Council should own the stadium outright (1 Viewer)

covboy1987 · May 9, 2013

The council should do a private deal with SISU and then own the stadium out right and it should be then used as a community stadium for football, rugby, basketball, bowls exhibitions, Concerts, and anything else the community 'us the people would enjoy'very similar to the Swansea City story
Appoint a decent management company to oversee the running of the stadium made up of a small team of directors from the rugby, and football clubs and a couple of people from the council (obviously new football owners)
The match day revenues from the football and rugby gate monies would be kept by the clubs including meals drinks on the day, and car parking as it is there fans attending
Other incomes such as hotel rental, casino rental, should be ploughed back into the management company whereby the football and rugby clubs would own shares (number to be decided) as it is many of their customers that use the added on facilities.
By using the stadium to its full potential the rental for the clubs should be zero and the overheads such as the council loan (at a preferential rate) and any other overheads running of the management company etc, maintenance, etc would be paid directly by the management company from the profits of the concerts, exhibitions and other smaller sports basketball etc mentioned previously who would pay a small rent to use the facility
Any monies left over would be then taken as a dividend at the end of the year by the football and rugby club likewise any shortfall would have to be made up by the football and rugby clubs - the council would be seen to be doing a good job and making no money, the clubs would have a chance to prosper, which can only be good for the city and the council once the loans have been paid would own a massive asset and also have the power to kick out a poor performing tenant under contract agrred beforehand and that includes handing over the golden share. All the new football owners would have to show is money to invest in players and be an excellent tenant- simple but workable as Swansea have shown

Bennets Afro · May 9, 2013

I thought the council already owned the stadium 100% and ACL owned the lease????

stupot07 · May 9, 2013

Bennets Afro said:
I thought the council already owned the stadium 100% and ACL owned the lease????

I believe that's correct.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

covboy1987 said:
The council should do a private deal with SISU and then own the stadium out right and it should be then used as a community stadium for football, rugby, basketball, bowls exhibitions, Concerts, and anything else the community 'us the people would enjoy'very similar to the Swansea City story
Appoint a decent management company to oversee the running of the stadium made up of a small team of directors from the rugby, and football clubs and a couple of people from the council (obviously new football owners)
The match day revenues from the football and rugby gate monies would be kept by the clubs including meals drinks on the day, and car parking as it is there fans attending
Other incomes such as hotel rental, casino rental, should be ploughed back into the management company whereby the football and rugby clubs would own shares (number to be decided) as it is many of their customers that use the added on facilities.
By using the stadium to its full potential the rental for the clubs should be zero and the overheads such as the council loan (at a preferential rate) and any other overheads running of the management company etc, maintenance, etc would be paid directly by the management company from the profits of the concerts, exhibitions and other smaller sports basketball etc mentioned previously who would pay a small rent to use the facility
Any monies left over would be then taken as a dividend at the end of the year by the football and rugby club likewise any shortfall would have to be made up by the football and rugby clubs - the council would be seen to be doing a good job and making no money, the clubs would have a chance to prosper, which can only be good for the city and the council once the loans have been paid would own a massive asset and also have the power to kick out a poor performing tenant under contract agrred beforehand and that includes handing over the golden share. All the new football owners would have to show is money to invest in players and be an excellent tenant- simple but workable as Swansea have shown

Council own the freehold,
ACL own the lease,
Money made by ACL is ploughed back into the Ricoh and the shareholders of ACL do not take dividends until the mortgage is paid off. Source: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/16830-The-Rent?p=186910&viewfull=1#post186910

Godiva · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
Council own the freehold,
ACL own the lease,
Money made by ACL is ploughed back into the Ricoh and the shareholders of ACL do not take dividends until the mortgage is paid off. Source: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/16830-The-Rent?p=186910&viewfull=1#post186910

Yes, but many seem to believe that ACL owns the stadium and that if ACL were taken over by the club, then sisu would own the stadium. They believe that if sisu (the club) gets their dirty hands on ACL they would mortgage the stadium to the hilt - forgetting that ACL is already mortgaged way above actual value.

What the OP is suggesting is pretty much the model already in use. It doesn't work for the club and it never will. The club and ACL have to be under the same umbrella - that means the club will have to own ACL 100%.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
Yes, but many seem to believe that ACL owns the stadium and that if ACL were taken over by the club, then sisu would own the stadium. They believe that if sisu (the club) gets their dirty hands on ACL they would mortgage the stadium to the hilt - forgetting that ACL is already mortgaged way above actual value.

What the OP is suggesting is pretty much the model already in use. It doesn't work for the club and it never will. The club and ACL have to be under the same umbrella - that means the club will have to own ACL 100%.

I've said that the I'd support the club being owners of ACL before, I just don't want SISU to own any part of ACL or the Ricoh ever.

CCFC PimpRail · May 9, 2013

Ignoring "Who owns what", you've still got a 30 thousand seater stadium that only gets about a third full. Trying to squeeze every penny out of ACL from food and drink revenues is desperation when in fact they should be trying to increase the profit from the gate, by getting more people in.

It can't be good for the team either to play to an empty house, no wonder they keep loosing.... actually, they didnt do too well against a best-full house against Crewe, must have been the shock of not seeing empty seats.

Godiva · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
I've said that the I'd support the club being owners of ACL before, I just don't want SISU to own any part of ACL or the Ricoh ever.

Interesting.
What if sisu won't go away (until they have recouped most of their investment)?
We can't force them out obviously, the sisu-out-campaign failed, the CCC have said they'll never do business with them and ACL are actively supporting Hoffman/Elliott's search for a potential take-over.
All they have achieved (so far) is:
- CCC are facing court action over the bailout to ACL.
- ACL have acquired a substantial amount of unpaid rent they will need to write off. In addition it seems possible that they could sit with an unused stadium and a need to refinanse their mortgage.

If sisu won't go away and nothing and nobody has the power to force them out, then what? There seem to be only two options in that case:
1) The war continues and the club sinks deeper
2) ACL is sold to the club under sisu ownership at the value of net assets (probably around £5m) effectively ending the war and put the club in a position to rebuild.

torchomatic · May 9, 2013

A third full is better than empty.

CCFC PimpRail said:
Ignoring "Who owns what", you've still got a 30 thousand seater stadium that only gets about a third full. Trying to squeeze every penny out of ACL from food and drink revenues is desperation when in fact they should be trying to increase the profit from the gate, by getting more people in.

It can't be good for the team either to play to an empty house, no wonder they keep loosing.... actually, they didnt do too well against a best-full house against Crewe, must have been the shock of not seeing empty seats.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
Yes, but many seem to believe that ACL owns the stadium and that if ACL were taken over by the club, then sisu would own the stadium. They believe that if sisu (the club) gets their dirty hands on ACL they would mortgage the stadium to the hilt - forgetting that ACL is already mortgaged way above actual value.

What the OP is suggesting is pretty much the model already in use. It doesn't work for the club and it never will. The club and ACL have to be under the same umbrella - that means the club will have to own ACL 100%.

Then blame the Yorkshire Bank.

RPHunt · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
Interesting.
What if sisu won't go away (until they have recouped most of their investment)?
We can't force them out obviously, the sisu-out-campaign failed, the CCC have said they'll never do business with them and ACL are actively supporting Hoffman/Elliott's search for a potential take-over.
All they have achieved (so far) is:
- CCC are facing court action over the bailout to ACL.
- ACL have acquired a substantial amount of unpaid rent they will need to write off. In addition it seems possible that they could sit with an unused stadium and a need to refinanse their mortgage.

If sisu won't go away and nothing and nobody has the power to force them out, then what? There seem to be only two options in that case:
1) The war continues and the club sinks deeper
2) ACL is sold to the club under sisu ownership at the value of net assets (probably around £5m) effectively ending the war and put the club in a position to rebuild.

What if the Football League decide that they will not allow the club to regain the Golden Share while SISU play any part in running the club?

Game over.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
Interesting.
What if sisu won't go away (until they have recouped most of their investment)?
We can't force them out obviously, the sisu-out-campaign failed, the CCC have said they'll never do business with them and ACL are actively supporting Hoffman/Elliott's search for a potential take-over.
All they have achieved (so far) is:
- CCC are facing court action over the bailout to ACL.
- ACL have acquired a substantial amount of unpaid rent they will need to write off. In addition it seems possible that they could sit with an unused stadium and a need to refinanse their mortgage.

If sisu won't go away and nothing and nobody has the power to force them out, then what? There seem to be only two options in that case:
1) The war continues and the club sinks deeper
2) ACL is sold to the club under sisu ownership at the value of net assets (probably around £5m) effectively ending the war and put the club in a position to rebuild.

Haven't you heard they are leaving, Uncle Timmy has said the club is not planning to play at the Ricoh next season. http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-on-ricoh-contingency-805788.aspx Where the Administrator is expecting us to play, (along with who will be playing for TF in Holdings FC ) is a different matter.

A bigger question is how long can or will SISU continue to sustain losses by the club, will it reach £80m, can it reach £100m, can any of these figures be trusted etc. If they do bugger off to another stadium they'll just get deeper into debt with less revenue coming in, which isn't great for our club.

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
I've said that the I'd support the club being owners of ACL before, I just don't want SISU to own any part of ACL or the Ricoh ever.

If SISU owned ACL they wouldn't own the stadium.

So they couldn't borrow against the stadium.

So would it be so bad for a SISU owned club to own all or part of ACL? Isn't the only argument against that, that they would want to get it cheaper than market value? Is it fair to dismiss the club buying any share of ACL because it's SISU? If SISU have evil intent by doing that, why wouldn't another owner? The same safeguards could be put in place.

But the council have put a far greater value on their share than the Higgs Charity, and also would veto the club buying out the Higgs Share while SISU is there.

Taking that in itself, is that any more right than SISU wanting it cheap? It's not protecting the community asset of the stadium by doing that, the council would still own the stadium after all. Why also should they veto the club buying back the Higgs share whoever owns it? Surely that benefits everybody if the club were to do that? Isn't the problem only that SISU have not tried hard enough to buy that share, and the council have tried too hard to stop them buying that share?

Brighton Sky Blue · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If SISU owned ACL they wouldn't own the stadium.

So they couldn't borrow against the stadium.

So would it be so bad for a SISU owned club to own all or part of ACL? Isn't the only argument against that, that they would want to get it cheaper than market value? Is it fair to dismiss the club buying any share of ACL because it's SISU? If SISU have evil intent by doing that, why wouldn't another owner? The same safeguards could be put in place.

But the council have put a far greater value on their share than the Higgs Charity, and also would veto the club buying out the Higgs Share while SISU is there.

Taking that in itself, is that any more right than SISU wanting it cheap? It's not protecting the community asset of the stadium by doing that, the council would still own the stadium after all. Why also should they veto the club buying back the Higgs share whoever owns it? Surely that benefits everybody if the club were to do that? Isn't the problem only that SISU have not tried hard enough to buy that share, and the council have tried too hard to stop them buying that share?

The council's stance is indeed baffling. The issue I suppose becomes that if SISU get 100% ownership of ACL and stay long enough to see the mortgage paid, then they are undisputed owners of the Ricoh complex. That might be what unsettles some, including the council/charity.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If SISU owned ACL they wouldn't own the stadium.

So they couldn't borrow against the stadium.

So would it be so bad for a SISU owned club to own all or part of ACL? Isn't the only argument against that, that they would want to get it cheaper than market value? Is it fair to dismiss the club buying any share of ACL because it's SISU? If SISU have evil intent by doing that, why wouldn't another owner? The same safeguards could be put in place.

But the council have put a far greater value on their share than the Higgs Charity, and also would veto the club buying out the Higgs Share while SISU is there.

Taking that in itself, is that any more right than SISU wanting it cheap? It's not protecting the community asset of the stadium by doing that, the council would still own the stadium after all. Why also should they veto the club buying back the Higgs share whoever owns it? Surely that benefits everybody if the club were to do that? Isn't the problem only that SISU have not tried hard enough to buy that share, and the council have tried too hard to stop them buying that share?

The council as PWKH said have not tried to stop SISU buying the charity share that was just TF with another of his 'inaccuracies'.

PWKH said:
Kingharvest wrote that it had been said by Fisher that the Council had vetoed the sale of the shares in ACL owned by the Charity to Sisu. If he has reported this accurately it is a completely untrue statement by Fisher.

As Clerk to the Trustees I handle all the documents between the Charity and any other party on every matter. There was indeed an agreed heads of terms between Sisu and the Charity signed in June of last year. Since writing and signing it Sisu has made absolutely no contact with the Charity. The City Council has not used the veto to stop any deal at any time. Any statement to the contrary is misleading and mischievous.

Fisher has made a large number of statements over recent days which can be taken up by others. When something false is said about the Charity it will be dealt with through this and other means, the Charity reserves all its rights.

Source: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844

There is a forumla for the sale of the Charity share to CCFC and that again is spelled out as far as he can by PWKH here

PWKH said:
There is indeed no harm in asking. The purchase price paid by the Charity is well known: £6.5m. The formula within the Option Agreement is commercial in confidence, both parties, the AEHC and CCFC are bound by the Agreement not to disclose the detail. I don't think it would be out of order if I said that 75% of the price would be based on the original purchase price plus interest and the remaining 25% on the value of ACL. Further than that I cannot go.

Source http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28335-Another-question-for-PKBH?p=398194&viewfull=1#post398194

I don't trust SISU and for that reason (but not for that reason alone) I don't want them getting their mits on ACL.

Godiva · May 9, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The council's stance is indeed baffling. The issue I suppose becomes that if SISU get 100% ownership of ACL and stay long enough to see the mortgage paid, then they are undisputed owners of the Ricoh complex. That might be what unsettles some, including the council/charity.

NO!
Owning the ACL will never be the same as owning the stadium complex!
It will still only be owning a management company that operates the stadium and the businesses in there.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
NO!
Owning the ACL will never be the same as owning the stadium complex!
It will still only be owning a management company that operates the stadium and the businesses in there.

So who does own the ground outright?

covmark · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
The council as PWKH said have not tried to stop SISU buying the charity share that was just TF with another of his 'inaccuracies'.

Source: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844

There is a forumla for the sale of the Charity share to CCFC and that again is spelled out as far as he can by PWKH here

Source http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28335-Another-question-for-PKBH?p=398194&viewfull=1#post398194

I don't trust SISU and for that reason (but not for that reason alone) I don't want them getting their mits on ACL.

PWKH rentboy

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
NO!
Owning the ACL will never be the same as owning the stadium complex!
It will still only be owning a management company that operates the stadium and the businesses in there.

But what's wrong with that it opens another door for SISU to not pay the rent again. To the council this time as opposed to ACL.

Godiva · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
But what's wrong with that it opens another door for SISU to not pay the rent again. To the council this time as opposed to ACL.

ACL pays a lease to the council for the right to operate the stadium. It's prepaid many years ahead. It will take 20 years or so before sisu could initiate a lease strike. And I don't think they intend to stay here that long!

James Smith · May 9, 2013

covmark said:
PWKH rentboy

Thanks. Just like to provide sources for things.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Godiva said:
ACL pays a lease to the council for the right to operate the stadium. It's prepaid many years ahead. It will take 20 years or so before sisu could initiate a lease strike. And I don't think they intend to stay here that long!

Ooh I do hope you're right, although 20 days is too long for me at this point.

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

Well the Radio interview I heard on CWR with PWKH didn't rule out selling the Higgs share to a SISU owned club, but did acknowledge that the council would veto such a deal.

If that's not true I'd be grateful if he could re-confirm the council wouldn't, as that's not a Fisher innacuracy, that'd be mine and others' hearing and/or interpretation, so it'd be nice to have confirmation that, as we stand, if the club post administration is still owned by SISU, nobody would stop a SISU owned club buying the Higgs half share of ACL.

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The council's stance is indeed baffling. The issue I suppose becomes that if SISU get 100% ownership of ACL and stay long enough to see the mortgage paid, then they are undisputed owners of the Ricoh complex. That might be what unsettles some, including the council/charity.

They're not though, they're undisputed owners of the management company, whose lease isn't that long really, anyway.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Well the Radio interview I heard on CWR with PWKH didn't rule out selling the Higgs share to a SISU owned club, but did acknowledge that the council would veto such a deal.

If that's not true I'd be grateful if he could confirm the council wouldn't, as that's not a Fisher innacuracy, that'd be mine and others' hearing.

PWKH didn't say in that post I quoted that the council wouldn't block/veto any sale, just that they haven't. The fact that SISU have stopped communicating with the charity might have something to do with that.

PWKH;[URL="http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/27053-SCG-Teleconference-with-Tim-Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844" said:
372844[/URL]]
Kingharvest wrote that it had been said by Fisher that the Council had vetoed the sale of the shares in ACL owned by the Charity to Sisu. If he has reported this accurately it is a completely untrue statement by Fisher.

As Clerk to the Trustees I handle all the documents between the Charity and any other party on every matter. There was indeed an agreed heads of terms between Sisu and the Charity signed in June of last year. Since writing and signing it Sisu has made absolutely no contact with the Charity. The City Council has not used the veto to stop any deal at any time. Any statement to the contrary is misleading and mischievous.

Fisher has made a large number of statements over recent days which can be taken up by others. When something false is said about the Charity it will be dealt with through this and other means, the Charity reserves all its rights.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/thread...l=1#post372844

Now why SISU have given up talking to the Charity is anybody's guess.

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

Repeating your post doesn't stop me wanting re-confirmation does it.

That says they haven't vetoed it, not that they wouldn't.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
They're not though, they're undisputed owners of the management company, whose lease isn't that long really, anyway.

So as I asked, who actually owns the place?

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Repeating your post doesn't stop me wanting re-confirmation does it.

That says they haven't vetoed it, not that they wouldn't.

No but then in the teleconference TF said (and I didn't hear this and am going on what is written in that thread) that the council had vetoed the sale. As there hasn't been any communication with the charity as far as I know from what PWKH has posted can you provide a link to where an offer has been made that the council have then vetoed?

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
So as I asked, who actually owns the place?

The council owns the freehold, and leases it to ACL doesn't it?

And that's not a bad thing surely, as whoever owns ACL doesn't own the stadium, can just take advantage of the stadium revenues without being able to sell it for housing.

While I'm asking questions in the hope Mr. PWKH is lurking if there is a reason why the club owning ACL could affect this (a right to buy the freehold is in there? Something else?) I'd like to know!

Brighton Sky Blue · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
The council owns the freehold, and leases it to ACL doesn't it?

And that's not a bad thing surely, as whoever owns ACL doesn't own the stadium, can just take advantage of the stadium revenues without being able to sell it for housing.

While I'm asking questions in the hope Mr. PWKH is lurking if there is a reason why the club owning ACL could affect this (a right to buy the freehold is in there? Something else?) I'd like to know!

My point was that when ACL pay the mortgage back as they will eventually, then who owns it? I'm well aware of how it works at the moment.

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
No but then in the teleconference TF said (and I didn't hear this and am going on what is written in that thread) that the council had vetoed the sale. As there hasn't been any communication with the charity as far as I know from what PWKH has posted can you provide a link to where an offer has been made that the council have then vetoed?

I said what I heard in the radio interview above. If that is an unfair interpretation of what I heard, or I misheard, or I misremember, I'm sure as the speaker of that interview lurks he'll come along and correct me. What I'm buggered if I'm doing is ploughing through a load of CWR listen again tripe to find it!

I'd like him to correct me, believe me I'd like him to! It'd be fantastic if the Higgs share was available to be sold to the club, whoever owned the club. I'd rather this was the case than otherwise!

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
My point was that when ACL pay the mortgage back as they will eventually, then who owns it? I'm well aware of how it works at the moment.

ACL have a lease for the stadium. ACL are the stadium management company. They lease it off the council who own the freehold.

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I said what I heard in the radio interview above. If that is an unfair interpretation of what I heard, or I misheard, or I misremember, I'm sure as the speaker of that interview lurks he'll come along and correct me. What I'm buggered if I'm doing is ploughing through a load of CWR listen again tripe to find it!

I'd like him to correct me, believe me I'd like him to! It'd be fantastic if the Higgs share was available to be sold to the club, whoever owned the club. I'd rather this was the case than otherwise!

Okay so from what you've posted, the Charity are prepared to sell to SISU and if they do so the council will veto the sale. So the council have therefore not vetoed the sale of the charity share yet, which is what TF supposedly said they had on the teleconference.

kingharvest said:
The SCG held a teleconference with Tim Fisher this evening, with the discussion summarised as follows:

• TF Stated with regard to purchasing half the stadium – Heads of Terms were agreed with the Higgs Trust but the Council vetoed the deal

(edited version of post)

kingharvest said:
Its definitely accurately reported, Jan can confirm that as well as he was in the teleconference.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372850&viewfull=1#post372850

Deleted member 5849 · May 9, 2013

James Smith said:
Okay so from what you've posted, the Charity are prepared to sell to SISU and if they do so the council will veto the sale. So the council have therefore not vetoed the sale of the charity share yet, which is what TF supposedly said they had on the teleconference.

I don't care what he said, that's not what I said!

You don;t have to prove or disprove what Tom Fisher's said or not said to me, I haven't a clue either way!

James Smith · May 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
I don't care what he said, that's not what I said!

You don;t have to prove or disprove what Tom Fisher's said or not said to me, I haven't a clue either way!

So what is your point?

What I understand is as follows:
The council haven't vetoed any sale because no sale of the charity share has been agreed. They probably will as PWKH says but they haven't yet.

Council should own the stadium outright (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency