Tesco may not have paid that much for the land had it not been part of a bigger development project and vision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Same subject to be discussed on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme in the next hour. Calls invited.
They wouldn't have cared lessTesco may not have paid that much for the land had it not been part of a bigger development project and vision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Tesco may not have paid that much for the land had it not been part of a bigger development project and vision.
Correct, the arena park probably gets as much trade as the city centre these days, it is a roaring success and has been expanding constantly.
Now, who had that vision was it BR/CCC/Tesco or what?
Would the council have invested £54m without Tesco? Yes or no will do.
Don't be such a simplistic arse, the whole deal was a package neither could exist without the other.
The council put in £33M (£12M cap & seed investment plus £21M loan to be repaid).
- this is documented here http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
They also invested all the profit from the land deal (~£59M-£24M = £34M)
If that hadn't been done Arena Park & the Ricoh would still be a pipe dream and the Gas Towers would still be a scar on the face of the City.
Don't be such a simplistic arse, the whole deal was a package neither could exist without the other.
The council put in £33M (£12M cap & seed investment plus £21M loan to be repaid).
- this is documented here http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/Da...08 - Arena Construction Completion Report.pdf
They also invested all the profit from the land deal (~£59M-£24M = £34M)
If that hadn't been done Arena Park & the Ricoh would still be a pipe dream and the Gas Towers would still be a scar on the face of the City.
But the £21m loan was repaid when ACL paid £21m for the 50 year leasehold.
I'm not sure Tesco think having a football stadium causing traffic jams on matchday is a plus point. The other stores and restaurants could still have happened without the stadium being built.
They might have if the Arena was a further extension of the retail park. I guess they get little footfall from the stadium other than the 25 matchdays.
They wouldn't have cared less
You missed my point. The stadium vision was the catalyst for the regeneration vision for the Ricoh area, including the retail park. No stadium then the gas works may have still been sat there (look at Courtaulds).
Tesco's may well have decided to build there, I never said they wouldn't, but they not of paid the £54m premium without it being part of the larger regeneration vision.
Are you saying the land wouldn't have been available, as in it wouldn't have been cleared? We'll never know that for a fact one way or another. There's plenty of Tescos built next to nothing in particular so I don't think there not being a football stadium on the site would have been an issue.
I did mean ownership of the Ricoh in saying I prefer CCC to own it over Sisu.
No, I said the gas works might still have been there, and Tesco's may not have paid as much as £54m for land. The planned regeneration would have added value to the land.
Is that really inconceivable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Just a thought, could CCC have had just as much success with the rest of the complex without the football bowl? I don't know and Stu is right in that it was designed as a complete deal.
Had Tesco not bought land, I'd imagine someone else would (ASDA for example). And had the whole thing fallen through I imagine the council would've kept looking for the project elsewhere.
You can doubt the influence of the council in all this, but not at the same time as saying the club were some local yokels taken in by City slicker council. Either they were capable of coordinating the deal and therefore understanding it in detail. Or they weren't.
The not an unreasonable View Stu. Although Tesco are a Huge name In there own right ,not entirely sure the Ground of a provincial club would guarantee more Prestige or Footfall than say a Huge BHS Homestore Etc.
I believe It was the Club that attracted them through Richardson,not to say CCC could'nt have procured them through someone like CBRE.
The road network etc as much as anything would have helped attract them .
IIRC the land the Actual Arena Is on is still restricted to what development can be permitted due to residual contamination.
............. then CCFC would not exist.
Absolute drivel, complete and utter nonsense.
I'm not sure I agree with all you say there, and I don't think it's in sisu's interests to have the debt owed to funds they manage halved for the benefit of the football club, yes would benefit other clubs where substantial amounts are borrowed from banks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It surely has to benefit sisu to have debts payable to a third of the debt. They would save multi mullions as proved with acl and their debt of 1.6m reduced to 590k. That sounds like a result to me especially when they could afford the 1.6 anyway.
Absolute drivel, complete and utter nonsense.
But that was external debt, the loans (ARVO, etc) are sisu controlled funds. People pay sisu to invest their money to get a return on the investment.(They won't get a return here), How does sisu planning to halve the debt (I.e money they are payed to invest for a return) benefit sisu?
The lease needed to be broken, I don't agree with how they did it but £1.2m per annum was ridiculously high rent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Yes I agree is as stupidly high rent but sisu chose to pay it when taking on the club in 2007/8. Buy yes we agree not right how they done it.
I also agree with your first point but the return on the investment comes from getting the ricoh on the cheap so while they occur debts like they are now they know they can at least half or more and this combined with getting ricoh on the cheap is the return on investment is how I read it.
Any return would go to those that owe the debt (I.e the investors/share holders) not to sisu personally, so I don't see how halving the debt to these investors (I.e losing half or more of their money) would be beneficial.
I can't see them ever getting their money back, but whilst it is written down as loans on paper they technically have lost nothing yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Quite a few people seem to be coming out and trying to spread the word of our plight and all some of us can do is throw eggs at them .Why is that ?
So who would have bought the club in 2003 then?
..... so if CCC didn't step in where would we be playing now ?
I'm not trying to throw eggs at anyone. It's good that the subject is discussed, but the problem is the subject is discussed and discussed again with lots of sympathetic tutting from the newpapers, Five Live, Talk Sport, etc etc but nothing ever gets resolved and it never will. If SISU were bothered by bad publicity, etc then we'd have been playing at the Ricoh all season.
Sisu are running the club into the ground deliberately for their financial gain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?