So what happens to the Ricoh if CCFC don't return? (1 Viewer)

OyJimmy · Sep 20, 2013

Assuming CCFC don't return the Ricoh and they build a new stadium either in or near Cov then what will the management of ACL do with the football pitch?

Will they start a new club owned by ACL or will they turn the pitch over to something else?

Assuming for a moment that ACL and Sisu can't agree a deal then the only logical course of action is for ACL to either start a new club or buy one and move it in or rent it out. Given all the problems they had with Sisu I can't see another rent deal being agreed.

This makes me think a 2 club city will emerge and it will hurt the CCFC fan base. It not what I want but frankly I now think it's what we will get.

jon92 · Sep 20, 2013

Coventry united will buy it

Baginton · Sep 20, 2013

I still think the club will return

Hobo · Sep 20, 2013

Haven't we had this thread already?

CJ_covblaze · Sep 20, 2013

Going over old ground but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that ACL aren't legally allowed to own a football club.

sky blue john · Sep 20, 2013

Hobo said:
Haven't we had this thread already?

Yes done to death bored of this one !!

Godiva · Sep 20, 2013

CJ_covblaze said:
Going over old ground but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that ACL aren't legally allowed to own a football club.

But ccfc are legally allowed to own a stadium and/or a stadium management company.

andyboy81 · Sep 20, 2013

jon92 said:
Coventry united will buy it

Of course they will!! hahahahaha

torchomatic · Sep 20, 2013

I think they could have a great organic vegetable patch.

Godiva · Sep 20, 2013

torchomatic said:
I think they could have a great organic vegetable patch.

Yes and the harvest can be used in a soup kitchen on the car park to support people losing their job in and around the area.

CJ_covblaze · Sep 20, 2013

Godiva said:
But ccfc are legally allowed to own a stadium and/or a stadium management company.

They are correct but sell the ground to CCFC while SISU are in charge is something not even worth thinking about.

I don't buy into the 'club has to own the arena to be more attractive to purchasers' argument. The two parties don't have to be together when a new owner comes forward. No reason why he/she/they can't buy both as seperate entities and merge them after purchase.

Godiva · Sep 20, 2013

CJ_covblaze said:
They are correct but sell the ground to CCFC while SISU are in charge is something not even worth thinking about.

I don't buy into the 'club has to own the arena to be more attractive to purchasers' argument. The two parties don't have to be together when a new owner comes forward. No reason why he/she/they can't buy both as seperate entities and merge them after purchase.

The club can well survive without the income streams from the stadium, but that would mean we stay where we are - in league 1.
Maybe with the occasional visit to the championship.
I thought most on here want the club to return to PL? Not going to happen without money to spend on players, is it?

fernandopartridge · Sep 20, 2013

CJ_covblaze said:
They are correct but sell the ground to CCFC while SISU are in charge is something not even worth thinking about.

I don't buy into the 'club has to own the arena to be more attractive to purchasers' argument. The two parties don't have to be together when a new owner comes forward. No reason why he/she/they can't buy both as seperate entities and merge them after purchase.

And you're one of the leading lights of the Trust

oldskyblue58 · Sep 20, 2013

Would guess that ACL would have to make sure their business plan was successful without CCFC. Can they do this? only time will tell.

ACL would not want to own CCFC long term - even if they did make a tentative first stage bid in the administration process they didnt make a cash bid. Bottom line is that without an owner being willing to top up cashflow from time to time at least football clubs are a financial drain neither ACL, CCC nor Charity have the surplus cashflow to allocate to it. Nor would the rules and regulations for Charity and Council permit them to keep putting the cashflow in. There are no assets to secure any loans either

The club doesnt need to own the stadium, it needs to acquire a long term tenure and to purchase rights to income. They could purchase those rights on a one off basis or as they go along from day to day or a mix of both................ but that has always been the case.

The club I believe needs extra income sources to truly succeed but the situation at Sixfields and the current team form rather flies in the face of that premise right now. The club needs to focus on its academy whilst in L1 in my opinion

I do not see ACL starting a new club either. for similar reasons above. If CCFC do not come back ACL would have to look at other uses for the stadium area or for the function rooms not then used by ccfc.

RPHunt · Sep 20, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
I do not see ACL starting a new club either...

Neither do I, but ACL, in conjuction with the city council, could do a lot to encourage and facilitate the creation of a community based club to make use of the Ricoh.

italiahorse · Sep 20, 2013

OyJimmy said:
Assuming CCFC don't return the Ricoh and they build a new stadium either in or near Cov then what will the management of ACL do with the football pitch?

Will they start a new club owned by ACL or will they turn the pitch over to something else?

Assuming for a moment that ACL and Sisu can't agree a deal then the only logical course of action is for ACL to either start a new club or buy one and move it in or rent it out. Given all the problems they had with Sisu I can't see another rent deal being agreed.

This makes me think a 2 club city will emerge and it will hurt the CCFC fan base. It not what I want but frankly I now think it's what we will get.

They will return eventually, they are not stupid. :thinking about:
They do not need to own the stadium but they do need the football related income streams.
Ten years should see incomes streams with CCFC owners and maybe 50% of the stadium.

longjohnskyblue · Sep 20, 2013

What you seem to be misunderstanding is that in effect were there to give prestige of a relatively major club within the city limits. Ultimately having a football club at such a resource is always going to limit its earning potential as it is used for only a short part of the year! Without CCFC returning in again a relatively short time frame, then it is a no brainer to convert to an out and out exhibition site. Just one major sponsor would cover any loss of revenue from a team! Already Compass is making more profits wthout the club being there!

It still amazes me still that some people just aren't getting the sheer earning potential the site has. Based on purely financial footing ACL don't need the club back, but this is not a pure financial decision. If it were, there is no chance sisu would have been allowed to get away with not paying rent for a year!

The club however needs the arena if it doesn't just want to limp along in the arse end of the league. Cov is considered a relatively big club solely because it spent so long in the top tier. The longer the club stays in the wilderness of where they are now, the more people will desert the sinking ship. Football is ultimately entertainment. And whilst you will always get a coupke of hundred who will accept dross on a regular basis, eventually people will give up. And the fact sisu just do not get this is the prime reason why they shouldn't own a football club!

Paxman II · Sep 20, 2013

Quote by OSB: "The club doesn't need to own the stadium, it needs to acquire a long term tenure and to purchase rights to income. They could purchase those rights on a one off basis or as they go along from day to day or a mix of both................ but that has always been the case."

That is the way forward, the sensible solution that gives the football club an 'asset' and become both viable and saleable. The talk of never giving SISU ownership by some is wide of the reality of what can transpire.

letsallsingtogether · Sep 20, 2013

But they don't want to buy it! they want to build a new one on the outskirts of the town with no other income bar the match day tea and coffee seems a lot of money to pay out just to own a Cafe bar that is only open on home games.

Tim Fisher has said "we have moved forward"... should have said "South"

Paxman II said:
Quote by OSB: "The club doesn't need to own the stadium, it needs to acquire a long term tenure and to purchase rights to income. They could purchase those rights on a one off basis or as they go along from day to day or a mix of both................ but that has always been the case."

That is the way forward, the sensible solution that gives the football club an 'asset' and become both viable and saleable. The talk of never giving SISU ownership by some is wide of the reality of what can transpire.

Spionkop · Sep 20, 2013

Godiva, CCFC aren't going anywhere near the Championship with crowds of 2,000 and dropping.

Paxman II · Sep 20, 2013

letsallsingtogether said:
But they don't want to buy it! they want to build a new one on the outskirts of the town with no other income bar the match day tea and coffee seems a lot of money to pay out just to own a Cafe bar that is only open on home games.

Tim Fisher has said "we have moved forward"... should have said "South"

This continues to go round and round even when made clear. perhaps it's not clear? No one is suggesting here they should or even want to buy it? Here we are suggesting that a long tenure (that means a lease style arrangement) Buying it means 'free hold' and that we know has never been available and the council have made that clear in the past. So when you use the 'buy it' tag in your argument it is not relevant to what we are suggesting. IF and ever ACL offer a deal to the football club they can only offer lease terms. It's what is contained in the lease that counts. IF that was on the table in the form OSB explained then I believe Oium will listen. The new stadium option is still there but I can see a way forward to make sure Otium are back at the Ricoh. This will take both sides to start seeing sense and that may well happen after the final few legal horns have been unlocked, such as the JR and they can take a fresh look at the possibilities. I know that ACL could possibly survive without the anchor tenant perhaps but more difficult I would have thought. The various other businesses that share space at the Ricoh are already under enormous pressure because the footfall from the football club is lacking. When did Compass sell a single beer to anyone last inside the stadium for example? It's a conundrum ACL can't solve easily.
I firmly believe a deal will eventually get done at the Ricoh. Otium will not sell the club, which is pretty worthless without a stadium so will pursue a route to tenure at the Ricoh or build a stadium. If they can't achieve that I doubt they will hang around and sell to a Joe Elliott backed bunch of people for next to nothing and see them get the stadium from ACL, who are currently avoiding doing the same with Otium. Indirectly that would put plenty of blame on ACL again (and therefore the council) for what might be the complete loss of the football club. It's a rock and a hard place but if Hoffman and co knew they could acquire the stadium when SISU at the time could not why did they not approach SISU back then and offer a substantial enough amount to buy the football cub (say 30m) that may well of seen SISU pack their bags? They knew they had the stadium deal backing by ACL and the council at the time but instead thought with twisted logic they could get it for next to nothing through the admin process. That back fired and now we have the scenario I've explained above. It's the only viable solution for all parties. For CCFC it's preferable to get some tenure of the Ricoh, a new stadium could end up under the control of SISU long after they have sold the football club and they become the landlords! Offering Otium some tenure at the Ricoh is the best way forward to save our football club and see SISU eventually packing their bags for good.

letsallsingtogether · Sep 20, 2013

Sorry but what part of we have moved forward did you not get.

To me it means they want nothing to do with it Full stop I may be wrong if so Tim should chose his words better.

By the way I hope I am wrong.

Paxman II said:
This continues to go round and round even when made clear. perhaps it's not clear? No one is suggesting here they should or even want to buy it? Here we are suggesting that a long tenure (that means a lease style arrangement) Buying it means 'free hold' and that we know has never been available and the council have made that clear in the past. So when you use the 'buy it' tag in your argument it is not relevant to what we are suggesting. IF and ever ACL offer a deal to the football club they can only offer lease terms. It's what is contained in the lease that counts. IF that was on the table in the form OSB explained then I believe Oium will listen. The new stadium option is still there but I can see a way forward to make sure Otium are back at the Ricoh. This will take both sides to start seeing sense and that may well happen after the final few legal horns have been unlocked, such as the JR and they can take a fresh look at the possibilities. I know that ACL could possibly survive without the anchor tenant perhaps but more difficult I would have thought. The various other businesses that share space at the Ricoh are already under enormous pressure because the footfall from the football club is lacking. When did Compass sell a single beer to anyone last inside the stadium for example? It's a conundrum ACL can't solve easily.
I firmly believe a deal will eventually get done at the Ricoh. Otium will not sell the club, which is pretty worthless without a stadium so will pursue a route to tenure at the Ricoh or build a stadium. If they can't achieve that I doubt they will hang around and sell to a Joe Elliott backed bunch of people for next to nothing and see them get the stadium from ACL, who are currently avoiding doing the same with Otium. Indirectly that would put plenty of blame on ACL again (and therefore the council) for what might be the complete loss of the football club. It's a rock and a hard place but if Hoffman and co knew they could acquire the stadium when SISU at the time could not why did they not approach SISU back then and offer a substantial enough amount to buy the football cub (say 30m) that may well of seen SISU pack their bags? They knew they had the stadium deal backing by ACL and the council at the time but instead thought with twisted logic they could get it for next to nothing through the admin process. That back fired and now we have the scenario I've explained above. It's the only viable solution for all parties. For CCFC it's preferable to get some tenure of the Ricoh, a new stadium could end up under the control of SISU long after they have sold the football club and they become the landlords! Offering Otium some tenure at the Ricoh is the best way forward to save our football club and see SISU eventually packing their bags for good.

James Smith · Sep 20, 2013

Tim said that we've moved on and insists that we will build a new stadium to play in. I have to hope that he wasn't bluffing about that because a previous statement "there would not be reasonable probability of avoiding insolvency liquidation" turned out in such a positive way for us.

Paxman II · Sep 20, 2013

Politicians and people like Fisher make statements based on rhetoric biased toward the moment. Anyone taking too much notice of that when there is still all to play for are only looking at it from one point of view. You could say he is not lying about what he said but he is still saying it in order to keep the dice moving or if you like jockeying for position.
many times in my life I've had people say similar things. I'm not selling! How often have we heard that? Then the person sells, or not at that price and then they do a week later. Time and circumstances keep changing and with it peoples resolve and peoples ability to change their minds completely.

oldskyblue58 · Sep 20, 2013

I have found looking back on the whole affair that things said in one place usually means that the person talking doesnt want you to look at something else

James Smith · Sep 20, 2013

Paxman II said:
Politicians and people like Fisher make statements based on rhetoric biased toward the moment. Anyone taking too much notice of that when there is still all to play for are only looking at it from one point of view.

Then he should shut up, rash statements are at best of no use to anyone if they contain empty promises and at worst dangerous if taken seriously. To quote something out of context from a film, "wars have started that way Mr Ambassador".

Paxman II · Sep 20, 2013

Point is James, that's his job to stir the bucket one way and then the next.
A lot of posters on here do the very same thing in hope that eventually they will turn opinion in their favour.
Shutting up is not an option.

So what happens to the Ricoh if CCFC don't return? (1 Viewer)

Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

New Member

Well-Known Member

longjohnskyblue

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency