Drink + Independent Inquiry petition + £1million questions (1 Viewer)

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
So are you saying we got an upfront payment before moving into the Ricoh and the rent only escalated when we stayed after the initial rent period? I didn't know that. Or have you swallowed some PWKH spin?

What would be a better stadium do you think? A faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to all revenues or a 32,000 one requiring you to attract 22,500 every week to break even?

It's not spin G. Several sources have confirmed that the rent was set to be equal to the rent in the final year of HR. There was no cost increase from one year to the next apparently. Now obviously, before we sold HR is a different matter.

And to answer your question: a 32,000 seater stadium that can earn other revenues and be used more than 19 (at the time we were Prem) days a year.

Let's not start with the fairytale that the Ricoh project as a whole was a bad idea. The collapse of ITV Digital and McGinnity folly in selling off the revenues for a pittance are to blame. Had we remained in the Prem OR had ITV Digital not gone bust OR had McGinnity not sold off half of ACL, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Sometimes shit just happens.

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

olderskyblue said:
What has that got to do with my question torch?

He's just fishing, leave him be.

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

olderskyblue said:
Not arguing, just wondered if you had a view on it. I just worry how much debt will remain with CCFC once they've got their "big return".

That's the issue isn't it. The sums just don't add up. People seem to think that once Sisu sell then it's debts clear. It's not, any cash Sisu take will be loaded onto the club as debt by the new owners.

The state that Sisu have gotten us into means that the only real way out apart from a generous donation is liquidation.

Grendel · Feb 10, 2014

shmmeee said:
It's not spin G. Several sources have confirmed that the rent was set to be equal to the rent in the final year of HR. There was no cost increase from one year to the next apparently. Now obviously, before we sold HR is a different matter.

And to answer your question: a 32,000 seater stadium that can earn other revenues and be used more than 19 (at the time we were Prem) days a year.

Let's not start with the fairytale that the Ricoh project as a whole was a bad idea. The collapse of ITV Digital and McGinnity folly in selling off the revenues for a pittance are to blame. Had we remained in the Prem OR had ITV Digital not gone bust OR had McGinnity not sold off half of ACL, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Sometimes shit just happens.

The rent cost parity argument was raised by PWKH on here. He said that the rent in the penultimate year at Highfield road was the same. This by suggestion implies to me that this was effectively a penalty by the builders for staying beyond the initial tenancy.

What was the rent in the first year of sale?

sbvet · Feb 10, 2014

Did sisu ever actually ask for a reduction in rent? Did they ask for a meeting to talk about the rent? If so when? Or did they simply stop paying and use the rent being too high as an issue? Also why did sisu keep it quiet for best part of a year? Surely had they stated before they stopped paying rent that the rent was too high to the public they might have had a more sympathetic response from the public.

It's all very well claiming the rent is too high, but you cannot really use that as an excuse if you never asked the council to at least look into it can you! Plus just look at the different reasons they have used not to speak to the council throughout this mess. To my mind they have never had a single clear message, and because the goalposts seem to change week on week, how can you negotiate?

For me, you state why you cannot pay, you state what you can afford / are prepared to pay. Sisu haven't ever said how much they are prepared to pay, simply that they wont pay! There is not a business in the land that could or would deal under those circumstances. So how can you have a go at the council? They cannot negotiate, because sisu don't have a starting position!

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
The rent cost parity argument was raised by PWKH on here. He said that the rent in the penultimate year at Highfield road was the same. This by suggestion implies to me that this was effectively a penalty by the builders for staying beyond the initial tenancy.

What was the rent in the first year of sale?

Not just him but other sources in the Telegraph too. If you want I'll spend some time looking later, but I've seen it from more than one source.

You mean the rent of HR? I have no idea, like I sad there's reason to think the quote isn't as straight forward as it appears, but it is apparently strictly accurate.

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

sbvet said:
Did sisu ever actually ask for a reduction in rent? Did they ask for a meeting to talk about the rent? If so when? Or did they simply stop paying and use the rent being too high as an issue? Also why did sisu keep it quiet for best part of a year? Surely had they stated before they stopped paying rent that the rent was too high to the public they might have had a more sympathetic response from the public.

