'Highfield Two' (1 Viewer)

[Manchester_sky_blue]

As Holdings' statements become increasingly ludicrous I think that they're accepting that the game is up and this self inflicted administration has backfired. All it will take is for the League to give the GS back to Ltd and that will finish them off.

Yes that may be the one saving grace. Of course though as the main creditor they could still block the sale to another party by failing to agree to the CVA which would mean another massive points deduction and possibly a very long drawn out sales process.

 

---

[SkyBlueHomer]

Nearer to the city centre than ricoh yet outside city boundaries.

Ansty?

Ansty Park (Or whatever its called)
Mentioned this location a few days ago. There is a huge site on the M6 Junc 2/A46/M69 interchange this is being developed. Not sure exactly what space is available as I dont go into the site & Google isnt that up to date though.
Like it or not if space is available this would be the most sensible area the road junction has recently been upgrade to accomodate extra traffic for Ansty Park, much better than these ridiculous idea's about moving to and developing Brandon. The site has been earmarked for Industrial Units though.
http://www.anstypark.co.uk/Masterplan

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

An ideal place in Coventry for regeneration is about 1 mile out of town on the Foleshill Rd opposite the clock tower on old Courtaulds site.
I`d like a design with a mix of the Ricoh and Highfield Rd.
THE HIGHCOH!

 

[Godiva]

With this in mind, maybe we should be doing our best to convince the Football League that SISU aren't 'fit and proper' owners - rather than petitioning about the stadium location?

If we could can stop the Football League transferring the golden share to CCFC Holdings it gives us a much better chance of getting rid of SISU.

It may actually be a good idea.
But I think the burden of proof will be sitting by the complainant, so what would the argument be?
- Don't provide funding?
- Got us relegated to L1?
- Excessive hiring/firing of managers (is it 8 or 9 in 6½ years)?
- Don't pay rent and got us kicked out of home?
- Want to build a new stadium?
- Never speaks to us, leaves the communications to the CEO?

I hardly think any of the above will prove the owners unfit in the eyes of FA/FL.

What else can be argued?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Can anyone remember the date of which SISU have to confirm to the league there plans for next season?

 

[Manchester_sky_blue]

It's always on the news about how knackered the high street is, so with that in mind how about they just flatten all the shops in the city centre and just build a stadium there?

While they are at it they could move the speedway there as well, keep the NIMBYs in Brandon happy, sorted!

 

[ajsccfc]

You're all mad, this has changed my mind completely and I fully support the move now. David Bell's also changing his surname by deed poll to Bennett.

 

[Noggin]

It may actually be a good idea.
But I think the burden of proof will be sitting by the complainant, so what would the argument be?
- Don't provide funding?
- Got us relegated to L1?
- Excessive hiring/firing of managers (is it 8 or 9 in 6½ years)?
- Don't pay rent and got us kicked out of home?
- Want to build a new stadium?
- Never speaks to us, leaves the communications to the CEO?

I hardly think any of the above will prove the owners unfit in the eyes of FA/FL.

What else can be argued?

Don't submit accounts as they are legaly required too making long periods under transfer embargo frequent and regular.
Set up complex series of companies in order to prevent them being liable for debts.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It may actually be a good idea.
But I think the burden of proof will be sitting by the complainant, so what would the argument be?
- Don't provide funding?
- Got us relegated to L1?
- Excessive hiring/firing of managers (is it 8 or 9 in 6½ years)?
- Don't pay rent and got us kicked out of home?
- Want to build a new stadium?
- Never speaks to us, leaves the communications to the CEO?

I hardly think any of the above will prove the owners unfit in the eyes of FA/FL.

What else can be argued?

Don't submit accounts as they are legaly required too making long periods under transfer embargo frequent and regular.
Set up complex series of companies in order to prevent them being liable for debts.

That's it? There was me thinking they were kind, warm hearted, friendly souls

 

[Maupet]

If they move to walsall they will go bust before the stadium is built as people will not go to the games. I certainly wont. Also they will have to pay walsall.

 

[Noggin]

The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.

I'm really annoyed with the telegraph letting them get this massive piece of spin in.

They were offered rent of 400k and it's simply impossible for them to build a stadium for less than that per year.

A £20 mill stadium at 4% interest over 40 years costs a touch over £1mill a year to repay. Total cost a touch over £40mill

Over a more reasonable 25 years the cost is £1.28mill a year with a total cost of £32 million.

Also what makes them think they can do it quicker and in real money terms cheaper than Rotherham? Not to mention it's a league 1 stadium and so they are basically saying this year is as good as its going to get for us.

They can say its modular but it would still cost millions to increase the size and capacity would drop from it's already pathetic level while it's done.

This makes no financial sence even without having to move out for years, when you take that into account too this is suicide financially and in football terms.

As for the name PATHETIC!

 

[Otis]

What! Paying back the loan would be cheaper than the 1.2 million?

They were offered 400k weren't they?

Exactly. That 1.2m is an untruth. the rent offer now stands at 400,000 and if I remember correctly, the club said they were happy with that.

These guys are idiots. They can build a new stadium if they want, but for the next 3 years fans simply won't go and the club will not be able to compete on an equal footing with their competitors and by the time the new stadium is built we could be playing in the Conference.

I'm getting sick of their ineptitude now.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I'm really annoyed with the telegraph letting them get this massive piece of spin in.

They were offered rent of 400k and it's simply impossible for them to build a stadium for less than that per year.

A £20 mill stadium at 4% interest over 40 years costs a touch over £1mill a year to repay. Total cost a touch over £40mill

Over a more reasonable 25 years the cost is £1.28mill a year with a total cost of £32 million.

Also what makes them think they can do it quicker and in real money terms cheaper than Rotherham? Not to mention it's a league 1 stadium and so they are basically saying this year is as good as its going to get for us.

They can say its modular but it would still cost millions to increase the size and capacity would drop from it's already pathetic level while it's done.

This makes no financial sence even without having to move out for years, when you take that into account too this is suicide financially and in football terms.

As for the name PATHETIC!

You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Also comparing building to renting isn't that fair either.

Otherwise everybody would rent their houses cheaper, and never bother with mortgages.

 

[grego_gee]

Rotherham stadium

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/rotherham_united/

More Pics

Its modular meaning the capacity can be added to!

imp:

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.

Well it does have a relevance. It's the reported cost of playing moving forward. So, any cost analysis made at this point would have to weigh up the cost to play at the Ricoh moving forward against the cost of building this farce.

As such, it's a value that should be out there

 

[lifelongcityfan]

SISU dont pay any rent, nor have any money to build a stadium

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.

That is a very one-sided and biased way of presenting the matter.
The truth of the matter is that they had the opportunity to pay only 400k instead of 1.2 million. They agreed that the 400k was an acceptable rent, and then turned the offer down.
Please stop trying to spin this into anything else. It could have been 400k if they had accepted what they themselves agreed was reasonable. To then say that because they turned down the offer the only figure that matters in this discussion is the original 1.2 million that is due because they in fact turned down the offer of 400k is disingenuous at best.

 

[Noggin]

You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.

It doesn't mean diddly squat that was the final offer to them at it was at that point they said they were going to build their own stadium, so thats the number they should have been comparing against when making a plan before announcing this ridiculous idea.

By using the 1.2 mill figure the telegraph make it look like the idea is more valid than it is and thus influencing the minds of those people who haven't properly followed what's going on.

When the stadium is built, even if they max the capacity and get food and drink revenues, they will significantly worse off than they would have been accepting the 400k rent and getting similar crowds at the ricoh. Not to mention they won't be able to have the big game crowds like the jpt "final" again.

That base case scenario (which is still really bad) ignores the massive losses they will make over the next 3-5 years, the fact they will likely lower crowds for many years longer with this idea and the fact that 3-5 years playing away from home means almost certain relegation due to ffp rules. Perhaps even falling out of the league and it ignores the fact that walsall will want paying too, even if the walsall rent was free will be losing a massive amount each month over just accepting the 400k.

 

[Manchester_sky_blue]

It is perhaps worth pointing out that £400k was only going to be the rent whilst we were in league one and we have only the media reports to go on that said it was £400k, you don't know what other costs and add ons there may have been on top of that. Also it's not just the costs per year that you have to consider, its the net profit after costs so if a new stadium costs the same as renting the Ricoh but generates more in income then it could be significantly more financially attractive.

Before anyone jumps on me I dont support building a new stadium or SISU's ownership in anyway and I believe we must stay at the Ricoh if we are to survive but I think its important to consider everything, not just the headlines.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Well it does have a relevance. It's the reported cost of playing moving forward. So, any cost analysis made at this point would have to weigh up the cost to play at the Ricoh moving forward against the cost of building this farce.

As such, it's a value that should be out there

It might have relevance, but to SISU they were contractually obliged to pay the £1.2m-a-year figure that was agreed when we moved to the Ricoh, yes a reduced offer was discussed and in some aspects agreed with a new rent agreement, but have they been paying that figure? No, They did reach that agreement? No, Was the offer signed off by all parties? No. They (SISU) have too look at the agreement that they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better than that, holding onto "Well they were offered £400K" means jack..

 

[RegTheDonk]

Not going to comment on "highfield road 2", or playing at walsall, as my views are the same as most here and its already been said.

I would only comment now on the folly of all this. How the hell has it come to all this bluster and nonsense?

Why Fisher? Why did you just not agree the cheaper rent deal and agree to pay back the £1.3M over x amount of years, instead of trying to force ACL out of business. You could have picked up the Higgs share cheaply and got what PH4 is after. by playing it straight. Why have you put all that at risk, SISU could lose millions by you playing hardball. Seppia should sack you, potentially you've thrown her money away.

 

[grego_gee]

They have paid £6 million in rent over 5 years and have zero ownership of the Arena from that £6 million!
They probably see £20 million in building a stadium better suited to our needs, as smarter use of the money going on the rent.

imp:

 

[RoboCCFC90]

That is a very one-sided and biased way of presenting the matter.
The truth of the matter is that they had the opportunity to pay only 400k instead of 1.2 million. They agreed that the 400k was an acceptable rent, and then turned the offer down.
Please stop trying to spin this into anything else. It could have been 400k if they had accepted what they themselves agreed was reasonable. To then say that because they turned down the offer the only figure that matters in this discussion is the original 1.2 million that is due because they in fact turned down the offer of 400k is disingenuous at best.

Words of choice on this post if, opportunity.

Lets try contract, fact, agreed, signed.

 

[Bennets Afro]

I think it just shows how out of touch and deluded fisher is with the fans. He must think the new stadium will be a sell out every week once completed.

Too late fisher!!! By the time the stadium is finished most fans would of lost interest in a non league team!!!! That's if the club hasn't gone bust before then

 

[Noggin]

Also comparing building to renting isn't that fair either.

Otherwise everybody would rent their houses cheaper, and never bother with mortgages.

400k over 25 years = 10mill, 1.28mill over 25 years = 32 mill. So they can pay the ricoh rent and after 25 years have enough to build a 20 mill stadium themselves, cheaper than they can pay someone else to do so over 25 years or more likely since its a dumb idea just be 22 mill richer.

We arn't talking about renting a 12k stadium vs building a 12k stadium though are we. we are talking about renting a premier league quality stadium vs a league 1 quality stadium. They clearly don't plan for us to get promoted in the near future or this is a terrible idea. It might well be modular but it will still cost a massive amount more to increase its capacity than it would just to build it to that capacity in the first place.

If you are going to do it build a modular 20-25k seater stadium that is easy to lower the capacity. Of course they obviously know the club will be so ruined by the time they finish and as a league 2 at best club perhaps the 12k is about right.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It doesn't mean diddly squat that was the final offer to them at it was at that point they said they were going to build their own stadium, so thats the number they should have been comparing against when making a plan before announcing this ridiculous idea.

By using the 1.2 mill figure the telegraph make it look like the idea is more valid than it is and thus influencing the minds of those people who haven't properly followed what's going on.

When the stadium is built, even if they max the capacity and get food and drink revenues, they will significantly worse off than they would have been accepting the 400k rent and getting similar crowds at the ricoh. Not to mention they won't be able to have the big game crowds like the jpt "final" again.

That base case scenario (which is still really bad) ignores the massive losses they will make over the next 3-5 years, the fact they will likely lower crowds for many years longer with this idea and the fact that 3-5 years playing away from home means almost certain relegation due to ffp rules. Perhaps even falling out of the league and it ignores the fact that walsall will want paying too, even if the walsall rent was free will be losing a massive amount each month over just accepting the 400k.

A final offer that was never accepted, SISU are comparing their options to what they are currently paying. Not offered.

 

[Manchester_sky_blue]

Not going to comment on "highfield road 2", or playing at walsall, as my views are the same as most here and its already been said.

I would only comment now on the folly of all this. How the hell has it come to all this bluster and nonsense?

Why Fisher? Why did you just not agree the cheaper rent deal and agree to pay back the £1.3M over x amount of years, instead of trying to force ACL out of business. You could have picked up the Higgs share cheaply and got what PH4 is after. by playing it straight. Why have you put all that at risk, SISU could lose millions by you playing hardball. Seppia should sack you, potentially you've thrown her money away.

Because long term, even medium term that would not help the club. FPP was going to ruin us and they had to have control of at least 50% of all the revenue streams from the stadium to stand a chance of complying. The way they have gone about it is totally wrong and what we are left with is a total mess but that is the reason why. The the temporary reduction to £400k would not have made much difference without access to more of the match day revenue and at least a share of the non-footballing revenue. SISU undoubtely have made a royal mess of this whole thing but the council/ACL are far from innocent either, they knew the club could not readily accept the offer they were making and hoped that it would force SISU to sell up.

 

[TheParsonsHose]

What would be more acceptable is if SISU put £40 million into an escrow account that could only be used for a new stadium.

 

[TrueSkyBlueLiam]

What pisses me off so much is that they have the cheek to use Highfield Road's name in their dirty little plan to try and get us on their side. Ent gonna happen SHITSU. Just get the f*ck out of OUR club

 

[Noggin]

It might have relevance, but to SISU they were contractually obliged to pay the £1.2m-a-year figure that was agreed when we moved to the Ricoh, yes a reduced offer was discussed and in some aspects agreed with a new rent agreement, but have they been paying that figure? No, They did reach that agreement? No, Was the offer signed off by all parties? No. They (SISU) have too look at the agreement that they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better than that, holding onto "Well they were offered £400K" means jack..

They do have to look at the 1.2mill they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better, oh yes they can 400k, no instead of taking the heads of terms and turning it into a contract, best to start planning a stadium that will be terrible worse for the next 3-5 years but after that perhaps it's slightly better than we are currently obliged to pay, but still massively worse than the deal we have just agreed.

I can't understand where you are coming from at all, they spent a year negotiating a better deal, they get to the point that they have a great one and you think its ok to say, oh we can build a tiny stadium for less than we are currently contractually obliged to pay (but not paying) and while its a much much stupider idea than the deal we just spent a year negotiating lets go with that, sorry acl we're moving out.

 

[Noggin]

A final offer that was never accepted, SISU are comparing their options to what they are currently paying. Not offered.

But thats stupid! when they started blowing the new stadium bluster they had just agreed a deal. Why would you pull out on that in order to start planning a much worse deal.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

ansty is a dreadful location for a stadium, it re-defines out of town. How many residents can actually walk to the ground ? what is the nearest pub, possibly the hilton hotel but even then its a good walk along a dual carriageway.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

They do have to look at the 1.2mill they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better, oh yes they can 400k, no instead of taking the heads of terms and turning it into a contract, best to start planning a stadium that will be terrible worse for the next 3-5 years but after that perhaps it's slightly better than we are currently obliged to pay, but still massively worse than the deal we have just agreed.

I can't understand where you are coming from at all, they spent a year negotiating a better deal, they get to the point that they have a great one and you think its ok to say, oh we can build a tiny stadium for less than we are currently contractually obliged to pay (but not paying) and while its a much much stupider idea than the deal we just spent a year negotiating lets go with that, sorry acl we're moving out.

But thats stupid! when they started blowing the new stadium bluster they had just agreed a deal. Why would you pull out on that in order to start planning a much worse deal.

If the £400K deal was so much better then what they were paying, why wasn't it signed off and why aren't we paying that agreement? Because it may have agreed by tongue, but it wasn't signed off. I am not saying they're better building a new stadium outside of the City and moving to Walsall at all or condoning it, what I am saying though is if I was in Tim Fisher's shoe's I would be comparing everything to what the current and existing agreement is, because yes £400K rent agreement was agreed at the time, but SISU have since decided that agreement was not good enough for their own reasons and it's not the existing agreement between the two parties. The £400K means shit it was just speculation, the agreement and rent in place was £1.2m-a-year.

Show me if you have seen SISU sign a contract that says we agreed to pay a £400K rent a year??

 

[Noggin]

It won't be that ansty area, thats a buisness technology and innovation area, it's for companies to set up research and development centres etc, there is nothing in safe walking distance of that area, the walsgrave triangle area with cinema, nandos, franky and bennys, pizza hut, bowling alley etc is close in distance but it's not safely walkable. Nore do I see it being possible to make it safely walkable without some massive costs.