Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Part from Paul Fletcher's Book (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter Nick
  • Start date Jan 15, 2014
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #1
Paul Fletcher's book: The Seven Go#den Secrets of a Successful Stadium How to Plan, Fund, Build and Operate a Sustainable Stadium Venue
But during the journey they completely lost the plot and deviated from their early aims and objectives.

There are many lessons to learn from their experiences. Initially Coventry City FC were on their own. They had located a derelict 72-acre site within 500 yards of the M6 Motorway which would have cost around £20m to buy and decontaminate.

Before any work began, they agreed to sell 50 per cent of the site, around 35 acres, to Tesco for around £62.5m. This left a profit of around £40m to build themselves a new stadium.

They then seemed to abandon their earlier objectives and became over ambitious, star struck and stupid.

Although they had appointed a fine architect in Geoff Mann, who at the time was a senior partner at RHWL London (and an avid Sky Blues fan), they began to consider the folly of a 60,000 all-seater stadium with closing roof and retractable pitch, costing well over £100million.

At the time the new Wembley Stadium was not certain to go ahead in London so Coventry City FC even considered that their location would be ideal for a new National Stadium and wasted time and money on a pipe dream that never had a chance.

As their ambitions got higher and more costly they approached Coventry City Council for some funding, suggesting that this was now becoming a ‘community’ project for the city.

With hindsight, in my humble opinion, this was a massive error, and one which Coventry City FC may regret for the next 100 years. As the project evolved, Coventry City Council took more and more ownership of the project not trusting the football club in many aspects of the joint venture.

By the time I arrived in Coventry the deal had been struck; in simple terms it was going to be a joint venture between the football club and the council with both parties owning 50 per cent of the equity.

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.

What I have explained in one paragraph took over 12 months to sort out and over £1m was spent on lawyers’ fees as the state aid fiasco continued through to a conclusion, which involved numerous highly paid lawyers As compensation the council offered Coventry City Football Club 50 per cent of the operating profit from the Ricoh Arena and the business plan forecasts were looking very favourable.

In addition CCFC would receive all their football related income streams.

But as the project evolved Coventry City FC were relegated from the Premier League and encountered massive financial problems.

They were so desperate to fight off administration that when under the chairmanship of the enigmatic Mike McGinnity, they sold their 50 per cent shareholding in the Ricoh Arena to the Higgs Charitable Trust for a reported £6m (Coventry Evening Telegraph August 2007).

As the Higgs Trust had previously invested around £2m in Coventry City Football Club, the price paid for the 50 per cent shareholding was around £4m.

At that time the Ricoh Arena had been valued at around £37m, therefore valuing Coventry City’s shareholding at around £18.5m, making the £4m purchase by the charity a snip. But as CCFC were so strapped for cash, they had no where else to go.

The major disadvantage for Coventry City FC when selling their shares in the Ricoh Arena was that they waved goodbye to all the Arena related incomes and all the football associated incomes such as catering income, car parking income, office rental income, rock concert income, international match income etc, which they had happily gifted to the early joint venture company.

In selling their shares to the Higgs Charitable Trust I felt, and probably CCFC also felt that the shares would be held in ‘safe-keeping’ until times improved.

Alan Higgs had been a lifelong fan of the Sky Blues whilst he was alive and left his fortune for the good of people of Coventry.

His son Sir Derek Higgs was an even bigger fan and served the club well for many years as both a Director of Coventry City FC and main Board Director of Arena Coventry Ltd.
Click to expand...

Probably old news and been posted many a time, but I didn't know some of it. (stolen from GMK)
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #2
I've not seen that before but it sums it up nicely and puts some of the figures in for me.
Thanks
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #3
50% nonsense "Before any work began, they agreed to sell 50 per cent of the site, around 35 acres, to Tesco "

Actually, CCFC never bought or owned the land.. CCC bought the land and sold it to Tesco, BR facilitated the deal.
Did he personally receive an agents fee for that service, I guess we'll never know?

 
D

DaleM

New Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #4
So if CCFC Ltd had given the Higgs the £6 million back they would of had 50% of it all back. The mind boggles as to why SISU never took that option up. Instead they waste millions upon millions and acrue debt like no tomorrow. I am flabergasted :thinking about:
 
S

Specs WT-R75

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #5
Captain Dart said:
50% nonsense "Before any work began, they agreed to sell 50 per cent of the site, around 35 acres, to Tesco "

Actually, CCFC never bought or owned the land.. CCC bought the land and sold it to Tesco, BR facilitated the deal.
Did he personally receive an agents fee for that service, I guess we'll never know?
Click to expand...

Where does the article state that CCFC bought the land? What I don't know is if there is any truth behind CCC buying the land on behalf of CCFC or not and splitting the difference... but it does seem that this is ultimately where the landlord & tenant arrangement begins to take place....
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #6
Buy 50% Higgs share and get all the football related income and they turned it down !!!
 
K

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #7
italiahorse said:
Buy 50% Higgs share and get all the football related income and they turned it down !!!
Click to expand...

madness
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #8
Perhaps if CCC profited from the club in this deal they should consider that in a deal with SISU.
Any benefit gifted should be in the clubs name and tied up legally.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #9
also the accounts of club and charity clearly show purchase price at £6.5m for the 50% shares that happened in December 2003.

The accounts of club 2002 costs spent on the project at £18.4. However what was transferred to the joint venture was the costs spent 18.4m less the debts owing by the club for those costs £11.6m. The net amount was 6.8m and the club received 6.5m from the Charity
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #10
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.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm

Council screwing the club over?
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #11
hill83 said:
Hmmmmm

Council screwing the club over?
Click to expand...

I am also not sure what this bit means.

In my simpleton terms, the club had a deal on the table but didn't have enough money up front so went to the council for help, the council then hijacked the deal and took all of the profit after saying the club would get some? Maybe somebody can expand on it.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #12
Nick said:
I am also not sure what this bit means.

In my simpleton terms, the club had a deal on the table but didn't have enough money up front so went to the council for help, the council then hijacked the deal and took all of the profit after saying the club would get some? Maybe somebody can expand on it.
Click to expand...

That's the way I read it, I already had an idea about this before reading this thread anyway. Shame really. It could have been all so much different.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #13
Seems so.

hill83 said:
Hmmmmm

Council screwing the club over?
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #14
hill83 said:
That's the way I read it, I already had an idea about this before reading this thread anyway. Shame really. It could have been all so much different.
Click to expand...

Does anybody know who was in charge of the council when this all went down? Trying not to let his turn into a council baddie / sisu baddie thread rather just the facts (or stated facts)
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #15
To be fair the 'State Aid' point could be legit. In which case, tough titties to the club. Do it right in the first place and you won't get burnt.

Either way it's one massive clusterfuck.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #16
Yeah, could be. However, did they let the club know that beforehand? I guess we'll never know and we are where we are. Shame, as it could have been so different.

hill83 said:
To be fair the 'State Aid' point could be legit. In which case, tough titties to the club. Do it right in the first place and you won't get burnt.

Either way it's one massive clusterfuck.
Click to expand...
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #17
italiahorse said:
Buy 50% Higgs share and get all the football
related income and they turned it down !!!
Click to expand...

Sisu turned it down stating at the time that purchasing the higgs share would not return income streams, so what was the point.
Something doesn't add up ?
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #18
Fletcher must know a fair bit as didn't he work for the club AND ACL?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #19
Nick said:
I am also not sure what this bit means.

In my simpleton terms, the club had a deal on the table but didn't have enough money up front so went to the council for help, the council then hijacked the deal and took all of the profit after saying the club would get some? Maybe somebody can expand on it.
Click to expand...

Can't see that such a simplistic version of events being wholly true. Reason why? Well, in contract discussions of this magnitude, solicitors are all over them like a tramp with a bag of chips. It's crazy to think any such deal could proceed to agreement phase or beyond, and then be scuppered by one party being unable to fulfill it's obligations, leaving the other party scuppered. Above and beyond everything else, the agreement and contract would be nullified by such actions in any case; and it'd be back-to-square-one.