It's all very well claiming the rent is too high, but you cannot really use that as an excuse if you never asked the council to at least look into it can you! Plus just look at the different reasons they have used not to speak to the council throughout this mess. To my mind they have never had a single clear message, and because the goalposts seem to change week on week, how can you negotiate?

For me, you state why you cannot pay, you state what you can afford / are prepared to pay. Sisu haven't ever said how much they are prepared to pay, simply that they wont pay! There is not a business in the land that could or would deal under those circumstances. So how can you have a go at the council? They cannot negotiate, because sisu don't have a starting position!

No, they were too focussed on buying the place: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/board_issue_ricoh_rent_statement_713224/index.shtml

Coventry City’s Board have issued a statement following the comments made by former Director Leonard Brody on the amount of rent, the Sky Blues pay to use the Ricoh Arena. The statement reads as follows: “THE Board ("the Board") of Coventry City Football Club ("the Club") note the interview published today in the local media with former director Leonard Brody.
Mr Brody speaks as an independent minority shareholder and not as the voice of the Board.
The Club recognises that the Ricoh Arena is an important amenity for the City of Coventry. While it is true that the Club does pay a substantial annual rent, the Board are committed to finding a longer term ownership solution for the Ricoh Arena which best serves the interests of all its stakeholders.
As previously stated by our Chairman, the Board are working to prove to the Arena's stakeholders that we have both the financial ability and management capability to drive the business forward.
We believe that by all sides supporting each other, a longer term solution can be realised that benefits both the Club and the wider community.”

duffer · Feb 10, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Just here

"As the football club did not have the money to complete the purchase of the land, which would then enable them to sell off half of it to Tesco, it was agreed that Coventry City Council would purchase the land, then conclude the deal with Tesco, all as part of their joint venture agreement.

But mysteriously, once the purchase of the land and the sale to Tesco had been completed, Coventry City Council informed the football club that they were unable to share with them the profit from the sale of the land due to ‘state aid’ implications.

Instead, they offered Coventry City FC a 50 per cent share in the company that would operate the Ricoh Arena, but they, Coventry City Council would own all the equity in the property."

The thing is, the council put all of the money into purchasing the land. Then this 'profit', from selling the land to Tesco, which I think was in total around £20m was all used in the build of the arena, which in total came in at £118m.

The council also put in another £10m towards the build. CCFC put in, in total, under £2m.

So, let's say the Council sell the land to Tesco, and then give the club half the profit, as Fletcher suggests. The club get £10m, and no stadium.

Instead, they got a half share of ACL and the revenues, and a spanking new 32,000 seater stadium.

The simple truth is that there was no 'profit'. The council didn't bilk the club - far from it. Without the council, the build never happens.

So again, how did the council sponge from the club by enabling and funding the Arena build?

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
What would be a better stadium do you think? A faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to all revenues or a 32,000 one requiring you to attract 22,500 every week to break even?

It would be better if you could make your mind up and not try to twist the facts to suit.

You blame our previous owners of our club for SISU being with us. We played in our own faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to the revenues. We got 60m in debt doing so. So we moved to a new ground where we needed 22,500 to break even. You just conveniently forget that it was the same wage bill that got us 60m in debt that required us to need gates of 22,500 every game. If everyone only paid a tenner a game the rent would have been paid after 5 games. What was the rest needed for?

duffer · Feb 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
Well, imagine if we hadn't of had to go to the Council with a begging bowl. Where would we be now? Chances are we wouldn't be in Northampton. I'm not sure who came up with the figure of £1.3M a year and why on earth McGinnity thought that the figure was acceptable considering the amount of people we had to get through the door just to break even. The business model was unworkable from 1 November 2005, which was the date we started actually paying rent on the place.

I keep hearing that the Arena is a wonderful community asset but I'd really like to know in what ways the people of Coventry have embraced their asset - apart from the football which most of them never turned up to anyway and ditto with the concerts put on there. Seems it's only a wonderful assets in the minds of Lucas et al and a few people on here.

Without the Club the Arena is a white elephant getting paler by the day. The arena needs the club as much as the club needs the arena. Hopefully one day they'll both realise that and do a deal.

Good question. That excessive rent of £1.2m, what's the break even crowd for that per game?

2,300. Give or take (Based on 26 games @ £20/ticket).

Maybe this is why SISU didn't see it as a priority.

As for whether the Arena is failing or not without CCFC, I guess we'll see. But politely, you're offering opinion rather than fact when you say it's failing.

Grendel · Feb 10, 2014

Astute said:
It would be better if you could make your mind up and not try to twist the facts to suit.

You blame our previous owners of our club for SISU being with us. We played in our own faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to the revenues. We got 60m in debt doing so. So we moved to a new ground where we needed 22,500 to break even. You just conveniently forget that it was the same wage bill that got us 60m in debt that required us to need gates of 22,500 every game. If everyone only paid a tenner a game the rent would have been paid after 5 games. What was the rest needed for?

So what you are saying is paying competitive wages is secondary to you?

Jack Griffin · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
So are you saying we got an upfront payment before moving into the Ricoh and the rent only escalated when we stayed after the initial rent period? I didn't know that. Or have you swallowed some PWKH spin?

What would be a better stadium do you think? A faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to all revenues or a 32,000 one requiring you to attract 22,500 every week to break even?

The 22,500 figure was based on a situation that no longer exists. It included a higher rent, much much higher player salaries and most of all reflects the poor management of the club under McGinnity (who I think made the statement) , which is a totally different argument.

As usual you took a fact out of context and drew an inappropriate conclusion.

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
So what you are saying is paying competitive wages is secondary to you?

No. What I said is you twist the truth to try to make it sound like a fact. But you also use the same fact for different end reasons. As I said above. ....like when you use the proper truth and say that we got SISU because the wage bill was too much for low quality players but we needed 22,500 to pay the rent

I want our club to pay competitive wages. But I don't want our club to get 60m in debt doing so. I want them to negotiate on bringing our club home. This would mean that we could offer competitive wages. What is wrong with that?

Danceswithhorses · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
So are you saying we got an upfront payment before moving into the Ricoh and the rent only escalated when we stayed after the initial rent period? I didn't know that. Or have you swallowed some PWKH spin?

What would be a better stadium do you think? A faded 24,000 stadium in a central location offering access to all revenues or a 32,000 one requiring you to attract 22,500 every week to break even?

Why the dig at me ?
I offered a reply to a poster's question.
My reply was, i believe, factual, but i'm more than happy to stand corrected, if you can provide the forum with anything more accurate ??
Your reply, that i'm in PWKH's pocket is total fiction.

In answer to the second part, the 32,000 state of the art stadium would always be the best option, so long as the club owners don't foolishly sell their revenue streams.
But maybe the real fools, are the new owners, who bought the club (presumably) knowing that ?

Grendel · Feb 10, 2014

Danceswithhorses said:
Why the dig at me ?
I offered a reply to a poster's question.
My reply was, i believe, factual, but i'm more than happy to stand corrected, if you can provide the forum with anything more accurate ??
Your reply, that i'm in PWKH's pocket is total fiction.

In answer to the second part, the 32,000 state of the art stadium would always be the best option, so long as the club owners don't foolishly sell their revenue streams.
But maybe the real fools, are the new owners, who bought the club (presumably) knowing that ?

And how does any of that help or support the club?

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel said:
And how does any of that help or support the club?

Just about anything would help our club more than what you would love to happen....handing over the Ricoh to a hedge fund for nothing. That wouldn't secure ourclubs future at all.

So are you up for doing an away game with me Grendull? You never know it could be fun without a keyboard. I would drive to Coventry and we could travel to the game however you like.

The Gentleman · Feb 10, 2014

duffer said:
The thing is, the council put all of the money into purchasing the land. Then this 'profit', from selling the land to Tesco, which I think was in total around £20m was all used in the build of the arena, which in total came in at £118m.

The council also put in another £10m towards the build. CCFC put in, in total, under £2m.

So, let's say the Council sell the land to Tesco, and then give the club half the profit, as Fletcher suggests. The club get £10m, and no stadium.

Instead, they got a half share of ACL and the revenues, and a spanking new 32,000 seater stadium.

The simple truth is that there was no 'profit'. The council didn't bilk the club - far from it. Without the council, the build never happens.

So again, how did the council sponge from the club by enabling and funding the Arena build?

Duffer, I think you will be banging your head against a brick wall mate TBH. If an answer does come back it will only be with the goalposts moved yet again.

lewys33 · Feb 10, 2014

This thread was far better when me and Nick were slinging shit.

Tonylinc · Feb 10, 2014

Grendel doesn't do games.....in fact Grendel doesn't DO anything!

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

I think you're right but if that was the case then the whole rental deal at the Ricoh was flawed in my opinion? Well I don't believe that the Ricoh was worth £1.3M a year so HR certainly wasn't. I think it was so high at HR as the developers had us over a barrel and basically charged us a premium because they had to knock their housing development back by a year. They penalised us. ACL/CCC just carried on penalising us.

Danceswithhorses said:
IIRC that was the rent we were having to pay for highfield road after we'd sold it to developers-please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
The same amount of rent, for a much better stadium, probably seemed a good deal based on that, but we all know what problems that has caused.

Tonylinc · Feb 10, 2014

Does anyone actually know the details of the contract between developer and CCFC on the sale of HR. Would be very interested to hear them!

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

They did. However one time we (the Club) owned it, so what happened?

duffer said:
The thing is, the council put all of the money into purchasing the land. Then this 'profit', from selling the land to Tesco, which I think was in total around £20m was all used in the build of the arena, which in total came in at £118m.

The council also put in another £10m towards the build. CCFC put in, in total, under £2m.

So, let's say the Council sell the land to Tesco, and then give the club half the profit, as Fletcher suggests. The club get £10m, and no stadium.

Instead, they got a half share of ACL and the revenues, and a spanking new 32,000 seater stadium.

The simple truth is that there was no 'profit'. The council didn't bilk the club - far from it. Without the council, the build never happens.

So again, how did the council sponge from the club by enabling and funding the Arena build?

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
They did. However one time we (the Club) owned it, so what happened?

When did our club ever own it?

Our club was doing crap but we had plans for a stadium with a retractable roof. No funding to pay for anything though. No chance of us building it. We couldn't even afford the land or to decontaminate it. The ground was just a dream.

And here we go again.

Tonylinc · Feb 10, 2014

Astute said:
When did our club ever own it?

Our club was doing crap but we had plans for a stadium with a retractable roof. No funding to pay for anything though. No chance of us building it. We couldn't even afford the land or to decontaminate it. The ground was just a dream.

And here we go again.

Surely that is not true. I seem to recall at the time that we had paid for the decontamination of the site.

shmmeee · Feb 10, 2014

Tonylinc said:
Surely that is not true. I seem to recall at the time that we had paid for the decontamination of the site.

The club didn't start the idea. The club didn't find the location. The club had sunk £10m into the project and nothing worthwhile had been done when they came cap in hand.

Had the council told them to go screw we'd have been fucked. £10m in the hole and no ground.

In return for our £10m we got half a stadium management company and all the football revenues. We sold that for £4m to pay the bills.

In no way do the council come out as bad guys here, unless you have a massive anti-council chip on your shoulder.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

Yes, that's what I think I'm getting mixed up with.

Tonylinc said:
Surely that is not true. I seem to recall at the time that we had paid for the decontamination of the site.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

It could have been so different. The shortfall rather than coming from the Council was going to be supplied by a Portugese bank which may have been better for the club in the long run. The club also gave £330K towards improving the road network and around £75K to Nuneaton and Bedworth due to concerns over the impact of the huge Tescos would have on their town centres.

shmmeee said:
The club didn't start the idea. The club didn't find the location. The club had sunk £10m into the project and nothing worthwhile had been done when they came cap in hand.

Had the council told them to go screw we'd have been fucked. £10m in the hole and no ground.

In return for our £10m we got half a stadium management company and all the football revenues. We sold that for £4m to pay the bills.

In no way do the council come out as bad guys here, unless you have a massive anti-council chip on your shoulder.

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

Tonylinc said:
Surely that is not true. I seem to recall at the time that we had paid for the decontamination of the site.

I remember looking at the construction costs that the council had paid for. Decontamination was part of the costs. If something is said enough it is believed by most. Just like most think that Tesco's paid at least 70m. It was just under 60m IIRC.

I am at work so can't check, but would be happy to admit I am wrong if anything can be found that isn't hearsay. Yes our club did incur costs. Just like SISU are now. The difference is that the Ricoh is real.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

As I said in my post above the Club also did a lot but seems to be forgotten too. And subsequently if something is ignored and not mentioned for long enough then it's not true.

Astute said:
I remember looking at the construction costs that the council had paid for. Decontamination was part of the costs. If something is said enough it is believed by most. Just like most think that Tesco's paid at least 70m. It was just under 60m IIRC.

I am at work so can't check, but would be happy to admit I am wrong if anything can be found that isn't hearsay. Yes our club did incur costs. Just like SISU are now. The difference is that the Ricoh is real.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

Here you go:

CONTRACTS were signed for the building of the £113 million Ricoh Arena in October 2003.

The land and buildings are owned by a Coventry City Council wholly-owned subsidiary company, Coventry North Regeneration.
It leases them to Arena Coventry Ltd, which runs the whole complex. ACL is a joint venture between the council and the Alan Edward Higgs charity and will split any eventual profits.

City development director John McGuigan said the long-term prospects for the company were good, adding: "It's not the council's intention to be investing any more money in Arena Coventry Ltd."

Alan Edward Higgs charity took over Coventry City Football Club's original share in the venture.

The cost stacked up as follows:

£59million from sale of land to Tesco.
pounds 10million one-off investment and
£21 million council loan (since repaid) and £2 million to speed up the arena's completion, of which it got about £400,000 back from contractors Laing O'Rourke.
£10 million from Coventry City Football Club.
£4.8 million from Advantage West Midlands.
£4.7 million from European grants.
£5 million from land sales.

Astute · Feb 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
As I said in my post above the Club also did a lot but seems to be forgotten too. And subsequently if something is ignored and not mentioned for long enough then it's not true.

I did say that they did all of the planning and incurred costs. So what else did they do that I have ignored? I am also very unhappy with the way things ended up. What have I ever said to make you say anything like that? Is it because I wouldn't be happy for it all to be handed on a plate to SISU?

Jack Griffin · Feb 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
Again, it seems that the club and SISU are separate when it suits. The council wants the club - basically who owns us - to do the work for them. I don't think we should. We are a football club not property developers.

Being a Football Club didn't stop Arsenal developing their old ground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highbury_Square
Being a Football Club hasn't stopped Brentford intending to develop housing on its new stadium site http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/
Being a Football club hasn't stopped Northampton developing the Sixfields area to include a conference venue and a gym http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...ampton-s-sixfields-stadium-approved-1-5710084
And I've no doubt Bryan Richardson was not intending to purchase the Gasworks site & not sell it on for development purposes.

I'm sure there are numerous other examples where Football Clubs have got involved in property development at the sites of old grounds or their new locations.

Basically you are talking nonsense, if it perceived as being to their advantage a Football club will and many have become involved in property development, either at first hand or as facilitators.
In fact that is apparently SISU's grand plan, to purchase land and develop it, Mr Fisher & Mr Labovich have both said so.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

And, as you know, I've said many times that I don't want the stadium handed to SISU on a plate. The "poor old council" and "it's all the Club's stupid fault" comments get a little tiresome. Particular on a CCFC forum.

Astute said:
Is it because I wouldn't be happy for it all to be handed on a plate to SISU?

Jack Griffin · Feb 10, 2014

Tonylinc said:
Does anyone actually know the details of the contract between developer and CCFC on the sale of HR. Would be very interested to hear them!

Probably subject to a confidentiality agreement mate.

torchomatic · Feb 10, 2014

Well done you, three examples out of 92 clubs. Nothing to do with us. I want our club to concentrate on football rather than property. Anyway, it seems now that PH4 has disappeared somewhere or other that's not likely to happen.

Jack Griffin said:
Being a Football Club didn't stop Arsenal developing their old ground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highbury_Square
Being a Football Club hasn't stopped Brentford intending to develop housing on its new stadium site http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/
Being a Football club hasn't stopped Northampton developing the Sixfields area to include a conference venue and a gym http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...ampton-s-sixfields-stadium-approved-1-5710084
And I've no doubt Bryan Richardson was not intending to purchase the Gasworks site & not sell it on for development purposes.

I'm sure there are numerous other examples where Football Clubs have got involved in property development at the sites of old grounds or their new locations.

Basically you are talking nonsense, if it perceived as being to their advantage a Football club will and many have become involved in property development, either at first hand or as facilitators.
In fact that is apparently SISU's grand plan, to purchase land and develop it, Mr Fisher & Mr Labovich have both said so.

Drink + Independent Inquiry petition + £1million questions (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

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

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

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency