SISU & Les Reid not talking true? No need to own the RICOH

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
As part of the prep work for a PH.d research project I asked the FL the question, How many FL clubs own / lease stadiums they play in?

I hope they will forgive me for publishing this, but I would be really interested in your views. It will help me.

The FL state the ratio of Football clubs in the FL that own their stadiums or lease them you will find that 58% actually lease them. This adds to the suggestion that I asserted in an earlier post that CCFC do not need to own the RICOH.

The FL could not say which clubs, but the data suggests that of 72 FL clubs only 30 own the stadium they play in whilst 42 lease them.

If you mail the FL requesting said info, I am sure they will send you the data.

So why do so many clubs manage to make the lease process work but SISU can not?
Why did Les Reid not research this and challenge JS?

Big up to the FL for being open and honest. Thanks for their input and your response as fans
 
Last edited:

RPHunt

New Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,072
0
0
What the FL didn't tell you about those clubs that do lease; the average rent paid is 75p; clubs earn, on average, £3m a year from sponsorship of the stadium and have income, on average, of £10m from the sale of pop, pies and letting out the changing rooms for Gary Glitter tribute nights.

These figures are available to only a few people on here - good luck with your PhD.
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,975
1,212
163
.....I hope they will forgive me for publishing this, but I would be really interested in your views. It will help me.....
I'm no expert in finance, and certainly not when its football related. But you revelation suggesting that 42 probably lease their grounds does blow a hole in Les and SISUs claim that CCFC MUST own its own ground.

I would assume that as long as they have access to income from ticket sales, merchandise, F&B, leasing car park space etc. etc. then so what if they lease the ground? In some respects I would say its like your own home. Many people rent their house, but if you get a mortgage, then ultimately in the long run you own your property and you can stop paying out. But for most this takes many years, and you budget accordingly.

Similarly, many companies will rent/lease premises. The rent is factored into their accounts. As long as they still make profit from selling their products and are sustainable, then they are a going concern. Owning their own factory/office would, I guess, be a bonus.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
55,394
14,641
763
As part of the prep work for a PH.d research project I asked the FL the question, How many FL clubs own / lease stadiums they play in?

I hope they will forgive me for publishing this, but I would be really interested in your views. It will help me.

The FL state the ratio of Football clubs in the FL that own their stadiums or lease them you will find that 58% actually lease them. This adds to the suggestion that I asserted in an earlier post that CCFC do not need to own the RICOH.

The FL could not say which clubs, but the data suggests that of 72 FL clubs only 30 own the stadium they play in whilst 42 lease them.

If you mail the FL requesting said info, I am sure they will send you the data.

So why do so many clubs manage to make the lease process work but SISU can not?
Why did Les Reid not research this and challenge JS?

Big up to the FL for being open and honest. Thanks for their input and your response as fans
How many lease and own the stadium? As your a clever chap you'll know what I mean.
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
What the FL didn't tell you about those clubs that do lease; the average rent paid is 75p; clubs earn, on average, £3m a year from sponsorship of the stadium and have income, on average, of £10m from the sale of pop, pies and letting out the changing rooms for Gary Glitter tribute nights.

These figures are available to only a few people on here - good luck with your PhD.
Thanks for your wishes on Ph.D. (this is just a small factor to be researched) Not sure about the lease value, I will have to contact the clubs for that data and no suggestion they will tell what it is. There are a number of PM clubs also that lease, For example West Ham are reported to have agreed £2 million+ per year for the Queen Elizabeth Stadium. I know they will possibly get 40k per home match (Lots of discounts for kids etc.) But the question still remains, how can they make lease arrangements work, but CCFC can not?
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
23,185
13,382
363
The question beyond that however, is which of those clubs consider themselves handicapped by not owning their stadium, and which clubs lease out of necessity rather than choice?
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
How many lease and own the stadium? As your a clever chap you'll know what I mean.
Yes, I do. To be confirmed, is the answer. The request was which clubs own the stadium?, and that was the data returned. But I think we all know what is stated may not be all it seems.
 

RPHunt

New Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,072
0
0
The question beyond that however, is which of those clubs consider themselves handicapped by not owning their stadium, and which clubs lease out of necessity rather than choice?
And which of these clubs lease because of the greed of the current or previous owner? The £2m a year Leeds pay Ken Bates and the £500k that Walsall pay their previous owner spring to mind.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2013
23,185
13,382
363
And which of these clubs lease because of the greed of the current or previous owner? The £2m a year Leeds pay Ken Bates and the £500k that Walsall pay their previous owner spring to mind.
Yeah that's also a fair question. Suspect Walsall would say how great leasing was for them, after all!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
55,394
14,641
763
And which of these clubs lease because of the greed of the current or previous owner? The £2m a year Leeds pay Ken Bates and the £500k that Walsall pay their previous owner spring to mind.
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
No suggestion the 1.2 million was viable for CCFC (It was too much) but the question was about the need to own the stadium as opposed to having a sensible rent / lease value. Can Lease process be viable for CCFC?
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
The FL state the ratio of Football clubs in the FL that own their stadiums or lease them you will find that 58% actually lease them. This adds to the suggestion that I asserted in an earlier post that CCFC do not need to own the RICOH.
You should chart the age of the grounds and establish of those which of them are known to be rented, owned, uncertain ownership.

A wild guess but I think you'll see that the newer grounds are less likely to be wholly owned.. though prepared to be corrected on that.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
You spout utter bollocks as per usual. The council never received a penny of the rent, ACL income was used to pay down the money they owned to complete the build, paid down by £7M in from 2005 to 20013.
 

lifelongcityfan

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2012
904
69
28
Coventry
A lot of companies build offices, and then enter into leasing arangements with Finance Houses, this is a method or refinancing, it is not rent.
They still effectively own the office ( unless they default on payments); depending on the type of lease, after a period of x years the club could regain full ownership for a final payment
A lot of football clubs will do exactly the same; it s amecahnism to free up Capital to spend ( waste) on players etc
 
Last edited:

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2011
8,235
2,299
113
Coventry
As we all know because Joy and Tim have both told us it's important for a business to own its own place of work and not rent it that's why Sisu own their own offices .....:thinking about:wait a minute no they don't they rent:facepalm:
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2012
8,171
1,264
113
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
Was it born out of greed? Or was it born out of necessity to save the project in order for the club to play in the Ricoh? At the time the rate was perhaps considered reasonable. Only with subsequent to relegation from the Premiership did it begin to be an issue.
What can can surmise is that SISU ARE driven by greed. Distress a company to the point they will sell desirable assets at knock-down prices to maximise the amount of money they themselves can earn from it. Whilst not illegal - I find it distasteful at the very least.
 

Skybluesquirrel

New Member
Dec 29, 2011
273
0
16
Brighton
No suggestion the 1.2 million was viable for CCFC (It was too much) but the question was about the need to own the stadium as opposed to having a sensible rent / lease value. Can Lease process be viable for CCFC?
The council own the freehold. ACL have 43 years still to run on the lease agreement to manage the whole site. The fees were front loaded. No other payments are due. If you own the freehold, ACL will still own their lease. The joint venture with Compass will still have contracts that are live.

How do you get around those issues if you only purchase the freehold?
 

No future with SISU

New Member
Jul 8, 2013
780
0
16
How many lease and own the stadium? As your a clever chap you'll know what I mean.
You are trying to make your self look "clever", but if you lease you do not own the stadium even if the company that runs you, also own another company that has the stadium on its books. THE STADIUM IS STILL NOT OWNED BY THE FOOTBALL CLUB.
 

Speedie

New Member
Oct 3, 2013
9
0
0
For a PhD student, you haven't done much research based on even basic primary sources. Les Reid has never argued Sisu must own the Ricoh. Read his blog properly, and don't believe everything you read on blogs or msg boards
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2011
6,340
1,073
163
Cotswolds
Just to simplify: 'Ownership' may relate to a lease holder or a freeholder.
Secondly CCFC only rented the pitch at the Ricoh and not the stadia as such. They had a few offices and club shop but not very much else to do with the stadium. They also paid as we all know 1.2m a year for that privilege plus match day fees on top of that!

Ownership in the form of a proper lease hold interest encompassing the stadium activities outside of football and all income related streams gained by those stadium activities - such as concerts, are required or at least a very good share of. The expectancy of any football team to merely rent the pitch game by game without access to such revenue streams they after all are generating, is fundamentally wrong.

The way the council and ACL set out their stall originally and the clowns that signed up to such a deal should have been looked into long ago before SISU went down the rocky path they chose with their own brand of belligerence and arrogance. But none the less we are here and they have a point, if badly made.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
26,004
10,772
263
Just to simplify: 'Ownership' may relate to a lease holder or a freeholder.
Secondly CCFC only rented the pitch at the Ricoh and not the stadia as such. They had a few offices and club shop but not very much else to do with the stadium. They also paid as we all know 1.2m a year for that privilege plus match day fees on top of that!

Ownership in the form of a proper lease hold interest encompassing the stadium activities outside of football and all income related streams gained by those stadium activities - such as concerts, are required or at least a very good share of. The expectancy of any football team to merely rent the pitch game by game without access to such revenue streams they after all are generating, is fundamentally wrong.

The way the council and ACL set out their stall originally and the clowns that signed up to such a deal should have been looked into long ago before SISU went down the rocky path they chose with their own brand of belligerence and arrogance. But none the less we are here and they have a point, if badly made.
curse you ACL for making sisu make their point badly

curse you perry the platypus
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
55,394
14,641
763
They were paying £1.2m to rent highfield before they left (Greedy builders)
No they weren't - that was a contract with a building company on a leaseback. Interesting though that you try and spin that one out. Also interesting that you believe our caring sharing council should behave like "greedy builders"
 

No future with SISU

New Member
Jul 8, 2013
780
0
16
No they weren't - that was a contract with a building company on a leaseback. Interesting though that you try and spin that one out. Also interesting that you believe our caring sharing council should behave like "greedy builders"
THe sold the ground to the builders and then paid rent untill they left. You think the council should give things away for free but hedge funds have done nothing wrong. I have news for you 95% of coventry supporters do not think like you, they dislike SISU.
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
For a PhD student, you haven't done much research based on even basic primary sources. Les Reid has never argued Sisu must own the Ricoh. Read his blog properly, and don't believe everything you read on blogs or msg boards
True at this stage the research scope is being established and the boundaries of where any future innovation may be found. The info may never be further explored, (project may get kicked out eventually)

Also, I hope I did not infer that Les Reid was pro SISU owning the RICOH. I do not know his view on this so can't say. What I was asking or suggesting is that I would challenge JS assertion that ownership was the only viable way forward. LR has had a lot of stick most of which was not justified, but some was.
 
Last edited:

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2011
4,879
115
63
What about the £1.3 million charged by a certain greedy council?
I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that the rent wasn't extremely high and almost certainly unsustainable given the gates we were getting. In fact SISU don't appear to have had a problem with the rent until we were relegated to league one which is a little odd. The question is whether they really need the freehold or would a long lease be better.
 
Last edited:

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2011
4,879
115
63
Just to simplify: 'Ownership' may relate to a lease holder or a freeholder.
Joy however has made it clear in the LR interview that if it's 'Ownership' we're talking about, she wants the Freehold. She sadly doesn't give a decent or even detailed explanation of why this is necessary though.

Les Reid Interview said:
Asked to be clear with fans and Coventrians if there were any hope of a Ricoh return, Ms Seppala said: “The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh. If you look back at the history of the club, you can see why this is important.”
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

She also says Plan A is the new stadium and that we've moved on etc.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2012
4,116
2,330
113
People seem to miss the point. It is certainly true that it is not necessary to own the freehold, or even the leasehold if you have a rental agreement in place that is fair and which enables the club to manage the venue. We fell into none of those categories however. We had use of the stadium for 25 days a year - and even then only partial use that didn't allow us to profit from the revenues we created from our own supporters. And for that we paid a cool £1.3 million a year.

Walsall may pay a high rent (given their size and the level they are playing at), but that money enables them to operate that stadium 365 days a year for their own benefit. They make that back from the Sunday market alone, and also earn a substantial amount from the M6 advertising boards. In addition they also gain revenues from day to day business and social functions that take place there.

I agree that we do not need to own the stadium outright, but at the same time, direct comparisons between ourselves and other clubs that rent their stadiums are completely wide of the mark.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2011
4,879
115
63
People seem to miss the point. It is certainly true that it is not necessary to own the freehold, or even the leasehold if you have a rental agreement in place that is fair and which enables the club to manage the venue. We fell into none of those categories however. We had use of the stadium for 25 days a year - and even then only partial use that didn't allow us to profit from the revenues we created from our own supporters. And for that we paid a cool £1.3 million a year.

Walsall may pay a high rent (given their size and the level they are playing at), but that money enables them to operate that stadium 365 days a year for their own benefit. They make that back from the Sunday market alone, and also earn a substantial amount from the M6 advertising boards. In addition they also gain revenues from day to day business and social functions that take place there.

I agree that we do not need to own the stadium outright, but at the same time, direct comparisons between ourselves and other clubs that rent their stadiums are completely wide of the mark.
Yeah and if SISU had bought ACL (or even possibly just the Higgs share) we could be in a similar position where we'd get all the stadium profits. SISU didn't and here we are now homeless in Sixfields and building our new stadium once Tim gets out of the badger droppings.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2012
4,116
2,330
113
Yeah and if SISU had bought ACL (or even possibly just the Higgs share) we could be in a similar position where we'd get all the stadium profits. SISU didn't and here we are now homeless in Sixfields and building our new stadium once Tim gets out of the badger droppings.
I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.

Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2012
19,390
2,178
113
I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.

Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.
Maybe the council had found a partner they felt they could work with who was not the type to use buying tactics to get what they want
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2012
19,390
2,178
113
I don't disagree, but then SISU did agree to buy the Higgs share. Why that deal was not allowed to go through amazes me. Just think how different things would be now if it had. But then I'm not allowed to blame the council for that, people will start calling me names.

Of course, why they are not trying to resurrect this deal now I don't understand. It is the only viable way forward for as I see it - it is the middle ground option, but evidently JS just won't go there.
Don't forget Joy says the council categorically blocked this from happening.

Yet that required a vote and their was no vote?