new stadium-devils advocate view (1 Viewer)

covcity4life · May 20, 2013

our own 100% owned ground would be good ey?

saying that it would be sisu owned and if they ever left the club they would probably only sell the ground 17 billion extra

bushyaus · May 20, 2013

covcity4life said:
our own 100% owned ground would be good ey?

saying that it would be sisu owned and if they ever left the club they would probably only sell the ground 17 billion extra

No problem with that.
The only problem would be if they borrowed money to build the stadium or if they paid for the stadium they then took out mortgages to borrow money and pile up more debt.
Anyway, not to worry, the new stadium is a red herring. SISU are trying to appease the Admin and FL so that they get hold of Ltd and not PH1V

RogerH · May 20, 2013

Like everything SISU do it would be set up to benefit SISU, NOT CCFC, as mentioned it would be viewed as an asset to borrow against. Potential disaster for the club, although I don't think it will happen. If "home" games are played elsewhere, the crowds will be so poor, the club could well fold.

BackRoomRummermill · May 20, 2013

It is a real mess all round,

Colin1883 · May 20, 2013

If sisu build and we move out of cov...

What is to stop sisu charging the club £1.2m a year in rent for playing in the new stadium?

Edit

Sorry I seem to of stolen rogerh's thunder..

BrisbaneBronco · May 20, 2013

Colin1883 said:
If sisu build and we move out of cov...

What is to stop sisu charging the club £1.2m a year in rent for playing in the new stadium?

Edit

Sorry I seem to of stolen rogerh's thunder..

Like in buying the stadium as Holdings and renting to Limited LOL

Jack Griffin · May 20, 2013

Buying out ACL/Higgs would be cheaper than building anew.

If the moneys there why don't SISU do that.. well they won't do either because that isn't their agenda.

SISU have never built anything, they do have a record of putting companies into administtration & asset stripping them.

BrisbaneBronco · May 20, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Buying out ACL/Higgs would be cheaper than building anew.

If the moneys there why don't SISU do that.. well they won't do either because that isn't their agenda.

SISU have never built anything, they do have a record of putting companies into administtration & asset stripping them.

Have SISU ever been given the opportunity to buy a stake in ACL or CCC share of Ricoh?
I do not think that they have, but I may be wrong. My understanding is that they were only offered better rental terms.
CCFC need to own the stadium or at least half of it. They also need 100% of CCFC related revenue streams because without the football these streams would not exist so why should ACL have their noses in the trough.
If SISU have not been offered the same deal as PH1V, then why not?
PS I hate SISU and want rid of them. I am also trying to understand their side of things as well as ACL. Both are equally at fault and the future of the club is in serious danger.
Sort it out u Numpties!!!!

Sky Blue Dal · May 20, 2013

Anything they touch will always end up in disaster for the Club... so no!!!

Since they have come aboard, all I have seen is one failure after another. By building a new stadium will not change that.

We need good owners with knowledge of football, with better realistic future plans and high ambitions to succeed and at the moment all we have are owners who only have there own agenda' are clueless in running a football club and made many bad decisions resulting in our downfall from the Championship.

SISU = FAILURE

mattylad · May 20, 2013

Give them the chance to run another 30-35m up in debt against the club no way...we need a resolution on the Ricoh end of story.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 20, 2013

If it didn't mean groundsharing for the next 3 years, providing crowds barely above 5,000 with the probability of L2 football to follow, then yes. In fact, why not stay at the Ricoh and use the money intended for building a ground to get a foot in the ACL door?

Otis · May 20, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If it didn't mean groundsharing for the next 3 years, providing crowds barely above 5,000 with the probability of L2 football to follow, then yes. In fact, why not stay at the Ricoh and use the money intended for building a ground to get a foot in the ACL door?

Exactly what I was just going to post. Almost word for word.

You're not me are you?

Stay at the Ricoh, concentrate on trying to build a winning side that would then result in bigger gates, while you build a new stadium (if that talk is something other than just fantasy and airheadedness).

Ground sharing elsewhere is going to result in tiny gates and fan alienation.

Brighton Sky Blue · May 20, 2013

Otis said:
Exactly what I was just going to post. Almost word for word.

You're not me are you?

Stay at the Ricoh, concentrate on trying to build a winning side that would then result in bigger gates, while you build a new stadium (if that talk is something other than just fantasy and airheadedness).

Ground sharing elsewhere is going to result in tiny gates and fan alienation.

My other prime concern is the cost of the ground being levied against the club-to me that's an instant deal breaker as we already have virtually no chance of getting the current figure down. If TF is to have a hope of getting League approval a 3-4 year deal to stay at the Ricoh in the meantime is crucial. If the club actually owned a new stadium outright with full access to all the money it generated then I don't see who among us would oppose it-it's the idea of groundsharing in the meantime which I think we all object to.

Otis · May 20, 2013

Well it sounds both the most plausible and also cost effective. If you think there is no future at the Ricoh, merely stay there as a tennant while you build another stadium.

Deleted member 5849 · May 20, 2013

Otis said:
Well it sounds both the most plausible and also cost effective. If you think there is no future at the Ricoh, merely stay there as a tennant while you build another stadium.

Doesn't that depend on being able to agree a deal to do so?

Brighton Sky Blue · May 20, 2013

Otis said:
Well it sounds both the most plausible and also cost effective. If you think there is no future at the Ricoh, merely stay there as a tennant while you build another stadium.

Ultimately our only way of accessing all of the Ricoh's income is through buying the freehold off the council and even then the money we could actually take from it is profit. If Fisher could repair relations with ACL and avoid a groundshare (which would almost certainly land us L2 football before the new ground is built), then it might, just might, come off.

Deleted member 5849 · May 20, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Ultimately our only way of accessing all of the Ricoh's income is through buying the freehold off the council

Don't have to buy the freehold to get access to everything, can set it up a bit like when you buy a flat on leasehold rather than freehold. Plus a Council owning that is a good way to guarantee nobody bothers to knock it down or turn it into offices, anyway.

Got no problem with the council owning the freehold, it's just how they own it that needs to be sorted.

Flying Fokker · May 20, 2013

Perhaps the 'management' fee of late have been stashed so they can pay for a new stadium? Or buy the Ricoh?

bigfatronssba · May 20, 2013

If this is a serious plan, then I think the opening of the new ground will be a blue square premier game.

Baginton · May 20, 2013

covcity4life said:
our own 100% owned ground would be good ey?

saying that it would be sisu owned and if they ever left the club they would probably only sell the ground 17 billion extra

Exactly what the council seem to be doing now!

Colin1883 · May 20, 2013

Silly question...
If CCC did sell the Ricoh would they be liable to repay any of the grants used to build the arena?

fernandopartridge · May 20, 2013

Colin1883 said:
Silly question...
If CCC did sell the Ricoh would they be liable to repay any of the grants used to build the arena?

It's not a silly question. I suppose you'd have to go back to the original grant application.

If the City Council did sell it, it wouldn't really take away its 'regenerating' properties as it is still providing employment and opportunities in the local area, so I'd be doubtful that any grants would have to be repaid.

Jack Griffin · May 20, 2013

BrisbaneBronco said:
Have SISU ever been given the opportunity to buy a stake in ACL or CCC share of Ricoh?
I do not think that they have, but I may be wrong. My understanding is that they were only offered better rental terms.
CCFC need to own the stadium or at least half of it. They also need 100% of CCFC related revenue streams because without the football these streams would not exist so why should ACL have their noses in the trough.
If SISU have not been offered the same deal as PH1V, then why not?
PS I hate SISU and want rid of them. I am also trying to understand their side of things as well as ACL. Both are equally at fault and the future of the club is in serious danger.
Sort it out u Numpties!!!!

My understanding is that they agreed heads of terms for buying Higgs share of stadium & then did nothing. Whether the council would have blocked that as the then council leader stated in the media was never actually tested.

I have no idea what has been said to Haskell, not I imagine have you. So you may be wise stop implying that favourtism is being shown, frankly that could be libellous.

Colin1883 · May 20, 2013

@ferndandopartridge

Nice1...

new stadium-devils advocate view (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency