PKH - Academy And Higgs Talks Are Going Well (8 Viewers)

covhead1 · Sep 9, 2013

Talks Progessing Says PKH
Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen has admitted his delight at seeing Coventry City Academy teams back at the Alan Higgs Centre..
Yesterday, some of City's younger age teams took on Swansea City in matches at the centre at Allard Way and he told the Coventry Telegraph: “It’s really good to see the teams back there.“Negotiations are going well and we’re happy for the Academy to play at the centre while the talks are on-going.
“We hope to conclude negotiations soon. We have every intention of reaching a positive outcome and I believe Steve Waggott (Coventry City's development director) has every intention of reaching one as well.”
The Coventry Telegraph also said that there is talk of a deal being done as early as next week.
More on this: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/sky-blues-move-closer-moving-5861885

Could this be a prelude to talks about getting us back at the Ricoh,
shit i hope so

ESB · Sep 9, 2013

I hope this works out and proves to be the start of a reconcilliation process.

ccfcway · Sep 9, 2013

lets get the "welcome back" balloons out

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Sep 9, 2013

ESB said:
I hope this works out and proves to be the start of a reconcilliation process.

Can't see it tbh, the club are just desperate to retain there academy 2 status

I am of the belief now that the club will now only return to the Ricoh if they have part ownership or acquire the income streams from the arena. We know ACL won't agree to this after the way SISU have conducted themselves

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 9, 2013

CCFC said:
Can't see it tbh, the club are just desperate to retain there academy 2 status

In itself that is a positive thing though. The easy thing to do would be to close it down, and save some cash.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Sep 9, 2013

At least it would be a step in the right direction.

bigfatronssba · Sep 9, 2013

Perhaps its going well because Fisher has kept his nose out and left it to Waggot?

Hobo · Sep 9, 2013

Lets hope the progress continues. We need a good youth set up.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Sep 9, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
In itself that is a positive thing though. The easy thing to do would be to close it down, and save some cash.

Yea it is a positive, but any hope that this may be the catalyst to agree a deal to get back to the Ricoh is false hope imo

letsallsingtogether · Sep 9, 2013

Yes Sisu had no choice they themselves are the one's over the barrel

Need level 2 or no youth team. no youth team and it goes against Pressleys directive given to him by them.

Well done Higgs charity for holding tight make them grovel, after all Fisher blamed it all on you?

duffer · Sep 9, 2013

What a difference - the FA stick to their rules, and the academy seems to be heading back to Cov.

The FL break theirs, and the first team is stuck in Northampton.

shmmeee · Sep 9, 2013

duffer said:
What a difference - the FA stick to their rules, and the academy seems to be heading back to Cov.

The FL break theirs, and the first team is stuck in Northampton.

To be fair the academy never left Cov.

Though its interesting the FA can "tell a private business what to do" and the FL can't.

ccfclinney · Sep 9, 2013

It doesn't come as a supprise that waggott is now talking to them. Which I was saying last week what a great job waggott is actually doing.. It will be another great move by him if he sorts a deal out with the Higgs centre.

Keep fisher out of it and let waggott do the talking to ACL about the stadium as well and we might see progress

Well done mr waggott

PUSB

lordsummerisle · Sep 9, 2013

shmmeee said:
To be fair the academy never left Cov.

Though its interesting the FA can "tell a private business what to do" and the FL can't.

What the Football League should do is make a rule that no team can play in a ground that is not owned by that team(no Ltds,Holdings, Leisure or whatever).

Team and grounds should be as one.

If the League had said that we have to play at The Ricoh because it is in Coventry, then what would stop ACL from charging £2million, £3million, £5million pound rent a year?

It;s the seperation of ground and club that has been the problem, and should never have been allowed to happen unless we could show the League when we sold Highfield Road that we had the funds to build and own the Arena.

It happens to lots of other clubs, excessive "rent" being paid because the two are seperated, Walsall and Leeds spring to mind(though in Walsall's case certainly it goes to the club owner through a different rental company).

Shouldn't be allowed to happen, means that situations such as we have, with one or both holding each other to ransom.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 9, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
Shouldn't be allowed to happen, means that situations such as we have, with one or both holding each other to ransom.

Palace were the extreme one under Ron Noades, drove Goldberg to ruin, and Palace into admin a second time under Jordan.

Ultimately didn't do Noades much good though, as effectively he wasn't getting the cash for rent as theclub was unable to pay, although he did own a nice piece of real estate in London (note, Noades a property developer, had a knack of buying clubs with nice real estate, funding them to a certain level, leaving them in crisis but himself well off).

(Thinking about it, calling Croydon 'nice' was my first mistake there!)

Grendel · Sep 9, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
Yes Sisu had no choice they themselves are the one's over the barrel

Need level 2 or no youth team. no youth team and it goes against Pressleys directive given to him by them.

Well done Higgs charity for holding tight make them grovel, after all Fisher blamed it all on you?

Didn't the Higgs centre sign the CVA?

hill83 · Sep 9, 2013

Grendel said:
Didn't the Higgs centre sign the CVA?

Yep. It'll be glossed over though.

