What is best for the Tax Payer? (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Considering Les Reid and others have used this "What is best for the Tax Payer" argument, I was wondering what people's stance on this is? Whenever I have questioned it nobody has given me a proper response.

I personally don't think either side can use this as an argument because in the real world if we are talking what is best for the tax payer then it is not to get Coventry back at the Ricoh. The best possible scenario for the taxpayer to get the best return is surely to sell to the highest bidder? Whether it be a property development company or otherwise. Which it doesn't take a genius to work out is not JS.

Obviously not the best scenario for us as fans, however if Joy is adament we will only come back to the Ricoh if she can buy it, then that is not the best scenario for the tax payer if she is not willing to pay market value. Am I wrong?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Does it make a difference either way for the tax payer? I very much doubt it so I don't really see why they are brought into it.
 
R

RPHunt

New Member
Absolutely right - and those urging the council to do something should realise that councils do not have an obligation to find accomodation for homeless football clubs or to assist private equity funds to make money.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Stalemate then. A homeless football club and an empty football stadium. No one wins.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
As a Tax Payer I believe that government funding can be used in better areas of our community and within budget then to maintain a Football Stadium with no tennant.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Easy? You reckon? Bloody expensive. Would that be value for money for the Coventry taxpayer?

RPHunt said:
Rather easier to adapt a football stadium than a football club.
Click to expand...
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
And with Councils having to set their budgets next year and with even less money coming from central government there won't be a lot of money around to "adapt" a stadium for a while. Four more years of pain, so kiss goodbye to all your services, folks.

RoboCCFC90 said:
As a Tax Payer I believe that government funding can be used in better areas of our community and within budget then to maintain a Football Stadium with no tennant.
Click to expand...
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90 said:
As a Tax Payer I believe that government funding can be used in better areas of our community and within budget then to maintain a Football Stadium with no tennant.
Click to expand...

I agree. So sell to highest bidder? Or convert to something of use for tax payer.
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
"oh yeah, the taxes, the finger thing means the taxes...".

Sorry, just wanted to get my third Simpson's quote in 10 minutes in :D
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
lewys33 said:
I agree. So sell to highest bidder? Or convert to something of use for tax payer.
Click to expand...

Converting would mean spending more money which I hazard a guess wouldn't.. a) be fondly received by tax payers if the council chose to spend it in those means? b) The council have much more budget to spend on conversions?
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
And with Councils having to set their budgets next year and with even less money coming from central government there won't be a lot of money around to "adapt" a stadium for a while. Four more years of pain, so kiss goodbye to all your services, folks.
Click to expand...

Exactly Torch, a decision needs to be made now for the sake of Tax Payers and for the Council, they could make all the hassle and bad negativity dissapear with a sale of the Arena.
 
R

RPHunt

New Member
torchomatic said:
And with Councils having to set their budgets next year and with even less money coming from central government there won't be a lot of money around to "adapt" a stadium for a while. Four more years of pain, so kiss goodbye to all your services, folks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they could save a fortune by sacking the idle buggers that spend all day posting on internet forums rather than doing the job they are paid to do.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
thaiskyblue said:
RoboCCFC90 said:
Exactly Torch, a decision needs to be made now for the sake of Tax Payers and for the Council, they could make all the hassle and bad negativity dissapear with a sale of the Arena.[/QUOTE
sisu to the rescue again........don't make me laugh robo.
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to make you laugh either a sale needs to be made to the Football Club in which the Arena would be utilised fully as it was designed for or it is sold to a private party who can develop the land around it or the Arena itself.
Click to expand...
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Good idea. I'll suggest that.

RPHunt said:
Perhaps, but they could save a fortune by sacking the idle buggers that spend all day posting on internet forums rather than doing the job they are paid to do.
Click to expand...
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Stop hedge funds like SISU playing the system.

Not on about the Ricoh here. They were landed with a tax bill. So they put it into CCFC LTD then put CCFC LTD into admin. All the proof is out there on what they have done.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90 said:
I wasn't intending to make you laugh either a sale needs to be made to the Football Club in which the Arena would be utilised fully as it was designed for or it is sold to a private party who can develop the land around it or the Arena itself.
Click to expand...

This is my argument though ...... if we are talking solely on the purpose of getting the best return for the taxpayer it is not to sell it to JS or the football club if they are not going to pay as much as other potential buyers?
 
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
RPHunt said:
Absolutely right - and those urging the council to do something should realise that councils do not have an obligation to find accomodation for homeless football clubs or to assist private equity funds to make money.
Click to expand...
or shoring up the finances of a failing Arena Management company either
 
B

Badger

Well-Known Member
There is also business rates to consider. While CCFC are away surely there are local businesses in danger of going under, therefore no rates from these properties
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
thaiskyblue said:
we wont know any thing till the jr robo, more time for sisu to let us hear their manifesto, yawn !
Click to expand...

I don't see how the sale of the Arena could depend on the JR, at the end of the day if CCC/ACL sold the Arena, SISU may drop the JR.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Warwickhunt said:
or shoring up the finances of a failing Arena Management company either
Click to expand...

on the basis that they were not recieving payment? You can't use that as an argument because if they hadn't done that every tax payer (especially the ones who couldn't care less about the football team) would be slagging them off on the basis that they let a hedge fund take them to the cleaners. There would be very little return to the tax payer if they had let that happen.
 
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
lewys33 said:
This is my argument though ...... if we are talking solely on the purpose of getting the best return for the taxpayer it is not to sell it to JS or the football club if they are not going to pay as much as other potential buyers?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The best thing would be if CCC sold the Arena to the Football Club IMO.

Selling it to a another party like Haskell achieves nothing.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90 said:
I don't see how the sale of the Arena could depend on the JR, at the end of the day if CCC/ACL sold the Arena, SISU may drop the JR.
Click to expand...

SISU won't drop the JR. But I don't see anything else wrong with that statement. Unless things are going on behind the scenes ......
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
It's not a straightforward question as you can take 2 approaches.

The first would be purely financial. Currently the council own the freehold and 50% of ACL. The value of the freehold I wouldn't have thought was being impacted too much as in the council document detailing build costs they indicated the value of the freehold was minimal while a lease was in place.

In terms of ACL at the moment, according to their filed accounts, they are a profit making company who have been making overpayments on their debts to clear them as quickly as possible. The recent restructuring at ACL both in terms of staffing and their debt commitments lowers the impact of CCFC not being there hence while they were able to offer a much lower rent. You will really need to wait around 2 years to see if ACL are a viable company without CCFC as you have to account for the long lead times a lot of the events of the type held at the Ricoh have.

I think people are making a mistake assuming a replacement tenant is needed. The maintenace costs of the stadium can't be massive and are probably covered by one or two concerts every summer, a representative match here and there and whatever else they can pick up. It may well be the case that ACL can more than cover the loss of CCFC as they now have more dates free and can increases revenues in other areas of the business.

If it is the case that ACL is still profitable, or even just breaking even, without CCFC then from a financial standpoint the best thing for the taxpayer is to hold on to the Rioch unless of course a full market value bid is made by a private company which would mean they could sell up at a profit, presumably to be reinvested to the benefit of the taxpayer. Worse case scenario is that ACL get into trouble and can't meet the repayments, lease then reverts to the council, the expose of £14m in debt would be offset by the value of the lease but you could of course argue how much the lease is worth.

The other way to view it is from a community asset standpoint. This is harder to evaluate as you would need to determine what is an acceptable amount of funding for the council to provide to allow ACL to continue operation. This isn't unusual, here in Pompey the 2 biggest venues (Guildhall and Pyramids) are both run by ACL type organisations but are both subsidised by the council (Pyramids for example gets around a million a year to cover operational losses). The theory being that the value to the community is greater than the amount being spent and that it is part of the councils responsibility to provide leisure facilities. Let's face it, without the Ricoh would we have seen the likes of Bon Jovi, Muse, Springsteen etc in Coventry?

If the council were to hand the stadium over to SISU then the very least they have to do is ensure they cover everything that has gone into the project, if they achieve that then you can make an argument that there is no loss to the taxpayer.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Badger said:
There is also business rates to consider. While CCFC are away surely there are local businesses in danger of going under, therefore no rates from these properties
Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest that businesses will go under from all this, however you are right business can't be doing as well without CCFC at the Ricoh. So in order to get the economy in the area going again the best outcome for the taxpayer (not neccessarily the CCFC fan) is to sell it to the highest bidder. Whether they want to knock it down and build houses (more people in the area to use shops/pubs) or build a factory of some kind (more jobs etc.) or to use the Ricoh for some other way it could all work out better for the taxpayer.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
But I'm asking how that would make you worse off?
Click to expand...

It's worse off against potential income I assume.

To use everyone's favourite house analogy if your house was worth £500K but you sold it to someone for £100K you're £400K worse off even tho you haven't actually ever had that £400K.

At least that's what I assume people mean. I think you can also make an argument that so long as the council cover everything they've put in then no money have been lost.
 
R

RPHunt

New Member
Nick said:
But I'm asking how that would make you worse off?
Click to expand...

If you don't believe he would be worse off, then is there any reason why every council in the country shouldn't give all their assets to your favourite private equity fund?
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
It's not a straightforward question as you can take 2 approaches.

The first would be purely financial. Currently the council own the freehold and 50% of ACL. The value of the freehold I wouldn't have thought was being impacted too much as in the council document detailing build costs they indicated the value of the freehold was minimal while a lease was in place.

In terms of ACL at the moment, according to their filed accounts, they are a profit making company who have been making overpayments on their debts to clear them as quickly as possible........
Click to expand...

Including the rest of your quote - I completely agree. This also includes another thing I disagreed with Les Reid on. We cannot currently know how ACL will do without CCFC.

Im going to dot a few figures down now .... PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS AS FACT! I am only going on memory so cannot prove anything but from what I remember with CCFC paying £1.3 million rent ACL were showing £1million profit. ACL were paying £1million a year on the mortgage.

Obviously without CCFC paying they got in to difficulties and CCC bought out the mortgage. From memory this halved the mortgage to £500,000.
so remove the £1.3 million rent, but also take in to account the rent has been reduced to £500,000 then roughly it works out to be £200,000 profit a year?

Obviously there a lot of other things to take in to account but when Les Reid was claiming that the Ricoh cannot cope financially without CCFC it did make me consider the above. It could still be possible for ACL to survive without CCFC.
 
P

paulcalf

Member
Best for the tax payer would be to sell the freehold to the Ricoh on the open market.

Whilst ACL hold a lease, the freehold probably won't be worth as much as selling the Freehold without a lease.

I agree that the Club need to benefit from the income generated by the ground they play in. That doesn't mean I think the Council should sell the Freehold to SISU/Otium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top