covcity4life
Well-Known Member
i get it otis,dont be so condescending....this is a RISK,im wella war eof that
its just a risk i dont mind taking,we need to try something
SISU will own 100% of the Arena... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TheBoss
- Start date
i get it otis,dont be so condescending....this is a RISK,im wella war eof that
its just a risk i dont mind taking,we need to try something
Otis
Well-Known Member
Course they would. But with Hoffman at the helm he would surely want what was best for his club too.
He is a passionate City fan. He attends games. He supports the club. Sisu don't even seem to comprehend football.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The profits have to go to paying the mortgage used to build it Otis-nobody can take a profit till it's paid off.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So SISU threaten to liquidate the club. is this the bit where you think they are now starting to see sense.
So far SISU after admitting weakening the squad too much last season
Have not got a transfer embargo lifted
Have refused to pay rent
Are releasing more players from this squad that they themselves say is too small
We can make no signings we are going to lose Clingan, Keogh, Cranie, McPake, ROD
All of this going on they somehow can afford to buy half a stadium. Yet they say cant afford to even offer Cranie a contract (not he wants too much etc). Cant afford to offer him one what ever the amount.
I appreciate you want this to be good news, damn we need and deserve them. But lets see what this is all about first.
If it is true I just hope someone else is ploughing the money in who knows what they are doing, who does not want to remain hidden and can exert some influence on SISU if they are staying.
So I for one will not be dancing in the streets just yet.
Lord_Nampil
Well-Known Member
Sisu have made mistakes over the last 5 years, the biggest beginning not buying the stadium straight away !!! Now they are on the verge to buying a share which I think is very good news!!! The problem at the moment every one thinks it's sisu buying this, sisu will do this, sisu will do that etc etc, but sisu are just the owners of the skyblues, the stadium was built for the sky blues, by right they should own it or at least part of it and it seems now they will do! Yes sisu haven't been the best owners, there's no doubt they have made loads of mistakes (for a start we are in league 1) but just maybe getting the club more revenue there fortunes may well change! Does that mean Sisu would stay for the long term, who knows, will the club be here long term?? Definitely if the stadium is purchased!
coundonskyblue
New Member
<p><p>&lt;p&gt;
The right way is the owner must be patient and accept they won't see a return for a few years, build the club up then sell it on for a profit.
The wrong way is to sell assets every time an offer comes along. This is what sisu have done with the club over the last 5 years. Its short sighted, and I fear any money the Ricoh makes will just go straight to the directors.
I don't have a problem with our owners making money out of us, but there's 2 ways of doing it.
The right way is the owner must be patient and accept they won't see a return for a few years, build the club up then sell it on for a profit.
The wrong way is to sell assets every time an offer comes along. This is what sisu have done with the club over the last 5 years. Its short sighted, and I fear any money the Ricoh makes will just go straight to the directors.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
im pretty sure im not coming accross as dancing in the streets, this could be the worst thing to happen to us....but im just saying it could turn out to be the best too
time will tell
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yes, understand that.
Just don't understand why people think Sisu are suddenly going to invest in the team. If they can make money from everything else the arena brings then why on earth would they make risky financial gambles on team affairs?
Concerts bring in money. You can buy a 1m pound player, him prove to be a flop and lose all your money.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
they will not invest anything in the team
the facts are
they are losing money, if they buy the stadium, income will increase
why would they then give that income to the football team
They will hide behind the 65% wages if they owned the stadium or not
really cant help thinking if they get the stadium, our club will die VERY slow death !
the facts are
they are losing money, if they buy the stadium, income will increase
why would they then give that income to the football team
They will hide behind the 65% wages if they owned the stadium or not
really cant help thinking if they get the stadium, our club will die VERY slow death !
Sisu have demonstrably shown that they are:
1) Untrustworthy
2) Have no interest in football or the sporting fortunes of the club.
3) Have no understanding of community and how important that is in relation to the fortunes of the club.
Given that a leopard cannot change its spots it would be idiotic for the Council or anyone else to entertain any possibility whatsoever that they, Sisu, should on their shameful role in all dealings with the club, it's fans and the City have any foothold at the Ricoh.
This much is clear.
1) Untrustworthy
2) Have no interest in football or the sporting fortunes of the club.
3) Have no understanding of community and how important that is in relation to the fortunes of the club.
Given that a leopard cannot change its spots it would be idiotic for the Council or anyone else to entertain any possibility whatsoever that they, Sisu, should on their shameful role in all dealings with the club, it's fans and the City have any foothold at the Ricoh.
This much is clear.
There is another angle to this. The football club needs to increase it's income streams as it can only spend 65% of it on wages. At the moment the club only get their money from match receipts and TV, nothing else. With gates down especially away fans a share in the corporate cake is essential. Not too sure when this cap comes in but sisu are hiding behind it at the moment hence Fisher's negative statement in the week, was wondering if for example ACL reduced the rent by say half and then allow sisu some earnings from corporate activities would that increase money for much needed players, that might be the gun sisu are pointing at the councils head.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
While I understand all his "love" for the club, that would still be secondary to the returns his investors would expect. Would it make it easier for supporters then if a City fan at the helm said we've got no money for players?
Regardless of who owns us, there would be money men in the background waiting for their pound of flesh.
The only way forward for Coventry City is ownership of the Ricoh.
Regardless of who owns us, there would be money men in the background waiting for their pound of flesh.
The only way forward for Coventry City is ownership of the Ricoh.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I agree, but really it's only people on this forum who say they won't run the club properly if they did get hold of the Arena.
Yes, they haven't got a very good track record but as there is no one else on the horizon then we have no choice if they have the funds to purchase half of the stadium. It's the only way forward for us.
I just don't those who would rather us go into administration or liquidation. Madness.
Yes, they haven't got a very good track record but as there is no one else on the horizon then we have no choice if they have the funds to purchase half of the stadium. It's the only way forward for us.
I just don't those who would rather us go into administration or liquidation. Madness.
Diehard Si
New Member
Where as at the moment we are a thriving success??
The club has to own its stadium, our position currently is madness. If they get 100% of the stadium I don't see it ever getting worse. It might not drastically improve, but it shouldn't get worse. If the club tries to go on like this then it will end in liquidation.
Note I say the club owning the stadium, if they sell to SISU it is something entirely different. They need to sell to CCFC ( which of course SISU owns, but makes the club more stable, not the parent company ).
People seem paranoid that SISU are asset strippers. Like they are going to get their hands on the stadium and take it down brick by brick, melting down all the metal to sell to scrap merchants, rolling up the turf to sell to Garden centres.
If they are buying to sell, let them! It will get rid of them, but they will be selling the stadium and club as one to an investor. It will be a much more attractive position for an invester to come in and buy a club with the Ricoh behind it too. Someone mentioned £30m to buy it, I don't know any better figures so I'll go with that. If they spend £30m to get the stadium and sell the whole thing and CCFC to some investors for £40 to £45m then isn't that good news??
We'd be rid of them, they've have cut their losses and a new investor would have the whole package.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
isnt it they are buying 50% of ACL not the stadium ? because that is ll that the charity has to sell
Diehard Si
New Member
I guess it was a 50% purchase it might have to be, whereas if it was 100% of it they could just transfer the stadium from ACL and put it on the clubs balance sheet.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
ACL own a lease on the stadium they dont own the freehold.
Diehard Si
New Member
I don't suppose you know how many years? I'm assuming its a long term lease. Who owns the freehold?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Say SISU get their hands on the Charity shares there still remain a couple of problems currently restricting any access to income
1) the council still own 50% of the shares and can as it stands veto things
2) it is 50% not 51% so it isnt control of ACl so results can not be consolidated into ccfc group
3) ACL's balance sheet is currently negative so dividends can not be paid
4) The council has a share holders agreement that guarantees a greater return on certain levels of profit
5) the loan of say 14m with the bank needs taking out before profits can be distributed
6) does the deal actually clear the annual blackhole in the finances or will further savings be required or further money from sisu
7) it still isnt the freehold
let alone the working capital requirement for CCFC this is going to cost more than buying the Charity shares
all up for negotiation i guess and all we can do is wait and see
1) the council still own 50% of the shares and can as it stands veto things
2) it is 50% not 51% so it isnt control of ACl so results can not be consolidated into ccfc group
3) ACL's balance sheet is currently negative so dividends can not be paid
4) The council has a share holders agreement that guarantees a greater return on certain levels of profit
5) the loan of say 14m with the bank needs taking out before profits can be distributed
6) does the deal actually clear the annual blackhole in the finances or will further savings be required or further money from sisu
7) it still isnt the freehold
let alone the working capital requirement for CCFC this is going to cost more than buying the Charity shares
all up for negotiation i guess and all we can do is wait and see
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
its 49 years 362 days and the council own the freehold. so about 43 years left. acl paid premium of 21m for it
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just wonder if in these circumstances the due diligence is a two way thing. It is usually the buyer verifying what they are buying. However in these circumstances surely you would want to know the buyer is properly funded especially if payment was over say a couple of years. Perhaps a bi-product of the process is to force SISU's hand to get the club properly run and funded and to prove it?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
cant answer that Astute other than past history indicates that maybe the toughest part of it all !:thinking about:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
This is the most sensible post I have seen on this bulletin board. This is exactly the position. Fighting the purchase is madness, these petitions and arguments only lead to one end. Liquidation
Loughborough Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
As I recall, the council said they wanted to see a sound business plan from any prospective purchaser of the Ricoh, whether that be sisu or Hoffman or anybody else. This was said at the time when the council announced that sisu would never get their hand on the stadium.
I'm assuming that this stipulation is still in place, so it would make sense that the council are doing due diligence as well as sisu.
Let's hope so anyway!
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
We don't know exactly what is being asked for/offered in these discussions, but it appears that SISU are looking for a rent reduction on the grounds that the club isn't viable with the current rent.
The council on the other hand are (understandably) worried about SISU's intentions, if they get ownership of the stadium.
It seems to me that if the above is true, the council should ask for a percentage holding in CCFC to be transferred to them as part of the deal.
If the club isn't viable without a new deal, then SISU are only "losing" a percentage of "nothing" and the council would get some influence over the future of CCFC (and hence the staduim). This influence could/should be backed up by a shareholders' agreement.
The council on the other hand are (understandably) worried about SISU's intentions, if they get ownership of the stadium.
It seems to me that if the above is true, the council should ask for a percentage holding in CCFC to be transferred to them as part of the deal.
If the club isn't viable without a new deal, then SISU are only "losing" a percentage of "nothing" and the council would get some influence over the future of CCFC (and hence the staduim). This influence could/should be backed up by a shareholders' agreement.
coundonskyblue
New Member
The Council hold a 'Golden Share' in ACL, if the Higgs Trust wanted to do something with their 50% the Council could block it.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure the council can be seen to be owning part of the club but ACL could. But that only gives shareholder rights. Perhaps it should be a seat on the Board at CCFC for someone from ACL/Council that would be more day to day. (still issues of potential conflict of interest though)
Big thing is made of it being a mutually beneficial partnership ......... so perhaps that might help engender trust and transparency. If they are all pulling the same direction it shouldnt be a problem should it ?
Big thing is made of it being a mutually beneficial partnership ......... so perhaps that might help engender trust and transparency. If they are all pulling the same direction it shouldnt be a problem should it ?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It isnt a golden share such...... its the same for any private company any new shareholders have to be approved by the remaining shareholders (that would include a shareholder selling his stake on the new owner would need approval from remaining shareholders)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It seems quite clear the charity want to sell and utilise the proceeds to other activities in the city. That makes it very difficult politically for the council to say no providing the funding is in place. Community benefit versus commercial success for a football team? What choice is there?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
i agree ......... was just pointing out that the power of veto is a normal part of a private limited company memorandum & articles (rules)
