This is all about the arena (1 Viewer)

[psgm1]

Great to see the sisu trolls coming out in force defending the indefensible. It is true that to progress the club need more income revenue, but what these people consistently and conveniently forget is that they have had for years the opportunity to pay for these rights have they not!

It is beyond laughable how they think sisu are going to move away and make a fortune on any franchise club. For a start lets assume for a moment the league will buckle and allow them to MK Don coventry city, whatvalue is their in the club?

Right now it is a struggling league 1 entity. They still wont own the new stadium, so will whilst they are ground-sharing have to rely on gate receipts as their sole income. Even if you assume sisu's figures of 3,000, you are looking at best £60k/game (3000 x £20 av) with rent just under £10k/month that is total income for the season of 50x23 (call it 24 - say at least 1 "home" cup tie") that gives 50x24 = £1.2 million in gate receipt. Add in TV rights etc lets be generous round it up to £2m income for 13/14 season. With 25 players at 60% of income, that gives players budget of £1.2 divided into 25 gives around £48k per player if dispersed equally (which it wont).

Now there are assumptions that they will get promoted, but just look at the past few seasons, this is by no means guaranteed, so you just cannot rely on promotion to advance the club!

So however you look at it, it makes absolutely no commercial sense to do what sisu are threatening to do!

The only reason the rent became an issue was FFP rules. This messed up sisu's business model. They can no longer hide bad debts in the club and keep it viable. So the key for them was the acquistion of the Ricoh. Always was!

Andthe ridiculous belief that the arena is going to become a white elephant, well it just shows the mentality of certain bods. There is no way they are going to keep it as a sporting venue if city move away. They may well try and keep it as is for a season or two, but after that, there is no question they will change its use from a sporting venue to a pure exhibition centre!

The sums make this a no brainer!!! Making it a purely exhibition centre will mean that it will take just one additional event to recoup the lost income of CCFC!

How people just don't get this is staggering. Mind you the same cretins that think this, also think its a good idea to drive at 10mph, and protest outside empty office buildings!

Mark my words, if CCFC do go, we will have an exhibition centre. It really is a no brainer!

£150/m2 pitch dimensions 105m x 68m. It works out £1,071,000 per event!

Why else would sisu be fighting to get the arena???

 

---

[RFC]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

 

[true sky blue]

the die was cast the day a very stupid councillor (mutton) stated "we will never sell to sisu" sort of all you need to know- right there

 

[italiahorse]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

How can it be ACL fault if when the Ricoh opened all parties were happy with the rent.
When SISU took over they also left it as it was.
SISU then reviewd it and ACL agreed to reduce rent to a third.
CCFC who have made no investment in the infra structure/ income streams of the arena now want it all for free.

However ACL must know that these income streams are dependant on CCFC and some agreement needs to be agreed.
Bought ahead income streams like Compass need to be renegotiated as these companies will also lose out.

CCFC don't need to own the stadium with all its on costs but the rent needs to be affordable with the fair play rules.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

If by 'the owners' you mean Sisu, then yes, it was the owners who drove the club out of the city.

 

[ccfc92]

If by 'the owners' you mean Sisu, then yes, it was the owners who drove the club out of the city.

Agreed. Acl and the council and higgs have all been compliant with negotiations. Just cus sisu want to pay £50 a week rent doesn't mean Acl/CCC are the enemy

 

[letsallsingtogether]

For once I totally agree with Psgm 1

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

 

[Jack Griffin]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

No one drove CCFC out. SISU are making a decision to leave on the flimsy pretext that they can not survive on the terms offered.

The terms are actually every bit as good as the deal Walsall have BTW (similar rent, possibly a bit more F&B, but clearly much much less ticket income as they averaged 4,200 crowds and City averaged 10,900 last season). Why don't Walsall move in that case?

The SISU argument is nonsensical as it is perfectly possible for SISU to break even by staying at the Ricoh and cutting costs on salaries, a cost base that even they argue is decreasing due to FFP.

It ain't about rent & F&B, it is about taking the Arena from the people of Coventry then milking it long term for SISU.

