Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Using the car analogy you buy a car and dont get it HPId or whatever its called,then find out its stolen:thinking about:
I think they acknowledge the high rent but it wasn't the council's fault, because the club agreed to it, whilst bent over a barrel.
So that makes it sisus fault.
The same as I bought as car that had been used in an arm Robbery ten years ago so it was clearly me who did it.
Over confidence bordering arrogance I suspect.The one thing that I can't fathom (well there's more than one but still) is why SISU didn't allow us to go into administration when they took over? Then just pick thru the bones of what was left and take it from there. Not agree daft rent and repayment clauses to Robinson.
Anyone the wiser?
Ha! At least you've admitted it. So Lucas was lying when she said that ACL were fine without the club? 9% of the business I think was quoted.
So if I open a sweet shop and sell my Mars bars for a £100 a time then I would be more than viable, wouldn't I? Thanks Lord Sugar.
just how much was the remaining 340 odd days revenue a t Highfield Road worth? Any figure above nothing would do.
what benefit? the money was being used to pay off the loan that was only needed because ccfc were in trouble. if acl or ccfc were making a profit you'd have a point but they were not in fact it's quite clearly been a big loss at least for higgs. if you are down millions of pounds from an enterprise you were only in for someone elses benefit you were clearly not ripping them off.
A large loan was taken out completely because ccfc had messed up their finances (yep Richardson's fault and if he were at the club we'd be calling for his head too) the only way it was possible for this loan to be taken out was if ccfcs rent was high enough to cover it. That made the rent high but not in the slightest a rip off or unreasonable.
No idea but at least we were getting it not someone else. I seem to recall OSB saying the F&B in the final season at HR was close to £1m.
What benefit? I'll put it simply for you. If you pay £1.2m a year for 20 years, during which you receive all the income the stadium generates to contribute to that rent, and then own the stadium are you better or worse off than paying £1.2m a year for 50 years, during which you receive not a penny of the income the stadium generates, and own nothing?
This wasn't the ONLY way was it though? How many time have the council refinanced/renegotiated/restructured loans in regards to the Ricoh? The fact is that now they have sold to Wasps that the 'loan' that had to be so large and give CCFC such large rent is anything but.
I would suggest that an extra 10 or 15 thousand fans for 23 games is worth much more than a fiction that is 365 day revenue wouldn't you,after all that is the cake the f/b is icing
I think there's couple of things to consider. Firstly how much of their own money did CCC, or Higgs for that matter, actually put in. Seems a lot of it came from grants, Tesco's etc, it's not like CCC stumped up £120m to build the thing. Secondly at what point did ACL come into play. As I remember, and I may have this wrong, the original rescue plan we would still own the freehold. There was then something vague about grants not being given if we owned it and ACL being setup.
What benefit? I'll put it simply for you. If you pay £1.2m a year for 20 years, during which you receive all the income the stadium generates to contribute to that rent, and then own the stadium are you better or worse off than paying £1.2m a year for 50 years, during which you receive not a penny of the income the stadium generates, and own nothing?
This wasn't the ONLY way was it though? How many time have the council refinanced/renegotiated/restructured loans in regards to the Ricoh? The fact is that now they have sold to Wasps that the 'loan' that had to be so large and give CCFC such large rent is anything but.
There was a clear choice made. They took advantage of CCFC and the poor financial situation it was in. The only way that it could have possibly justified setting it so high would be if there was a staggered transfer of ownership (a bit like a mortgage) where the excess rent would have given the club something to own at the end.
Justify for us how - had CCFC paid the full term of the lease, they would have handed over in excess of £65 million for 0% revenue and 0% ownership?
But of course that's not a rip off or unreasonable is it.....
Didn't it take moving to Northampton to get the rent cut?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685Didn't it take moving to Northampton to get the rent cut?
Was that the one that went back up after 3 years? It was a while ago so could be wrong.
Is it the case that it's better to pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years and own the stadium rather than pay 1.2mill a year for 20 years as rent and not own the stadium. Yes absolutely this is true. It does not however follow that because this isn't great for ccfc that it is great for acl. Higgs put in what 6mill? took nothing out and sold for 2.77mill + had other costs to deal with, in what way do you think they ripped ccfc off?
So that one wasn't actually a great deal as it just goes back up again...
What was the one just before moving?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-21464685
In fact its quite sad to see how much damage has been done since that time, we were so full of hope that January when we beat Preston,
Is that the rent deal that would revert back to £1.3m after 3 years?
11.12am
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-coventry-city-7248897
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Is that the rent deal that would revert back to £1.3m after 3 years?
11.12am
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-coventry-city-7248897
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
From CCFC (Holdings) Accounts 2005
By Covsupport News Service
Paul Fletcher back in 2005
The following is from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd's annual report for the 31st of May 2005 and provide some useful comments.
The following is taken from the statement that appeared in those accounts by then Managing Director Paul Fletcher.
MOVE TO THE RICOH
"The Club had high hopes on and off the pitch for the move to the new stadium. In financial terms, the Club budgeted broadly in-line with the experience of other clubs moving into a new stadium, to increase its revenue by 50%. This meant that despite the loss of profits from sponsorship, board advertising and catering, the Club would nonetheless have sufficient increase in income from the major sources of revenue with which it was left - season ticket and matchday sales, merchandise and boxes - to generate for the first time in many years an operating profit and positive cash flow. £1m was due to come into the Club.
Sadly, as is now public, these hopeful plans were dashed by two factors. 1) the late opening of the stadium, and 2) our own inadequate preparations to exploit the opportunities afforded by the new stadium. The Club's estimate of the cost to it commercially from the late opening amounted to over £1m. The factors were the loss of a high profile opening friendly; the loss of our opening home fixtures particularly Norwich which would have been our first League fixture; and the loss of merchandising sales which had not been planned around a major drive to take place in the new premises.
There was one other factor that cost us dear, namely the unscheduled changes to Coventry City Council's Section 106 agreement in respect of potential parking areas. This more less doubled the size of the no parking zone and the impact on our season ticket sales was heavily adverse. We were 50% below our budget. Discussions on improving the situation continue with the Council.
However, this is not the whole story. Our own preparations were not professional or thorough enough. Had the Ricoh been ready on time we would have certainly done much better and we would have avoided the short term cash crisis that hit us. But when we look around at other similar clubs, they are better organised and obtain much higher revenues from those activities that are still with the Club.
THE CASH CRISIS
In any event, the outcome, due to this combination of factors, was that by September last year, the Club had suffered a serious cash outflow of £1m in the preceeding months and was in breach of its overdraft limit. After a difficult but constructive negotiation we have reached agreement with the Co-operative Bank to enable the club to trade with confidence for the future. I would like to thank the Co-operative Bank for their support. We have also reached agreement with Arena Coventry Limited who operate the stadium, for compensation amounting to £280,000 due to the late opening of the stadium. Whilst, this is much less than the Club considered it could have legitimately claimed, we recognise that ACL itself has suffered considerable financial losses. Further discussions continue with ACL to agree a two tier rental agreement whereby the Club pays rent of £500k in the Championship and £1.5m in the Premiership. We hope to make an announcement in the near future."
In 2005 though was CCFC trying to get a 1.5 million rent in the premiership and a 500k rent in the championship?
Yes it is - let's forget that shall we.
Also Higgs put in around £2.3 million I believe.
Noggin seems low on facts but very high on pro council rhetoric.
Are you just making up figures?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Are you just making up figures?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Fair enough hadn't seen that post.....although is it actually legit because the income certainly didn't increase by 50% 2005 to 2006
According to OSB, it went from c£9m to c£10m. £1.5m would have still been way too high for matchday only no/little revenue use, even in the PL.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=23232
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I think the 50% was what they hoped would happen based on other clubs, but it never happened for a variety I if reasons. Because it never happened they were going to negotiate a new rent.
500k Championship
1.5 Premiership
They felt that would be a very good deal by the looks of it. One that they were excited about and the announcement was to follow when done.
Is that what we paid? Less than wasps bought it for....Excited about? Not sure where you came to that conclusion. It didn't happen and we got screwed over for £9m rent. Why are you and others trying to justify it as a good deal?
And anyway, didn't the same Paul Fletcher slag everyone off in his book, saying they ripped the football club off?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
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?