robbo it still wouldn't match seppela's.
ACL could do this in my view; yes. Right now, following recent events, they don't have a contract with the club's owners. As such, any new deal - provided it didn't mean they lost money - could easily be entertained. It helps continue to raise the profile of the Arena, and increase footfall to the location which drives other business opportunities. These sorts of 'at cost' or 'marginal cost' deals in a wider context are common and don't contravene company law.
This though, has to be separated from the idea of selling the business, at a less than market rate to a third party. As that clearly would be against the best interests of the limited company running the Arena.
So, cheap leasehold. No problem. Doesn't help Joy's conundrum though
So why did CCC have to bail out ACL if things are so healthy?
1) To give them a better deal, making sure that they stay healthy. And so that they could offer the club a better deal.
2) Because the actions of their tenant were clearly making the bank uncomfortable. Nervous banks tend to reprice debt, making it more expensive - and limit overdrafts, making it trickier to manage cashflow. Lots of otherwise profitable businesses go under because of cashflow.
I presume everyone standing against the bailout (designed in part to help the club) is similarly horrified at the prospect of a forced sale to SISU at a loss to the taxpayer, no?
What is a fair price? Without knowing that how can sisu agree to pay a fair price or not?
How to calculate a fair price? Does it equal market value?
Then what is the market value? How to calculate a market value of an item that has only one potential buyer and one potential seller?
I suggest the price for the freehold should be the exact mony CCC has spent on the Ricoh. NotOnePennyMore.
Or less.
Sounds good to me. Ironically a stronger ACL assists CCFC in the rental negotiations.
So you agree it was a bailout?
Forget selling it.
As fans we should be behind a low rent, long term lease solution. With access to revenues from football.
All we should care about is success for the club, neither the freehold nor a high rent benefit the club, but rather third parties.
So you agree it was a bailout?
Forget selling it.
As fans we should be behind a low rent, long term lease solution. With access to revenues from football.
All we should care about is success for the club, neither the freehold nor a high rent benefit the club, but rather third parties.
But that isn't going to happen is it, so the only other solutions are build a new ground or the Arena is sold to the club.
But that isn't going to happen is it, so the only other solutions are build a new ground or the Arena is sold to the club.
I am sure an independent evaluation would give you a fair price. Wouldn't it? Maybe not in SISU's eyes, but if it turns out to be that they want to buy the Ricoh on the cheap as feared then they aren't thinking realistically.
Okay so lets say we take what CCC has pumped in, plus the £6Mil that the revenue's were purchased for and all other additional money that CCC/Higgs has pumped in how much does that come to in total?
Amongst many things -he mentioned the power of veto that ACL hold over any potential freehold deal that the council might strike with Otium for the Ricoh unless Otium pay their debt. He also referenced an upaid bill of £28,000- a fee that Joy Sepalla had personally committed to the charity that she would meet- (I missed what for?). He was very specific with his buisness reckoning suggesting that only 7% comes from CCFC- albeit did concede(I think) that associated sales were diffiicult to calculate. He also stated that circa 55% of revenue was in conferences etc and that the attraction of the Ricoh was global for such events.
He closed by saying that the door was open for talks, and that ACL wanted the football club at the Ricoh.
Independant evaluation? Is there such a thing?
I think Ms Seppala suggested they each chose a valuator and set the price to the average of the two.
Maybe that could work?
To your second part - how much have CCC (Leave out Higgs, as I think that they got 50% of ACL for their money?) pumped in? I don't know, but is the sum really interesting? It's the principle that is important.
It was designed to help the club and protect ACL (a 50% owned) council asset and involved public funds. In that sense, a bailout. However it protected an asset, and should generate some profit in terms of the repayment at commercial rates, so also an investment.
You'd agree it's wrong for the taxpayer to lose any more money to benefit the club's owners?
But that isn't going to happen is it, so the only other solutions are build a new ground or the Arena is sold to the club.
You replied to a chain of posts arguing if it was a bailout or not. You used the word bailout freely, so I just tried to challenge you on that (bailout or not).
I suggest the price for the freehold should be the exact mony CCC has spent on the Ricoh. NotOnePennyMore.
Or less.
joys already admited that the club wont own the ground should sh itsu buy it.
Another sisu disguise ?What she said was that the company being the club would not own the stadium - it would be another comapny under the SBS&L umbrella (probably ccfc Holdings). In effect it will still be seen as the club owning the stadium.
To your second part - how much have CCC (Leave out Higgs, as I think that they got 50% of ACL for their money?) pumped in? I don't know, but is the sum really interesting? It's the principle that is important.
And I gave you my answer. Where's yours?
If you're interested in principles; what about ACL's view? The subject of seemingly terrible behaviours by it's tenant in withholding rent and simultaneously talking about it's financial state to make it's principal lender jittery; but having overcome this and developed a business model that's now wholly different from that before. Projecting turnover and presumably enhanced profitability without the football club (who had 'moved on')and very much 'on the up'. Bringing in money from outside of the region - what were the stats with regards visitors from the UK/Europe? - and enhancing the reputation of Coventry as a place to do business/enjoy leisure time.
And you think tis should be gifted to SISU? If so, why? What have they shown you in recent times that gives you the confidence they would continue this trend? Or you think they should have it so they can throw it into the mix of a cheap freehold too so they can get out of town with a return on their investment?
Where sit these 'principles' within that context? The Ricoh, now, is more than bricks and mortar and a green bit in the middle
I said the FREEHOLD should be sold to the CLUB for the exact amount of money the CCC has pumped into the Ricoh project over time.
I never (in this thread) discussed selling the ACL to the club ... but over time that would be ideal.
If the club returned to the Ricoh rent-free, only paying the matchday costs and received ACL's share of matchday F/B - that could maybe be acceptable to sisu. I don't know.
I only want the club back in the city - preferbly the Ricoh, but a ne build-for-purpose stadium would be nice too.
The one thing that I think is the most unlikely is the council selling to Ricoh to SISU.
Especially if financially they do not have to.
I think this because of the way SISU have behaved in their business dealings with the council and their running of the football club.
I just can't see the council getting the majority vote they would need to sell it.
Sorry to me its either a rent deal, buy ACL or build a new stadium.
A rent deal and sell whilst in the champ play offs is SISU's best bet of recouping their money in my opinion.
If that turns out to be the case - and it certainly looks that way - then do you think the CCC would object to sisu building a new stadium?
So why the hell would we sell the free hold to a Sisu company if ACL are still in control of the rent? What are you expecting? Sisu to threaten ACL with extortionate rent to distress/lever them into a better deal for CCFC?
I don't understand this need for the club to own the freehold (aside from giving Seppala and asset to get her return from). Surely a long lease and/or buying into ACL are better for the club in the short term and the long term?
We need the revenues and we need low rent, these are both in ACL's hands.
If that turns out to be the case - and it certainly looks that way - then do you think the CCC would object to sisu building a new stadium?
Don't see why they should. They say two things: the Ricoh can survive without the Club and they "love" CCFC. So, why on earth should they object to the Club coming back to the City where it belongs?
My point exactly.
If they objected then it would be a case of trying to force out sisu.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?