Arena Rent (1 Viewer)

[Jack Griffin]

50 year lease at £400k = £20m
pay rent = get nothing v build stadium financed over 50 years = own stadium then rent free + all income streams!

I can see how she sees it!

imp:

FFS no one in business makes 50 year plans, did Derick Robbins do projections in 1963 to the present day. ointlaugh:ointlaugh:ointlaugh:ointlaugh:ointlaugh:ointlaugh:

And any 50 yr old stadium will have been through several refits.

 

---

[grego_gee]

Not sure how we find a smaller stadium that we can fill - are then successful, and suddenly expand it - how?
Off the top of my head, can't think of many stadia (except the likes of Newcastle and Man Utd - i.e all top notch stadia) where this has been done - needs serious money. Most of the 'little' ones just hire a few bolt on seats when a 'big' club comes to town. Expand, please (unless you are on about filling Sixfields, being successful and moving on to a bigger TF/Joy stadium - in which case, lay off the White Lightning)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-planning-build-highfield-4003689

As talks have broken down over a lower rent and joint ownership at the Ricoh, it is understood Coventry City (Holdings) Ltd want to base their plans on Rotherham United’s new 12,000-seat stadium, which took four years to build.

They believe the new stadium would be nearer to Coventry city centre than the Ricoh Arena.

Club directors are impressed with the New York Stadium at the South Yorkshire club as it was completed last year at a “cheap” cost of £20million.

The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.

The stadium in Rotherham is also thought to be a suitable model to follow as it is a “modular” project – meaning more capacity can easily be added if the club is promoted and attendances shoot up.

Pics

imp:

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Not just the rent but the Club (CCFC) must receive ALL revenue streams if we're going to compete and survive.

The rent should be geared to the Division the 'City's' Club play in ie. Division 2 - £50,000, Division 1 - £175,000 - Championship £450,000 - Premiership - £1:5 MILLION - Europe - £2:5 million approximately but I stress the Club must receive ALL revenue streams.
(To quote Ray Ranson, Paul Fletcher & Mark Robins to name just three, although I could quote many, many more.)

Oh yes the Ray Ranson who worked for Sisu and knew what the rent was,the Paul Fletcher who worked for ACL when the rent was agreed and the Mark Robins who couldnt bring himself to be honest and say he was going to Huddersfield for more money. The rent offered was based on a sliding scale but certain people thought they were going back to the Premiership so that the fixed rate was seen as a bargain but then:facepalm:

 

[Jack Griffin]

What do the ACL critics consider to be a fair rent to play at the Ricoh, considering the construction costs were £113 mil. according to Wikki ? :blue:

This is complete tripe. It didn't cost that and ACL spent nothing like that on it after the sale to Tescos.

What is really disturbing is why the question is asked. The answer is as little as you can get away with.

The costs are fully detailed here
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

The figure was £115.8M..

CCFC put £1.7M in, but later sold their rights to the Higgs for £6.5M. So they made a profit of £4.8M on the venture. i.e. they took money out of the project.. to pay bad debts.

The council bought the land of British Gas for about £15M, sold it to Tesco for £50M and invested all that money into the project, they also put up £10M grant, so as a minimum they put in £25M and all the land sale profit.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The costs are fully detailed here
http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf

The figure was £115.8M..

CCFC put £1.7M in, but later sold their rights to the Higgs for £6.5M. So they made a profit of £4.8M on the venture. i.e. they took money out of the project.. to pay bad debts.

The council bought the land of British Gas for about £15M, sold it to Tesco for £50M and invested all that money into the project, they also put up £10M grant, so as a minimum they put in £25M and all the land sale profit.

Good work. Come on Grendel respond

 

[Paxman II]

The point raised above highlights what the council put in (if correct) So some £25m is what it stands the council?

Then why don't they sell the bloody thing then and make a tidy profit for the taxpayer? We want football and a home at the Ricoh don't we?
That is surely the number one aim of the city council?

So they hate SISU? There will be plenty more owners to hate that will come and go. Sell up and you don't actually have to worry about that ever again do you.

 

[torchomatic]

The construction costs are irrelevant. What matters is what the tenant can afford. The tenant of the £113M stadium are a mid-table L1 team with a small fanbase. That's the reality of the situation.

What do the ACL critics consider to be a fair rent to play at the Ricoh, considering the construction costs were £113 mil. according to Wikki ? :blue:

 

[Jack Griffin]

What matters is the market value of the facility.

As Walsall pay £425K p.a. for an inferior facility and seem to be managing OK then I'd suggest that £400K p.a. isn't unreasonable.

 

[torchomatic]

Totally disagree. If this was a house whereby the landlord could just move someone else is in then enough, but that isn't the case. There is ONE tenant and unfortunately for ACL and CCC they are poor one.

What matters is the market value of the facility.

As Walsall pay £425K p.a. for an inferior facility and seem to be managing OK then I'd suggest that £400K p.a. isn't unreasonable.

 

[dongonzalos]

Totally disagree. If this was a house whereby the landlord could just move someone else is in then enough, but that isn't the case. There is ONE tenant and unfortunately for ACL and CCC they are poor one.

There is soon to be no tenant, ACL will be forced to move someone/entity in. Unfortunately SISU think like you, there is no one else.

 

[ccfcway]

Totally disagree. If this was a house whereby the landlord could just move someone else is in then enough, but that isn't the case. There is ONE tenant and unfortunately for ACL and CCC they are poor one.

and when bad tennants leave, you do the place up, and stick it back on the market....

depressing stuff

 

[grego_gee]

There is soon to be no tenant, ACL will be forced to move someone/entity in. Unfortunately SISU think like you, there is no one else.

and when bad tennants leave, you do the place up, and stick it back on the market....

depressing stuff

I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave earlier.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/33257-Arena-Rent?p=482898&viewfull=1#post482898


imp:

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Grego, Torch, Paxman:

Do you think that SISU would alter the rent agreement for relegation if ACL owned the club and SISU owned the lease from the council on the Ricoh? If you do, would you care to show me examples where they have acted in a similar way with distressed companies.

 

[grego_gee]

There is no rent agreement!

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!

imp:

 

[Astute]

There is no rent agreement!

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!

imp:

He wouldn't have come to us to start with if he had any sense

 

[Astute]

The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.

Who in their right mind would trust SISU enough to build them a stadium on the never never?

And if they found anyone thick enough to do it how many think we would go into administration again to try and get it on the cheap?

 

[torchomatic]

There is soon to be no tenant, ACL will be forced to move someone/entity in. Unfortunately SISU think like you, there is no one else.

And if they do someone else in then they are as bad as SISU.

Back to the original point. The cost of the stadium is irrelevant when the tenant cannot afford the rent.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dongonzalos]

And if they do someone else in then they are as bad as SISU.

Back to the original point. The cost of the stadium is irrelevant when the tenant cannot afford the rent.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Saying they are as bad as SISU. Doesn't really wash over the point. SISU do not have to take CCFC out of the Ricoh. They are doing it as they are taking a gamble it will break ACL.

They think there is no one else which what you also alluded to. Unfortunately I think it is too much of a gamble to take and I think ACL may make the Ricoh work without CCFC.

That leaves us the fans screwed.

 

[luwalla]

150-250k a year.. with the club getting all match day revenues.. unfortunately it doesn't matter how low ACL are willing or able to go with the rent, they are not able to grant match day revenues..

for any deal to work.. i think the club, ACL & Compass all need to sit around a table and work out who can offer what .. they would all then benefit from the club not having to move & they would all retain the benefits of the club being at the ricoh.. doubt thats going to happen though. as the parties involed dont seem to have that much sense between them.. they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

And if they do someone else in then they are as bad as SISU.

Back to the original point. The cost of the stadium is irrelevant when the tenant cannot afford the rent.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

Torch,
Not looking for an argument here, but if you say the tenant cannot afford the rent, then what do you expect the landlord to do?
After unsuccessful negotiation and offers of drastic reduction in rent, the tenant still claims that he cannot afford the greatly reduced rent. What do you as a landlord do in such a situation? Do you then offer to let the tenant stay for nothing and you have to somehow pay your mortgage and costs with no rental income to cover the expense?
How do you think a landlord should react in such situations?

 

[Jack Griffin]

And if they do someone else in then they are as bad as SISU.

Back to the original point. The cost of the stadium is irrelevant when the tenant cannot afford the rent.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

The fact of the matter is that they can easily afford the rent deal offered.

Compare with Walsall, their crowd averages marginally over 4000 but they pay £425K p.a. rent, if we use TF's own figures for Charltons F&B turnover as a basis (£700K profit on a crowd of about 10,000) then Walsall's F&B income might be about half that, say £350K. Walsall finished 9th last year, 13 points higher than City.. so even better than City even if the 10 pts deduction if not taken into account.

Now Coventry crowds, even in this division allowing for a 1000 drop from last year's figure of nearly 11,000 more than make up for the difference (6,000 x £15 x 24 games = £2M) and even allow the club to run an academy at cost to themselves of about £500K..

The numbers don't add up to support your argument, in fact they support the notion that moving the club and building a stadium is a crackpot idea and will probably lead to relegation.