Butts Park Arena - put up or shut up ! (1 Viewer)

fernandopartridge · Mar 28, 2017

The 'most sensible' option of buying into ACL? It's even more indebted than it was in 2012. It still doesn't appear to be particularly profitable either.
That said, the refinance of the bond in 2020 or whenever the time comes is right up a hedge fund like SISU's street, particularly if the profit made at the Ricoh doesn't start improving.

Astute · Mar 28, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
Ohhhh, I could spend so much time correcting both of you, but it's far more fulfilling to click on this thread every now and again and see if it's moved on from 3 years ago.

Go for it. I'd prefer to have a debate with my dog than Grendel.

Astute · Mar 28, 2017

Grendel said:
In think we paid 10 years. The contribution was £10 million. The £21 million loan was entirely down to the council as was the choice to put the lease at a very restrictive 50 years. That suppressed value as did the choice to have a £21 million loan.

Now you are astute. So what was the other option instead of the loan the council could have done according to the original council documentation?

Go on what was it?

I don't see CCC as losing 10m. It was worth it to them rejuvenating a total eyesore that could be seen by thousands each day. The 21m was for fitting out what should have been our stadium. And the money CCFC did pay in rent went towards loan interest and paying down the loan. Yes we couldn't afford it. Just like we couldn't afford the same for renting HR back whilst the Ricoh was being constructed.

thekidfromstrettoncamp · Mar 28, 2017

Voice_of_Reason said:
Absolutely ! In my opinion this will never happen. Any plans to accept a stadium holding only 12,000 without being able to increase to 25,000 would show a serious lack of ambition by SISU. Anyway, I do not believe this will ever happen and my opinion it's just another ploy to delay and further delay future plans.
If Wasps (spit) are serious about wanting the club to remain at the Ricoh, they to should put up proposals or shut up.

Why do Wasps have to put proposals .We are the ones who need the use of the stadium. apparently we have not put in an offer why not? As I've said before just as we need them(and we do. Forget about the Butts) they need us to be there for naming rights .They might be just ready to listen if the bond is weighing them down.(sorry I've just woken up dreaming our owner might want to PAY for something)

dongonzalos · Mar 28, 2017

chiefdave said:
Shouldn't you then be angry at the council?

No proud of them for stopping it happening to them.

Captain Dart · Mar 28, 2017

thekidfromstrettoncamp said:
Why do Wasps have to put proposals .We are the ones who need the use of the stadium. apparently we have not put in an offer why not? As I've said before just as we need them(and we do. Forget about the Butts) they need us to be there for naming rights .They might be just ready to listen if the bond is weighing them down.(sorry I've just woken up dreaming our owner might want to PAY for something)

I don't get this continual stance about 3rd parties having to lay out (favourable) terms for something the club wants, it is up to the club to make an approach and negotiate terms. They have something to bring to the table, City are on the sports channels, they are in the papers and there have substantial crowds, that is worth something. It is ultimately the legal action that prevents meaningful progress.

thekidfromstrettoncamp · Mar 28, 2017

IT is the legal plus the way we go into any possible talks with demands especially where we are the ones who need something not others don't put in demands try going into talks with a clean sheet and negotiate.

chiefdave · Mar 28, 2017

Grendel said:
Mcginnity sold the rights to Highfield road by the way.

Still remember the meltdown the council went to when we proposed not moving to the new ground and exercising the buy back clause at HR instead.

chiefdave · Mar 28, 2017

Astute said:
How was the shortfall only 10m?

I would assume he is referring to the fact that CCC only put £10m into the project themselves yet somehow ended up with total ownership of the freehold.

Grendel said:
So what was the other option instead of the loan the council could have done according to the original council documentation?

Not sure he knows even though its been posted many times.

CCC said:
ACL had the option to pay £1.9m rent per annum or a £21m premium.

chiefdave · Mar 28, 2017

italiahorse said:
The £21M was for kitting out the stadium.

Really?

Fit – Out (managed by ACL) (£2.6m)

The original budget for fit out was established at £4.4m in October 2003. During the latter parts of completion, it became apparent that some costs omitted from the construction contract in order to bring the overall project within budget, were essential to the provision of the full range of intended commercial activities and therefore had to be picked up within the fit out budget. The final cost of fit out is now forecast at £7m, an overspend of £2.6m. Key elements of the additional spend include the scoreboard (£250k), telephone system (£150k) and the £800k leisure centre fit out costs (as approved at Cabinet on 7 June 2005).

The division of responsibilities for the fit out, between ACL and CNR as the commercial operator and construction company respectively, has been the subject of some debate between the parties and officers have agreed to share the additional costs, with ACL providing £1.1m through additional support from Yorkshire Bank and the Council bearing the balance of £1.5m.

Given the uncertainties of the overall funding package for the Arena, including the final construction costs and the inclusion of future value of land yet to be disposed of, it has not been possible to determine until now whether there would be sufficient funds in the overall budget to bear this additional cost. This report now seeks retrospective approvals for these costs as part of the overall funding package and scheme overspend of £2.9m.

chiefdave · Mar 28, 2017

dongonzalos said:
No proud of them for stopping it happening to them.

So you don't want the charity ripped off but you're proud of the council for turning down bigger offers pre-SISU which meant the charity ended up making a loss.

fernandopartridge · Mar 28, 2017

chiefdave said:
Really?

This is what you're up against. The same clowns posting the same nonsense as fact despite the fact the evidence is publicly available. The unnecessary £21m lease premium is the main reason why the Arena failed.
If it was £21m for 50 years, how much for 250?

Grendel · Mar 28, 2017

Thank God for some voices of sanity at the end

dongonzalos · Mar 29, 2017

Moff said:
Sorry to pull you up on this, but its a real misnomer that the Higgs is a children's charity....it isn't. They support a range of initiatives....not specific to children.

It does support a range of iniatives such as bailing out CCFC however as per below it's primacy is to help deprived children. .....

"The Alan Edward Higgs Charity (sometimes incorrectly called the Alan Higgs Trust) benefited from Higgs's entire estate of approximately £26 million.[3] It was set up specifically to help deprived children from Coventry and within 25 miles of Coventry. Higgs's son Derek Higgs, who was knighted in 2004, and his daughter became the trustees."

dongonzalos · Mar 29, 2017

chiefdave said:
So you don't want the charity ripped off but you're proud of the council for turning down bigger offers pre-SISU which meant the charity ended up making a loss.

Bigger offers before SISU for ACL?
Who, when and how much did they want buy ACL for?

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...ggoMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEBQOj5oVX3oSmfqzeOuBhdrB3tZg

The 21m was part of the build costs. It was what couldn't be raised from grants or what didn't come from CCC or CCFC. Without the loan there would not have been a stadium built. The money didn't just dissappear or was a needless loan like some seem to allege.

Hobo · Mar 29, 2017

shy_tall_knight said:
Grendel have you ever thought how much pain SISU inflicted on Higgs / CCC prior to WASPS, Lucas Mutton & Co are politicians not business people, they have reputations that were going to be sorely tarnished if they gave into SISU. SISU weren't being reasonable and IMO were beyond negotiating with, Northampton proved the extent to which they were prepared to go to get their way. The morality of it etc.. the impact on CCFC of selling to WASPS but when it gets nasty and personal things like this happen and unfortunately it has. Who knows whether a more conciliatory approach would have worked but SISU's tactics are worse than a Slade Boothroyd double act

That bit hits the nail on the head. Chris West said to me, "on Tuesday you thought you had made real progress, then by Thursday you were further away than you had been on Monday."

Or to use a football analogy, constantly shifting the goal posts.

SISU has failed to build successful business
relationships, failed to build a relationship with it fan base, have nose dived us as a club. Total failures.

Yes they inherited problems, some of the other players haven't just rolled over....that's life and above all that is the business world.

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

Hobo said:
That bit hits the nail on the head. Chris West said to me, "on Tuesday you thought you had made real progress, then by Thursday you were further away than you had been on Monday."

Or to use a football analogy, constantly shifting the goal posts.

SISU has failed to build successful business
relationships, failed to build a relationship with it fan base, have nose dived us as a club. Total failures.

Yes they inherited problems, some of the other players haven't just rolled over....that's life and above all that is the business world.

Yet some like to blame CCC for not paying the shortfall for the Ricoh. Yet the same ones thought that it was good that SISU did JR1 on the basis of state funding. You couldn't make it up.

Captain Dart · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
Yet some like to blame CCC for not paying the shortfall for the Ricoh. Yet the same ones thought that it was good that SISU did JR1 on the basis of state funding. You couldn't make it up.

You don't have to make it up, it is the way some people think.

Grendel · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
Yet some like to blame CCC for not paying the shortfall for the Ricoh. Yet the same ones thought that it was good that SISU did JR1 on the basis of state funding. You couldn't make it up.

No you can't make it up. Someone's already pointed out the loan wasn't the only option available

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

Grendel said:
No you can't make it up. Someone's already pointed out the loan wasn't the only option available

What was it then? Because you are certainty against state funding.

italiahorse · Mar 29, 2017

chiefdave said:
Really?

£2.5 M to fit out a complete stadium.
Nonsense.
That's probably a limited fit out I'm talking about the lot.

Grendel · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
What was it then? Because you are certainty against state funding.

You say you can't make it up yet clearly haven't read any of the posts that were made by the posters you are accusing of making things up.

I'm not leading you by the hand and showing you.

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

We would have been much better off if a smaller stadium had been built without a hotel or casino. It was still nowhere near what Richardson told us we were getting.

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

italiahorse said:
£2.5 M to fit out a complete stadium.
Nonsense.
That's probably a limited fit out I'm talking about the lot.

The stadium itself cost 7m alone.

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

Grendel said:
You say you can't make it up yet clearly haven't read any of the posts that were made by the posters you are accusing of making things up.

I'm not leading you by the hand and showing you.

I see you have added the last line after I asked where the money could have come from. So you don't know then.

Ian1779 · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
I don't see CCC as losing 10m. It was worth it to them rejuvenating a total eyesore that could be seen by thousands each day. The 21m was for fitting out what should have been our stadium. And the money CCFC did pay in rent went towards loan interest and paying down the loan. Yes we couldn't afford it. Just like we couldn't afford the same for renting HR back whilst the Ricoh was being constructed.

What should have happened here was that as we paid that rent and loan down, that we accrued a percentage of the stadium to own, and most of this sorry mess could have been avoided.

Skyblueweeman · Mar 29, 2017

Just dropped in...oh, same old arguments on a different thread. Cheers, laters....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grendel · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
I see you have added the last line after I asked where the money could have come from. So you don't know then.

It's in this thread! As I say read what people actually say.

I think it's even mentioned in that document you keep bringing up about planned costs.

chiefdave · Mar 29, 2017

italiahorse said:
£2.5 M to fit out a complete stadium.
Nonsense.
That's probably a limited fit out I'm talking about the lot.

Try actually reading posts before you reply to them.

chiefdave · Mar 29, 2017

Astute said:
The 21m was part of the build costs. It was what couldn't be raised from grants or what didn't come from CCC or CCFC. Without the loan there would not have been a stadium built. The money didn't just dissappear or was a needless loan like some seem to allege.

The loan you are referring to there is the loan from the Prudential not the loan ACL took out from Yorkshire Bank.

Moff · Mar 29, 2017

dongonzalos said:
It does support a range of iniatives such as bailing out CCFC however as per below it's primacy is to help deprived children. .....

"The Alan Edward Higgs Charity (sometimes incorrectly called the Alan Higgs Trust) benefited from Higgs's entire estate of approximately £26 million.[3] It was set up specifically to help deprived children from Coventry and within 25 miles of Coventry. Higgs's son Derek Higgs, who was knighted in 2004, and his daughter became the trustees."

That is what they did when they originally set up, not what they do now.

This is taken, from their current and up to date website of what they do, cant see anything specific to kids, or do they invest in pubs for the deprived children?

What the charity does
The Trustees have a clear policy in making grants. They support:

• Strategic initiatives that have an effect on large numbers of people over time. These create step change in areas of deprivation.

• Projects or activities in particular geographical or thematic areas, sometimes over time, in order to concentrate the effect of grants and target particular need

• The ad hoc needs of groups or organisations supported through one-off grants.

Charitable giving ranges from very large strategic projects to small local donations. All grants are made within the beneficial area. Applications from individuals are not accepted

Moff · Mar 29, 2017

chiefdave said:
Try actually reading posts before you reply to them.

Asking that of Italia, makes me think of an old saying re Leopards and spots

Nick · Mar 29, 2017

Moff said:
That is what they did when they originally set up, not what they do now.

This is taken, from their current and up to date website of what they do, cant see anything specific to kids, or do they invest in pubs for the deprived children?

What the charity does
The Trustees have a clear policy in making grants. They support:

• Strategic initiatives that have an effect on large numbers of people over time. These create step change in areas of deprivation.

• Projects or activities in particular geographical or thematic areas, sometimes over time, in order to concentrate the effect of grants and target particular need

• The ad hoc needs of groups or organisations supported through one-off grants.

Charitable giving ranges from very large strategic projects to small local donations. All grants are made within the beneficial area. Applications from individuals are not accepted

Yes but making out poor kids are going to starve to death sounds better.

Astute · Mar 29, 2017

Ian1779 said:
What should have happened here was that as we paid that rent and loan down, that we accrued a percentage of the stadium to own, and most of this sorry mess could have been avoided.

I fully agree. There shouldn't even have been an ACL. No 50% should have been given that could be used to put against debt. It should have been kept as a community asset.

In fact we should have stayed at HR until we could afford to pay for our own stadium. Something should have been built if it had to be done that didn't need loans. But CCC wanted to build something nobody could afford.

Butts Park Arena - put up or shut up ! (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency