Ricoh for next to nothing (1 Viewer)

Nick · Sep 9, 2013

Just a random question, a lot of people don't like the way that Sisu are trying to get the ground for next to nothing, illegal I don't think it is but immoral certainly.

However, if they managed to get the ricoh for a VERY low price would that not be decent business going forward for the club?

If when it was first built the owners drove a very hard bargain and got the ricoh for a cut price it would have been good for the club wouldn't it? (As long as it is the club...)

I'm not saying they would or will but is getting something for a huge discount good business?

Ashdown1 · Sep 9, 2013

Good business for the hedge fund............yes,........................ good business for the football club............I doubt it very much !!

Nick · Sep 9, 2013

Ashdown1 said:
Good business for the hedge fund............yes,........................ good business for the football club............I doubt it very much !!

But if it was for the club? I don't know, if they put a condition in the contract or something?

CCFCSteve · Sep 9, 2013

I think the concern is what SISU would do next ie keep the ground in a separate company, charge the club high rent, look to just sell it on at a profit etc etc. I'm sure there are terms that the council could put in place to stop some of the above but who knows (someone suggested just an extended leasehold, with the club benefitting from the revenue (that is available). I'm sure the council would go for this, not sure it would fit SISUs plans.

Also the building of the ground was funded by tax payers, many of whom aren't CCFC fans. I cant imagine they would be too happy.

The question really is whether joining the ground and club together would benefit CCFC or just SISU. The fact that SISUs behaviour has seen a total breakdown of trust between the two parties makes any deal extremely difficult to imagine.

chickentikkamasala · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
But if it was for the club? I don't know, if they put a condition in the contract or
something?

What happened to the last contract with the rent?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Sep 9, 2013

You trust SISU to unify the club and stadium, and move forward only for the good of the football team, Nick? If so, where does that confidence come from?

And what about all of the non-football income the stadium brings in? I know it's hard to truly strip down due to the inter-connected nature of many incomes; but it's a significant sum. Should they just pick that up 'on the cheap' too?

What right have they earned to have the income from the concerts and exhibition hall, for example?

Nick · Sep 9, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You trust SISU to unify the club and stadium, and move forward only for the good of the football team, Nick? If so, where does that confidence come from?

And what about all of the non-football income the stadium brings in? I know it's hard to truly strip down due to the inter-connected nature of many incomes; but it's a significant sum. Should they just pick that up 'on the cheap' too?

What right have they earned to have the income from the concerts and exhibition hall, for example?

I'm not saying I trust them with anything but IF it was to go towards fair play rules and the club then why not let them get a cut price deal for the lot by being horrible and driving a hard bargain! That's IF it would benefit the club...

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
I'm not saying I trust them with anything but IF it was to go towards fair play rules and the club then why not let them get a cut price deal for the lot by being horrible and driving a hard bargain! That's IF it would benefit the club...

But why should they get a 'cut price deal' for income streams they've played no hand in developing? They should pay for them, fair-and-square, surely? If so, and yes, unified incomes made the club stronger and helped FFP - then sure.

Why not just ask for a low rental sum, and ownership of all football-related incomes? That's a call I would support

thaiskyblue · Sep 9, 2013

sisu don't want to pay the market price, if they did, can they be trusted to do right by the club, my personal opinion is no , if they are willing to do the right thing they need to seriously re build bridges starting with Joy Seppela coming out of hibernation and fronting meetings with the fans, acl, ccc, Tim Fisher has demonstrated time and time again that he just does'nt connect well with any of these groups.

Astute · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
I'm not saying I trust them with anything but IF it was to go towards fair play rules and the club then why not let them get a cut price deal for the lot by being horrible and driving a hard bargain! That's IF it would benefit the club...

That is a massive IF Nick.

We have already seen how they have treated us fans. Us fans are our club as much as anything else. Without fans there is no club.

Whilst there is a ground for us to move in we always have a future. If SISU got their hands on it we would be at more risk than we are now. Why do they want the freehold so badly? Getting hold of a new long lease and a peppercorn rent would be the way forward. Their income would shoot up. We would be back in Coventry. But they want the freehold for a reason. And as we have seen the way they do things I don't trust them enough to get it. I am not alone here.

Would they separate our club from the stadium, offload our club cheaply......like for the quid they bought it........whilst leaving debts tied to it and keep the Ricoh? Would they load debts against the Ricoh?

If a sale of our club could be made where the ground would have to stay with the club and the Ricoh wasn't part of the club until the sale went through.....I know, a lot to ask......it would be a lot safer than letting it go to SISU. They are with us to make money for their investors. I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with the way they are trying to make money out of our club though.

grego_gee · Sep 9, 2013

CCFCSteve said:
I think the concern is what SISU would do next ie keep the ground in a separate company, charge the club high rent, look to just sell it on at a profit etc etc. I'm sure there are terms that the council could put in place to stop some of the above but who knows (someone suggested just an extended leasehold, with the club benefitting from the revenue (that is available). I'm sure the council would go for this, not sure it would fit SISUs plans.

SISU need a successful team back in the Prem, thats where the moiney is!
"IF" they were to milk the rent before we got there they would be shooting themselves in the foot!
If they were to "milk" it after we got there who would give a damn? Isn't that why owners are in the game?

CCFCSteve said:
Also the building of the ground was funded by tax payers, many of whom aren't CCFC fans. I cant imagine they would be too happy.

Funded by tax payers? they only put in £10m to the original development cost. They should have paid £17m to decontaminate the mess they made when it was a council owned gasworks site, but they manipulated the land sale to Tesco's to get them to pay for the decontamination so they kept their £17m in their pocket, thus saving £7m overall.

CCFCSteve said:
The question really is whether joining the ground and club together would benefit CCFC or just SISU. The fact that SISUs behaviour has seen a total breakdown of trust between the two parties makes any deal extremely difficult to imagine.

Of course geting back to the Ricoh would benefit the club. But depending on the deal the council do or don't-do, "HOW MUCH" would it benefit the club? SISU have demonstrated the FC provide the footfall to generate the profitability of the attached businesses. The club should be entitled to profit from that generated business. At the moment the structure the Council has put in place doesn't let them benefit from it. Building an entirely new stadium-development would give back the club full control of all those benefits. Its up to the council to alter the structure of the Ricoh management to match the benefits SISU would get by building an alternaticve development.

imp:

duffer · Sep 9, 2013

Two aspects to that Nick:

One is whether you'd trust SISU with the Ricoh? What are the odds they'd separate it out and the club would find themselves in a similar tenant/landlord (or holdings/ltd) position.

Even if you could resolve that (and let's face it given SISU's history who could trust them) the other one is the impact on the taxpayers in Coventry City, and the Higgs Charity, who invested money to get the thing built in the first place.

I don't think either of those parties should lose out solely to benefit the club, regardless of who owns it.

I'm still of the opinion that the club don't need to own the Ricoh to prosper, and if they want access to revenue streams etc. they should negotiate honestly to obtain them. There's a deal here somewhere that suits everyone, but I'm not sure our current owners will settle for anything less than the destruction of ACL. In return, ACL are clearly going to defend themselves, and undoubtedly would like to see new owners at the club because there's a complete lack of trust now. Hence where we are, I guess...

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 9, 2013

Astute said:
Getting hold of a new long lease and a peppercorn rent would be the way forward.

I don't disagree with you.

However none of the talk is about solutions and pushing for solutions, whenever suggested solutions are put up some of the mentalists resort to SISU lover/aoppeasement imagery etc.

And where does that get us? It detracts from any effort to find a solution, disrupts from that and causes more damage to unity and the future than anything else.

Would they separate our club from the stadium, offload our club cheaply......like for the quid they bought it........whilst leaving debts tied to it and keep the Ricoh? Would they load debts against the Ricoh?

The latter point is indeed a concern, what better way to fund yet another gamble for a push to the top then by getting some 'free' cash? The former less so however. If we accept that the whole point of the present effort is to distress ACL and get it more cheaply, then that accepts the premise that the Ricoh needs the club... and the club will not exist under such conditions, so making the gaining of the Ricoh utterly pointless.

If a sale of our club could be made where the ground would have to stay with the club and the Ricoh wasn't part of the club until the sale went through.....I know, a lot to ask......it would be a lot safer than letting it go to SISU.

Nopt necessarily disagreeing with you here. However, that would need, to reassure us that that is an option, some rhetoric from the council that suggests it is available. At present, we have none of that... and we never have. In fact, they seem particularly reluctant to part with their half share of ACL... to anybody. Let alone talk about increasing the length of the lease ACL have...

So then we're at impasse again, aren't we? The club has no value as-is, and it appears it has little hope of getting value in the future. So what does any takeover give us other than a temporary reprieve, and some bold promises, before the trudge to oblivion begins again?

duffer · Sep 9, 2013

grego_gee said:
SISU need a successful team back in the Prem, thats where the moiney is!
"IF" they were to milk the rent before we got there they would be shooting themselves in the foot!
If they were to "milk" it after we got there who would give a damn? Isn't that why owners are in the game?

Funded by tax payers? they only put in £10m to the original development cost. They should have paid £17m to decontaminate the mess they made when it was a council owned gasworks site, but they manipulated the land sale to Tesco's to get them to pay for the decontamination so they kept their £17m in their pocket, thus saving £7m overall.

Of course geting back to the Ricoh would benefit the club. But depending on the deal the council do or don't-do, "HOW MUCH" would it benefit the club? SISU have demonstrated the FC provide the footfall to generate the profitability of the attached businesses. The club should be entitled to profit from that generated business. At the moment the structure the Council has put in place doesn't let them benefit from it. Building an entirely new stadium-development would give back the club full control of all those benefits. Its up to the council to alter the structure of the Ricoh management to match the benefits SISU would get by building an alternaticve development.

imp:

Here we go again. £10m grant, plus the £14m to buy out the ACL mortgage (which wouldn't have been necessary had SISU paid the rent). That's at least £24m that Cov CC are down at the moment.

Higgs put in £6m, to buy out CCFC's share.

To be honest, I've got work to do today, but I'm always amazed at this line of reasoning. We know the Council has had to step in and risk taxpayers money to get the Ricoh built, and then do it again to prevent ACL being distressed into foreclosure. Why should they (we, if you pay council tax in Coventry) lose out because of the club's financial mismanagement? Ditto THe Higgs Trust, a charity.

SISU could 'milk the rent' for the same reason that they took massive management fees and loaded debt onto the club for the last few seasons - investment at the club clearly isn't actually a priority for them, if they can see an easier way of getting money, they'll most likely take it.

skybluetony176 · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
Just a random question, a lot of people don't like the way that Sisu are trying to get the ground for next to nothing, illegal I don't think it is but immoral certainly.

However, if they managed to get the ricoh for a VERY low price would that not be decent business going forward for the club?

If when it was first built the owners drove a very hard bargain and got the ricoh for a cut price it would have been good for the club wouldn't it? (As long as it is the club...)

I'm not saying they would or will but is getting something for a huge discount good business?

good business for shitsu, yes.

people need to understand that shitsu have no interest in running the club.

CovFan · Sep 9, 2013

Would be very good if SISU got the Ricoh on the cheap for the club if you trust them. I trust SISU about as much as I trust politicians.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 9, 2013

CovFan said:
I trust SISU about as much as I trust politicians.

Shame both sets are involved then!

grego_gee · Sep 9, 2013

duffer said:
Here we go again. £10m grant, plus the £14m to buy out the ACL mortgage (which wouldn't have been necessary had SISU paid the rent). That's at least £24m that Cov CC are down at the moment.

Higgs put in £6m, to buy out CCFC's share.

To be honest, I've got work to do today, but I'm always amazed at this line of reasoning. We know the Council has had to step in and risk taxpayers money to get the Ricoh built, and then do it again to prevent ACL being distressed into foreclosure. Why should they (we, if you pay council tax in Coventry) lose out because of the club's financial mismanagement? Ditto THe Higgs Trust, a charity.

SISU could 'milk the rent' for the same reason that they took massive management fees and loaded debt onto the club for the last few seasons - investment at the club clearly isn't actually a priority for them, if they can see an easier way of getting money, they'll most likely take it.

Ignoring your snide comments, thank you for endorsing my point.
I had left out the ACL bail-out to simplify the message.
but working on your figures £24m + 6m =£30
and the council would still have saved £17m that they should have paid for the gasworks clean-up!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that SISU would expect to get the freehold for less than £30m. I think they would see purchasing the Ricoh freehold for £30m as excellent business compared to the alternative of building another stadium.

The problem is that the council are not prepared to sell it for a figure like that!

imp:

skybluetony176 · Sep 9, 2013

grego_gee said:
Ignoring your snide comments, thank you for endorsing my point.
I had left out the ACL bail-out to simplify the message.
but working on your figures £24m + 6m =£30
and the council would still have saved £17m that they should have paid for the gasworks clean-up!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that SISU would expect to get the freehold for less than £30m. I think they would see that as excellent business as an alternative to building another stadium.

The problem is that the council are not prepared to sell it for a figure like that!

imp:

people who place the blame at the councils door need to remember that CCC dont represent CCFC fans they represent the coventry tax payer so they can only do whats best for them

RegTheDonk · Sep 9, 2013

grego_gee said:
Ignoring your snide comments, thank you for endorsing my point.
I had left out the ACL bail-out to simplify the message.
but working on your figures £24m + 6m =£30
and the council would still have saved £17m that they should have paid for the gasworks clean-up!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that SISU would expect to get the freehold for less than £30m. I think they would see purchasing the Ricoh freehold for £30m as excellent business compared to the alternative of building another stadium.

The problem is that the council are not prepared to sell it for a figure like that!

imp:

Maybe the council would sell for that figure.

Unfortunately, I doubt it would be a figure Joy would be prepared to pay.

Hobo · Sep 9, 2013

SISU have demonstrated they are not prepared to invest in the team, when they took over we were potential contenders for a play off place in the Championship at least.

Now look where we are.

They are demonstrating how hard nosed they can be.

They can afford to move us to Northampton?
Pay more rent at Northampton than was on offer at the Ricoh?

Is this a company who has a football club and its supporters at heart?

fernandopartridge · Sep 9, 2013

Hobo said:
SISU have demonstrated they are not prepared to invest in the team, when they took over we were potential contenders for a play off place in the Championship at least.

Now look where we are.

What a load of rubbish. They took over a side that was lower half of mid-table in the Championship at best.

Mucca Mad Boys · Sep 9, 2013

It's a paradox isn't it? One hand you have people who, back when the process of selecting a preferred bidder, were happy at the prospect of ACL being selected as it would 'unite club and stadium', but a large % of those would be vehemently opposed to SISU owning even a share in ACL/RICOH.

Mucca Mad Boys · Sep 9, 2013

Hobo said:
SISU have demonstrated they are not prepared to invest in the team, when they took over we were potential contenders for a play off place in the Championship at least.

So who's responsible for the team and manager now? They invested in the youth setup, which is paying off massively when certain people involved with the club no longer with us wanted to close down the academy...

DazzleTommyDazzle · Sep 9, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
So who's responsible for the team and manager now? They invested in the youth setup, which is paying off massively when certain people involved with the club no longer with us wanted to close down the academy...

Here we go with SBT's usual misinformation......

blueflint · Sep 9, 2013

SISU had a contract for the rent they broke that they can't be trusted end of

Bill Glazier · Sep 9, 2013

Two simple questions : How much would Sisu pay for the Ricoh? And how much would ACL sell it for?
We hear so much conjecture but this is all it really boils down to. Greg Dyke, get your act together and get them talking.

Cheshire Sky Blue · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
Just a random question, a lot of people don't like the way that Sisu are trying to get the ground for next to nothing, illegal I don't think it is but immoral certainly.

However, if they managed to get the ricoh for a VERY low price would that not be decent business going forward for the club?

If when it was first built the owners drove a very hard bargain and got the ricoh for a cut price it would have been good for the club wouldn't it? (As long as it is the club...)

I'm not saying they would or will but is getting something for a huge discount good business?

I have been struggling with this and my feelings are that ACL & CCC should encourage SISU to return to the RICOH on such a deal that will allow them to make a profit. Let them demonstrate the club can generate revenue and this will allow them to sell. But they must never allow SISU to take ownership of the RICOH.

The issue I have now is who would you trust with this fabulous asset? Can we trust anyone? Who would have the correct Ethical and social compass that ensured all benefit from the Arena?

I don’t have answers, save one. It must never be Fisher or Seppala.

Hobo · Sep 9, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
So who's responsible for the team and manager now? They invested in the youth setup, which is paying off massively when certain people involved with the club no longer with us wanted to close down the academy...

Because they've asset stripped the club they have to invest in youth. At this level it is the correct model to follow. However that doesn't mean they SISU are following that policy for that reason.

As for Fernandopartridge, if you don't believe a mid table or lower mid table team cannot push for the play offs with the right investment I find it hard to believe you have ever followed football.

Brian Clough Nottingham Forest comes to mind. Man Utd anyone? Reading, Swansea, Hull? Bolton? Wigan?

With the first two examples I am talking pre Premiership and play offs of course.

longjohnskyblue · Sep 9, 2013

Nick said:
Just a random question, a lot of people don't like the way that Sisu are trying to get the ground for next to nothing, illegal I don't think it is but immoral certainly.

However, if they managed to get the ricoh for a VERY low price would that not be decent business going forward for the club?

If when it was first built the owners drove a very hard bargain and got the ricoh for a cut price it would have been good for the club wouldn't it? (As long as it is the club...)

I'm not saying they would or will but is getting something for a huge discount good business?

Cov have 3 half decent results and all of a sudden all the crap sisu have done in the past is conveniently forgotten! It seems convenient to forget that sisu just over a season ago sold off pretty much the entire team, refused to invest, threatened to not fund the debts anymore and got coventry city relegated back into the 3rd tier of the football tree!

Sisu have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted with the club, yet because of a run of decent form (form is transient - it will dip eventually), there is a clamour to justify the unjustifiable). It is pretty much a given that if ever they get their hands on the arena the club will be sold off or they will simply rent the stadium out to the club. And do you think then rent sisu would chargee would be a peppercorn rent? They would most likely charge coventry a "market" value for a stadium that size.

They cannot be allowed to grab the arena at any cost! I cannot believe people are so quick to forgive what sisu have done!

Astute · Sep 9, 2013

grego_gee said:
Ignoring your snide comments, thank you for endorsing my point.
I had left out the ACL bail-out to simplify the message.
but working on your figures £24m + 6m =£30
and the council would still have saved £17m that they should have paid for the gasworks clean-up!

I haven't seen anything to suggest that SISU would expect to get the freehold for less than £30m. I think they would see purchasing the Ricoh freehold for £30m as excellent business compared to the alternative of building another stadium.

The problem is that the council are not prepared to sell it for a figure like that!

imp:

SISU are trying to get it for less than 30m. They don't have 30m. They need someone else to build this new ground for them. Timothy said so. Or did he move his lips again?

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 9, 2013

Hobo said:
SISU have demonstrated they are not prepared to invest in the team, when they took over

When SISU took over, they 8did* invest in the team.

That was the problem!

Astute · Sep 9, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
What a load of rubbish. They took over a side that was lower half of mid-table in the Championship at best.

But Fern, we are lower end of Div 3 now :facepalm:

Astute · Sep 9, 2013

grego_gee said:
SISU need a successful team back in the Prem, thats where the moiney is!
"IF" they were to milk the rent before we got there they would be shooting themselves in the foot!
If they were to "milk" it after we got there who would give a damn? Isn't that why owners are in the game?

Funded by tax payers? they only put in £10m to the original development cost. They should have paid £17m to decontaminate the mess they made when it was a council owned gasworks site, but they manipulated the land sale to Tesco's to get them to pay for the decontamination so they kept their £17m in their pocket, thus saving £7m overall.

Of course geting back to the Ricoh would benefit the club. But depending on the deal the council do or don't-do, "HOW MUCH" would it benefit the club? SISU have demonstrated the FC provide the footfall to generate the profitability of the attached businesses. The club should be entitled to profit from that generated business. At the moment the structure the Council has put in place doesn't let them benefit from it. Building an entirely new stadium-development would give back the club full control of all those benefits. Its up to the council to alter the structure of the Ricoh management to match the benefits SISU would get by building an alternaticve development.

imp:

I am sure that the club bought the land off the gas board. It was so cheap as it was contaminated. It was a good bit of business. The cost of the land and decontamination was much less than Tesco's paid for the part of it they had. The problem was that we were skint.

So only 10m was put into the build? Was this the 6m that Higgs put in? Was this the 14m mortgage that SISU tried the judicial review for? Or was there another 10m on top of all of this?

None of all of this was the fault of SISU. This is for sure. It is what they have done since that they are at fault for. Higgs wanted to sell their share to them. SISU pulled out of negotiations. Why was this?

Mucca Mad Boys · Sep 9, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
Here we go with SBT's usual misinformation......

How so? Did ACL appoint the manager and sign the players? Or did that 500k (+500k grant from FA) not happen?

Ricoh for next to nothing (1 Viewer)

Administrator

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New 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

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

longjohnskyblue

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency