The heat rises as the sun goes down on SISU?

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
It is interesting how the heat is starting to increase around the subject of SISU owning the RICOH. I was not at Sixfields, but I understand that Mr Byng was there in attendance with Mr Waggot. Today he comes out in support of SISU and states that the CCC must sell to SISU. To quote the CT “Warwickshire businessman Michael Byng, who is seeking to attract Asian investors to buy Coventry City - said today Coventry City Councill must sell the Ricoh Arena to the club's owners Sisu” (Note I did not try to correct thier inability to proof read)

Well Mr Byng. You are wrong. They do not have to sell to anybody, unless they feel that the sale is in the best interest of all stakeholders. I agree, that all parties should be treated equally, that in my view means that it is a level playing field on Sale Price, Assessment of suitability to own a Civic Treasure, Past record on business capability etc.

If SISU stand up to such an assessment then the CCC should consider a sale, if not, they should be disbarred from bidding.

It is only my opinion, and I know I am a minority, but from my assessment SISU are far from being the most appropriate owners of our Stadium (as a tax payer, not a fan)

I would further suggest that any sale of the RICOH, should be leasehold only (To any bidder) and covenanted to stipulate that both CCFC and the Stadium remain on the same Balance sheet (that is the entity that has the Golden share and the players contracts is also in ownership of the lease) I am sure there are folk who understand the legally correct structure.

In that way SISU or anybody else could not put us in the same predicament we are in today. As Les Reid reported last week in the infamous JS interview, “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.” So she at least will be in full support of a legal tie between, the Club, the Golden share and the treasure that is the RICOH, if not the issue of Leasehold / Freehold.
 
Last edited:

georgehudson

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2011
2,621
405
83
imho, good points CSB, so, as we await further developments, over to JS to explain the Byng & Waggott alliegance,
maybe they are just good friends ?
no hidden agenda etc.,
 
Sep 13, 2012
514
14
18
Coventry
We all know city need to own their own stadium. I think byng is right. The council should sell it to the football club. Its just the clubs owners that bother myself, and probably many others with their understand strategies to get their hands on it
 

skybluesam66

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2011
4,760
1,895
113
and ive yet to see any financial case for a football stadium without a football team
 

rondog1973

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2011
1,144
587
163
Coventry, County of the City of Coventry
It is interesting how the heat is starting to increase around the subject of SISU owning the RICOH. I was not at Sixfields, but I understand that Mr Byng was there in attendance with Mr Waggot. Today he comes out in support of SISU and states that the CCC must sell to SISU. To quote the CT “Warwickshire businessman Michael Byng, who is seeking to attract Asian investors to buy Coventry City - said today Coventry City Councill must sell the Ricoh Arena to the club's owners Sisu” (Note I did not try to correct thier inability to proof read)

Well Mr Byng. You are wrong. They do not have to sell to anybody, unless they feel that the sale is in the best interest of all stakeholders. I agree, that all parties should be treated equally, that in my view means that it is a level playing field on Sale Price, Assessment of suitability to own a Civic Treasure, Past record on business capability etc.

If SISU stand up to such an assessment then the CCC should consider a sale, if not, they should be disbarred from bidding.

It is only my opinion, and I know I am a minority, but from my assessment SISU are far from being the most appropriate owners of our Stadium (as a tax payer, not a fan)

I would further suggest that any sale of the RICOH, should be leasehold only (To any bidder) and covenanted to stipulate that both CCFC and the Stadium remain on the same Balance sheet (that is the entity that has the Golden share and the players contracts is also in ownership of the lease) I am sure there are folk who understand the legally correct structure.

In that way SISU or anybody else could not put us in the same predicament we are in today. As Les Reid reported last week in the infamous JS interview, “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.” So she at least will be in full support of a legal tie between, the Club, the Golden share and the treasure that is the RICOH, if not the issue of Leasehold / Freehold.
What on Earth makes you think you are a minority?
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2011
13,461
1,215
113
and ive yet to see any financial case for a football stadium without a football team
The point he is making is that it is more cost effective to rent the stadium at 150K per year than own a 20k stadium outside Coventry or the 32k Ricoh.
No one has offered a argument that we need to own the stadium other than we need the pie money.

Not sure if there could ever be a case for having the stadium without a football team in residence but does anybody know what was on last week as car park A and B were jammed.
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2012
3,138
1,037
213
It is interesting how the heat is starting to increase around the subject of SISU owning the RICOH. I was not at Sixfields, but I understand that Mr Byng was there in attendance with Mr Waggot. Today he comes out in support of SISU and states that the CCC must sell to SISU. To quote the CT “Warwickshire businessman Michael Byng, who is seeking to attract Asian investors to buy Coventry City - said today Coventry City Councill must sell the Ricoh Arena to the club's owners Sisu

Well Mr Byng. You are wrong. They do not have to sell to anybody, unless they feel that the sale is in the best interest of all stakeholders. I agree, that all parties should be treated equally, that in my view means that it is a level playing field on Sale Price, Assessment of suitability to own a Civic Treasure, Past record on business capability etc.

If SISU stand up to such an assessment then the CCC should consider a sale, if not, they should be disbarred from bidding.

It is only my opinion, and I know I am a minority, but from my assessment SISU are far from being the most appropriate owners of our Stadium (as a tax payer, not a fan)

I would further suggest that any sale of the RICOH, should be leasehold only (To any bidder) and covenanted to stipulate that both CCFC and the Stadium remain on the same Balance sheet (that is the entity that has the Golden share and the players contracts is also in ownership of the lease) I am sure there are folk who understand the legally correct structure.

In that way SISU or anybody else could not put us in the same predicament we are in today. As Les Reid reported last week in the infamous JS interview, “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.” So she at least will be in full support of a legal tie between, the Club, the Golden share and the treasure that is the RICOH, if not the issue of Leasehold / Freehold.
I worry about the fact that ACL as a company is running at a loss now that they do not have CCFC as a tenant and as such the CCC is required to support it as a tax payer who is being effected by these extreme cuts to services the council are doing I then ask myself why don't the council sell off the RICOH and put the money back into OUR coffers and stop some or all of the bleeding cuts they are doing! its alright them saying they are protecting the RICOH for the taxpayers of Coventry for what purpose may I ask!
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
26,588
14,820
363
Coventry
I worry about the fact that ACL as a company is running at a loss now that they do not have CCFC as a tenant and as such the CCC is required to support it as a tax payer who is being effected by these extreme cuts to services the council are doing I then ask myself why don't the council sell off the RICOH and put the money back into OUR coffers and stop some or all of the bleeding cuts they are doing! its alright them saying they are protecting the RICOH for the taxpayers of Coventry for what purpose may I ask!
How do you know ACL are running at a loss? Even if they are running at a loss what evidence is there that CCC are putting money in to ACL at the expense of the taxpayer?

As far as I'm aware the only finance that has been provided by CCC is the loan which was drawn from central funds, while technically still the taxpayers money this isn't money from the CCC budget that would have otherwise been spent locally. I'm not aware of ACL missing any payments on that loan.

The Ricoh is not just a football stadium and while it would be my preference to have CCFC playing there it doesn't follow that the loss of CCFC means ACL will go out of buiness. You may see a 12 - 24 month period where they have lower revenues as the type of events they put on are booked that far in advance and ACL would have had to keep clear dates ahead of the fixtures being released. They offered a rent as low as £150K, that's not a huge amount to make up on other events.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2011
4,070
299
133
Isn't it a good thing acl could be running at a loss ?
If the case it gives a better opportunity for all the heads to get round the table and thrash out a deal !!!!!
 

No future with SISU

New Member
Jul 8, 2013
780
0
16
I worry about the fact that ACL as a company is running at a loss now that they do not have CCFC as a tenant and as such the CCC is required to support it as a tax payer who is being effected by these extreme cuts to services the council are doing I then ask myself why don't the council sell off the RICOH and put the money back into OUR coffers and stop some or all of the bleeding cuts they are doing! its alright them saying they are protecting the RICOH for the taxpayers of Coventry for what purpose may I ask!
Sisu will not pay what the ricoh is worth and will leave the council with a debt which means more cuts and job losses.
 

bigfatronssba

New Member
Apr 20, 2013
5,023
0
36
I don't!

I've yet to see any financial case for it, please put it forward if "everyone knows".
Why doesn't the local media challenge sisu on this idea of needing to own the freehold?

For years wolves were highlighted as being one of the best run clubs in the league, yet they manage that on a leasehold.
 
Sep 13, 2012
514
14
18
Coventry
The point he is making is that it is more cost effective to rent the stadium at 150K per year than own a 20k stadium outside Coventry or the 32k Ricoh.
No one has offered a argument that we need to own the stadium other than we need the pie money.

Not sure if there could ever be a case for having the stadium without a football team in residence but does anybody know what was on last week as car park A and B were jammed.
with owning a stadium like Ricoh Arena its not just the pie money. Its gig money, other sporting occasions like rugger and the England U21s (and all the food and drink money that they generate) the hotel, rent from g casino, conferences and as you put in your last paragraph, a rammed car park at £7 a throw.
Yes i believe we do need to own it outright, back in our rightful city, or we carry on as we are, in the death grip of Joy Seppalla.
As a side note, if SISU buy RA then how long before they sell for a quick buck?
Quick buck sale = goodbye SISU.

Doesn't it?
 

bigfatronssba

New Member
Apr 20, 2013
5,023
0
36
Isn't it a good thing acl could be running at a loss ?
If the case it gives a better opportunity for all the heads to get round the table and thrash out a deal !!!!!
Im not sure. If their running at a loss that means they have to act. Could lead to a change of use for the bowl, meaning the club can never return.

Its possibly better if Acl are able to stick it out.
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2011
1,551
404
83
How can anyone argue that the football club doesn't need to own it's stadium? Bizarre.

What are the merits of this over it being a tennant?
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2011
4,070
299
133
with owning a stadium like Ricoh Arena its
not just the pie money. Its gig money, other sporting occasions like rugger and the England U21s (and all the food and drink money that they generate) the hotel, rent from g casino, conferences and as you put in your last paragraph, a rammed car park at £7 a throw.
Yes i believe we do need to own it outright, back in our rightful city, or we carry on as we are, in the death grip of Joy Seppalla.
As a side note, if SISU buy RA then how long before they sell for a quick buck?
Quick buck sale = goodbye SISU.

Doesn't it?
Agree but would she leave or suck it dry first ?
 

RPHunt

New Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,072
0
0
I see the philanthropists are out in force and want to give the Ricoh to a private equity fund that has fallen on hard times. It is genuinely heart warming to see the upkeep of a Holland Park mansion taking precedence over the financial needs of a charity and local services.
 

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
:claping hands:
I see the philanthropists are out in force and want to give the Ricoh to a private equity fund that has fallen on hard times. It is genuinely heart warming to see the upkeep of a Holland Park mansion taking precedence over the financial needs of a charity and local services.
RPH, Very good riposte.:claping hands:
 
Last edited:

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Aug 12, 2013
873
1
0
with owning a stadium like Ricoh Arena its not just the pie money. Its gig money, other sporting occasions like rugger and the England U21s (and all the food and drink money that they generate) the hotel, rent from g casino, conferences and as you put in your last paragraph, a rammed car park at £7 a throw.
Yes i believe we do need to own it outright, back in our rightful city, or we carry on as we are, in the death grip of Joy Seppalla.
As a side note, if SISU buy RA then how long before they sell for a quick buck?
Quick buck sale = goodbye SISU.

Doesn't it?
If SISU get the RICOH, it will be just the end of the beginning, not the end of SISU in Coventry. SISU want the Arena and associated business as it will look fantastic on their asset portfolio. A portfolio which will gear them up to be able to borrow more and make more. They won't be going anywhere I'm affraid
 

RPHunt

New Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,072
0
0
If SISU get the RICOH, it will be just the end of the beginning, not the end of SISU in Coventry. SISU want the Arena and associated business as it will look fantastic on their asset portfolio. A portfolio which will gear them up to be able to borrow more and make more. They won't be going anywhere I'm affraid
Good point.

It is important to note that SISU are not a hedge fund, they manage private equity and the hedge fund is just one of their product offerings. As most hedge funds are doing badly (and SISU's is doing very badly) it would be no surprise if SISU decided to abandon this sector.

Who is to say the next offering will not be a property fund with the Ricoh, if they get it, as the building block?
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2012
3,138
1,037
213
ACL need to flatten the RICOH and sell the land to the developers whats the point of having a football ground with no football team they would make more money for the CCC coffers
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2012
3,138
1,037
213
I see the philanthropists are out in force and want to give the Ricoh to a private equity fund that has fallen on hard times. It is genuinely heart warming to see the upkeep of a Holland Park mansion taking precedence over the financial needs of a charity and local services.
Give!!!! I see no words of give? They should sell the ground, it does not have to be to SISU or Otium whatever you call them? sell it to property developers who will give the ACL good money to put back into the CCC coffers
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2011
1,551
404
83
Scaremongering rubbish.

I suppose they'll have flattened it, build a prison and toxic waste dump by 2015?
 

Houdi

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2011
709
209
43
People seem to be in two minds here. Firstly we are told ACL will struggle without CCFC being there, and it will turn into big white elephant, without the football club being there. That it is only a matter of time before ACL goes bust. But then people are claiming it is imperative that SISU/CCFC get there hands on the Ricoh as its such a goldmine. Maybe ACL haven't run the Arena site has profitably as it could have, but SISU's track record hardly inspires great confidence.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
30,776
7,515
263
Cumbria
Scaremongering rubbish.

I suppose they'll have flattened it, build a prison and toxic waste dump by 2015?
I suppose just more scaremongering stuff like when a hedge fund first came to our club and some didn't trust them in the slightest. Some thought they would ruin our club.

And to think I called them demented.
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2011
1,551
404
83
I just don't see a hedge hund wanting to accumulate property. It's just not what they do. By nature they buy ailing businesses, restructure them and sell them on at profit. They are not in the game of gathering property or land. They'll want to move on from this sorry mess as much as we all want them to.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
26,588
14,820
363
Coventry
How can anyone argue that the football club doesn't need to own it's stadium? Bizarre.
I've yet to see anyone give a buisness case for CCFC needing to own the stadium. I've asked for one several times but no one can come up with anything so if you know of one feel free to share it.
 

edgy

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2011
1,551
404
83
Because CCFC has failed whilst being a tennant. It's been a downhill slide to this ever since we sold HR.

Owning a stadium such as The Ricoh and all the possible revenue streams that come with it would make us infinitely stronger. Is that not obvious?
 

PWKH

New Member
Oct 20, 2011
221
0
0
CV6 6GE
Because CCFC has failed whilst being a tennant. It's been a downhill slide to this ever since we sold HR.

Owning a stadium such as The Ricoh and all the possible revenue streams that come with it would make us infinitely stronger. Is that not obvious?
The freehold, owned by the City Council, produces no income. Just as any lease the rent was paid when the lease started in 2005. If the freehold was sold the new owner would only get any money from it by borrowing against it. The lease runs for another 40+years.

ACL own the lease and it is through owning the lease that ACL is able to lease to its tenants and to use the building to make money. To make money from the Arena you have to own the lease. Mrs Seppala has said that she wants the freehold, but she has also said she wants 100% ownership. Perhaps what she means is that she wants both the freehold and the leasehold? Perhaps clarifying that could be one of the missing questions in Mr Reid's interview with her.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2010
27,605
8,659
313
The freehold, owned by the City Council, produces no income. Just as any lease the rent was paid when the lease started in 2005. If the freehold was sold the new owner would only get any money from it by borrowing against it. The lease runs for another 40+years.

ACL own the lease and it is through owning the lease that ACL is able to lease to its tenants and to use the building to make money. To make money from the Arena you have to own the lease. Mrs Seppala has said that she wants the freehold, but she has also said she wants 100% ownership. Perhaps what she means is that she wants both the freehold and the leasehold? Perhaps clarifying that could be one of the missing questions in Mr Reid's interview with her.
i am sure you will make any sale process as complicated and drawn out as possible.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2008
23,762
7,290
263
Warwick
I have a feeling you will probably burn in hell for eternity for that.

i am sure you will make any sale process as complicated and drawn out as possible.