Don't be conned into thinking a SISU victory will be good for the Football club, it will be an utter disaster long term.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

Yes it is 100%:facepalm:

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

For once I totally agree with Psgm 1

Im agreeing with you but dont tell him however I think Im suffering from sunstroke after Godiva today. He had to have one little dig though didnt he this time Ill let him off

 

[Astute]

For once I totally agree with Psgm 1

Same here. Saying that I am at work and it is hot

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Fuck me even had to give him a like.:blue:

Same here. Saying that I am at work and it is hot

 

[Steve_75]

I agree with Psgm 1 also in that it doesn't make any financial sense to do what they're doing.
For the amount of money they will need to throw at the club over the next 3+ years, plus the cost of the land and new stadium, I would have thought that they could have rented the Ricoh, bought the Higgs share and negotiated with Compass to get the F&B income.
This would have kept (at least most) of the fans happy, would have given us much more income for FFP than we're going to have and given the team a fighting chance of promotion.
Unfortunately, their heavy handed approach to everything has burned any bridges they had with ACL, CCC, Higgs and the fans.
I'm sure it would be possible if they wanted to, to get back round the table and start again at the negotiations with a clean sheet. No threats of legal action, no brinksmanship, just doing what's best for everyone concerned and actually compromising on some things. The fact that they seem to be ploughing on with this nonsensical plan suggests to me that there must be hoping that ACL and CCC just give in and hand them the stadium.
I just don't see what else they could hope to achieve by putting the club further into debt, having to play a weaker team due to lower income, potentially leaving us say 5 years down the line with a stadium that's owned by SISU, not the club, a team playing in League 2 or lower and no hope of ever recovering the level of debt we have to the extent that SISU will get anymore money back than if they gave the whole lot away for free now.
I still stand by my notion that Joy is a Villa/Leicester/Sunderland fan who's just blowing a load of cash on killing us off!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Fuck me even had to give him a like.:blue:

Cretin inbred:facepalm:

 

[Paxman II]

Steve75 you are right in the short term but long term the football club is still a tenant and still earning very little from the stadium. They still would not own anything and still would have to try and keep making ends meet.

A new stadium built by a developer and mortgaged by the football club would be considerably less that the rent they were paying for a stadium they did not own or have little income from.

The rest is easy to understand.

 

[dongonzalos]

Steve75 you are right in the short term but long term the football club is still a tenant and still earning very little from the stadium. They still would not own anything and still would have to try and keep making ends meet.

A new stadium built by a developer and mortgaged by the football club would be considerably less that the rent they were paying for a stadium they did not own or have little income from.

The rest is easy to understand.

You believe they will build a new stadium?

 

[ccfcway]

Steve75 you are right in the short term but long term the football club is still a tenant and still earning very little from the stadium. They still would not own anything and still would have to try and keep making ends meet.

A new stadium built by a developer and mortgaged by the football club would be considerably less that the rent they were paying for a stadium they did not own or have little income from.

The rest is easy to understand.

they will not be building a stadium

 

[Steve_75]

Paxman II, I do believe that they need something more in the way of income long term. I just think that the position the club is likely to be in by the time they have a new stadium is built could be too far gone - if we're in £70-80M debt again by then (taking into account the £32M they're supposedly writing off) and in league 2 with potentially quite low attendances (yes, back almost in Cov but how many fans will have given up completely in the time the club is away from the city?), how many years is it going to take to get that debt back? We'd effectively need to get to the PL in order to stand a chance of clearing the debt.
And if we have what I imagine would be a fairly basic stadium, other than F&B, what other income are we likely to get? And don't forget, if we do start doing well and working our way up the leagues, it may well need expanding if and when fans come back.
What I was suggesting was if they not only agree a deal with ACL for the rent and maybe the Higgs share but also get some kind of agreement with Compass for their income (buy their contract out or something). In the short to medium term, the club should be better off that way. Long term, we'd ideally need to own the arena as a whole so we can take the extra income that brings.
Again though, we'd probably need to get back to the PL for this to happen.

Obviously, it would be great if someone had come in and bought the Ricoh for the club but I have a feeling we're stuck with the current owners for a while. I'd be surprised if the FL had the guts to deny them the golden share or a ground share as I'm sure they will be aware that SISU tend to bring legal action if they don't get their own way.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of business plans, one ground sharing, building own stadium etc and the other renting the Ricoh, maybe with some of the F&B income. What would be the likely costs, likely wages available for players and how that may translate into promotions or relegations (no guarantees of course) and where we'd likely be in 5, 10 years time.
I have the feeling that the Ricoh would still make more sense but because of the where the level of relationship with ACL, CCC and Higgs has got to over the past year, I think SISU have no hope of doing any deal with them, unless ACL become distressed enough over the next couple of years to beg them to come back (or go into admin themselves).
I expect ACL will have some kind of plan to fill the void left by CCFC in some way so it seems a bit of a long shot to me.

 

[Mr Creosote]

Clearly you have no idea what you are on about. ACL need CCFC to retain sponsorships, especially Ricoh & Jag. A stadium without a football team make the venue very unattractive for many potential event organisers. ACL & CCFC need each other to survive

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Clearly you have no idea what you are on about. ACL need CCFC to retain sponsorships, especially Ricoh & Jag. A stadium without a football team make the venue very unattractive for many potential event organisers. ACL & CCFC need each other to survive

Don't think jag would pull out and am not sure they pay an ongoing amount. Ricoh is an interesting one. I think you will find the next 4 weeks very very interesting. If Sisu don't have a viable 3 year plan, and let's face it they haven't submitted last years accounts test, then how can the football league give back the golden share. Sisu need the Ricoh way more than acl need sisu

 

[Steve.B50]

Your right Steve 75 and I would also like to see a business plan for both options which I am sure that someone could actually send soe time doing both comparisons. I am also in agreement that the better option would be the Ricoh, firstly as its already built and in a great location but secondly because the new stadium (if ever built) would be in direct competition with the Ricoh, if built in or near Coventry.
My other concern is that SISU will need investors to build the new stadium and these people will want there money back with great interest, so not sure they will allow it to be owned by the club in any way.
I believe that if A.N Other came in and bought half or all of the Ricoh this might solve a great deal of our issues as SISU. Would be dealing with a new company and also have to accept they will never win it.
I do try and look at both sides and personally feel that those doing the negotiating should change as it feels like it is now a personal issue not a business decision.

 

[psgm1]

Absolutely right Creosote, you clearly know all about corporate sponsorship. No company in their right mind would sponsor an exhibition centre with easy access to 2 of the largest motorways in the country.

Clearly you realise what the following companies do not! (these companies sponsor the O2)

O2
AEG
Barclays
Coca Cola
Credit Suisse
Nestle
Nissan
Sky
(plus some multi-nationals I haven't heard of!)

Of course I bow to your insider knowledge if you have any, but on the surface I would have thought a day care centre, a butchers, a pub and the local Uni aren't going to pay the same sort of sponsorship levels as these companies!

As a pure exhibition centre, just one of these large sponsors would easily cover the rent from the club!

Are you for real creosote?

The NEC charges £150 /m2 /exhibition. the floor space of the pitch alone is 105 x 68 m. Do the maths on a calculator if you do not believe me....

105x68x150 = 1,071,000!

That is over £1m per event!

How is this not a no-brainer?

even if the roof costs £10m, this is small change. (10 events over the lifetime of the arena!). Just one sponsor like Barclays would cover that!

This is a no brainer

If Coventry City never come back, the first thing ACL will build is a roof!

I am not saying I want 6the club to leave, but to say the arena will be a white elephant. You might as well join the board of the clique!

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

It was/is/always been about the Ricoh. the scum have always wanted it for nowt.

 

[blueflint]

So if that's the case who drove the Club (CCFC) out of the stadium and out of the City??????????

Think about it carefully because it's NOT the owners, is it?

yes it is the owners SISU are the ones that reneged on the rent failed to agree on a massive reduction end of

 

[Paxman II]

psgm1 may I remind you that sponsors like 'exposure' and once the football has gone that also has gone. The very name 'Ricoh' will disappear very soon. One big point you miss is that the NEC is down the road. The Ricoh will not become a new exhibition centre or such venue any time soon that will come close to sustaining the stadium. It's not why Compass signed an expensive contract or why the Casino has a contract to be there either. They both for example require the foot fall from tens of thousands of football supporters, not only on match days but passively because they go there to buy match tickets, visit the shop and feel an affinity with the 'home' of the Sky Blues. All that will be gone.
the sooner ACL wake up and small the coffee the better.
Sadly SISU are too arrogant to make a new approach. It does need an arbitrator to get to the bottom f the issues and work out a compromise deal that gives part ownership to the football club at least, ensuring better income streams and maintaining a football club of some 128 year history is still in our City and in a stadium that it was meant to be at.

As for any new stadium. Yes I believe SISU would embark on this route. They won't pay a penny for it up front. It will be no different to the Ricoh in so much as other events like concerts will be promoted there and that will be in direct competition with ACL.
ACL I believe (and I'm sure is what SISU believe) will find life impossible without the football club remaining at the Ricoh. No one wants to give in to SISU's undermining tactics or even allow them some share in the Ricoh but unfortunately life can't always go the way you wish it. Business is just that, business and you have to get it done.

 

[blueflint]

psgm1 may I remind you that sponsors like 'exposure' and once the football has gone that also has gone. The very name 'Ricoh' will disappear very soon. One big point you miss is that the NEC is down the road. The Ricoh will not become a new exhibition centre or such venue any time soon that will come close to sustaining the stadium. It's not why Compass signed an expensive contract or why the Casino has a contract to be there either. They both for example require the foot fall from tens of thousands of football supporters, not only on match days but passively because they go there to buy match tickets, visit the shop and feel an affinity with the 'home' of the Sky Blues. All that will be gone.
the sooner ACL wake up and small the coffee the better.
Sadly SISU are too arrogant to make a new approach. It does need an arbitrator to get to the bottom f the issues and work out a compromise deal that gives part ownership to the football club at least, ensuring better income streams and maintaining a football club of some 128 year history is still in our City and in a stadium that it was meant to be at.

As for any new stadium. Yes I believe SISU would embark on this route. They won't pay a penny for it up front. It will be no different to the Ricoh in so much as other events like concerts will be promoted there and that will be in direct competition with ACL.
ACL I believe (and I'm sure is what SISU believe) will find life impossible without the football club remaining at the Ricoh. No one wants to give in to SISU's undermining tactics or even allow them some share in the Ricoh but unfortunately life can't always go the way you wish it. Business is just that, business and you have to get it done.

can't agree with you there m8 as all it takes is one more concert and they have more money than the football club would pay.add to that a few more exhibitions and they are well in

 

[lordsummerisle]

The terms are actually every bit as good as the deal Walsall have BTW (similar rent, possibly a bit more F&B, but clearly much much less ticket income as they averaged 4,200 crowds and City averaged 10,900 last season). Why don't Walsall move in that case?

Possibly because the excessive rent is paid to the owner of the football club who owns the stadium?

 

[Buster]

psgm1 may I remind you that sponsors like 'exposure' and once the football has gone that also has gone. The very name 'Ricoh' will disappear very soon. One big point you miss is that the NEC is down the road. The Ricoh will not become a new exhibition centre or such venue any time soon that will come close to sustaining the stadium. It's not why Compass signed an expensive contract or why the Casino has a contract to be there either. They both for example require the foot fall from tens of thousands of football supporters, not only on match days but passively because they go there to buy match tickets, visit the shop and feel an affinity with the 'home' of the Sky Blues. All that will be gone.
the sooner ACL wake up and small the coffee the better.
Sadly SISU are too arrogant to make a new approach. It does need an arbitrator to get to the bottom f the issues and work out a compromise deal that gives part ownership to the football club at least, ensuring better income streams and maintaining a football club of some 128 year history is still in our City and in a stadium that it was meant to be at.

As for any new stadium. Yes I believe SISU would embark on this route. They won't pay a penny for it up front. It will be no different to the Ricoh in so much as other events like concerts will be promoted there and that will be in direct competition with ACL.
ACL I believe (and I'm sure is what SISU believe) will find life impossible without the football club remaining at the Ricoh. No one wants to give in to SISU's undermining tactics or even allow them some share in the Ricoh but unfortunately life can't always go the way you wish it. Business is just that, business and you have to get it done.

Ive got 4 grandkids paxman . Always tell them not to bow to bullies and cheats ! thats the way i like to live and support anyone around me that does the same. You cant legitamize it by saying thats how business works . im in business but id like to think i can still have morals . You can support these shennanigans if you want . I am going to see this lot out and hopefully return to help the rebuild. PUSB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32dZZkuqbE&feature=youtu.be

 

[Jack Griffin]

Possibly because the excessive rent is paid to the owner of the football club who owns the stadium?

I'm glad you agree that the rent Walsall pay isn't killing them & CCFC can survive as a club on the rent terms ACL were prepared to offer and that indeed they're better than the package Walsall have as the Ricoh is clearly a better stadium than the Bescot.

Ta very much.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I'm glad you agree it isn't killing them & CCFC can survive as a club on the rent terms ACL were prepared to offer and that indeed they're better than the package Walsall have.

Ta very much.

Think that, unlike Coventry fans on here, Walsall fans think that is killing them as a club paying such a large amount for rental of their stadium to their landlord.

"
For many years since Walsall F.C moved to the Bescot Stadium (now known as the Banks's Stadium), there has been a bone of contention between fans and majority shareholder Jeff Bonser over who is the beneficiary of the rent that Walsall F.C pay to use Bescot Stadium, a ground they paid to build.[10][11]
In December 2009, Jeff Bonser gave an interview to the Birmingham Mail in which he is quoted as saying "I can say quite categorically that Walsall FC has never paid a penny into my pension fund".[16]
In March 2011, the official Walsall F.C website announced that it had been "informed by its landlord Suffolk Life Annuities Limited of their intention to sell their freehold interest in the Banks's Stadium site".[8] However, following an article in the Express & Star by Nick Mashiter,[17] Matt Scott, an investigative football journalist at the Guardian picked up the story and began to investigate. On 18 March, Scott questioned the accuracy of the statement made by Walsall F.C [18] and then confirmed the misleading nature of the club's statement on 22 March, saying "Walsall do indeed pay rent to Bonser's pension, as is consistent with the arrangements for self-invested personal pensions. So in fact, the landlord in all but title is none other than Bonser himself. One mystery solved, then (if a mystery it ever was).".[19]
On 30 March, leading football finance journalist David Conn of the Guardian Newspaper investigated the story still further after he was granted an interview by Bonser.[20] In the article, Bonser contradicts his previous December 2009 statement in which he claimed "Walsall FC has never paid a penny into my pension fund" [16] by admitting that Walsall F.C does indeed pay rent to a Self Invested Pension Fund owned by him and his brother Robert Bonser. Bonser claims that the Pension Fund invested large amounts of money in Bescot Stadium, however some, if not all, of this investment was in the form of interest free loans which the club have been paying back as well as the annual rent."

 

[lordsummerisle]

In fact change "pension fund" and "owner" for ACL, and you see quite the opposite reaction from Walsall fans(and Trust), than you would find on here.

Do Walsall fans not care?

"The objectors, though – more numerous, according to Bob Thomas, supporters trust chairman, than the vocal core whom Bonser laments – accuse the owner of feathering his nest at the club's expense. They point in particular to the extraordinary split in his ownership of Walsall. He and his brother Robert own a majority of the club shares personally, but hold the stadium separately – in their pension fund. Walsall Football Club pay rent, to play in their own home ground, £460,000 this year, to the chairman's pension fund. Since the brothers bought the lease in 1995, the club has paid £4.5m rent into their pension fund.

 

[Paxman II]

Blueflint: If the Sky Blues build a new stadium where do you think the media attention will be?
The chances that ACL will be able to successfully attract major concerts regularly enough against the new stadium doing the same puts a huge question mark on ACL and the Arena's sustainability. The few concerts they obtain in a year say will not be enough to satisfy the contracts they have issued to the likes of Compass and others.

Buster: Agree with your sentiment but it does not change the facts. SISU are bullies if you wish to call them that, I didn't. But business can be like that sometimes whether you would be like it or not. You are also entering the argument about who is to blame and intimating it's all SISU's fault in doing so? That is not the case. Both sides are culpable, one perhaps more than the other but as I say the facts alone must be the indicator for the next step either of these protagonist take.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Ermmm.. the story is about where that money goes, not whether it cripples the club to pay it.. my point stands that Walsall are not in debt in fact they run at roughly break even as the article below shows... sure they could be in a worse state but they're not in the shit we are.

http://www.expressandstar.com/sport...ll-fc/2012/02/02/accounts-and-accountability/

 

[lordsummerisle]

Ermmm.. the story is about where that money goes, not whether it cripples the club to pay it.. my point stands that Walsall are not in debt in fact they run at roughly break even as the article below shows... sure they could be in a worse state but they're not in the shit we are.

http://www.expressandstar.com/sport...ll-fc/2012/02/02/accounts-and-accountability/

Did you not actually read the article?

Obviously not, or else you wouldn't have linked to an article that shows the opposite of what you claim.

 

[lordsummerisle]

You must have been speedreading Jack to miss this bit out, not in debt??

£145, 296 – A repayment of loans to J.W.Bonser. He’s loaned the club money so he is entitled to it, however it does amount to a significant chunk of the Pomlett loan. Giving him his dosh back is not necessarily a bad thing though.
£1,793,530 – The amount of loans still owed to Jeff. Ouch!
£2,559,000 – The size of the club’s debt as at 31.5.11. Ouch again!
£510,000 – The size of the loans owed to Directors Nigel Bond, Clive Welch and Richard Tisdale and fair play to them for putting the money up. Interestingly the bulk of the club’s debt is owed to five of the directors.
£427,000 (or £1169.86 per day every day) – RENT, pretty much the source of all our problems.
It represents a £12,000 increase in what continues to be a very difficult financial climate.
I shudder to think how much the club has paid in 21 years. I wonder how close we’d be to buying the freehold if the landlord(s) had agreed to sell it back to the club over a fixed period of time in the early 90s, something which could feasibly have happened.
If only someone had done something about the rent years ago.