Councillor Kevin Maton (2 Viewers)

mrtickle · Mar 30, 2013

James Smith said:
.

I think that the club should own a long lease on the Arena but to prevent the new owners from selling the ground the freehold should stay with the council. That way the new club owners can't do something sneaky like have two similar sounding companies and switch the freehold from one to another and then put that company into admin etc.

But not owning the stadium makes us far less attractive to decent owners.

Paxman II · Mar 30, 2013

No it doesn't. A long 99 year transferable lease is the next best thing to freehold! You can't use the bricks and mortar to raise capital so there is a layer of protection there also. They can raise against their lease value but not without Council (the freeholders consent) or that can be can be a clause not permitting it.
Basically they would attract all the investors they wanted to develop land and facilities and have all the sub leases from hotel to casino. They would rake it in in the name of the football club.
The council get a percentage back on top of a fair rent and they would get a premium from the new owners buying the new 99 year lease while still maintaining ownership of the freehold. A win win for the taxpayer and not a freebie for a new owner who would pay a handsome but not extortionate price for that lease. Council are free as it should be and the football club will thrive. The likes of Compass and others would negotiate their sub leases with the main lease holder (CCFC). With a 99 year lease the football club would even be able to put money in to facilities (with landlord consent) and not ask the council to pay for them. A full repairing and insuring lease in which the council merely must keep the general condition of the stadium (roof etc) in good order.

The question is why is ACL and the council dragging their feet on this now we have come to a head? Is it so difficult for people to get a grip and get on with it? Too many make mountains out of molehills in this country.

jan would the Trust be against such a fantastic proposal? I see why anyone should be.

Jack Griffin · Mar 30, 2013

Heavens, you'd need to rebuild/redevelop (a substantial part of it) before 99 years is up!

TurkeyTrot · Mar 30, 2013

A lot of councils are actually giving leases of 125 and 150 years nowadays to attract commercial developers. SISU are probably the big sticking point now. I think the council want to look at an investor as a partner and there's too much bad blood between SISU and ACL/ council. Think it would take an awful lot of mediation. I bet Jeremy Kyle and the wonderful Graham couldn't even sort them out. Although the lie detector tests would be interesting

James Smith · Mar 30, 2013

Paxman II said:
No it doesn't. A long 99 year transferable lease is the next best thing to freehold! You can't use the bricks and mortar to raise capital so there is a layer of protection there also. They can raise against their lease value but not without Council (the freeholders consent) or that can be can be a clause not permitting it.
Basically they would attract all the investors they wanted to develop land and facilities and have all the sub leases from hotel to casino. They would rake it in in the name of the football club.
The council get a percentage back on top of a fair rent and they would get a premium from the new owners buying the new 99 year lease while still maintaining ownership of the freehold. A win win for the taxpayer and not a freebie for a new owner who would pay a handsome but not extortionate price for that lease. Council are free as it should be and the football club will thrive. The likes of Compass and others would negotiate their sub leases with the main lease holder (CCFC). With a 99 year lease the football club would even be able to put money in to facilities (with landlord consent) and not ask the council to pay for them. A full repairing and insuring lease in which the council merely must keep the general condition of the stadium (roof etc) in good order.

The question is why is ACL and the council dragging their feet on this now we have come to a head? Is it so difficult for people to get a grip and get on with it? Too many make mountains out of molehills in this country.

jan would the Trust be against such a fantastic proposal? I see why anyone should be.

I think SISU are the sticking point here, thanks to their stellar negotiating techniques they have employed ACL are not keen on them. I wouldn't be surprised if any prospective new owner was made an offer like we're discussing here. We need to see who the administrator plans to sell CCFC Ltd to.

Paxman II · Mar 31, 2013

A 99 year lease is more than a lifetime. It's as long as since the Titanic sunk almost!
Council get a premium maybe £35 - £40m covering more than the cost put in and paying off ACL's loans and dismantling that company for good.

Now CCFC get the Ricoh and say 50% the land development rights and earnings from it. They must match the other 50% developers cost. When all that's done what's the potential earnings for CCFC? ACL alreadt make some £5m they say and we are talking that and the land and the bigger promotion value the club would be involved in, with more concerts, maybe even some other events at the Ricoh in other sports. They would increase the income twice fold and then their own match day incomes and we are looking at some £15 year already without the land development and added income streams that will bring.

They get sole rights over all that the Ricoh does from conferencing, concerts, casino's bars, hotels etc either The worlds their oyster.

The rent will reflect this but they will be earning huge amounts. Maybe say £2m a year and when the land is developed double that.
Then when we get to the premier league that will seem nothing. We'll have full hoses tripling match day income at least. Incremental increases will be standard.

Well at least something like that should transpire.
You get SISU out by buying them off. What price SISU to leave the party now? £10m, £15m? £20m? If the council get £45m for a 99 year lease they can more than cover the payoff.

Yes it's all more complex than it sounds but in theory plausible.

James Smith · Mar 31, 2013

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the option to buy the Charity share in ACL rest with CCFC ltd and CCFC Holdings has nothing to do with this anymore? I wish we knew what rests with each subsidiary and where the Golden share really is.

CCFCSteve · Mar 31, 2013

James Smith said:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the option to buy the Charity share in ACL rest with CCFC ltd and CCFC Holdings has nothing to do with this anymore? I wish we knew what rests with each subsidiary and where the Golden share really is.

Totally agree. Until that's all decided, as well as what debts lie in each entity (which can be proved) all everyone can do is guess the likely outcome.

mrtrench · Mar 31, 2013

WestEndAgro said:
Due to slander, defamation and libel I shall not name names but I have had the miss fortune of dealing with a certain individual who may or may not have been mentioned in this thread, or a similar thread, or a completely different thread, but if they said it was raining, I would have to go out and check for myself.

Mmmm Miss Fortune. Sounds like a very lucky lady.

Spencer · Mar 31, 2013

Paxman II said:
A 99 year lease is more than a lifetime. It's as long as since the Titanic sunk almost!
Council get a premium maybe £35 - £40m covering more than the cost put in and paying off ACL's loans and dismantling that company for good.

Now CCFC get the Ricoh and say 50% the land development rights and earnings from it. They must match the other 50% developers cost. When all that's done what's the potential earnings for CCFC? ACL alreadt make some £5m they say and we are talking that and the land and the bigger promotion value the club would be involved in, with more concerts, maybe even some other events at the Ricoh in other sports. They would increase the income twice fold and then their own match day incomes and we are looking at some £15 year already without the land development and added income streams that will bring.

They get sole rights over all that the Ricoh does from conferencing, concerts, casino's bars, hotels etc either The worlds their oyster.

The rent will reflect this but they will be earning huge amounts. Maybe say £2m a year and when the land is developed double that.
Then when we get to the premier league that will seem nothing. We'll have full hoses tripling match day income at least. Incremental increases will be standard.

Well at least something like that should transpire.
You get SISU out by buying them off. What price SISU to leave the party now? £10m, £15m? £20m? If the council get £45m for a 99 year lease they can more than cover the payoff.

Yes it's all more complex than it sounds but in theory plausible.

Still say your mixing opportunities. Developers put money into a project, generally other people's, with a view to making a quick return as they will normally sell on practical completion of the project. If it's a long term, low yearly return they will normally sell to pension funds. However, I think a pension fund would want to own the freehold not a lease - making this a difficult sale.

Regardless, if it was as easy as you suggest why hasn't someone done it?

Paxman II · Mar 31, 2013

...as far as the land development goes Spence then I think you could sell for £60 say and when completed they in turn own and lease that off wholly to the football club who can sub divide it into sub lets etc and retain some facilities of their own. Or sell it on to a landlord who would then do the same. Either way it must largely remain in the football club/stadium's remit.
As you say and I have indicated something along all these lines should now be considered and acted on with that caveat to getting SISU out amicably and move on to a healthier future.

letsallsingtogether · Mar 31, 2013

So owning the stadium out right is going to solve all our problems just like we owned Highfield Road!! So where do you think all these debts come from.
Highfield Road was falling down they were struggling to get a safety certificate for the West End they sold it to developers for 3 million I Believe wanted a ground with a sliding roof moving pitch etc etc.
This is just a smoke screen put out by SISU..no debt 60 million debt all because we don't get 1.50 off all the pies and beer sold do the maths does not add up whole place is loosing money with concerts and all the other events that debt would the go against the club....

SkyBlueScottie · Oct 7, 2014

An interesting read....

stupot07 · Oct 7, 2014

SkyBlueScottie said:
An interesting read....

You're not wrong

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Councillor Kevin Maton (2 Viewers)

mrtickle

Member

Paxman II

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

TurkeyTrot

New Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

Paxman II

Well-Known Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member

mrtrench

Well-Known Member

Spencer

New Member

Paxman II

Well-Known Member

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member

stupot07

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Councillor Kevin Maton (2 Viewers)

Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New 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

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency