's not difficult to head off either.
I suspect what we will see, however, is nothing of the kind.
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?