Mark Robins knew the score..... (3 Viewers)

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

But seeing as little or no taxpayers money ever went in to the stadium, why should that be of concern? Of course they need to keep it viable because they need to be sure that ACL can continue to meet their obligations in terms of repayments, but otherwise what responsibility do they have to council tax payers? The stadium was built for CCFC, and they were the driving force behind it right up until the last minute, having done much of the legwork and helped put in place much of the funding. It was just unfortuante that there was a funding shortfall at the end and the council secured a loan to bridge it - and for that the club lost complete control of a project they had taken from nothing to very nearly the point where the first spade entered the ground. It was a travesty really.

I can't really see much evidence of the council having 'desperately tried to balance the long term stability of the club'. That some key figures on the council support the club is undeniable, that SISU acted appallingly during negotiations is undeniable. That said, when all this is done and dusted, I very much hope there is some sort of internal investigation at CCC that asks if things could have been done differently because as far as I am concerned they have a lot of questions to answer.

Oh, and a minor point, we averaged over 20K in our first 2 seasons, suggesting we were regularly getting over 20K.

Agree and what did we get last season and what are we going to get this season? And why?

 

---

[duffer]

How much do Hull or Swansea pay? If we're talking market rents than lets compare it to other recently built stadia....

CCFC signed up to it with a gun to their head, not forgetting that the CCFC that signed then is not the CCFC that won't sign now.

Circumstances change, it appears to me that the Council were willing to offer a rent abatement to a company due to a change of circumstances, only that company would not afford the same to another who were also subject to a change in circumstance.

I'm sorry, but you haven't answered a single question there (they were):

Just out of interest, what would be a fair rent for stadium costing £30m - £60m? If it's so unfair, where has all of the egregious profit made from it gone?

If it was so unfair, why did CCFC sign up for it without complaint, and why did they only push for a reduction in the last year or so?

And fwiw, there was no gun to the head - in fact there was the opportunity (declined) to pay less if relegated, more if promoted. And there wasn't a single complaint at the time, or indeed until quite recently.

 

[fernandopartridge]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the owners have the club's best interests at heart either, moving to Sixfields being a case in point.

It isn't the point, why do you always have to bring it round to a 'SISU are bad' angle? Can't you argue objectively?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Did Joy have a gun to her head in 2007? No But shes bloody well got one pointed at our heads now and she doesnt mind gunslinger Tim pulling the trigger and blowing our heads off!

 

[James Smith]

How much do Hull or Swansea pay? If we're talking market rents than lets compare it to other recently built stadia....

CCFC signed up to it with a gun to their head, not forgetting that the CCFC that signed then is not the CCFC that won't sign now.

Circumstances change, it appears to me that the Council were willing to offer a rent abatement to a company due to a change of circumstances, only that company would not afford the same to another who were also subject to a change in circumstance.

The Welsh Audit Office commissioned a report on The Liberty Stadium. The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online) stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.

"financial position of SSMC remains precarious and the current revenue sharing arrangements are considered unsustainable". It also reveals that Swansea Council made a further loan to the SSMC in 2005, for £2.6 million, which it later wrote off, even though auditors "were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".

Read more: http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#ixzz2Z8Neq5qQ
Follow us: @thisisswales on Twitter | thisissouthwales on Facebook

​

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H

What a shame we never took the oportunity to buy the charity share when we had the oportunity (and I think we still do).​

 

[torchomatic]

Not strictly true. Robinson approached ACL in December 2005 stating the club couldn't afford the rent. Not sure why it wasn't pursued then. And, at that time, we'd only been in the stadium four months, so it seems there certainly was a problem with the business model from the outset. Foolishly agreed by the club.

If it was so unfair, why did CCFC sign up for it without complaint, and why did they only push for a reduction in the last year or so?

 

[Jack Griffin]

£24 million was the cost of acquiring the land - a portion of which was sold on for £59.5 million to Tesco. 'Bryan Richardson's finest hour' I think it was called at the time :thinking about:. It was a good deal no matter how you view it. £17 million was the cost of decontamination.

Well the club never bought the land, otherwise they would own the freehold or a leasehold, it is the council that owns the freehold, so they must have bought the land.

I think the club did put in ~£6.8M, which may have gone to decontamination costs, but later the Higgs bought out the CCFC part for about £6.5M, OSB has the story.

From details in CCFCH accounts

The option to buy the land lapsed sometime before 31/05/02. So CCFC never had any land to sell in part or its entirety to Tesco or anyone else

There had been costs incurred in the initial development some £18.4m against which there were debts and loans outstanding which reduced that to a net asset of £4.8m

The £4.8m was to be the investment from CCFC in the joint venture with CCC which did not commence until after 31/05/02. That investment was through football investors ltd

The club increased that £4.8m asset by £2m (i assume additional costs on the project) during the year to 31/05/03 leaving an asset of £6.8m.

The club couldnt afford to pay its way and sold the £6.8m asset to the Charity for £6.5m

The charity paid for it by £2m in cash the waiver of 2.5m 5% debebenture loans (2003) and the settlement of £2m loans directors of CCFC made to CCFC

Those folks are the facts as disclosed by the club and its auditors in accounts filed at Companies House

Got to ask how the club spends £20m on a project to build on land it doesnt own - and they do it by almost equally massive loans and debt !!!??

So when CCFC "invested" in the joint venture they transferred to the assets but also the associated creditors....... and then received pretty much the full value from the charity for something that hardly existed

 

[theferret]

The Welsh Audit Office commissioned a report on The Liberty Stadium. The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online) stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H

What a shame we never took the oportunity to buy the charity share when we had the oportunity (and I think we still do).​

Talking of Swansea, this is how their council leader responded to calls that Swansea City should pay more rent:

Mr Holley said he was "astonished that the Labour leader wants to penalise the Swans in this way". He added: "We should be helping them to achieve more not taxing them on their success. As far as I am concerned the financial arrangements with regards to the Liberty Stadium are robust and appropriate. When the management company makes a profit then the council get their fair share.
"We are also taking steps to ensure that high standards of maintenance are sustained.
"I do not want to take much-needed cash from the Swans that should be spent on strengthening the team and ensuring that they retain their Premier League status.
"The city stands to gain hugely from the success of the Swans in terms of investment, jobs, prestige and revenue. The council will also benefit from that dividend.
"I am not prepared to jeopardise that future by forcing the football club to pay more. We are here to help them not hinder them."

What a refreshing attitude that is. Can you imagine one of our elected leaders ever saying that?

 

[James Smith]

It isn't the point, why do you always have to bring it round to a 'SISU are bad' angle? Can't you argue objectively?

Because I can't believe that they have always done what is best for the club, was selling Fox and Dann the best thing to do? Was the boycott rather than negotiate the best thing to do? Is moving us to Northampton and buggering us under FFP rules the best thing to do? Name something positive that the club/SISU have done recently.

 

[McLovin87]

I don't believe the Council are whiter than white but they are an elected body and they can be easily contacted and if we don't agree with what they have done we can vote them out.

They have an obligation to be fairly open in their dealings whereas it would be easier to get some straight answers out of the Illuminati rather than these feckers at SISU.

 

[duffer]

Not strictly true. Robinson approached ACL in December 2005 stating the club couldn't afford the rent. Not sure why it wasn't pursued then. And, at that time, we'd only been in the stadium four months, so it seems there certainly was a problem with the business model from the outset. Foolishly agreed by the club.

OK torchy, fair enough, but I've never heard that before. No reason to doubt your word, but have you got a link to it? And like you say, why didn't they renegotiate then, honestly. Or why didn't SISU do it when they first got in.

The rent has only become a show-stopping issue recently, and from the accounts it isn't the rent that's been pulling the club down either. As others have said, how much of the debt is actually down to the rent.

SISU paid themselves more interest on their own debts in the last set of accounts (700k?) than they would've done on the rent at £400k. It's not an easy analysis to do, but I'd bet their 'management' fees far exceed even that.

It's not the rent killing the club, imho.

 

[James Smith]

Talking of Swansea, this is how their council leader responded to calls that Swansea City should pay more rent:

Mr Holley said he was "astonished that the Labour leader wants to penalise the Swans in this way". He added: "We should be helping them to achieve more not taxing them on their success. As far as I am concerned the financial arrangements with regards to the Liberty Stadium are robust and appropriate. When the management company makes a profit then the council get their fair share.
"We are also taking steps to ensure that high standards of maintenance are sustained.
"I do not want to take much-needed cash from the Swans that should be spent on strengthening the team and ensuring that they retain their Premier League status.
"The city stands to gain hugely from the success of the Swans in terms of investment, jobs, prestige and revenue. The council will also benefit from that dividend.
"I am not prepared to jeopardise that future by forcing the football club to pay more. We are here to help them not hinder them."

What a refreshing attitude that is. Can you imagine one of our elected leaders ever saying that?

And is the Ricoh financial situation considered unsustainable by their auditors? Don't believe so but happy to be proved wrong.

 

[williesdonkeykick]

What the frig?? I haven't been on here since Saturday where I was witness to the biggest display of unity from Sky Blues Fans for as long as I can remember. Proud to be apart of that unity through adversity. A few days on and we've regressed a year. He said, she did, labelling. What matters is saving our club, not mud slinging, not who predicted what and not who is to blame. Let's be proactive not reactive and build on what Saturday achieved.

To be honest, I've gone beyond caring as to whether it's Sisu's fault, ACL's fault, Richardsons fault or whoever. I just want this sorted. The time for bringing those to account is for after we've pulled this club away from the raging storm of the abyss.

Bang on the money! The only thing I would change/add is that I'd like to see those responsible for the clubs' demise brought to account sooner rather than later so that we can get on with the job of playing in Coventry, building the team and challenging for promotions.

 

[James Smith]

OK torchy, fair enough, but I've never heard that before. No reason to doubt your word, but have you got a link to it? And like you say, why didn't they renegotiate then, honestly. Or why didn't SISU do it when they first got in.

The rent has only become a show-stopping issue recently, and from the accounts it isn't the rent that's been pulling the club down either. As others have said, how much of the debt is actually down to the rent.

SISU paid themselves more interest on their own debts in the last set of accounts (700k?) than they would've done on the rent at £400k. It's not an easy analysis to do, but I'd bet their 'management' fees far exceed even that.

It's not the rent killing the club, imho.

I think GR did approach ACL either PWKH, Tim, or the Trust Q&A said it, but then he rejected the sliding scale rent Sir Higgs proposed which might well have been better for us.

 

[theferret]

Well the club never bought the land, otherwise they would own the freehold or a leasehold, it is the council that owns the freehold, so they must have bought the land.

I think the club did put in ~£6.8M, which may have gone to decontamination costs, but later the Higgs bought out the CCFC part for about £6.5M, OSB has the story.

The point is Jack, you cannot really separate out the land deal in the way you tried to earlier in order to try and inflate the council's contribution.

The bottom line is this (and it is in black and white on the report you linked to) - the total cost (that's ALL land and build costs) was £118.67m. The funding breakdown for that is clearly shown - to which the council made a £10 million equity investment, and also a payment of £2 million from their own coffers to cover a shortfall (I admit my original figures didn't take into account the equity investment), but that's it. The TOTAL net contribution of the council therefore amounted to roughly 10% of the TOTAL build cost. You cannot include the loan, because it was a loan - that was the bank's money and was not from the council.

So the council paid 10% of the costs - but yet people say they paid for it, funded it etc. It is a bit misleading at best. They have done very well out of it, and the value of their stake in it is worth far more than their initial investment.

 

[theferret]

And is the Ricoh financial situation considered unsustainable by their auditors? Don't believe so but happy to be proved wrong.

You're comparing apples with oranges to an extent. The Liberty Stadium is much more reliant on the football club in terms of income - there are no big concerts there, no exhibition hall, no hotel, no underground casino. You would think therefore, that of the two, the management company at the Ricoh could afford to be more generous towards the football club in terms of the deal it offers than is the case at Swansea, but actually it is the other way around.

 

[torchomatic]

I won’t – and can’t – disagree with you on the way SISU have conducted themselves over the rent issue. My view, as is well known, is that ACL take a large slice of blame too due to the unrealistic and unsustainable rent charged in the first place. Along with Richardson, of course. As if we’d stayed at HR then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

However, we didn’t and we are… Still, although I believe SISU had a point and a right to try and negotiate the rent, the way they did it has ultimately led to where we are today.

As for the article, here it is.

HARD-UP Coventry City are trying to renegotiate the deal to rent the Ricoh Arena to help them through their current cash crisis.

Acting chairman Geoffrey Robinson has admitted he is in talks with the Arena company and Coventry City Council as part of his financial restructuring plan for the club.

The Sky Blues are paying £1M a year to rent the new 32,000-seater stadium but Mr Robinson refused to confirm or deny that the club had approached the city council to release some of that cash to pay players' wages.

The money from the club's sale of Premier Club memberships to local businesses is held in a special account as a guarantee that it will pay its rent to the Arena company. It is understood the council - a major partner in the Arena scheme - would have to approve it being used for any other purpose.

The club is struggling financially as attendances at the Ricoh are not reaching the 23,000 break-even point given by former chairman Mike McGinnity earlier in the season but Mr Robinson categorically denied that the club was heading into administration.

"No, absolutely not," he said.

He said they were in talks with the Arena company, Coventry City Council and the club's bank over the best deal to suit everyone.

But he admitted the club will probably not be coming up with its financial plan for the next three years in time for its December 20 annual general meeting. He has already said the club's accounts will not be ready to be presented to the meeting.

The Coventry North West MP said: "We're in negotiations with all our partners to make sure we have genuinely well-based, profitable future which is what everybody wants.

"We're working on a plan for financial stability of the club and we'll make a statement (about that) as soon as we can.

"The late opening of the stadium caused problems. The point of the discussions is to (secure) the financial stability of the club over the next three years."

Asked if the club had requested a rebate of £1M from the city council, Mr Robinson said: "I'm not making any comment about the state of negotiations."

OK torchy, fair enough, but I've never heard that before. No reason to doubt your word, but have you got a link to it? And like you say, why didn't they renegotiate then, honestly. Or why didn't SISU do it when they first got in.

The rent has only become a show-stopping issue recently, and from the accounts it isn't the rent that's been pulling the club down either. As others have said, how much of the debt is actually down to the rent.

SISU paid themselves more interest on their own debts in the last set of accounts (700k?) than they would've done on the rent at £400k. It's not an easy analysis to do, but I'd bet their 'management' fees far exceed even that.

It's not the rent killing the club, imho.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I finally found Tim Fisher describing stadium finance, he clearly says that the council bought the land from British Gas for between £13M and £18M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA start about 1m 50s into tape..

I'm pretty sure that is the £17M in the funding part of report, there is coincidentally another £17M in the costs part of the report for decontamination.. one sum is expenditure and one sum is money put in,, they are not the same thing & lie on different sides of the balance sheet.

 

[theferret]

I finally found Tim Fisher describing stadium finance, he clearly says that the council bought the land from British Gas for between £14M and £18M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=tqtHj-aq8iw&v=aALGMquIYOA start about 1m 50s into tape..

I'm pretty sure that is the £17M in the funding part of report, there is coincidentally another £17M in the costs part of the report for decontamination.. one sum is expenditure and one sum is money put in,, they are not the same thing & lie on different sides of the balance sheet.

You believe Tim Fisher now

It doesn't matter. All land costs, decontamination costs, build costs are all shown and they total £118m.

It then shows you the breakdown of how that £118m was funded, and the council were responsible for £12 million of it. Exactly what the funds were spent on is irrelevant - much of the grant money I suspect went on decontamination - a significant proportion of the Tesco money I suspect was used to cover the cost of the land purchase - who knows exactly how each penny was spent - in terms of establishing how much the council contributed however, it is irrelevant. Their total contribution was £12 million - it says so in their own report.

 

[Sky Blue Dal]

"I absolutely wish them all the best, they work their socks off and as I've said before that club needs support from Coventry City Council.
I won’t go into specific detail. “There are well-documented things about what’s happening down at Coventry. It is a magnificent club. Potentially huge. “But it needs support to build revenue streams and help from the council.
"That led to a decision to want to speak with Huddersfield and that's how the decision has been arrived at.
"

How he managed to find out so much information behind close doors within the three months he was with us is beyond me.

 

[James Smith]

You're comparing apples with oranges to an extent. The Liberty Stadium is much more reliant on the football club in terms of income - there are no big concerts there, no exhibition hall, no hotel, no underground casino. You would think therefore, that of the two, the management company at the Ricoh could afford to be more generous towards the football club in terms of the deal it offers than is the case at Swansea, but actually it is the other way around.

Wait a minute both stadiums have conference facilities http://www.liberty-stadium.com/events_venue.php and have held concerts http://www.liberty-stadium.com/gallery.php . Swansea despite all the Premiership TV money etc. coming in now still don't pay a serious rent and yet the way the Liberty Stadium is financed isn't sustainable. Plus The Swans aren't the only pitch using tenants at the Liberty there is also the Ospreys.

 

[dantheman]

Robins probably knew a lot more than any member on here (apart from PWKH)

This ^