Joe Elliott Interview Monday Morning (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter italiahorse
- Start date
covboy1987
Well-Known Member
In somones draw at the council house there will be copies of plans drawn up for the area around the arena which if i rememebered included hotels appartments and bars on the waterfront (river? Canal? call it what you want) with of course the train station
maybe the mothballs will come out and it will become reality
maybe the mothballs will come out and it will become reality
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Seems like the development of the area is more important than the football club then?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
To be fair OSB I don't think Elliott is presenting any wild promises by saying that the Haskell consortium has made a bid and enquiries to the administrator. What I find a little more odd is that he says SISU can still make a bid; if this was their intent why would they put Ltd into administration?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They can easily go hand in hand Torch.
coundonskyblue
New Member
Without redevelopment the football club has no sustainable future.
The only way that I can see this working is if the American is able to get hold of ACL entirely ie. the Council's and Higgs share and develop any surrounding area. We know the the Higgs will sell (they have already told us so) BUT will the Council? In any event; what would the development of the surrounding area consist of? Surely, there are already sufficient hotels, retail outlets and the like.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If the council is offered enough money it'd be hard to see them refusing. Haskell would also need to settle the loan of £14 million in addition to taking on both halves of the shareholding.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yep, costs are starting to stack up.
Steve, in reality of the situation is slightly different. Firstly the sale proceeds have to go through the administrator as it will have to cover the costs of the process before any of it goes to arvo as secured creditor (if their security is valid, which will need to be checked as I'm not sure how much they have directly invested since their charge was registered).
Also any monies available for a floating charge distribution (to arvo) will also be subject to a prescribed part deduction (a carve out of monies for unsecured creditors ie acl). It comes back to the point I've raised before, what are the actual assets ans liabilities in ccfc limited ?
Acls final claim will be significantly in excess of £1.3m. That's just the current debt. They have an additional claim for lost future rent (the lease has been broken and they are unlikely receive the £1.2m per annum in future, therefore their claim will run into millions)
Sisu still hold the whip hand and will receive a significant proportion of any realisations (if arvos security and claim are considered valid) but it certainly won't be a paper transaction. The next question is have sisu got the cash to throw at this ?...and is it going to be more than any external parties ? (Taking into consideration they will probably receive a large proportion of it back through a distribution). Finally if the offer from Haskell or someone else is good enough do sisu just take their portion, cut their losses and run.
Still a messy situation !
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Thanks Steve, I didn't realise their was a claim for breaking the contract (though now you say it I think OSB might have mentioned it).
This is what deudil.com said about CCFC Ltd at the last accounts.. covering period up to 31 May 2011, the numbers for CCF(Holdings) Ltd are similarish.. Otium has never filed & Sky Blue Sports & Leisure are in a better condition..
This is what deudil.com said about CCFC Ltd at the last accounts.. covering period up to 31 May 2011, the numbers for CCF(Holdings) Ltd are similarish.. Otium has never filed & Sky Blue Sports & Leisure are in a better condition..
Last edited by a moderator:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
For a sustainable future we need to own the ground, that is all. We do not need to develop the land on behalf of the Council who should be doing it themselves.
The claim is only if the club lose out from the contract/lease being broken (which they undoubtedly will as I can't see anyone renewing at £1.2m pa). Very hard to put a figure on though !!!
Thanks for the accounting info. Still unsure what it is currently, especially as there appears to have been assets moving !
One thing is strange. Surely the share and player regs had a value ? Weren't they in ccfc in 2011 ?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
In general Councils are not the developers, they work to set up the conditions to attract private finance to the area.
The whole Arena site including Arena Park & the Ricoh complex was supposed to be part of the stategy to redevelop the North part of the City.
Well my gut feeling is that SISU made promises to work towards that strategy & renaged upon them.
I also think how could the council have been so bloody stupid to believe a promise like that, as SISU never did any such thing before... a leopard can't change its spots.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Depends on what kind of development we're talking. We could develop extra hotels/leisure facilities for instance to make the Ricoh a more attractive venue whilst simultaneously boosting the club's coffers. If Haskell's bid is successful his background in property development is ripe for this purpose.
Samo
Well-Known Member
And why is that? Because that's the way it's always been? If the land was developed by CCFC and all the revenues resulted in a better squad, I doubt you'd hold that view.
But for now... 'Councils should redevelop land not football clubs' coz thats just the way it is... and some with small minds will always see the small picture.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
Development could include football and sports academies, not just business and leisure facilities.
Think outside the box
Think outside the box
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
Yes, it could become the lifeblood of the club. Not only a production line for players, but it also attracts families as supporters.
Our business model needs to be more sophisticated than just revenue streams from beer and burgers.....
Our business model needs to be more sophisticated than just revenue streams from beer and burgers.....
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p>
Ok, so assume since 2005 ccfc had owned the Ricoh, paying zero rent and receiving all the income. The club would still not have broke even in a single year since then.
You yourself said the Ricoh had not been used to its full potential, here is an opportunity for that to happen while involving the football club.
Ok, so assume since 2005 ccfc had owned the Ricoh, paying zero rent and receiving all the income. The club would still not have broke even in a single year since then.
You yourself said the Ricoh had not been used to its full potential, here is an opportunity for that to happen while involving the football club.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
The figures would be a damn sight better than they were under SISU's control.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Ricoh needs to be a venue. It needs more entertainment and food places. You say it's the councils job but aside from the city center when have they we developed land? AFAIK they sell to property developers. At least that's how Cannon Park and Arena Park worked (both Tesco owned/developed) an I think the developments at the old post office.
I think you need to see the football club as part of the redevelopment not the development as part of the football club. It's a symbiotic relationship.
I think you need to see the football club as part of the redevelopment not the development as part of the football club. It's a symbiotic relationship.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
think we need to be careful that we're not so keen to see the back of SISU that we just blindly walk into any new ownership without ensuring, as far as you can, that we will end up in a better position. I know it seems hard to imagine being in a worse position but how many times in the last few years have we thought we've hit the bottom only to sink lower.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I can see an argument to develop and create extra revenue streams but how is every other club going to cope that doesn't have land around the ground to develop or owners who can afford to invest in anything but the football club. My feeling is that it should be a decision for the owner of the football club rather than something that is forced on them as a condition of ownership. After all if this is such a great opportunely with guaranteed profits why aren't people queuing up to put money in, or for that matter why aren't ACL putting the money in themselves.