Grendel · Sep 9, 2013

hill83 said:
Yep. It'll be glossed over though.

Hardly grovelling then is it?

hill83 · Sep 9, 2013

Grendel said:
Hardly grovelling then is it?

Nope. It'll be glossed over though.

mark82 · Sep 10, 2013

hill83 said:
Nope. It'll be glossed over though.

Do you think it'll be glossed over?

edgy · Sep 10, 2013

Would be nice to find out from PWKH whether he thinks any 'grovelling' is going on or whether he thinks its two parties taking part in constructive talks to enable one element of CCFC to return to Coventry.

ccfcdan · Sep 10, 2013

Its nice to know I was right about those block bookings being cancelled as the academy were returning.

shmmeee · Sep 10, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
What the Football League should do is make a rule that no team can play in a ground that is not owned by that team(no Ltds,Holdings, Leisure or whatever).

Team and grounds should be as one.

If the League had said that we have to play at The Ricoh because it is in Coventry, then what would stop ACL from charging £2million, £3million, £5million pound rent a year?

It;s the seperation of ground and club that has been the problem, and should never have been allowed to happen unless we could show the League when we sold Highfield Road that we had the funds to build and own the Arena.

It happens to lots of other clubs, excessive "rent" being paid because the two are seperated, Walsall and Leeds spring to mind(though in Walsall's case certainly it goes to the club owner through a different rental company).

Shouldn't be allowed to happen, means that situations such as we have, with one or both holding each other to ransom.

Tell that to the multitude of successful clubs that rent their stadium.

The key is engaging your fanbase and controlling the wage bill, neither of which we've done particularly well.

PWKH · Sep 10, 2013

ccfcdan said:
Its nice to know I was right about those block bookings being cancelled as the academy were returning.

Wrong.

All the bookings that were taken before talks started have been and will be honoured. There were no cancellations of block bookings.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

lordsummerisle · Sep 10, 2013

shmmeee said:
Tell that to the multitude of successful clubs that rent their stadium.

The key is engaging your fanbase and controlling the wage bill, neither of which we've done particularly well.

If Man City lost their Billionaire owners would they be so successful, and be able to pay for the City of Manchester Stadium?(Think it's rented off the council, though could be wrong, and don't know how much it is if they do).

West Ham of course about to sell Upton Park for housing and move into a state of the art Olympic Stadium for £2million rent(don't know if they will get access to F@B?), if they had a couple of bad seasons would they be sustainable?

Of course you could be referring to those clubs such as Swansea, Doncaster and Hull that pay a peppercorn rent(if any at all) and have full access to any revenues generated?

Edit: Actually the City of Manchester Stadium appears to be owned by the club, after paying £20million to convert it to football use(The council paid £22million towards that too). The Stadium cost £112million to build, £77million provided by Sport England, £35million by the Council.

So Manchester City did quite okay out of that deal, and the Council provided £55million of funding for it(considerably more than Coventry Council paid towards the Arena).

Maybe Manchester City Council saw the club as a community asset?

duffer · Sep 10, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
What the Football League should do is make a rule that no team can play in a ground that is not owned by that team (no Ltds,Holdings, Leisure or whatever).

Team and grounds should be as one.

If the League had said that we have to play at The Ricoh because it is in Coventry, then what would stop ACL from charging £2million, £3million, £5million pound rent a year?

It;s the seperation of ground and club that has been the problem, and should never have been allowed to happen unless we could show the League when we sold Highfield Road that we had the funds to build and own the Arena.

It happens to lots of other clubs, excessive "rent" being paid because the two are seperated, Walsall and Leeds spring to mind(though in Walsall's case certainly it goes to the club owner through a different rental company).

Shouldn't be allowed to happen, means that situations such as we have, with one or both holding each other to ransom.

I see your point, but I think the FL's rules as they are drafted are quite adequate, if only they were enforced. I'd say it's up to teams to decide how they fulfil them - the key to it is that they're not allowed to move out of their area.

There's no difference to my my mind between building a stadium that costs you £1m a year to finance, or renting one that costs you the same. It wasn't the rent that broke CCFC Ltd, or loaded it with £60m debt. It was SISUs plan to distress ACL rather than negotiate in good faith (or buy the share that was available) that has brought us here, in my opinion.

There doesn't appear to be a rent that will satisfy SISU.

[Sorry: Appreciate I'm going OT here. Just offering my opinion - I'll stop now!]

lordsummerisle · Sep 10, 2013

duffer said:
I see your point, but I think the FL's rules as they are drafted are quite adequate, if only they were enforced. I'd say it's up to teams to decide how they fulfil them - the key to it is that they're not allowed to move out of their area.

There's no difference to my my mind between building a stadium that costs you £1m a year to finance, or renting one that costs you the same. It wasn't the rent that broke CCFC Ltd, or loaded it with £60m debt. It was SISUs plan to distress ACL rather than negotiate in good faith (or buy the share that was available) that has brought us here, in my opinion.

There doesn't appear to be a rent that will satisfy SISU.

[Sorry: Appreciate I'm going OT here. Just offering my opinion - I'll stop now!]

But the forcing a club to stay in the local area could lead to situations which many fear such as Sisu owning the Arena, selling the club, then charging whatever level of rent that they want as the club can't go anywhere else.

The same fear could apply to anybody buying the Ricoh, but not owning the club, which is why I think that Club and Stadium should always be indivisible.

duffer · Sep 10, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
But the forcing a club to stay in the local area could lead to situations which many fear such as Sisu owning the Arena, selling the club, then charging whatever level of rent that they want as the club can't go anywhere else.

The same fear could apply to anybody buying the Ricoh, but not owning the club, which is why I think that Club and Stadium should always be indivisible.

Yep, I can see your point. I suppose my argument is that stadium rentals are typically leases over a long period, and the club should be able to budget for, manage and control that.

If you took away a club's freedom to rent rather than buy, does it mean that some clubs wouldn't be able to afford new stadia?

Having said that, clearly clubs need protecting from themselves - I suppose more rules in this area would've stopped us getting involved in the Ricoh in the first place.

Personally speaking, I still think the League's rules as they are should have been enforced properly. This particular issue wasn't triggered by a landlord trying to hold the club at ransom, imho, it was the utterly unreasonable approach of the tenant that has brought us here.

davebart · Sep 10, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
But the forcing a club to stay in the local area could lead to situations which many fear such as Sisu owning the Arena, selling the club, then charging whatever level of rent that they want as the club can't go anywhere else.

The same fear could apply to anybody buying the Ricoh, but not owning the club, which is why I think that Club and Stadium should always be indivisible.

On the other hand if the council had not owned Chester's Diva stadium then Chester FC would not exist today. The club (City) was destroyed by the owners but fortunately the ground was owned by the council.

ricohman · Sep 10, 2013

Interesting that the good man steve waggot is involved in this, can we send him in for ricoh talks also

fernandopartridge · Sep 10, 2013

edgy said:
Would be nice to find out from PWKH whether he thinks any 'grovelling' is going on or whether he thinks its two parties taking part in constructive talks to enable one element of CCFC to return to Coventry.

shmmeee said:
Tell that to the multitude of successful clubs that rent their stadium.

The key is engaging your fanbase and controlling the wage bill, neither of which we've done particularly well.

So why did the Arabs bother buying Eastlands?

fernandopartridge · Sep 10, 2013

edgy said:
Would be nice to find out from PWKH whether he thinks any 'grovelling' is going on or whether he thinks its two parties taking part in constructive talks to enable one element of CCFC to return to Coventry.

I assume CCC aren't involved in these negotiations.

Hobo · Sep 10, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
What the Football League should do is make a rule that no team can play in a ground that is not owned by that team(no Ltds,Holdings, Leisure or whatever)

Team and grounds should be as one.

If the League had said that we have to play at The Ricoh because it is in Coventry, then what would stop ACL from charging £2million, £3million, £5million pound rent a year?

It;s the seperation of ground and club that has been the problem, and should never have been allowed to happen unless we could show the League when we sold Highfield Road that we had the funds to build and own the Arena.

It happens to lots of other clubs, excessive "rent" being paid because the two are seperated, Walsall and Leeds spring to mind(though in Walsall's case certainly it goes to the club owner through a different rental company).

Shouldn't be allowed to happen, means that situations such as we have, with one or both holding each other to ransom.

Regarding FL:
The problem as I see it, based on a reply from the FL, is they accepted Holdings and Ltd as one entity. The fact players registrations and the share may have lay in different companies was not deemed to breach rules.

The problem the FL faced was when one Co went into administration.

If you remember the original FL statement still saw Holdings and Ltd as one I.e Coventry City FC.

Their stance seemed less robust once SISU started to argue a case for Holdigs to have the share and probably argue from A Company Law stance.

They were relieved when the administrator went for Otium as it brought the two entities back together. The sad thing was a SISU company would always win any administrators vote because of the debt owed (inflated or not) to themselves.

I don't think the problem has gone away for the FL, especially if Coventry fans keep asking questions of them.

I would like to think, whatever your stance or whoever you apportion blame to...Coventry fans are campaigning on behalf of our club...the club being the team that turns out on the pitch and its fans..not owners or landlords past and present.

Remember the people that go into Sixfields and the ones who stand on the Hill are still fans....it's none of their faults the club are in this situation. It doesn't matter who ends up being right or wrong as long as we get through it....and I would suggest help other fans/clubs not having to endure the process we are experiencing.

James Smith · Sep 10, 2013

Grendel said:
Didn't the Higgs centre sign the CVA?

Grendel said:
Hardly grovelling then is it?

To be fair to the Higgs Centre, as a charity I don't think that they're allowed to reject the CVA, as just an investor the board of ACL were responsible for the decision to reject and not the Higgs Charity.

Grendel · Sep 10, 2013

James Smith said:
To be fair to the Higgs Centre, as a charity I don't think that they're allowed to reject the CVA, as just an investor the board of ACL were responsible for the decision to reject and not the Higgs Charity.

It's illegal for charities to reject a CVA?

PKH - Academy And Higgs Talks Are Going Well (8 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

New 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency