What about Plan C? (1 Viewer)

kmj5000

Member
Plan A (or is it really Plan B?) is to build a new tin-pot stadium outside Coventry at a cost of £20m+. The interest on the borrowings at a modest 5% (if they're lucky with such a high risk venture and their track record) will be £1m p.a. If it's a 20 year loan, for example, then there is also another £1m of capital to repay each year)!

Fishers' original plan to fund the stadium construction with the development of retail/commercial/residential park (normal business practice?) appears to have been abandoned and it will, in fact, be just be a modest stadium with a "Fanszone". So the club's income will comprise just gate money, catering and merchandising, it seems. This will be from a much-reduced fan base as many (including myself) will refuse to go to a "home" stadium outside the city, particularly if it is owned by a SISUE company.

Plan B (we all know that this was really Plan A all along, don't we?) is to acquire the unencumbered freehold of the Ricoh site for next-to-nothing. Well, it's now clear that is not going to happen for reasons explained by AL and JS is well aware of them.

So, SISUE must surely be considering another possibility?

Plan C. Take up the Ricoh rent-free offer and negotiate to purchase the rights to the catering income. It will only be bloody-mindedness that will stop them from considering this possibility but anyone can see that this has to be a better option than Plan A for the future of CCFC, or even the anonymous Hedge Fund investors?
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
I think possibly your plan c was their plan a all along. They knew full well freehold was never for sale. It was all about getting as much as possible and next to no rent for a long time is a result in anyones book if your were ccfcs owners.
 

kmj5000

Member
I think possibly your plan c was their plan a all along. They knew full well freehold was never for sale. It was all about getting as much as possible and next to no rent for a long time is a result in anyones book if your were ccfcs owners.

Then why have they not taken up the rent-free but choose to continue with the ridiculous new stadium route?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
I posted such earlier. Take-over or merger with ACL and possibly the Compass contract gives them all they need.

No need for freehold, simply long leasehold, with low rents and access to revenues. Nobody can tell me why this wouldn't work. Which is frustrating when some sheepishly bleat on about the CCC 'intransigence' with regards the freehold being a deal breaker...
 
Last edited:

skybluebal

New Member
I thought plan D was plan A but only if plan C overcame plan B while plan A was a lead to plan D - or am I getting confused :D
 

kmj5000

Member
I posted such earlier. Take-over or merger with ACL and possibly the Compass contract gives them all they need.

No need for freehold, simply long leasehold, with low rents and access to revenues. Nobody can tell me why this wouldn't work. Which is frustrating when some sheepishly bleat on about the CCC 'intransigence' with regards the freehold being a deal breaker...

Of course it would work but they firstly have to admit defeat on Plan A and they won't do that until after the JR goes against them.
 
There is no plane A. (Tin pot alley) There is only the plan to gain access to the RICOH. I believe they are so strident in their actions as they have inadequate funds and need to bully a low price. But it isn't working and won't work. CCC just need to stand firm. The fans need to be together and united in believe of a better future.

Come on everyone, most of us know the SISU plan as spun by PR is Bull and what the real plan is. If we can unite again behind a common aim and cease the infighting and animosity between us fans, we will get to the promised land sooner. If that means SISU buying into the future at a sensible value, then OK, I go with that. They can then leave with some dignity. 'Dignity' - A characteristics they have denied the fans.
 

runner

Active Member
Then why have they not taken up the rent-free but choose to continue with the ridiculous new stadium route?

I think because they claim (SISU) that the running costs, outside of rent, so I mean match day "putting on the event" costs are greater than at Sixfields. This is dispelled surely by the difference in gate money, but I think this is what they inferred was the reason.
 

kmj5000

Member
I think because they claim (SISU) that the running costs, outside of rent, so I mean match day "putting on the event" costs are greater than at Sixfields. This is dispelled surely by the difference in gate money, but I think this is what they inferred was the reason.

"Dispelled"? Substantially outweighed I think?
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
Here is Plan B

[video=youtube;e6Xe3CMzMIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Xe3CMzMIw[/video]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top