No I don't think its "right" at all, we should be playing in the stadium that ccfc started to build for itself in Coventry.
Can I just ask you, do you really think SISU took us to Northampton because they wanted to?
imp:
Tesco paid for land bought from the council. That land was an asset of the city of Coventry.
Do you expect it to be given away for free?
The council/citizens of Coventry had an asset in land to the value of £40m. That asset was sold to Tesco, then money used was put towards Ricoh building costs.
The council effectively swapped the land for capital in the Ricoh project.
The way some of you on here carry on you would think Tesco just gave the Council £40m for nothing.
The land was originally owned by the council at a time when town gas was being produced which polluted the land. It was later sold on to the gas board and then purchased purchased back from them at a cost of £24m to start the Ricoh project. A portion of the land was sold to Tescos for £60m (and the council gave them PP for a development on that land). That £60m would have been paid to CCFC had they had the resources to complete the project either way it reduced the outlay required and doesn't effect the fact that the council only paid £10m into the project.
Incidentally £17m of the £60m that Tescos provided was earmarked as "contribution in kind" because the council got Tescos to pay for the decontamination of the land caused by the manufacture of town gas when the council owned the site.
imp:
All factually correct, yet nothing there says to me the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
Its like trading your old car in for £5k against a new one for £7k then claiming that a new car can be bought for £2k.
CCFC whilst building a new ground do not have land worth £60m to sell to Tesco do they?
All factually correct, yet nothing there says to me the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
Its like trading your old car in for £5k against a new one for £7k then claiming that a new car can be bought for £2k.
CCFC whilst building a new ground do not have land worth £60m to sell to Tesco do they?
Why do you keep defending the council all the time. Went out today with some friends not from Coventry.
I showed them some of the posts. Yours about only bring happy if the club paid full Market value or you wouldn't support them cracked them up
As one said for anyone to say that they must be a troll on the wind up of just an idiot
Which is it?
All factually correct, yet nothing there says to me the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
Its like trading your old car in for £5k against a new one for £7k then claiming that a new car can be bought for £2k.
CCFC whilst building a new ground do not have land worth £60m to sell to Tesco do they?
At no point did I suggest the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
My point was the council only put in £10m - that is in fact less than the cost of the land to start the project and also less than the £17m cost of decontamination for which the polluter normally pays.
I believe it was CCFC that started the project and despite running out of funds at some point they in fact actually put in nearly £2m which is a significant contribution in relation to the £10m that the council put in and yet the council came out of the project holding 100% of the freehold.
I don't "have it in" for CCC or councils in general but these circumstances don't strike me as entirely above board.
imp:
Why do you keep defending the council all the time. Went out today with some friends not from Coventry.
I showed them some of the posts. Yours about only bring happy if the club paid full Market value or you wouldn't support them cracked them up
As one said for anyone to say that they must be a troll on the wind up of just an idiot
Which is it?
At no point did I suggest the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
My point was the council only put in £10m - that is in fact less than the cost of the land to start the project and also less than the £17m cost of decontamination for which the polluter normally pays.
I believe it was CCFC that started the project and despite running out of funds at some point they in fact actually put in nearly £2m which is a significant contribution in relation to the £10m that the council put in and yet the council came out of the project holding 100% of the freehold.
I don't "have it in" for CCC or councils in general but these circumstances don't strike me as entirely above board.
imp:
I think you will find that most people not just the few on here want Sisu to enter meaningfull negatiations.Your wasting your time. These guys are so far gone in their hatred to the owners that would rather the club folded then they get anything perceived as a good deal.
The big picture is to ensure this club continues, not some ridiculous notion it can be reborn as a midlands combination giant with 150 fans.
Is that you and Letsall before leaving for MK Dons yesterday?
I don't have to justify myself to you.
But I'll humour you. As a Coventry resident, why would I want to give sisu something that I own a share in for less than market value?
Also I very much doubt your friends said that. I've never heard of anyone finding it strange that somebody expects market value to be paid on a property.
At no point did I suggest the Ricoh only cost £10m to build.
My point was the council only put in £10m - that is in fact less than the cost of the land to start the project and also less than the £17m cost of decontamination for which the polluter normally pays.
I believe it was CCFC that started the project and despite running out of funds at some point they in fact actually put in nearly £2m which is a significant contribution in relation to the £10m that the council put in and yet the council came out of the project holding 100% of the freehold.
I don't "have it in" for CCC or councils in general but these circumstances don't strike me as entirely above board.
imp:
The Ricoh project cost the club circa £6m, when the club ran out of money the Higgs trust bought this from them for a similar value. Ask OSB, he has all the figures.
Are you having a laugh? So if you had the opportunity to buy a property for half the market value as the vendor was desperate having lost his job you'd still pay market value?
The point made was this is a football forum and clearly if the club could own a fixed asset in its holding company cheaply this is a positive. To seriously consider the interests of a third party on a football forum is I can assure you unusual.
Well if thats the case CCFC would have been the biggest contributor, the council actually saved themselves £7m on the £17m they should have paid for decontamination!
So why do the council own the freehold?
I wonder if any of this will come up in the JR?
imp:
No, what you said was "SISU now have realised they can build their own Ricoh for £10m just like the council did, and reap all the benefits".
Joy would probably give you a seat on the board if you showed her a way to do this. Your backtracking is probably because you posted that in haste, which is understandable.
There is no backtracking there,
the council built the ricoh for a contribution of only £10m
SISU can build a similar project with a similar input.
imp:
Well Sisu if you're reading this could we please see some plans for the new stadium that you promised us.There is no backtracking there,
the council built the ricoh for a contribution of only £10m
SISU can build a similar project with a similar input.
imp:
Can they really? Any ideas why they haven't started yet?
There is no backtracking there,
the council built the ricoh for a contribution of only £10m
SISU can build a similar project with a similar input.
imp:
yes I covered that in an earlier reply.
imp:
The BIGGER picture is SISU have done a damn good job and the council and ACL have totally shafted us.
The facts are coming out and speak for themselves but some on here will be forever blind and deaf to that.
I think their mummy must have told them SISU = BAD!
imp:
My cat covered something up on a plot of land today,but hes not building a football ground.yes I covered that in an earlier reply.
imp:
There is no backtracking there,
the council built the ricoh for a contribution of only £10m
SISU can build a similar project with a similar input.
imp:
Ok, lets assume fans sold out the shithole every week. These are just rough figures, but the ratio of loss is whats important.
7250 fans paying an average of £13 a ticket equates to income of £2.16m. Discount the £150k rent, leaves the club with £2.01m.
11000 fans paying an average of £15 a ticket equates to income of £3.79m. Discount the £1.3m rent, leaves the club with £2.49m.
You talk about long term gains of having "our own ground" (we used to have that, its called the Ricoh), yet why does that mean the club has to play in Northampton?
The Council only paid £10m for the Ricoh!
imp:
Ah, this is the very reason a boycott won't work/isn't working.
The move to Northampton, as far as Sisu are concerned, is nothing whatsoever about making money (at least not in the short-term). No matter how many people turn up, staying at the Ricoh, even on the full rent, would almost certainly yield more money. So a boycott is simply adjusting the scale of the loss.
The move to Sixfields was entirely about exerting pressure on ACL and the Council, something that achieves the same effect whether 7 or 7000 fans turn up.
The club paid nothing for the Arena. They made £6.5M selling their share in the it.
I assume as you are only interested in the football club you are happy with this?
Why are you even mentioning it?
I've just won a couple of pints tonight by the way so thanks for posting Jack and James.
They wouldn't let us play there for less than £1.3mpa, they even sued us for the £1.3mpa after they had said £400k would have been reasonable.
How many now think the £1.3m was "right"?
imp:
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?