Getting us back to the Ricoh remains simple (1 Viewer)

MichaelCCFC · Jun 13, 2014

Getting us back to the ricoh needs just one phone call from sisu to ccc saying we'll return on a short-term rental (and god help acl if they then tried to backtrack from the last offer) and then negotiations start on working out a long-term solution. The only reason for opposing that solution boils down to sisu don't want a rental deal of any sort, even short-term (which surely means they're putting their own interests ahead of what would be good for the team and fans, doesn't it?), and then things like sisu don't trust acl/ccc, that boat has sailed, a new stadium will be built etc, all of which contradict any suggestion of a return to the ricoh at all.

Is the reality now that the only way we will get back to the ricoh is by saying to sisu 'ok, you can have the ricoh on whatever basis you want'? Can anyone provide any evidence that sisu will return to the ricoh on any other basis?

Grendel · Jun 13, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Getting us back to the ricoh needs just one phone call from sisu to ccc saying we'll return on a short-term rental (and god help acl if they then tried to backtrack from the last offer) and then negotiations start on working out a long-term solution. The only reason for opposing that solution boils down to sisu don't want a rental deal of any sort, even short-term (which surely means they're putting their own interests ahead of what would be good for the team and fans, doesn't it?), and then things like sisu don't trust acl/ccc, that boat has sailed, a new stadium will be built etc, all of which contradict any suggestion of a return to the ricoh at all.

Is the reality now that the only way we will get back to the ricoh is by saying to sisu 'ok, you can have the ricoh on whatever basis you want'? Can anyone provide any evidence that sisu will return to the ricoh on any other basis?

No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?

MichaelCCFC · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel said:
No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?

I forgot the feigned ignorance/distraction response! The offer is the one CWR showed to be financially better than playing at Northampton Town. Any chance of an answer to the question I posed? (but I won't hold my breath G!)

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel said:
No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?

Are you aware that's such ancient history you may as well be starting a discussion on how much would be a fair price for selling HR.

The offers moved on. It's just a shame that there been no adults available at sisu to take the subsequent offers and start negotiating a return instead opting for the disaster of suxfields and the JR that sisu's mouthpiece only yesterday described as a distraction. .

italiahorse · Jun 13, 2014

How could SISU continue to distress ACL if Ccfc are playing at the Ricoh ?

Love it how some people get a snippet of information and hold on to it forever.

The only way out of this is both parties to move together. SISU have no given right to own the stadium but CCC need to understand Ccfc financial position and give access to income streams.

I can see CCC/ACL offers but nothing yet from SISU.

the rumpo kid · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel said:
No one knows the detail of any rent agreement on offer do they? We're you aware that the £400,000 offer was only for 3 years before returning to prior extortionate levels?

3 years is more than enough time to negotiate a price for the ricoh or part of the ricoh, or to sell on.

Lorksalordy · Jun 13, 2014

As far as I can see the only definitive activity undertaken by the owners regarding the situation in the year since moving has been to turn up at two court cases. One of which they instigated.
During that time we have seen one picture showing us what a generic stadium looks like and a collection of random people have met three times to talk about what they might like this stadium to include should it be built.
We have heard at various times that they are not interested in The Ricoh - they've moved on, that it is plan B and that they are only interested in full ownership (if they were interested which they're not. There have been no direct discussions about any of this between them and the relevant parties.
So, in my opinion they have done the square root of fuck all in terms of looking to resolve the situation and have at no time presented a clear, consistent and believable plan for getting us back in Coventry or somewhere within an unstated radius constituting "the area". Having a clearly stated plan that is stuck to would go some way to getting some trust from their business partners and their fans although after all that has gone before I fear "that ship has sailed"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Limey · Jun 13, 2014

Can anyone remind me of what offer the last rental deal was? £150k with some revenue access? If so otium should snap their hands off now prior to JR ruling (which I believe will go predominantly CCC way)

Ian1779 · Jun 13, 2014

For CCFC to return to Ricoh the offer would have to have 2 key terms.

Sensible rent value
Access to revenue streams.

The lease/ownership part can be done later.

Perhaps if ACL actually said properly what the rent would be and what revenue streams the club could access, so it is clear to everyone then provided its a good deal SISU would have no grounds to reject it.

The problem with some of the last few deals is that certain caveats were not known by us as fans, or through third parties etc, as this week told us.

Just put the deal on the table - make it fair and clear and transparent. Then SISU will have to justify why they won't accept it.

lewys33 · Jun 13, 2014

Ian1779 said:
For CCFC to return to Ricoh the offer would have to have 2 key terms.

Sensible rent value
Access to revenue streams.

The lease/ownership part can be done later.

Perhaps if ACL actually said properly what the rent would be and what revenue streams the club could access, so it is clear to everyone then provided its a good deal SISU would have no grounds to reject it.

The problem with some of the last few deals is that certain caveats were not known by us as fans, or through third parties etc, as this week told us.

Just put the deal on the table - make it fair and clear and transparent. Then SISU will have to justify why they won't accept it.

We are talking in terms of Ricoh vs. Sixfields here. Sixfields does not make *Key word warning* financial sense.

Didn't TF say they turned down the latest because:

1) It would cost too much to get out of the sixfields contract
2) It was offered to CCFC Ltd.

Yh Fair enough, ACL should have then immediately offered it to CCFC Holdings. But would they have then accepted? I think they were clutching at straws as to why they refused the deal. Hence why I dont think ACL should be doing the chasing.

For what it is worth, I dont think CCFC will ever deal with ACL ever again. They would take a lease on the Ricoh sure, but not through ACL.

dongonzalos · Jun 13, 2014

In the meeting with JS, TF and ML
I asked why they don't make a temporary public rent offer via the papers that matches what they are paying at Northampton.

If rejected they start to turn the PR battle

If accepted they get more fans = more money

The fans get their club back.

I got no sensible response why this was not possible.

Yet they expressed concern about losing young fans and the negative PR they get.

ML attempted to point about about the biased reporting in the CET.

I pointed out that response is not good enough there are lots of different media streams.

It is the only sensible thing to do unless you still believe ACL are at breaking point.

Hopefully the offer will be made after the 30th June.

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

Ian1779 said:
For CCFC to return to Ricoh the offer would have to have 2 key terms.

Sensible rent value
Access to revenue streams.

The lease/ownership part can be done later.

Perhaps if ACL actually said properly what the rent would be and what revenue streams the club could access, so it is clear to everyone then provided its a good deal SISU would have no grounds to reject it.

The problem with some of the last few deals is that certain caveats were not known by us as fans, or through third parties etc, as this week told us.

Just put the deal on the table - make it fair and clear and transparent. Then SISU will have to justify why they won't accept it.

I've given you a like as i agree 100% with what you said but i would add that the proces could also work the other way. Otium/sisu could put an offer on the table and then ACL would have to give a reason not to accept it.

Ian1779 · Jun 13, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I've given you a like as i agree 100% with what you said but i would add that the proces could also work the other way. Otium/sisu could put an offer on the table and then ACL would have to give a reason not to accept it.

Yes I agree that SISU could do the same. Clearly a sticking point would be what revenue streams, but maybe both need to state what they want/are prepared to give.

lewys33 · Jun 13, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes I agree that SISU could do the same. Clearly a sticking point would be what revenue streams, but maybe both need to state what they want/are prepared to give.

It is all well and good saying revenue streams but £12 (ticket + F&B) x 2000 is not as good as £9 x 10000 is it? Build the new stadium by all means, but why the fuck should we play at northampton whilst that is done??

sky blue john · Jun 13, 2014

ML and Byng tried to have a meeting two weeks ago with CCC.
How can CCC / ACL and Higgs even talk to Sisu now ?
I wouldn't because you know you will be dragged into court and whatever said used against you !!
So Sisu will have created a situation where any attempt to negotiate now is likely to be ignored !!!

Senior Vick from Alicante · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel, your like a captain going down with the good ship SISU. If you got your head out of your arse you would stop smelling the shit. SISU have no interest in the football club, the surrounding community or Coventry as a whole. They had the chance to buy the loan but the council stepped in and beat them to the punch. They wanted to distress a business to try and get a community asset on the cheap for their own commercial gain, not to mention seeing that business fold so that a Coventry based charity would loose millions that it contributed to save the club for the community. They new that previous owners guarantees were in place and were quite willing to see them loose out, that shows how much their bothered about their image in business. The whole JR is a side show, so sweetly put by Labovitch, it just shows how far they are willing to go and what they will do to make money. And who is benefitting from all this, the fans, community and city of Coventry. No the only people that are getting rich are the are well healed friends who sit on the bench and wear a wig. Will this cost SISU in the long run, no because all these costs of folly and vanity are going to be saddled as debt on the football club and when the bitch decides enough is enough she will just liquidate and leave the people of Coventry and the debtors of the club to pick up the pieces.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I've given you a like as i agree 100% with what you said but i would add that the proces could also work the other way. Otium/sisu could put an offer on the table and then ACL would have to give a reason not to accept it.