What's more probable is that both parties set off with the ambition of shared ownership, and during the negotiations it becomes apparent that state aid rules prohibits it. At that point, negotiations begin again; at which point, CCC retaining freehold, and CCFC getting a share of the operating profit of the leasehold could be been the next-best scenario to visit.

If this was agreed, and CCFC then sells that share to Higgs because of it's own financial mismanagement - as hill83 eludes to above - then is that still the council 'shafting' them? Look at OSB58's explanation behind the seemingly unfair difference between c.£6m and c.£18m above. It's easy to get uptight until you begin to think laterally, or research the facts
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #20
Nick said:
Fletcher must know a fair bit as didn't he work for the club AND ACL?
Click to expand...

Yes and he said on a radio interview being a go between was a nightmare. SISU didn't trust him as they thought he was working for ACL. ACL didn't trust him because they thought he was in the SISU camp.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #21
That is what I am asking for, just people who have researched or know more about it as the bit in that article / snippet doesn't really elaborate much. After seeing how SISU can wriggle out of things with loopholes there is probably always ways to do things.

If CCFC were guaranteed to make shed loads of profit, why could they not just be the broker? Take the money from tesco, give a % to the landowners and keep the profit? I know it is never as simple as that though.
 
S

Specs WT-R75

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #22
The club or BR found a deal whereby spend 20m + 12m decontaminating they will get a 60m return from Tesco.

The club then agrees to enter a 50-50 deal with CCC sharing the above deal. Rather than getting a loan for their share of the land deal (16m) which would have cemented 50% ownership of everything they let the council complete the deal on their behalf and we have been getting screwed ever since one way or another...

It certainly puts the whole who funded the building of the Ricoh into a different light doesn't it. I can almost understand why the club would rather look to build a new stadium if not for the pain we will all suffer in the interim. Maybe the club really does need to move on....
 
S

Specs WT-R75

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #23
Nick said:
That is what I am asking for, just people who have researched or know more about it as the bit in that article / snippet doesn't really elaborate much. After seeing how SISU can wriggle out of things with loopholes there is probably always ways to do things.

If CCFC were guaranteed to make shed loads of profit, why could they not just be the broker? Take the money from tesco, give a % to the landowners and keep the profit? I know it is never as simple as that though.
Click to expand...

Probably because Tesco would only buy the land once it was decontaminated... but I am sure there would have been contracts in place that banks would have loaned money against...
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #24
Yes he must Nick but you might expect him to get some of the facts we can check from public record correct too
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #25
Surely, it's not simplistic but just a concise version of events? A bit like saying in 1939 there was a war and it lasted for six years until 1945. The end.

I know it may be objectionable to you but Fletcher really should know as he was on the inside.

We'll never know the truth of any of it though, will we?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Can't see that such a simplistic version of events being wholly true. Reason why? Well, in contract discussions of this magnitude, solicitors are all over them like a tramp with a bag of chips. It's crazy to think any such deal could proceed to agreement phase or beyond, and then be scuppered by one party being unable to fulfill it's obligations, leaving the other party scuppered. Above and beyond everything else, the agreement and contract would be nullified by such actions in any case; and it'd be back-to-square-one.

What's more probable is that both parties set off with the ambition of shared ownership, and during the negotiations it becomes apparent that state aid rules prohibits it. At that point, negotiations begin again; at which point, CCC retaining freehold, and CCFC getting a share of the operating profit of the leasehold could be been the next-best scenario to visit.

If this was agreed, and CCFC then sells that share to Higgs because of it's own financial mismanagement - as hill83 eludes to above - then is that still the council 'shafting' them? Look at OSB58's explanation behind the seemingly unfair difference between c.£6m and c.£18m above. It's easy to get uptight until you begin to think laterally, or research the facts
Click to expand...
 
Last edited: Jan 15, 2014

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #26
Really not sure how the council screwed anyone to be honest. The club asked them in. The club was mismanaged to the point of needing finance. The club sold their share of ACL (in fact the better share as it included all football revenue AND 50% rather than just 50%). The club then refused to pay rent nullifying the preferential terms they had.

I'm sure Joy is very happy the council spotted state aid rules early. She'd hate to have to instigate a JR to get the club to pay back £20m.
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #27
Specs WT-R75 said:
Probably because Tesco would only buy the land once it was decontaminated... but I am sure there would have been contracts in place that banks would have loaned money against...
Click to expand...

That's what I mean, if they had solid legal bits from Tesco saying they will pay or else, or even taking a "deposit" which would be used to decontaminate.

Who was in charge of the council? I am not making accusations but could it have been "one for the boys" ?
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #28
shmmeee said:
Really not sure how the council screwed anyone to be honest. The club asked them in. The club was mismanaged to the point of needing finance. The club sold their share of ACL (in fact the better share as it included all football revenue AND 50% rather than just 50%). The club then refused to pay rent nullifying the preferential terms they had.

I'm sure Joy is very happy the council spotted state aid rules early. She'd hate to have to instigate a JR to get the club to pay back £20m.
Click to expand...

What happened with the bit about the council saying they couldn't share the profits? Who was the leader back then?

Were the clubs finances that bad that no bank would touch them so went to the council for help? Surely if somebody had such a money spinner then banks would fight to lend them money?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #29
OF course you can't.

shmmeee said:
Really not sure how the council screwed anyone to be honest. The club asked them in. The club was mismanaged to the point of needing finance. The club sold their share of ACL (in fact the better share as it included all football revenue AND 50% rather than just 50%). The club then refused to pay rent nullifying the preferential terms they had.

I'm sure Joy is very happy the council spotted state aid rules early. She'd hate to have to instigate a JR to get the club to pay back £20m.
Click to expand...
 

Nick

Administrator
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #30
oldskyblue58 said:
Yes he must Nick but you might expect him to get some of the facts we can check from public record correct too
Click to expand...

You would have thought he would be very careful with what he said when he was / is sort of in the middle.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #31
Nick said:
What happened with the bit about the council saying they couldn't share the profits?
Click to expand...

We'll they couldn't. What I don't get is how did it get that far? Why didn't anyone pull out? I think that's also misleading, the "profits" from why I can tell were used to build the Ricoh. They would either be spent by us or the council. But happy to be proven wrong.

By the way as far as I know the council found the site not the club. This version of events doesn't quite match up with my memories at the time. I'm at work now but I'll ask around a few people who were about at the time and see if I can find anything out.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #32
We also need to remember here that this is a guy writing a book for sale. It's hardly historical record.
 

mrtickle

Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #33
shmmeee said:
Really not sure how the council screwed anyone to be honest. The club asked them in. The club was mismanaged to the point of needing finance. The club sold their share of ACL (in fact the better share as it included all football revenue AND 50% rather than just 50%). The club then refused to pay rent nullifying the preferential terms they had.

I'm sure Joy is very happy the council spotted state aid rules early. She'd hate to have to instigate a JR to get the club to pay back £20m.
Click to expand...

I don't care the owners mismanaged the club. I care the club is now in the shit because of it. I care that It appears the council benefitted. They don't like the new owners (and I'm with them on that) but they seem to have forgotten the fans. This city needs the club in the city. The council may well end up with a white elephant and the club might end up doomed.

Also, I get so annoyed with the amount of fans that seem gleeful that we are so in the shit. The same ones like to slag the team when we are poor and seem happy we loose.


Rant over.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #34
council scum x3

freedom of speech
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Jan 15, 2014
  • #35
Nick said:
I am also not sure what this bit means.

In my simpleton terms, the club had a deal on the table but didn't have enough money up front so went to the council for help, the council then hijacked the deal and took all of the profit after saying the club would get some? Maybe somebody can expand on it.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that CCFC ran out of money and CCC took over the project. Some of the funding for the project came from a European grant that was restricted to public sector so CCC could obtain the grant but couldn't then give 50% to CCFC as they were not a public sector organisation. This is the point at which ACL came into existence as a workaround as the council could give CCFC 50% of that company without breaking any rules regarding the funding.

CCFC then sold their 50% share (which included all matchday revenue) to Higgs for the same amount they had put into the project. CCFC essentially got all their money back. There was then an agreement put in place for CCFC to buy back that share at a set formula price, believed to be in the £10-12m range. CCFC never activated this and as Ltd is liquidated that option will no longer be available.
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?