ccfc92
Well-Known Member
what's the difference between the two?
CCFC would need to buy the Higgs 50% and CCC 50% and then you'd be in that situation. CCC would own the freehold, CCFC would hold the lease. For me this is the best way forward and something that all sides should work towards. Once in that position the club are free to renegotiate any contracts with Ricoh tenants as needed and the lease can be extended, preferably on a peppercorn rent.
CCC retain security, CCFC take effective ownership.
would that mean CCC own the bricks and mortar, and CCFC run the Ricoh for them?
I would hope they would bring in people to run it can't think of much worse than Fisher running it
ML running it?
what's the difference between the two?
The freehold is the building itself. Currently owned by CCC. The only revenue this brings is from the sale of the lease. This was done as a one of payment and isn't due for renewal for 40+ years so a long time until this brings you any income. The exception is if ACLs profits reach a certain level at which point a 'super rent' payment is triggered.
The leasehold gives you the right to operate the area. Currently owned by ACL. This gives you access to the revenues generated by all events.
By retaining the freehold CCC can put security in place such as tying the lease to the club, not allowing any loans against the lease, things like that.
What I don't understand is why SISU say they will bring AEG in. At the moment the owners of the lease gain from the revenues, if AEG come in to run the complex they aren't going to be doing it for free. Seems odd to complain about the joint venture between ACL and Compass yet suggest a similar deal for the whole complex.
I'd rather have Fisher :facepalm:
Key point agreed. But who are AEG? I assume an entertainment company, but could you expand further?
Key point agreed. But who are AEG? I assume an entertainment company, but could you expand further?
....
A much more likely target for AEG if they do want a venue in the midlands is to be for the NEC which fits perfectly with their existing portfolio.
Alternatively what do you get if you buy 40 million pounds worth of debt?
OSB answered this question some time ago so anyone who wants to search for it can. I recall we would not get access to the revenue streams by buying back the shares. Perhaps someone can dig out the post? I'd say it was perhaps a year ago almost..
We don't I wouldn't think. Don't think you have don't say in policy either.
Would a buyer get shackled with half the mortgage?
Any buyer is purchasing the 50% of the shares in ACL, they would take the loan (not sure why we keep calling it a mortgage), and everything else. Being a shareholder in a company I suspect you already know this, so where are you going with this line of enquiry?
A common statement issue that the club should buy the shares. As the catering contract is separate and the board of directors make policy not the shareholders I'm struggling to see any value in these shares from a commercial or strategic perspective.
In the case of ACL the shareholders also have Directors on the Board. ACL own 77% (this specific % may be slightly out) of the catering (part of IEC Experience), and the income is included in the accounts of ACL.
If the club had plenty of money buying the shares may be a good long term option, but as we haven't I agree with you, we should agree a rental deal.
We don't I wouldn't think. Don't think you have don't say in policy either.
Would a buyer get shackled with half the mortgage?
Still can't see what you get for £6.5 million - other than ££7 million more debt - can you?
the board of directors make policy not the shareholders
The mortgage is with ACL so it would stay with ACL until it had been paid, don't see how new ownership of ACL will change that.
In terms of not receiving any revenue as owners are you referring to the fact that ACL have not paid a dividend as they have used all profits either for work on the Arena or overpayments on the debt.
Not sure why the club or SISU would have no say in how ACL is run if they owned 50%, what makes you say that?
Policy is decided by the directors and there has to be casting vote so that must be the council.
I'm theory I would suggest the club could own half of ACL and still pay £1.3 million rent and no revenues.
So you is think the club should be held to hostage and pay £6.5 million just for the privelege of playing in Coventry.
Jesus Christ.
ACL moved on from that a long time ago as well you know and besides Sisu could own a ground outright and the club could still pay £1.3m rent and no revenues.
Grendel whilst I respect your often provocative posts I genuinely believe you are a SISU plant, very emotive words about being held to hostage and talking about playing in Coventry as optional - as a Sixfielder you clearly support SISU moving the team to Northampton.
Your question is thought provoking but is a hard nosed business approach (SISU's approach) but fails to reflect on the history attached to the situation. CCFC sold their shares in ACL for £6m to Higgs, whether the Higgs speculated to make millions from this investment I doubt it but the decent fans of Coventry believe that a charity helped out the club and doesn't deserve to be ripped off.
Why are SISU still here, its not a love of the club they won't sell as they are trying to recoup their investment - this is ok with you for a faceless hedge fund to get their money back but not a local charity.
Policy is decided by the directors and there has to be casting vote so that must be the council.
I'm theory I would suggest the club could own half of ACL and still pay £1.3 million rent and no revenues.
You still haven't answered any of the questions
Do you have any answers?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the only way it would work is if there's contracts binding SISU to use the Ricoh to primarily help CCFC.
Policy is decided by the directors and there has to be casting vote so that must be the council.
I'm theory I would suggest the club could own half of ACL and still pay £1.3 million rent and no revenues.
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?