Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
But what happens to the lease?
I think he means the lease would go back to them and would be open to lease out again?
why they only hold a lease they do not hold freehold council do so it would go back to them to do as they want with it
It didn't have to happen that way, there were many other options.
One of which would have been club going into administration with assets including the option to buy back Highfield Road.
But it was chosen not to present that as an option. Rather, the only option was build the Ricoh, we were told.
I think £6m from the AEHT could have bought HR back from the developers. AEHT would then have had a proper asset to hold in trust and could've given the club a long term lease.Who would have paid for the other options though? If you remember the money from Higgs kept our club afloat. This was after the money from the sale of HR had run out. No ground. No money. And by the look of it no means of raising funds to buy HR back. Admin wouldn't have raised cash. Just got away with some debts most probably. What an absolute fuckup.
I think £6m from the AEHT could have bought HR back from the developers. AEHT would then have had a proper asset to hold in trust and could've given the club a long term lease.
Instead they got 50% of a worthless company on a short term lease.
Anybody with an IQ higher than -2 can figure out the better deal.
I think it's more that it was probably never considered. From 1998 onwards the Arena was presented as the only option.It is easy to say that in hindsight. I don't think it was anything like as simple & obvious as you make out or that option would have been taken.
I think it's more that it was probably never considered. From 1998 onwards the Arena was presented as the only option.
I think it's more that it was probably never considered. From 1998 onwards the Arena was presented as the only option.
And I seriously (and I do mean seriously) don't know anyone who actually wanted to move to away from HR. I don't think there was a great appetite for it.
In all honesty mate, I think I'd more or less bought into it - the club seemed determined to sell it as the way forward and I trusted them more then than I do now!
Looking back, of course, it's turned out to be an epic disaster. When I see clubs like West Ham, seemingly set to embark on a similar course, I want to try to warn them. But in fairness, you've got to assume that they've done their homework and they've got a bit of money behind them. By the time we moved to the Ricoh we didn't have a pot to p*ss in, which is where all of the current mess started (imho).
The mess started because of the deal offered - it could and should have worked. It did mean bigger gates. Like or not the deal offered should never have even been offered as it always would break the club. At the very least a Swansea style model should have been encouraged. They hasn't a pot to piss in either. You glibly overlook the potential if foresight had been applied from the council .
I was definitely against moving away from HR, it was still fit for purpose for the size of crowds we were getting,a bit of updating was needed. I loved that place and the atmosphere when full was fantastic and going back to the 70/80's it was a great place to watch football.
I like the Ricoh and no doubt will grow to love it, if we go back I just don't think it was needed.
But I am an old fuddy duddy ,and I do not like many new stadiums, no character and they all look the same. I would have loved them to make the Ricoh stand out from other new builds once the decision to build it was made, like the new grounds in Germany for instance
And I seriously (and I do mean seriously) don't know anyone who actually wanted to move to away from HR. I don't think there was a great appetite for it.
The way it was presented was through the sale of HR and the resale of parts of what become the Ricoh complex (Tesco etc) we would get a new ground and have no mortgage on it - essentially a new ground for free
Was he suggesting that club owned the area that the ground and Tesco's is on then?
Was he suggesting that club owned the area that the ground and Tesco's is on then?
With a site that could generate addional revenues there would be more money coming into the club, an obvious benefit.
but like most salesman the actuality never lived up to the pitch.
SISU are holding out for Food and Bev in the Sahara. If they can't get it, they are off to the Gobi!
To be honest it was a long time ago and I struggle to remember what happened last week let alone years ago! from memory it was presented as the club owning the whole thing and using the money that generated, presumably things like the lease to Tesco, to fund everything. Certainly the impression I got was that we'd own the stadium, conference facilities etc and wouldn't be in debt to anyone for building a new ground. In those days I didn't think I had to give the figures too much scrutiny. Somewhat naively assumed that those in charge of the club knew what they were doing and were operating in our best interests!
Sure i heard somewhere that Richardson made alot of money out the land for himself by selling it before actually owning it or something?
Didn't the club pay for the decontamination of the Gas works land though? Sure we paid for that, but was all very murky.
Have put up the figures a few times. No our club never bought the land or paid for the decontamination. CCC bought it directly from the gas board. Our club put in about 700k IIRC. For that they were given the 50% share in ACL that they sold
Tescos paid for the decontamination and then paid cash on top.
In all honesty mate, I think I'd more or less bought into it - the club seemed determined to sell it as the way forward and I trusted them more then than I do now!
Looking back, of course, it's turned out to be an epic disaster. When I see clubs like West Ham, seemingly set to embark on a similar course, I want to try to warn them. But in fairness, you've got to assume that they've done their homework and they've got a bit of money behind them. By the time we moved to the Ricoh we didn't have a pot to p*ss in, which is where all of the current mess started (imho).
I'll be honest, I wasn't particularly against moving. Don't get me wrong I loved HR but apart from the East Stand a lot of the facilities left a little to be desired and I was excited about moving to a new ground. I went to some sort of forum (can't remember what it was, there was only a handful of people there - maybe it was a secret meeting!) with BR and he explained the plan and it all seemed very viable. I think if what he said had actually happened the move to the Ricoh would have been good for us.
Have put up the figures a few times. No our club never bought the land or paid for the decontamination. CCC bought it directly from the gas board. Our club put in about 700k IIRC. For that they were given the 50% share in ACL that they sold
Tescos paid for the decontamination and then paid cash on top.
Actual spend by club or council very little then.
I just don't understand some of the timescales, work started on the decontamination back in 1999, something that Richardson said would cost the club £18million at the time.
When exactly did work start on the stadium, and when did the council take over the project? Really can't remember, but if we had started work on it and then subsequently didn't have enough money to finish it, then surely we would have owned it in the first place rather than lashing out money on council owned land for a stadium we were supposedly to own?
These are important points whether you agree with them or not. But they deserve some pondering rather than just being dismissed with a knee jerk reaction.Correct.
IIRC they needed finance of 24m IIRC. This is where ACL come into it. The freehold isn't worth much whilst there is a lot of the leasehold remaining. The value is in the leasehold. The freehold gains in value as the lease runs down. This is why we are playing in Northampton. Joy is just after trying to devalue the leasehold with the thought of making the whole arena valueless.
The problem is that CCC don't have to sell the freehold. Councils rarely do sell them. If they do it is normally for landnot built on where they don't want to build themselves. And Joy hasn't done herself any favours with the lack of negotiations so far.
Correct.
IIRC they needed finance of 24m IIRC. This is where ACL come into it. The freehold isn't worth much whilst there is a lot of the leasehold remaining. The value is in the leasehold. The freehold gains in value as the lease runs down. This is why we are playing in Northampton. Joy is just after trying to devalue the leasehold with the thought of making the whole arena valueless.
The problem is that CCC don't have to sell the freehold. Councils rarely do sell them. If they do it is normally for landnot built on where they don't want to build themselves. And Joy hasn't done herself any favours with the lack of negotiations so far.
And they shouldn't.
There is no need for the club - or the owners of the club - to own the freehold.
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?