What happened to Haskell? (5 Viewers)

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

Nick said:
It isn't really like a house situation, if I was paying shed loads more than the market value I would ask him if I could have a lower rent the same as the average if he said no I would move to somewhere I could afford.

I agree - it's not like a house situation. It's a business, and in a business you don't ask your landlord to set the rent so that you break even - you know what your rent is and work out the rest of your costs accordingly. If you're struggling, you can always try to renegotiate, but you'll have to do it on good faith, and stopping paying the rent entirely isn't likely to help those negotiations.

And there's no 'market value' for renting the Ricoh. It was a unique deal set up just for Coventry City, and the rental reflected the costs of building a £118m arena primarily for them. I've mentioned it before, but how much do you think it would cost the club just in interest to build something half the cost?

As for moving elsewhere, that's fine as long as it doesn't impact your business more. Which it might well do if you move it 35 miles away from most of your customers.

If it was strictly business, run in the usual, relatively ethical way, there's an obvious solution. Move back to the Ricoh and make more money whilst pursuing the other objectives like income streams and stadium ownership. But it's not strictly business is it - our owners don't work in that way.

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

Considering the Ricoh was built for us you would have thought the wonderful ACL would have thought about the long term financial health of the club and set a fairer rent, wouldn't you?

duffer said:
I agree - it's not like a house situation. It's a business, and in a business you don't ask your landlord to set the rent so that you break even - you know what your rent is and work out the rest of your costs accordingly. If you're struggling, you can always try to renegotiate, but you'll have to do it on good faith, and stopping paying the rent entirely isn't likely to help those negotiations.

And there's no 'market value' for renting the Ricoh. It was a unique deal set up just for Coventry City, and the rental reflected the costs of building a £118m arena primarily for them. I've mentioned it before, but how much do you think it would cost the club just in interest to build something half the cost?

As for moving elsewhere, that's fine as long as it doesn't impact your business more. Which it might well do if you move it 35 miles away from most of your customers.

If it was strictly business, run in the usual, relatively ethical way, there's an obvious solution. Move back to the Ricoh and make more money whilst pursuing the other objectives like income streams and stadium ownership. But it's not strictly business is it - our owners don't work in that way.

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Or landlord rents premises to Business A who want to buy some of the property but the landlord doesn't like them so decides go behind their back to sell part of the property to Business B instead. Business A aren't happy and it blows up big time.

Close, but no banana.

Landlord rents to Business A, everyone seems moderately content for a while.

Then A has new owners. Rent wise, everyone still seems fairly content for a few years. After a little while A say they want to buy some of the property but then change their mind and walk away. Then A say the rent is too high, and stop paying it, completely.

After a while A say they'll agree to a lower rent, but then change their mind and walk away. Then A say that they'd rather liquidate than pay the rent.

Then the Landlord wonders if it might not be better to do business with someone else.

Then it turns out that Business A isn't Business A at all, it's Business B, with all of the debts of A, and none of the assets. Then it blows up big time.

italiahorse · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Considering the Ricoh was built for us you would have thought the wonderful ACL would have thought about the long term financial health of the club and set a fairer rent, wouldn't you?

Is zero rent not fair then :thinking about:

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

You forgot to mention the landlord trying to woo a third party who have absolutely nothing to do with the business or the property. Why's that?

duffer said:
Close, but no banana.

Landlord rents to Business A, everyone seems moderately content for a while.

Then A has new owners. Rent wise, everyone still seems fairly content for a few years. After a little while A say they want to buy some of the property but then change their mind and walk away. Then A say the rent is too high, and stop paying it, completely.

After a while A say they'll agree to a lower rent, but then change their mind and walk away. Then A say that they'd rather liquidate than pay the rent.

Then the Landlord wonders if it might not be better to do business with someone else.

Then it turns out that Business A isn't Business A at all, it's Business B, with all of the debts of A, and none of the assets. Then it blows up big time.

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

Oh, nice and selective. What about the £10M we did pay?

italiahorse said:
Is zero rent not fair then :thinking about:

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Considering the Ricoh was built for us you would have thought the wonderful ACL would have thought about the long term financial health of the club and set a fairer rent, wouldn't you?

Ignoring the usual lazy sarcasm, and returning to the facts, which I know you're a bit sketchy on sometimes, y'know thinking that the club owned the land and everything... anyway...

The build cost £118m. ACL facilitated it by taking on a mortgage. A rent was agreed with the club, which at the time no one hugely quibbled about, and clearly didn't exactly make ACL rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

It's where it all falls down, your argument. The presumption that ACL or the council have made a shed load of money out of the club. It is, forgive me, bullshit. ACL's accounts are a matter of public record, and we know where the money for the build came from and went to.

italiahorse · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Oh, nice and selective. What about the £10M we did pay?

You said "set a fair rent" so I thought reducing it from the agreed £1.2M down to zero would be agreeable to reflect what the club could afford :thinking about:

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

Ah yes, I won't trust the Times or Ainsworth again. Not that I ever did trust AInsworth.

Yep, they took out a mortgage and made sure the repayments were unaffordable to their anchor tenant. Not the brightest thing to do, is it? A bit like sawing the branch you're sitting on.

duffer said:
Ignoring the usual lazy sarcasm, and returning to the facts, which I know you're a bit sketchy on sometimes, y'know thinking that the club owned the land and everything... anyway...

The build cost £118m. ACL facilitated it by taking on a mortgage. A rent was agreed with the club, which at the time no one hugely quibbled about, and clearly didn't exactly make ACL rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

It's where it all falls down, your argument. The presumption that ACL or the council have made a shed load of money out of the club. It is, forgive me, bullshit. ACL's accounts are a matter of public record, and we know where the money for the build came from and went to.

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Ah yes, I won't trust the Times or Ainsworth again. Not that I ever did trust AInsworth.

Yep, they took out a mortgage and made sure the repayments were unaffordable to their anchor tenant. Not the brightest thing to do, is it? A bit like sawing the branch you're sitting on.

Are you sure it was Ainsworth saying that CCFC owned the land?

Anyway, the payments weren't unaffordable until the anchor tenant mismanaged itself down a division, and suddenly decided it was the rent wot did it.

Even then, there was scope to renegotiate, in part because ACL had got better terms itself on it's lending, but the Anchor Tenant had then moved on from the rent to something else (it was the pies wot did it).

To stretch your metaphor SISU haven't just hacked off the branch they were sitting on, they've been throwing stones at the wasps' nest whilst they were doing it. Only a company of the utmost stupidity could've managed itself into this situation.

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
You forgot to mention the landlord trying to woo a third party who have absolutely nothing to do with the business or the property. Why's that?

That'll be this bit... if you're talking about Haskell. And as we've said endlessly, if SISU pay the rent there's never any scope for changing ownership at CCFC, whether ACL wanted to or not.

After a while A say they'll agree to a lower rent, but then change their mind and walk away. Then A say that they'd rather liquidate than pay the rent.

Then the Landlord wonders if it might not be better to do business with someone else.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Oh, nice and selective.

Reminds me of a set of bullet points

letsallsingtogether · Feb 14, 2014

Who takes up an unacceptable rent? who negotiated it and agreed it?
Who then brought the club and obviously thought those same agreements were acceptable?
Sorry but it takes two to set an acceptable rent for a venue that is only for an elite business not like there were any other takers queuing up.
CCFC?were in the driving seat in those negotiations just like when they failed to follow then on those same agreements.

Then again who negotiated rent at Sixfields and thought it would be ok as they would get 7000 every game?

So about time we stopped paying rent again as we are not where we expected to be with attendances.

We got relegated so the rent was too dear!
We moved to Northampton and are struggling to get fans in so the rent is too dear!
Who's fault is it no investment but we want everything.

Like the old saying goes you get nothing for nothing

torchomatic said:
Ah yes, I won't trust the

Times or Ainsworth again. Not that I ever did trust AInsworth.

Yep, they took out a mortgage and made sure the repayments were unaffordable to their anchor tenant. Not the brightest thing to do, is it? A bit like sawing the branch you're sitting on.

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

Yep, sure:

Mr Ainsworth said a court case would probably be the only way the fans would find out what has happened at the club.

He said: "Only a few years ago the club owned its own ground and the land on which it was to build a stadium and Bryan Richardson was saying there were exciting prospects for the Foleshill gasworks site.

"Over a relatively short period they've come to a position where they don't own the ground, they don't own the contaminated land on which they hope somebody is going to be able to build a stadium and they don't own all their footballers.

"All they own is a pile of debt.

"Whether or not they've got there because of heroic attempts to keep them in the Premier League and the necessities of paying wages to top flight players or whether or not there are other reasons for the demise, it would be very nice to understand in detail."

The council now owns the Foleshill site and is hoping to develop an arena with Advantage West Midlands and the club.

duffer said:
Are you sure it was Ainsworth saying that CCFC owned the land?

Anyway, the payments weren't unaffordable until the anchor tenant mismanaged itself down a division, and suddenly decided it was the rent wot did it.

Even then, there was scope to renegotiate, in part because ACL had got better terms itself on it's lending, but the Anchor Tenant had then moved on from the rent to something else (it was the pies wot did it).

To stretch your metaphor SISU haven't just hacked off the branch they were sitting on, they've been throwing stones at the wasps' nest whilst they were doing it. Only a company of the utmost stupidity could've managed itself into this situation.

letsallsingtogether · Feb 14, 2014

And you should Know. ointlaugh:

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
Reminds me of a set of bullet points

torchomatic · Feb 14, 2014

So was Ainsworth mistaken, misinformed or lying?

duffer said:
Are you sure it was Ainsworth saying that CCFC owned the land?

Anyway, the payments weren't unaffordable until the anchor tenant mismanaged itself down a division, and suddenly decided it was the rent wot did it.

Even then, there was scope to renegotiate, in part because ACL had got better terms itself on it's lending, but the Anchor Tenant had then moved on from the rent to something else (it was the pies wot did it).

To stretch your metaphor SISU haven't just hacked off the branch they were sitting on, they've been throwing stones at the wasps' nest whilst they were doing it. Only a company of the utmost stupidity could've managed itself into this situation.

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
Yep, sure:

Mr Ainsworth said a court case would probably be the only way the fans would find out what has happened at the club.

He said: "Only a few years ago the club owned its own ground and the land on which it was to build a stadium and Bryan Richardson was saying there were exciting prospects for the Foleshill gasworks site.

"Over a relatively short period they've come to a position where they don't own the ground, they don't own the contaminated land on which they hope somebody is going to be able to build a stadium and they don't own all their footballers.

"All they own is a pile of debt.

"Whether or not they've got there because of heroic attempts to keep them in the Premier League and the necessities of paying wages to top flight players or whether or not there are other reasons for the demise, it would be very nice to understand in detail."

The council now owns the Foleshill site and is hoping to develop an arena with Advantage West Midlands and the club.

Fair enough. He had it wrong mate - they never did own all the land, just the option.

What an epic, epic screw up by our owners at that time. But I fell for it - I can't remember really kicking up when Richardson sold us the dream.

Taking all of the politics and the differences away, the one thing I've learned is that it's absolutely daft to demand the club makes big-name signings or takes ridiculous punts to try to achieve success.

How bitter that just as we've started to figure that out, I can't get to watch them doing all the right things!

Anyway, that's me for the night. Have a good weekend all, I'm off to the egg-chasing if it's still on. (That'll make torchy pull a face).

letsallsingtogether · Feb 14, 2014

That,s what makes it worse yes we all fell for it, and then again when our saviors took over 5 years ago why is it always us that get screwed over.

duffer said:
Fair enough. He had it wrong mate - they never did own all the land, just the option.

What an epic, epic screw up by our owners at that time. But I fell for it - I can't remember really kicking up when Richardson sold us the dream.

Taking all of the politics and the differences away, the one thing I've learned is that it's absolutely daft to demand the club makes big-name signings or takes ridiculous punts to try to achieve success.

How bitter that just as we've started to figure that out, I can't get to watch them doing all the right things!

Anyway, that's me for the night. Have a good weekend all, I'm off to the egg-chasing if it's still on. (That'll make torchy pull a face).

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

torchomatic said:
So was Ainsworth mistaken, misinformed or lying?

Wait.... wait. I was just doing some digging and found this:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/arena-2001-faqs-3172736

Did the club own the land at one point, and then sell it with an option to buy it back. That's kind of how this reads, I think.

But then reading it again, it says that HBG bought the land from British Gas, not the club, at the point the club agreed to buy the land. So perhaps the club had the option with HBG rather than British Gas.

Anyway, ultimately the end result is the same, the club only owned the option on the land at the point the council stepped in.

I can see why anyone could get confused, to be honest. Anyway, apologies, have to go. Otherwise dinner in the dog etc...

Jack Griffin · Feb 14, 2014

HBG (the Hollandsche Beton Groep NV) built the Gelredome Stadium for Vitesse Arnhem in Holland.

It also built the 53,000 seater Schalke stadium in Germany which has a retractable pitch too.

The firm in recent years took over British building firm Higgs and Hill and it bought the land from original owners British Gas last October.

It reads that a HGB bought the land, thus putting up the money for the deal CCFC negotiated with BG.

duffer · Feb 14, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
It reads that a HGB bought the land, thus putting up the money for the deal CCFC negotiated with BG.

So the club never really owned the land then, just the option to buy back from HBG, presumably.

Nick · Feb 14, 2014

I will sort it shall I...

Clicky

Ignore the thumbnail, it wont go full size!

Grendel · Feb 14, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
It reads that a HGB bought the land, thus putting up the money for the deal CCFC negotiated with BG.

duffer said:
So the club never really owned the land then, just the option to buy back from HBG, presumably.

This is the only football forum in the land where you will get posters like these two frantically searching for pro council evidence.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Feb 14, 2014

Grendel said:
This is the only football forum in the land where you will get posters like these two frantically searching for pro council evidence.

This might be the only forum in the land where there are none as blind as those who will not see?

Grendel · Feb 14, 2014

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
This might be the only forum in the land where there are none as blind as those who will not see?

I disagree and if its off topic or not I think it gets to the real crux of the issue. No one loves sisu and no one wants to be in Northampton.

However there is two schools on this forum.

Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications to third parties and will always put the club first even if its to the detriment of others. Personally the council could have paid £20 Guzillion for the stadium - as a fan is want it back for free

Then there is another camp of "fans" who value the interests of other parties in at least equal measure to the club and bore the arse of mf everyone with their pro-council stats.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Feb 14, 2014

It was an Idiom... and I dont necessarily disagree- I think you misread my meaning.

Hobo · Feb 14, 2014

Grendel said:
I disagree and if its off topic or not I think it gets to the real crux of the issue. No one loves sisu and no one wants to be in Northampton.

However there is two schools on this forum.

Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications to third parties and will always put the club first even if its to the detriment of others. Personally the council could have paid £20 Guzillion for the stadium - as a fan is want it back for free

Then there is another camp of "fans" who value the interests of other parties in at least equal measure to the club and bore the arse of mf everyone with their pro-council stats.

You debate so well, then you reveal your "real crux of the issue" and well it's just unrealistic rubbish. Your argument is really "Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications." Because in your world you would hand it on a plate to SISU to royally shaft us. You also mistake people who are anti SISU and assume they are pro ACL. You also keep banging on about people who are no longer involved in the club. You can carp as much as you like but the only people who can change things are the owners and I believe the fans.

cloughie · Feb 14, 2014

Grendel said:
I disagree and if its off topic or not I think it gets to the real crux of the issue. No one loves sisu and no one wants to be in Northampton.

However there is two schools on this forum.

Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications to third parties and will always put the club first even if its to the detriment of others. Personally the council could have paid £20 Guzillion for the stadium - as a fan is want it back for free

Then there is another camp of "fans" who value the interests of other parties in at least equal measure to the club and bore the arse of mf everyone with their pro-council stats.

you are deluded in your thoughts and perceptions of other peoples views

Jack Griffin · Feb 14, 2014

Grendel said:
This is the only football forum in the land where you will get posters like these two frantically searching for pro council evidence.

No, just the truth.

letsallsingtogether · Feb 14, 2014

And I disagree with you.
I don't believe that City fans would mind CCFC getting the Ricoh for nothing it is Sisu most don't want to get it for nothing me included there is a diferance.

If they could do a deal where CCFC had the rights to the ground with all profits having to go back to the Club and upkeep of the stadium then great but to line the pockets of our owners or any other owners in years to come then no let them pay for the privilege.

There are also those fans that hate the Ricoh and slag it off at every opportunity so are they real fans also? that i can't understand ether.

Grendel said:
I disagree and if its off topic or not I think it gets to the real crux of the issue. No one loves sisu and no one wants to be in Northampton.

However there is two schools on this forum.

Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications to third parties and will always put the club first even if its to the detriment of others. Personally the council could have paid £20 Guzillion for the stadium - as a fan is want it back for free

Then there is another camp of "fans" who value the interests of other parties in at least equal measure to the club and bore the arse of mf everyone with their pro-council stats.

chiefdave · Feb 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Fans who want the club home regardless of the implications to third parties and will always put the club first even if its to the detriment of others. Personally the council could have paid £20 Guzillion for the stadium - as a fan is want it back for free

A point you often miss is that not everyone believes that SISU owning the stadium will in anyway assist the club. Those who side more with SISU regularly state that the £1.2m a year rent, not gaining match day revenues and the club not owning the ground was crippling the club. There is no evidence to suggest that should SISU take ownership of the Ricoh there would be better terms for the club. Given their track record many people, rightly or wrongly, believe that the only people who would benefit would be SISU. That's not supporting the council or not supporting the club, that's being concerned for the long term future of the club.

As for the council giving it away for free their has to be a level of realism over what they council will do, or even are legally allowed to do. I would be quite happy if they whacked a grand on everyones council tax to donate to the club to buy better players but it's not ever going to happen and non CCFC fans paying council tax would be furious. Same applies to handing the ground over for nothing.

wingy · Feb 16, 2014

Just going to throw this In there as this Is the most recent thread on ownership .

Charlton have recently been taken over for between £14-£20M. depending on which source ,not aware whether the own their own Ground ,but they are only one division from the Grail,yet bar our deduction about 7-8 places above us In the pyramid ,

Sick Boy · Feb 16, 2014

Grendel said:
This is the only football forum in the land where you will get posters like these two frantically searching for pro council evidence.

I couldn't agree more, even now they refuse to open their eyes and realise that the council have played a part in all of this as well as SISU. I wonder how many other supporters would blindly back their local council, despite the fact that it hurts the club they claim to support?

M&B Stand · Feb 16, 2014

Sick Boy said:
I couldn't agree more, even now they refuse to open their eyes and realise that the council have played a part in all of this as well as SISU. I wonder how many other supporters would blindly back their local council, despite the fact that it hurts the club they claim to support?

Most people I speak to are fuming with the council, now even Leicester are playing on our ground, it makes me sick. Anonymous posters on a football forum don't represent anyone. There is no love for ACL and the council anywhere but on this forum.

The Gentleman · Feb 16, 2014

M&B Stand said:
Most people I speak to are fuming with the council, now even Leicester are playing on our ground, it makes me sick. Anonymous posters on a football forum don't represent anyone. There is no love for ACL and the council anywhere but on this forum.

Bloody council gave me a traffic violation just before Christmas the evil bastards, how could they! Who do you speak to who are fuming with the council? There are 4 of us in my house and only me gives a fuck about our football clubs situation. 75% of my household are quite happy with the council, we are having traffic calming blocks laid on our road (Browns Lane) which makes it safer for my daughters when out walking the dogs, they have just improved the street lighting making it brighter at night, my girls use the library in town and think it is fit for purpose, our bins are picked up on time and extra rubbish is usually taken, they listened to local residents when Peugeot tried building a 24 hour distribution plant on the old Jag site. What exactly is it that you and your 2 mates are angry at the CCC about? Lastly, I didn't realise that Leicester were now playing at Sixfields, at present the Ricoh is not ours and unless Sisu/Otium pony up and try to resolve the situation it never will be.

What happened to Haskell? (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency