Council admits Ricoh Arena was not sustainable without CCFC (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Jan 17, 2015

letsallsingtogether said:
No that was CRFC trying to buy Bedford RFC....

It all started two years ago – and the date is of great significance. According to Coventry RFC president Peter Rossborough, speaking in a recent interview with the BBC, Richardson met with him two years ago to discuss a potential ‘merger’ between the two clubs – perhaps with one eye on the Ricoh. Crucially, this was well before Richardson had declared any commercial interest in Wasps, suggesting he had an interest in the Ricoh before taking over Wasps. Rossborough himself was unavailable for comment to confirm this this afternoon, but a recent article in the Coventry Telegraph would appear to do so anyway.

chiefdave · Jan 17, 2015

letsallsingtogether said:
No that was CRFC trying to buy Bedford RFC....

Rossborough said he was approached two years ago to discuss a potential Wasps move to Coventry and the two clubs working together.

letsallsingtogether · Jan 17, 2015

Grendel said:
It all started two years ago – and the date is of great significance. According to Coventry RFC president Peter Rossborough, speaking in a recent interview with the BBC, Richardson met with him two years ago to discuss a potential ‘merger’ between the two clubs – perhaps with one eye on the Ricoh. Crucially, this was well before Richardson had declared any commercial interest in Wasps, suggesting he had an interest in the Ricoh before taking over Wasps. Rossborough himself was unavailable for comment to confirm this this afternoon, but a recent article in the Coventry Telegraph would appear to do so anyway.

Funny how you want to believe the Telegraph when it suits

letsallsingtogether · Jan 17, 2015

chiefdave said:
Rossborough said he was approached two years ago to discuss a potential Wasps move to Coventry and the two clubs working together.

To be honest I don't give a shit about the wasps shame City couldn't have done something similar could have owned 2 grounds two teams and a more, a commercial business to get their return back.....

BTW this was suggested to them, they really have no forward thinking bar litigation, shame really could have spent the money fer better and even had a better relationship with their fans oh well too late now unless they want to move to the Butts.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

Astute said:
It looks to me as though they would have prefered to pay 7m in legal fees to get it for nothing than to pay 6m for it.

That's about the size of it. Genius.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

letsallsingtogether said:
Corker that and now they have nothing......Wankers.

Fucked up our Club
Fucked our Fans
Fucked our team

Now they just need to Fuck Off...........

Yes cash flow positive yet only thing they own is Ryton oh and a rented shop on a shopping Park.

Correction. An empty shop.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 17, 2015

Read the article now. You sanctimonious lot. Nowhere near as bad a story or as bad a turnaround in her position as you are making out. Firstly the accounts aren't delayed or avoided by going into administration ala sisu. In many ways the conpany acl are profitable just not for the year CCfc moved out. I personally think more question should have been asked when the profitable claims were made back when but the comments seem ok in that piece.

The real difficult issue is that the owners of our club made it impossible for our council to consider a cut price deal for the football stadium they helped bring info existence for them!!

Madness

Downwards and downwards we go!!

Nick · Jan 17, 2015

Sky Blue Pete said:
Read the article now. You sanctimonious lot. Nowhere near as bad a story or as bad a turnaround in her position as you are making out. Firstly the accounts aren't delayed or avoided by going into administration ala sisu. In many ways the conpany acl are profitable just not for the year CCfc moved out. I personally think more question should have been asked when the profitable claims were made back when but the comments seem ok in that piece.

The real difficult issue is that the owners of our club made it impossible for our council to consider a cut price deal for the football stadium they helped bring info existence for them!!

Madness

Downwards and downwards we go!!

So they weren't profitable without ccfc then?

italiahorse · Jan 17, 2015

Nick said:
So they weren't profitable without ccfc then?

No they were not profitable without a team using the stadium part of Ricoh complex.
They will be now Wasps are here regardless of whether we are here or not.
Bit obvious really.

Watch the whole area start to develop and move on.

dongonzalos · Jan 17, 2015

Godiva said:
To be honest Don, I don't really understand what you're asking.

The new owners will bring in sponsor deals and of course revenue from rugby games. That's new income and could well be enough to bring ACL back in profit (all other things being equal).

Then there's Wasps and financing their losses. Whatever ACL make in profit will surely be channelled to Wasps.

I am trying to work out what the losses are for ACL when the business runs on its own without a sports team there.
So what will be roughly the figure Wasps need to get to break even.

If it is 400k or 700k. It does not seem like a massive amount of money. So this idea that the wasps move will fall flat in its face seems less likely.

hill83 · Jan 17, 2015

dongonzalos said:
I am trying to work out what the losses are for ACL when the business runs on its own without a sports team there.
So what will be roughly the figure Wasps need to get to break even.

If it is 400k or 700k. It does not seem like a massive amount of money. So this idea that the wasps move will fall flat in its face seems less likely.

It won't fall flat on it's face. Wasps will go from strength to strength and I'm past caring about it. They bought it, we fucked up then got fucked over, but it's done now. End of story. Good luck to them.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 17, 2015

Nick your are right she was wrong to say that acl were profitable without ccfc. The figures prove it. That's what she says.

dongonzalos · Jan 17, 2015

Grendel said:
He's trying to divert the thread as once again he has backed the wrong horse.

Ha ha

When warned that SISU's tactics had gone too far and they should now compromise and agree the cheap rent deal. Otherwise it would blow up in their faces and eventually also hurt us the fans your opinion.....

'No SISU should not agree that rent deal they should keep pushing for more' SISU's hardball tactics are good for the club they should keep pushing and pushing. Doesn't matter who SISU hurts as it is good for the club......

Right off we go to Northampton......

Hello wasps.......

Yep I certainly am the one who backed the wrong horse.............

Well done

dongonzalos · Jan 17, 2015

hill83 said:
It won't fall flat on it's face. Wasps will go from strength to strength and I'm past caring about it. They bought it, we fucked up then got fucked over, but it's done now. End of story. Good luck to them.

Unfortunately I am concerned that SISU's next tactic will be try to break even whilst sitting at the Ricoh waiting to see if Wasps can make it work.

If those figures are accurate. Then we are in for another pointless 5-7 year wait. Whilst they make it work and we are served up a pile if Shyte every season

Sick Boy · Jan 17, 2015

This is why we will always be confined to a league 2 and league 1 Club. Those who welcomed sisu without asking questions now seem to have unwavering lust for Lucas and the council.

Sick Boy · Jan 17, 2015

dongonzalos said:
Unfortunately I am concerned that SISU's next tactic will be try to break even whilst sitting at the Ricoh waiting to see if Wasps can make it work.

If those figures are accurate. Then we are in for another pointless 5-7 year wait. Whilst they make it work and we are served up a pile if Shyte every season

You can't really complain when for a long time many people's main concern was the council and higgs getting a good deal. CCFC hasn't been the priority of many for a while.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 17, 2015

Utter bollox sick boy. We want our football club and City to prosper. Sisu screwed up big time and our club is going to the wall in every sense

Sick Boy · Jan 17, 2015

Sky Blue Pete said:
Utter bollox sick boy. We want our football club and City to prosper. Sisu screwed up big time and our club is going to the wall in every sense

Yes they have along with the council and BR. The council got a free pass to do whatever they wanted and it's certainly contributed massively. They have helped confine us to this position. We will at best only be a league 1 and champ yo yo club.

Rusty Trombone · Jan 17, 2015

Moff said:
Evidence of this?

From the JR, it was part of the heads of terms for the failed bid, proves that SISU were well aware that a long lease was available, because they had agreed one.

Discussions continued over the summer. On 25 July 2012, there was a meeting of the
various parties, including the Leader of the Council, Mr John Mutton, at which it was
agreed that an Indicative Term Sheet would be finalised. Draft Heads of Terms were
indeed signed by the Council and SISU, on 2 August 2012. Those more or less
reiterated the principles of the SISU plan I have already outlined, i.e. (i) SISU would
purchase the Higgs Charity’s share of ACL, (ii)SISU would discharge and write off
the Bank loan debt, in return for the lease to ACL being extended to 125 years, and
(iii) rent was to be agreed between CCFC and ACL.

dongonzalos · Jan 17, 2015

Sick Boy said:
You can't really complain when for a long time many people's main concern was the council and higgs getting a good deal. CCFC hasn't been the priority of many for a while.

Guess most people who could see what was coming. Just wanted us to negotiate sensibly and professionally. The style chosen was only going to end up leaving us screwed.

Astute · Jan 17, 2015

Grendel said:
How can a balance sheet be plus or negative?

Try reading all of a post instead of the bits that you can try and pull apart.

It was said previously that money form all contracts were spread through the years of the contracts. So the balance sheets would be showing a profit but the stadium could still be making a loss for that year.

As I also said I am not saying this is what went on. I prefer to take them all as bullshitting unless I see proof otherwise. We certainly have had more bullshit than truth from all sides.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

dongonzalos said:
I am trying to work out what the losses are for ACL when the business runs on its own without a sports team there.
So what will be roughly the figure Wasps need to get to break even.

If it is 400k or 700k. It does not seem like a massive amount of money. So this idea that the wasps move will fall flat in its face seems less likely.

What was the jaguar sponsorship deal worth to them? How much sustainability has that added to their ACL purchase. When are the naming rights due? Next year IIRC? How much time will that give Wasps on it's own to make it work? Even if you base that figure on a Ricoh deal when logic tells you that value must have gone up?

Like you say. Wasps ain't going anywhere. Our owners need to face up to that and come up with a real and productive plan to deal with that and our fan base need to unite in making them see this.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Yes they have along with the council and BR. The council got a free pass to do whatever they wanted and it's certainly contributed massively. They have helped confine us to this position. We will at best only be a league 1 and champ yo yo club.

Who's steering the ship? I'll help you out. Its not BR or the council. Only one party can get us out of it at this moment in time. Care to guess who that is?

covmark · Jan 17, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Who's steering the ship? I'll help you out. Its not BR or the council. Only one party can get us out of it at this moment in time. Care to guess who that is?

Bla, bla, bla. You are like a broken record.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

covmark said:
Bla, bla, bla. You are like a broken record.

Well get used to it because I'm right. You just don't want to deal with the fact we're on a collision course and there's only one set of hands are on wheel. When we've done a Hereford united are you still going to be blaming everyone who's no longer connected with the club and hasn't been for years?

Godiva · Jan 17, 2015

dongonzalos said:
I am trying to work out what the losses are for ACL when the business runs on its own without a sports team there.
So what will be roughly the figure Wasps need to get to break even.

If it is 400k or 700k. It does not seem like a massive amount of money. So this idea that the wasps move will fall flat in its face seems less likely.

One thing you will have to take into consideration is the financial problems Wasps have. Last figures I have is a loss of £3.1m.

So it's not just a question of ACL increasing their profit with £400t - Wasps have to increase their results by some £3m as well.
Or - ACL and Wasps will have to increase their combined result by £3.5m.

Is that possible? I think it is short term due to new sponsor deals.

What happens down the line is every ones guesses. But if they fail, the loan from the council could be at risk.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 17, 2015

Nick said:
So they weren't profitable without ccfc then?

I'm sorry, but to focus on one year shows an almost childish level of understanding, and its being done so as it suits the narrative of many on here. Year on year, ACL was profitable. It's balance sheet shows that. Losses in one year, during which its anchor tenant walked away, and during which huge and extraordinary legal costs were incurred; made it unprofitable for that one trading year. Running a business, you get monthly management accounts, some of which are better than others. You'll lose one month and make up the next. If you have a bad April, it'll hopefully be countered by a better August. But you don't stand up in April, rule the company unprofitable and go home. As that's ludicrous.

Of the £400K lost, how much was extraordinary legal costs, incurred defending incessant litigation from SISU? Any sane business person would deduct this from and loss and take a view of the trading position under that. What if the legal costs were £300K, and the 'real losses' only £100K? For an inherently profitable business with a multi-million pound balance sheet, changing its business after its anchor tenant walked away - and therefore at the bottom of its new business cycle - that's not a bad result to post.

Godiva · Jan 17, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Who's steering the ship? I'll help you out. Its not BR or the council. Only one party can get us out of it at this moment in time. Care to guess who that is?

Gary Hoffman?

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

Godiva said:
Gary Hoffman?

More chance of Michael Hoffman.

lordsummerisle · Jan 17, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry, but to focus on one year shows an almost childish level of understanding, and its being done so as it suits the narrative of many on here. Year on year, ACL was profitable. It's balance sheet shows that. Losses in one year, during which its anchor tenant walked away, and during which huge and extraordinary legal costs were incurred; made it unprofitable for that one trading year. Running a business, you get monthly management accounts, some of which are better than others. You'll lose one month and make up the next. If you have a bad April, it'll hopefully be countered by a better August. But you don't stand up in April, rule the company unprofitable and go home. As that's ludicrous.

Of the £400K lost, how much was extraordinary legal costs, incurred defending incessant litigation from SISU? Any sane business person would deduct this from and loss and take a view of the trading position under that. What if the legal costs were £300K, and the 'real losses' only £100K? For an inherently profitable business with a multi-million pound balance sheet, changing its business after its anchor tenant walked away - and therefore at the bottom of its new business cycle - that's not a bad result to post.

Saying that ACL made profits every year except the one when CCFC weren't playing there and not thinking it relevant is spinning to the extreme.

Of course the Spinmeister General then brings up the huge legal fees that poor old ACL had to pay out, fees paid by the loser, SIsu, so irrelevant.

So you now say it was only £100,000 lost due to your(yet again) entirely made up figures and conjecture?

Would still be £800,000 lost due the club being away that year.

Also, after reading a few of your previous posts,on this thread and over the years, for God's sake learn how to spell "allude".

"Elude" is generally what you do when straight facts are required.

Rusty Trombone · Jan 17, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry, but to focus on one year shows an almost childish level of understanding, and its being done so as it suits the narrative of many on here. Year on year, ACL was profitable. It's balance sheet shows that. Losses in one year, during which its anchor tenant walked away, and during which huge and extraordinary legal costs were incurred; made it unprofitable for that one trading year. Running a business, you get monthly management accounts, some of which are better than others. You'll lose one month and make up the next. If you have a bad April, it'll hopefully be countered by a better August. But you don't stand up in April, rule the company unprofitable and go home. As that's ludicrous.

Of the £400K lost, how much was extraordinary legal costs, incurred defending incessant litigation from SISU? Any sane business person would deduct this from and loss and take a view of the trading position under that. What if the legal costs were £300K, and the 'real losses' only £100K? For an inherently profitable business with a multi-million pound balance sheet, changing its business after its anchor tenant walked away - and therefore at the bottom of its new business cycle - that's not a bad result to post.

In short Lucas was wrong by a figure that is 3% of turnover, that's pretty close to being correct isn't it. If all business projections were out by 3% most people would be very happy.

singers_pore · Jan 17, 2015

I took a look at the accounts today. A few interesting points:

1. There was no extraordinary charge for litigation costs.

2. The decline in profits was due to a more than 2m drop in revenue. So not entirely due to CCFC moving to Sixfields.

3. The previous year saw a one off paper gain of 750k due to the financial restructuring. So last year true profit was actually very small after deducting this extraordinary item.

All in all ACL seems just about able to break even over the long term. But the losses of Wasps and CCFC totally dwarf the very small profits made by ACL. I don't think it will make much difference to either sporting club which one owns ACL. If ACL had been such a great money making opportunity I guess SISU would have made more of an effort to buy it.

skybluetony176 · Jan 17, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
In short Lucas was wrong by a figure that is 3% of turnover, that's pretty close to being correct isn't it. If all business projections were out by 3% most people would be very happy.

Tesco's certainly would.

duffer · Jan 17, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
In short Lucas was wrong by a figure that is 3% of turnover, that's pretty close to being correct isn't it. If all business projections were out by 3% most people would be very happy.

I'm not convinced that you understand business projections, if you're projecting profit, then you're projecting profit - not turnover.

And she's probably wrong by less than 0.000001% of the gross national debt of Trinidad & Tobago too, which is about as relevant. When you're making unequivocal statements about profitability to support a £14.4 million bailout (and then completely rolling back on it to justify a secretive sale to a franchise), then the percentage of difference in turnover isn't really relevant.

I'd hate for anyone here to pretend that Lucas and Coventry City Council haven't been caught in a clear and obvious lie designed to support a political convenience, by just throwing out random percentages.

You'll be telling me next that Wasps brings millions of pounds into the city everytime they play. It's laughable what people will believe is true, just to get one over on SISU.

Ian1779 · Jan 17, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
More chance of Michael Hoffman.

More chance of the Hoff himself... in a consortium with Rasputin and Gengis Khan

Council admits Ricoh Arena was not sustainable without CCFC (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency