Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Yes. They're playing so much of a blinder that if ACL reject their CVA, the club's liquidated
CCFC announcement on new stadium (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
Yes. They're playing so much of a blinder that if ACL reject their CVA, the club's liquidated
You really should give us a clue as to who you are talking to, or is it just the voices in your head
jaytskyblue
New Member
Surely CCC cant sell any stake in Coventry's key asset (the Ricoh) to a failed and unethical hedgefund who have shown nothing but disdain to Coventry people- and have been a total and utter disaster?
That would be political suicide.
That would be political suicide.
ccfc_Tom
Well-Known Member
No way is it just going to be 3 years, at an absolute minimum it will be 5 years. Realistically be more like 7
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
If SISU move either ACL have to use the stadium for something else as well as the conference/hotel/concert business or they have to bring in another sporting club, which could be a football club.
They have options that can be realised in a much shorter time frame than it will take for SISU to get their mad scheme off the ground.
If ACL bring a Coventry owned football team to the Arena then it will in my opinion get a lot of support, but has anyone got the nerve to do it? Then it is a 5 to 7 year race to get them into the league and I think SISU's investors will get cold feet.
They have options that can be realised in a much shorter time frame than it will take for SISU to get their mad scheme off the ground.
If ACL bring a Coventry owned football team to the Arena then it will in my opinion get a lot of support, but has anyone got the nerve to do it? Then it is a 5 to 7 year race to get them into the league and I think SISU's investors will get cold feet.
Last edited by a moderator:
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
It's all about ownership of the Ricoh- and no one in their right mind should trust Sisu with the Ricoh based on their record.
This latest nonsense just further proves how unprofessional and unethical Sisu are.
This latest nonsense just further proves how unprofessional and unethical Sisu are.
I can not believe the people on here who are agreeing and even sticking up for the SISU master plan ,leaving aside who is right or wrong in this sad situation ,and I am sure there are faults on both sides of the table (although far more on one side than the other in my opinion).
Those sticking up for SISU what do you see as a future for your club ? Moving in the short term to a vastly inferior stadium than the Ricoh ,then if SISU plans are to be believed move back to the Coventry area to a vastly inferior stadium to the Ricoh ,that will leave little money free to invest in the team therefore ensuring the long term mediocrity of CCFC ,because don't forget SISU being a hedge fund will need to take back all losses caused by the move to Northampton plus all costs involved in the developement of a new stadium before any significant investment in the playing sode can or will be made ,considering that it will be at least 3 years ( more like 5) before even moving to a new stadium then at least another 5 at the very least to recoup any costs and losses made you are looking at 3rd division at best until at least 2023.
Or maybe you could swallow your blindness and hatred for ACL and see that if SISU could swallow some pride and actually do a deal with ACL ,and don't say that ACL are against this as it has been well documented that deals have been offered, for a reasonable LONG term contract to stay at the Ricoh, then ,and this may sound silly ,invest in the team to maybe try to gain promotions and hopefully get CCFC back in to the Premiership therefore increasing the revenue streams that Fischer keeps harping on about it would put them in a much better position to either make a profit or sell on CCFC to a new owner ?
There only seems to be one option to me ,and like a lot of people on here I truly believe that SISU's only motive in the past has been to grab the Ricoh on the cheap and have little interest in CCFC at all ,I am sure that had they reached their goal by now then you would probably be looking at new owners by now who would be paying rent to SISU instead of ACL.
Pleas note I am looking at this from totally impartionally I do not support CCFC neither am I a Coventry council tax payer, but just someone who feels sorry for the fans of your club for the mess your present owners seem to have got you in to.
Stay strong and stick together
Those sticking up for SISU what do you see as a future for your club ? Moving in the short term to a vastly inferior stadium than the Ricoh ,then if SISU plans are to be believed move back to the Coventry area to a vastly inferior stadium to the Ricoh ,that will leave little money free to invest in the team therefore ensuring the long term mediocrity of CCFC ,because don't forget SISU being a hedge fund will need to take back all losses caused by the move to Northampton plus all costs involved in the developement of a new stadium before any significant investment in the playing sode can or will be made ,considering that it will be at least 3 years ( more like 5) before even moving to a new stadium then at least another 5 at the very least to recoup any costs and losses made you are looking at 3rd division at best until at least 2023.
Or maybe you could swallow your blindness and hatred for ACL and see that if SISU could swallow some pride and actually do a deal with ACL ,and don't say that ACL are against this as it has been well documented that deals have been offered, for a reasonable LONG term contract to stay at the Ricoh, then ,and this may sound silly ,invest in the team to maybe try to gain promotions and hopefully get CCFC back in to the Premiership therefore increasing the revenue streams that Fischer keeps harping on about it would put them in a much better position to either make a profit or sell on CCFC to a new owner ?
There only seems to be one option to me ,and like a lot of people on here I truly believe that SISU's only motive in the past has been to grab the Ricoh on the cheap and have little interest in CCFC at all ,I am sure that had they reached their goal by now then you would probably be looking at new owners by now who would be paying rent to SISU instead of ACL.
Pleas note I am looking at this from totally impartionally I do not support CCFC neither am I a Coventry council tax payer, but just someone who feels sorry for the fans of your club for the mess your present owners seem to have got you in to.
Stay strong and stick together
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
so if the real plan is to build the ground what is the point of any talks today. If thats the plan and an agreement at Sixfields in place there is no way that the B team of waggot labovitch and brookfield can go in to that meeting in good faith.
It would take something "nuclear" to force the stakeholders in ACL to sell to SISU and even if one decided to do it the other could veto it. Am sure some here will say there is an ACL arm breaker in there but where? Don't say it is because the business is not viable without CCFC - none of us knows that for certain and TF is working off figures he had last June when they tried to buy the Higgs Charity shares, a lot has changed since. None of us know the other options that ACL maybe working on because of this dispute and the move to Northampton by the club
No point in having a three year deal for ACL they might as well deal with it now when there is a clean break of the lease coming. Why put it off for 3 to 5 years just to help SISU out while they build a competing stadium. The problem would be the same in three years or so with a new competitor. To go short term for them does not make sense to me
Yes there will be deals put forward, I would hope some sort of compromise by both sides, but I just dont see a short term deal or SISU owning ACL or the freehold.
Others may well see it differently, if so put a reasoned argument forward rather than make statements like SISU will own it, ACL have to sell, it will happen tomorrow, next week the week after that. Why? I have no reason to trust in wild claims
It would take something "nuclear" to force the stakeholders in ACL to sell to SISU and even if one decided to do it the other could veto it. Am sure some here will say there is an ACL arm breaker in there but where? Don't say it is because the business is not viable without CCFC - none of us knows that for certain and TF is working off figures he had last June when they tried to buy the Higgs Charity shares, a lot has changed since. None of us know the other options that ACL maybe working on because of this dispute and the move to Northampton by the club
No point in having a three year deal for ACL they might as well deal with it now when there is a clean break of the lease coming. Why put it off for 3 to 5 years just to help SISU out while they build a competing stadium. The problem would be the same in three years or so with a new competitor. To go short term for them does not make sense to me
Yes there will be deals put forward, I would hope some sort of compromise by both sides, but I just dont see a short term deal or SISU owning ACL or the freehold.
Others may well see it differently, if so put a reasoned argument forward rather than make statements like SISU will own it, ACL have to sell, it will happen tomorrow, next week the week after that. Why? I have no reason to trust in wild claims
Last edited:
Nobody is sticking up for the SISU masterplan; they are merely playing devil's advocate and asking 'what if' questions. There's a big difference.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Why no point of a 3 year deal?
Better that and the chance to formulate long term plans, then end up with an empty stadium for a year and scrabbling round.
From ACL's POV an occupied stadium, even if only for 3 years, gives them more bargaining power with potential replacements than an empty one.
Take as a hypothesis you want to either stick a roof on it and turn it into an exhibition centre, a 3 year deal allows you to get the best deal to do this, make sure plans are afoot that aren't bodged, and allow you to market this future so you can hit the ground running;
Take the hypothesis you want another sporting team, then it allows (if, say, Northampton Saints) the team to plan for the move, organise it properly, start their PR and avoid some of the horrid carnage our football team has managed by rushing this through. Also allows them to get their funding plans and proposals in place, and negotiations to be done without ACL over a barrel.
Better that and the chance to formulate long term plans, then end up with an empty stadium for a year and scrabbling round.
From ACL's POV an occupied stadium, even if only for 3 years, gives them more bargaining power with potential replacements than an empty one.
Take as a hypothesis you want to either stick a roof on it and turn it into an exhibition centre, a 3 year deal allows you to get the best deal to do this, make sure plans are afoot that aren't bodged, and allow you to market this future so you can hit the ground running;
Take the hypothesis you want another sporting team, then it allows (if, say, Northampton Saints) the team to plan for the move, organise it properly, start their PR and avoid some of the horrid carnage our football team has managed by rushing this through. Also allows them to get their funding plans and proposals in place, and negotiations to be done without ACL over a barrel.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Not sure where you are going with any of that.
There is every point to having a temporary 3 year deal. Firstly it would mean a signed CVA (and £600,000), it would give them time to prepare for a revised business model if required (that could not happen overnight), it would give them income in the meantime, but actually what it would do in reality is buy them time required for this silly idea to be buried, because we all know a new stadium is highly unlikely, and you would hope we might secure a change of ownership in that time.
You say there is 'no point', but then that means Northampton. I'd say there was every point.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They would be stupid not too, but at the right price is the problem here.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Thought it was today ?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
A short term deal can be an opportunity for ACL too.
Can take away the right of the football club to have priority (they don't have it at Northampton after all) so doesn't stop them agreeing with AN Other a contract for its use as a sporting venue.
Jack Griffin says this below & it makes a lot of sense. If talks fail to bring us back to the Ricoh today a Coventry team playing at the Ricoh might quickly become OUR Coventry City (subtle name change required legally, of course). We could let the Sisu team in Northampton rot and build here. AFC Coventry, Coventry Phoenix etc etc. Could have a fan vote on it. We may have to face up to this and it would be brilliant to see OUR Ricoh team climb the pyramid while the Sisu abomination fails. We'll see what today brings. Or it may take a couple of 456 gates at Sixfields before these idiots see sense.
"If SISU move either ACL have to use the stadium for something else as well as the conference/hotel/concert business or they have to bring in another sporting club, which could be a football club.
They have options that can be realised in a much shorter time frame than it will take for SISU to get their mad scheme off the ground.
If ACL bring a Coventry owned football team to the Arena then it will in my opinion get a lot of support, but has anyone got the nerve to do it? Then it is a 5 to 7 year race to get them into the league and I think SISU's investors will get cold feet."
"If SISU move either ACL have to use the stadium for something else as well as the conference/hotel/concert business or they have to bring in another sporting club, which could be a football club.
They have options that can be realised in a much shorter time frame than it will take for SISU to get their mad scheme off the ground.
If ACL bring a Coventry owned football team to the Arena then it will in my opinion get a lot of support, but has anyone got the nerve to do it? Then it is a 5 to 7 year race to get them into the league and I think SISU's investors will get cold feet."
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Coventry City and Ricoh Arena bosses are refusing to comment on speculation that negotiations over the club's administration and playing at the Ricoh took place yesterday - and produced no agreement.
Telegraph sources claim the talks started yesterday at a hotel venue "closer to London than Coventry", and that club owners Sisu's boss Joy Seppala was present.
The Telegraph exclusively revealed on Wednesday that talks were back on between the two warring parties - after both sides agree to the negotiations at a meeting on Monday with administrator Paul Appleton.
We reported the talks would take place by 'Friday at the latest' - while other media outlets have reported the talks were taking place today.
As we revealed, Coventry city councillors had been briefed on Monday by council officer Chris West, who is also a Ricoh director.
They were informed the talks would take place today.
The part city council-owned Ricoh firm Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) and the Sky Blues have refused since yesterday to confirm or deny that the talks have already taken place.
Both sides are observing a 'media blackout'.
Sources claim the meeting concluded yesterday without any agreement over whether both sides as creditors of Coventry City Football Club Limited would sign off Mr Appleton's proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) which would enable the club to come out of administration.
It is also rumoured there had been no full discussion yet over any potential return to the Ricoh.
Sources also claim the next time all parties will sit around a table is at the next creditors' meeting with Mr Appleton on Tuesday - when Mr Appleton will hope the CVA is agreed.
Under his CVA proposals, ACL would get £590,000 return on CCFC's £1.3million rent debts from a £1.5m sale of CCFC Ltd to Sisu-related company Otium.
Sources claim Mr West and ACL director Paul Harris were present at yesterday's alleged meeting - but Coventry City Council chief executive Martin Reeves, also an ACL director, was not.
It is alleged council leaders were not present either. The council - which is a 50 per cent shareholder in ACL alongside the Alan Edward Higgs Charity - is usually represented by ACL director Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen, who is not believed to be taking part in the talks.
Negotiations between the two sides would be the first since March – when the club went into administration in a bitter legal wrangle with ACL.
It has been viewed as a last-ditch attempt to prevent Coventry City moving out of the city and playing 'home' games at Northampton Town for up to five years under Football League-sanctioned plans, while a new stadium is built in the Coventry area.
It is understood Coventry City owners Sisu/Otium agreed to negotiate because they desperately want ACL to sign Mr Appleton’s proposed CVA.
It is thought Coventry City will insist on ACL signing the CVA before there can be any second round of discussions over playing at the Ricoh.
The club wants CCFC Limited to exit administration so that a Football League transfer embargo can be lifted and new players signed.
The earliest the club can come out of administration is three weeks into the new season which starts in ten days – as a 28-day “cooling off” period must follow any CVA agreement.
Mr Appleton has stated the alternative to CCFC Ltd exiting administration via a CVA is liquidation – which could incur a further 15-point League deduction from the club’s 2013/14 League One campaign.
There are claims ACL would be willing to discuss terms over rent payments and who receives matchday revenues – after it previously offered to lower annual rent from £1.3m to £400,000.
Many believe the major stumbling blocks to any ultimate agreement are a breakdown in trust between the two sides - and that Ms Seppala will seek 100 per cent ownership of the Ricoh, and that ACL will not want to sell on those terms.
Another major problem is Sisu’s outstanding High Court application for a judicial review against Coventry City Council’s £14m taxpayer deal in January to buy out ACL’s ‘mortgage’ bank loan.
The club claims the council acted against ‘state aid’ laws, created unfair competition and sought to “wrest control” of the club from its lawful owners – allegations the council denies
Telegraph sources claim the talks started yesterday at a hotel venue "closer to London than Coventry", and that club owners Sisu's boss Joy Seppala was present.
The Telegraph exclusively revealed on Wednesday that talks were back on between the two warring parties - after both sides agree to the negotiations at a meeting on Monday with administrator Paul Appleton.
We reported the talks would take place by 'Friday at the latest' - while other media outlets have reported the talks were taking place today.
As we revealed, Coventry city councillors had been briefed on Monday by council officer Chris West, who is also a Ricoh director.
They were informed the talks would take place today.
The part city council-owned Ricoh firm Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) and the Sky Blues have refused since yesterday to confirm or deny that the talks have already taken place.
Both sides are observing a 'media blackout'.
Sources claim the meeting concluded yesterday without any agreement over whether both sides as creditors of Coventry City Football Club Limited would sign off Mr Appleton's proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) which would enable the club to come out of administration.
It is also rumoured there had been no full discussion yet over any potential return to the Ricoh.
Sources also claim the next time all parties will sit around a table is at the next creditors' meeting with Mr Appleton on Tuesday - when Mr Appleton will hope the CVA is agreed.
Under his CVA proposals, ACL would get £590,000 return on CCFC's £1.3million rent debts from a £1.5m sale of CCFC Ltd to Sisu-related company Otium.
Sources claim Mr West and ACL director Paul Harris were present at yesterday's alleged meeting - but Coventry City Council chief executive Martin Reeves, also an ACL director, was not.
It is alleged council leaders were not present either. The council - which is a 50 per cent shareholder in ACL alongside the Alan Edward Higgs Charity - is usually represented by ACL director Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen, who is not believed to be taking part in the talks.
Negotiations between the two sides would be the first since March – when the club went into administration in a bitter legal wrangle with ACL.
It has been viewed as a last-ditch attempt to prevent Coventry City moving out of the city and playing 'home' games at Northampton Town for up to five years under Football League-sanctioned plans, while a new stadium is built in the Coventry area.
It is understood Coventry City owners Sisu/Otium agreed to negotiate because they desperately want ACL to sign Mr Appleton’s proposed CVA.
It is thought Coventry City will insist on ACL signing the CVA before there can be any second round of discussions over playing at the Ricoh.
The club wants CCFC Limited to exit administration so that a Football League transfer embargo can be lifted and new players signed.
The earliest the club can come out of administration is three weeks into the new season which starts in ten days – as a 28-day “cooling off” period must follow any CVA agreement.
Mr Appleton has stated the alternative to CCFC Ltd exiting administration via a CVA is liquidation – which could incur a further 15-point League deduction from the club’s 2013/14 League One campaign.
There are claims ACL would be willing to discuss terms over rent payments and who receives matchday revenues – after it previously offered to lower annual rent from £1.3m to £400,000.
Many believe the major stumbling blocks to any ultimate agreement are a breakdown in trust between the two sides - and that Ms Seppala will seek 100 per cent ownership of the Ricoh, and that ACL will not want to sell on those terms.
Another major problem is Sisu’s outstanding High Court application for a judicial review against Coventry City Council’s £14m taxpayer deal in January to buy out ACL’s ‘mortgage’ bank loan.
The club claims the council acted against ‘state aid’ laws, created unfair competition and sought to “wrest control” of the club from its lawful owners – allegations the council denies
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Not according to the CT.
Although they say the meeting took place yesterday, but a line in that press release was "Other media sources believe the meeting took place today"
Could it just be speculation?
SkyBlueUkeman
New Member
I think a coventry team playing at the Ricoh would be the perfect riposte in theory, but in practice what do you do? You have Coventry Sphinx who are the next best thing, but are in the NINTH tier of football, or do ACL along with the fans try and build a new club, in a 50/50 Phoenix club situation?
For me, if they play in blue, they play in Coventry, and aren't called Coventry United which is possibly the shittest name for a football team I've ever heard, then I'm in.
Coventry Phoenix would probably be the best choice surely? Original, apt and a symbol of coventry as a city.
For me, if they play in blue, they play in Coventry, and aren't called Coventry United which is possibly the shittest name for a football team I've ever heard, then I'm in.
Coventry Phoenix would probably be the best choice surely? Original, apt and a symbol of coventry as a city.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If I was ACL I would offer the deal they gave whilst the club is in administration for the whole of this year regardless of the position.
It would give them further time to negotiate, allow ACL to tread water.
Only downside is for SISU if they don't really have plans to build a stadium.
In that time the pressure would be off ACL and SISU would be expected to show progress on their plans.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
The problem with a deal for just a season is, do you want to go through this again next close season?!?
Haven't we got to a stage as fans where it needs resolution one way or another, before we tear each other limb from limb?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
think you are making the assumption that ACL have just been sitting there waiting to get the situation sorted - would that be the case?
Not sure an occupied arena increases bargaining power. They have proven the operation of the stadium and the fact that it would be vacant allows shorter timescales whilst holding one off events. They know and prospective clients know they can cater for 30k people in the stadium bowl. Also if there is no team requirement then other areas become more available.
Also bear in mind it is the bottom line that is important to ACL not the turnover. Something like bringing in someone elses team is fraught with all sorts of problems. But you could market it as a sports venue in other ways. Do you need to have a team sport in a league. Do you need to let it 25 times a year to a team ? Is it possible to use the stadium for other things while providing a sporting venue for example. I think people can become blinkered in to thinking a stadium must have a league team in it - is there an alternative way to look at it. A lot of people see things too black and white as far as usage is concerned. Do the alternatives have to be big events for example?
I doubt they could stick a roof on it I wouldnt mind betting the build did not allow for that so it is not feasible.
They have to make a decision (or at least I would if them) and get on with it. If CCFC provides 9% of turnover perhaps a rethink (from a purely ACL point of view) is required. Are they using the stadium to the best most profitable result by having a three year deal with CCFC or should they cut loose now?
Not sure an occupied arena increases bargaining power. They have proven the operation of the stadium and the fact that it would be vacant allows shorter timescales whilst holding one off events. They know and prospective clients know they can cater for 30k people in the stadium bowl. Also if there is no team requirement then other areas become more available.
Also bear in mind it is the bottom line that is important to ACL not the turnover. Something like bringing in someone elses team is fraught with all sorts of problems. But you could market it as a sports venue in other ways. Do you need to have a team sport in a league. Do you need to let it 25 times a year to a team ? Is it possible to use the stadium for other things while providing a sporting venue for example. I think people can become blinkered in to thinking a stadium must have a league team in it - is there an alternative way to look at it. A lot of people see things too black and white as far as usage is concerned. Do the alternatives have to be big events for example?
I doubt they could stick a roof on it I wouldnt mind betting the build did not allow for that so it is not feasible.
They have to make a decision (or at least I would if them) and get on with it. If CCFC provides 9% of turnover perhaps a rethink (from a purely ACL point of view) is required. Are they using the stadium to the best most profitable result by having a three year deal with CCFC or should they cut loose now?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
both sides observing media blackout but somehow details of the secret meeting and what was discussed and who was there are available to "sources" who just happen to speak to the CT.
and they wonder why a lack of trust is a problem :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
and they wonder why a lack of trust is a problem :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
No, but the very fact they have talks with the club suggests the situation isn't sorted with an alternative. Not like anything's going to happen tomorrow, is it, and the esteemed Mr. PWKH admitted in his radio interview the next year would be bumpy, if not the long term future (if I'm wrong in that, sure he'll pop up to clarify
)So they might, but a short term deal with the club doesn't stop those events either. Such clients who need such a large capacity plan in advance too, they don't just rock up one day. What, however, a club in there does is stop any rumours of financial stress to the business in the immediate future, and the rumours and psychology can be as disruptive as the actuality. Thus this increases their bargaining power.
Agree with you there. it goes back to the (yes yes yes I know I know it won;t happen) pioint that Coventry as a city could indeed benefit from Ricoh + AN Other football club ground.
tbf you're probably right, the plans allowed for expansion in capacity... as long as a stand was knocked down first, after all(!) However, nothing is insurmountable, and time to surmount it is always welcome.
personally, if it were me, I'd want to make sure I was making the right decision. Having been burned with current events after all, i wouldn't want to be rushing from frying pan to fire...
Oh deleted the last bit, but of course it should be whether most profitable to have CCFC for 3 years or not at all, if we're talking a pure financial level. The problem is, none of this is purely about finance is it, or it'd be a lot less painful...
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Quite. Whichever side is leaking is not helping!
perhaps they're both leaking of course, to add to the savage irony!
thaiskyblue
New Member
more cobblers form joy's puppets
sisu go home
New Member
So many problems, but for me the priority is keeping Coventry playing in Coventry - not sometime in the future, NOW.
My solution: Council, I know you said you wouldn't sell to Sisu or any other future investers incase they don't manage it according to your high standards, but please sell the club to CCFC for a fair price (you did use our money to buy it after all) - if they don't look after it, we'll get rid of them.
That's one problem out the way - takes ACL out of the equation so all we have to deal with are the corrupt owners - but hey, we've had corrupt owners before.
My solution: Council, I know you said you wouldn't sell to Sisu or any other future investers incase they don't manage it according to your high standards, but please sell the club to CCFC for a fair price (you did use our money to buy it after all) - if they don't look after it, we'll get rid of them.
That's one problem out the way - takes ACL out of the equation so all we have to deal with are the corrupt owners - but hey, we've had corrupt owners before.
They have proven it how? We won't see published accounts that show the success (or otherwise) of the business since SISU withheld payments for some time. We do know that they were under pressure from the bank before the council stepped in.
Turnover is very important - because of cashflow, and in any business, cashflow is king. It enables a business to plan and sustain consistent staffing levels. Big peaks and troughs in cashflow can seriously hinder a business.
What are all these one off events in any case? Please name more more than 2 one-off sporting events worthy of a stadium of that size that take place in neutral venues in the UK each year? Women's FA Cup final? We've had that, and it is an event the FA share out. So too U21 internationals. Rugby? It was not a popular venue when used for Heineken Cup games. Northampton Saints use stadium MK for their big games, which is getting its top tier seated this season and is a better stadium in any case.
Of course it is feasible. Anything is feasible with the requisite will and finance.
The 9% figure is a made up figure. There is no way CCFC is only responsible for only £765,000 of ACLs turnover.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
They might not be aiming to stay in Northampton, but they sure as hell don't give a shit if they do !!
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The fans want it at the Ricoh. Promotion can be achieved at the Ricoh this year. I don't want to wait 5 years before we start again from wherever we are.
A year to sort out behind the scenes whilst we get on with what we want, watching football.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
physical operation of the stadium not the finances
Turnover can be important but which would you rather have 10% of £1m or 30% of 500k. You can not focus on turnover if most of it goes in costs (and largely costs that get paid straight away)
Events who knows - was just asking people to keep a bit more of an open mind nothing more. Right now none of us know if ACL have made contingency plans in other ways - would be poor management if they had not made some in roads in to the process. In any case do the events need to be on the stadium sell out standard?
It probably is not feasible because the original build did not allow for that kind of expansion making it very expensive and because the return on capital invested would be poor given how much it would cost
It could be 9% last year of stadium turnover in that 2012/13 included the Olympics which would inflate total turnover whilst the CCFC footfall was at an all time low for the stadium
Turnover can be important but which would you rather have 10% of £1m or 30% of 500k. You can not focus on turnover if most of it goes in costs (and largely costs that get paid straight away)
Events who knows - was just asking people to keep a bit more of an open mind nothing more. Right now none of us know if ACL have made contingency plans in other ways - would be poor management if they had not made some in roads in to the process. In any case do the events need to be on the stadium sell out standard?
It probably is not feasible because the original build did not allow for that kind of expansion making it very expensive and because the return on capital invested would be poor given how much it would cost
It could be 9% last year of stadium turnover in that 2012/13 included the Olympics which would inflate total turnover whilst the CCFC footfall was at an all time low for the stadium
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to be clear - the solution i want to see is a secure long term future for CCFC at the Ricoh.
Does that mean the club has to own the Freehold no - but thats just my opinion
Does that mean the club needs to have a long term lease - yes
Does that mean they have to own ACL actually - no not necessarily
Does that mean they need the rights to at least some of the income - yes (certainly the football related ones at least)
Would I like to knock a few heads together - absolutely yes!
Does that mean the club has to own the Freehold no - but thats just my opinion
Does that mean the club needs to have a long term lease - yes
Does that mean they have to own ACL actually - no not necessarily
Does that mean they need the rights to at least some of the income - yes (certainly the football related ones at least)
Would I like to knock a few heads together - absolutely yes!