Indeed.

It would be nice to think once this is finally over, one of them can at least practice what they preach about wanting to do the best by the club. Moving on and all that in the positive way.

And if not, would be nice to think some parties do indeed try and broker a deal. If Mr. Byng wants to try and initiate meetings then, he's more than welcome, as are others.

Senior Vick from Alicante · Jun 13, 2014

PS, the epitaph on Fishers grave should be "Ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of liqiudation, I fear no evil as the pie money would save me" . PUSB NOPM

shmmeee · Jun 13, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes I agree that SISU could do the same. Clearly a sticking point would be what revenue streams, but maybe both need to state what they want/are prepared to give.

I think reading the SBT Q&A you've hit the nail on the head. Neither side seem to care about rent too much compared to access to revenue.

I also think we have to be able to answer the question: What if ACL cannot give access to the revenue streams because they're tied up in a third party?

I worry that that will be what drives us out of the Ricoh permanently. If we had access to realistic financials on the new stadium we could make a proper cost benefit analysis compared to what ACL are willing/able to give (i.e. is it worth getting a lower percentage of a bigger pie at the Ricoh?).

ACL have said they're willing to sell some revenue rights, but IIRC some of it is tied up in a joint venture with Compass, which would obviously come with a cost attached. Do we know what the club are asking for specifically? I think F&B, car parking, hospitality and some cut of other revenue on matchdays from the casino and any other facilities near by is fair.

This may be one of those "simple, obvious and wrong" solutions, but could Compass/ACL agree to not cater CCFC events (as at the moment they don't) and CCFC be able to bring in a third party for matchday F&B where they could take 100% of the revenue without affecting the Compass deal?

As small side note: If I were ACL I'd now be worried about giving too much revenue away knowing there is a predator waiting for me to go under, which is a real shame. It's why I think it's important to get the detail, it's all very well saying "we want revenues" but we can't back them in good faith if we don't know what revenues are being asked for.

duffer · Jun 13, 2014

Ian1779 said:
For CCFC to return to Ricoh the offer would have to have 2 key terms.

Sensible rent value
Access to revenue streams.

The lease/ownership part can be done later.

Perhaps if ACL actually said properly what the rent would be and what revenue streams the club could access, so it is clear to everyone then provided its a good deal SISU would have no grounds to reject it.

The problem with some of the last few deals is that certain caveats were not known by us as fans, or through third parties etc, as this week told us.

Just put the deal on the table - make it fair and clear and transparent. Then SISU will have to justify why they won't accept it.

I don't think you're going to get access to revenue streams right off the bat because that's going to be a complex negotiation, but I'd agree the rental deal will have to include a commitment to serious discussions from ACL & CCC about how these can be opened up to the club, otherwise there's not much in it for SISU.

On the back of that, the rent deal will have to be short term, just for a few years, I think. Again - it's not what I'd want out of choice, but we've got draw all of the sides together, and to do that everyone is going to have to give a bit. If you give SISU a clear, cheap, short-term deal - then the pressure on them to come back is significantly raised, and there's really no excuse for avoiding it. Similarly a short-term deal will encourage the other parties to negotiate, and negotiate urgently.

There is a way forward here, I think. But everyone is going to have to behave for it to work, and no one is going to get exactly what they want. It's that, or it's a straightforward fight about who fails first, the club, or ACL, and I think we'll be at Northampton for a while whilst that plays out...

sky blue john · Jun 13, 2014

Even if Sisu did get car park f&b & advertising revenue at matches. That's not really what they want. They want everything non football related as well. Why else would they have been always banging on about bringing AEG in ?
Or do AEG just specialise in football matches ?

fernandopartridge · Jun 13, 2014

sky blue john said:
Even if Sisu did get car park f&b & advertising revenue at matches. That's not really what they want. They want everything non football related as well. Why else would they have been always banging on about bringing AEG in ?
Or do AEG just specialise in football matches ?

That's a longer term aim which they can look at once they get the club back to the Ricoh on a deal that suits all parties.

sky blue john · Jun 13, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
That's a longer term aim which they can look at once they get the club back to the Ricoh on a deal that suits all parties.

This point alone makes a sham of their argument that they would happily take a rental agreement !!

fernandopartridge · Jun 13, 2014

sky blue john said:
This point alone makes a sham of their argument that they would happily take a rental agreement !!

Means to an end isn't it

No future with SISU · Jun 13, 2014

SISU are not interested in the pie money, they just want the RICOH. SISU try and buy Higgs share of ACL for £5.8m (£1m cash and the rest over 10 years) Higgs do not trust them and ask for £4m cash, so joy offers £2m cash and tells Higgs ACL worthless. How can ACL do a deal on the pie money and other revenue streams when SISU will tell you they are paying nothing for it. Example rent £1.4m, ACL will reduce it to £400,000 they shake Fishers hand on it and then Joy says SISU are only going to pay £100,000 rent for a 34,000 seat stadium as she thinks that is the going rate for a 34,000 seat stadium. How much rent is city been charged as a lodger in Sixfields (7,000 seat stadium)

shmmeee · Jun 13, 2014

Everything else aside, there really is no reason for either side to turn down a short term rental deal while it's all sorted.

First one to offer it publicly wins IMO. I don't particularly care if it's slightly better or slightly worse than Northampton, though I see no reason for either side to turn down a deal that's anywhere from free to about £200k/year in the short term. Revenues and long term rentals/ownership can be sorted then.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
Everything else aside, there really is no reason for either side to turn down a short term rental deal while it's all sorted.

First one to offer it publicly wins IMO. I don't particularly care if it's slightly better or slightly worse than Northampton, though I see no reason for either side to turn down a deal that's anywhere from free to about £200k/year in the short term. Revenues and long term rentals/ownership can be sorted then.

What would be ideal is if a deal is a) offered direct to the other party so no excuses and b) the detail is published in entirity, without comment, in the Telegraph. That way we get away from the silly games of offers that aren't offers, and values which aren't values.

italiahorse · Jun 13, 2014

sky blue john said:
Even if Sisu did get car park f&b & advertising revenue at matches. That's not really what they want. They want everything non football related as well. Why else would they have been always banging on about bringing AEG in ?
Or do AEG just specialise in football matches ?

We just need to wait until SISU loose the JR appeal later in the year. All their cards will have been played and we can move on. If they remain here they will need to build some major bridges. Still not sure if I will be hanging in there but I'm not alone.

fernandopartridge · Jun 13, 2014

italiahorse said:
We just need to wait until SISU loose the JR appeal later in the year. All their cards will have been played and we can move on. If they remain here they will need to build some major bridges. Still not sure if I will be hanging in there but I'm not alone.

What appeal?

RegTheDonk · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
Everything else aside, there really is no reason for either side to turn down a short term rental deal while it's all sorted.

First one to offer it publicly wins IMO. I don't particularly care if it's slightly better or slightly worse than Northampton, though I see no reason for either side to turn down a deal that's anywhere from free to about £200k/year in the short term. Revenues and long term rentals/ownership can be sorted then.

Agree shmmeee, but a rental deal has benefit to ACL and SISU won't want that.

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
What appeal?

i dont think sisu will appeal if the judge doesn't rule in there favour.

they'll either start fresh JR proceedings based on the two arguments that were dropped right at the beginning or start another form of legal preceedings based on something in the JR judges report.

shmmeee · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
What would be ideal is if a deal is a) offered direct to the other party so no excuses and b) the detail is published in entirity, without comment, in the Telegraph. That way we get away from the silly games of offers that aren't offers, and values which aren't values.

Exactly what I want. Don't care which side it comes from. First one wins imaginary shmmeee points.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
Exactly what I want. Don't care which side it comes from. First one wins imaginary shmmeee points.

But seriously, the key is it's actually a detailed offer laid out without a headline positioning one way or another. We've had too many things that haven't been as advertised, from both sides, so it's a binding offer if in public domain, but let's not have the bits picked out to suit a certain position and skew the impression of it before serious talks even begin. At the moment it's too easy for SISU to say 'ah but we'd love to come back, if only there were a proper offer' and too easy for t'other view to bang on about Hoffman paying the rent, £400k up to monster monster levels, £150k via football league ad infnitum.

Removal of as much doubt as possible, please. corner off as many places to run as possible, call out Robert Robinson(?) for a nice little game of Call My Bluff.

James Smith · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
I think reading the SBT Q&A you've hit the nail on the head. Neither side seem to care about rent too much compared to access to revenue.

I also think we have to be able to answer the question: What if ACL cannot give access to the revenue streams because they're tied up in a third party?

I worry that that will be what drives us out of the Ricoh permanently. If we had access to realistic financials on the new stadium we could make a proper cost benefit analysis compared to what ACL are willing/able to give (i.e. is it worth getting a lower percentage of a bigger pie at the Ricoh?).

ACL have said they're willing to sell some revenue rights, but IIRC some of it is tied up in a joint venture with Compass, which would obviously come with a cost attached. Do we know what the club are asking for specifically? I think F&B, car parking, hospitality and some cut of other revenue on matchdays from the casino and any other facilities near by is fair.

This may be one of those "simple, obvious and wrong" solutions, but could Compass/ACL agree to not cater CCFC events (as at the moment they don't) and CCFC be able to bring in a third party for matchday F&B where they could take 100% of the revenue without affecting the Compass deal?

As small side note: If I were ACL I'd now be worried about giving too much revenue away knowing there is a predator waiting for me to go under, which is a real shame. It's why I think it's important to get the detail, it's all very well saying "we want revenues" but we can't back them in good faith if we don't know what revenues are being asked for.

According to a post by PWKH from last year the Pie Money was included in at least one offer to Sisu and it was rejected. Now assuming that is correct you have to wonder what it was that they didn't like in the rest of the offer. He also seems to be suggesting that buying the Higgs share would get the matchday revenues back. Would be nice to see details of past offers in full.

PWKH said:
The Club still has the right to gain access to the revenues at the Ricoh. This comes with ownership of shares in ACL. This was agreed from the start. When they sold their shares to the Higgs Charity they got the money they needed to avoid administration and start the next season along with the right to buy back their shares. Nobody has told them they couldn’t buy back those shares: they have chosen not to.*
Back in 2008 and 2009 I had two meetings with Onye Igwe when he told me that the Charity had to sell their shares to the Club and he would tell me how much they would pay. He also told me of the Club’s exciting plans to expand the supporter base in Nigeria and China. It was an odd way to approach the matter but I said nothing but waited for him to come back with a price. He was, I suspect, ignoring the option which gave the Club the right to buy for a fixed sum. I heard nothing more and then he was removed. Ken Dulieu then appeared and I met him in London for him also to say that the Club was going to buy the shares. Nothing happened and he disappeared.
Tim Fisher talks about the need to increase the revenues of the Club. He suggests that the Club has a right to them. He is correct. They have a right to buy them back. Only the Club has an Option to buy them.*
The Charity paid the Club for those shares. The Charity must hope to make a return, either through an increase in value or through an income, from those shares. There has, of course, been no income at all from those shares yet. Tim Fisher now wants some of that income simply to be given to the Club because it needs it. It is clear that the Club needs more income and ACL had offered to give up some income: the food and beverage revenues everyone refers to.
I fear that just as that offer is now withdrawn the possibility of the Club now buying back into ACL has receded.
To make the businesses at the Ricoh work efficiently they have to work together in harmony and with trust. That began to happen under Ray Ranson and the Club was able to make savings and increase its income. Perhaps if his influence had been strong enough to stop the Club being distracted by ideas of business expansion in Nigeria and China and he had kept the owners concentrated on buying back into ACL we would not all be locked into this destructive spiral.

Jack Griffin · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
What would be ideal is if a deal is a) offered direct to the other party so no excuses and b) the detail is published in entirity, without comment, in the Telegraph. That way we get away from the silly games of offers that aren't offers, and values which aren't values.

And I tell you what, stop using terminology to disguise the nature of any offer.. cloaking real costs & revenues behind rent, match day costs, facilities costs blah blah.. and both sides presenting a such different description that it makes one wonder if we are talking about the same thing!

Getting us back to the Ricoh remains simple (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency