Cobblers...... It's true

[the boss]

what the fuck will I do on Saturdays now as at the moment I really can't be arsed with the shower of shit. How the fuck did this ever happen?

[plastic scouser]

I'm fucking sick of the now pointless arguments with regards ACL, SISU and CCC.... They are all **** of the highest order

The only positive to come out of this bullshit groundshare proposal is that it has finally precipitated the end game and it's finally getting national coverage and concern

That said. I'm off to marine

[The Englander]

As for the stadium - the council did not pay £113m did they? You need to strip out the Tesco contribution, grants from local enterprise funds before you find the value the council covered. And let's also be clear how they paid for it. It didn't come from Council funds, not taxpayers pockets... It was borrowed, with ACL as the vehicle and the council as guarantors.

Spot on, again. Tesco reportedly gave £60 million - I'm guessing they're not getting any of the pie and pint money. Would presume the original Casino people paid for their part of the build too. If those facts are correct (Which they are), the council paid out very little. As for not wanting to give the ground to a hedge fund as they will only try to make a profit on it, that sort of bullshit is probably where you realise these conversations are no longer worth having, as we're dealing with idiots. I doubt any of the bidders were coming in to make money and pour it back into the club, and if you believe differently I would suggest you stop sniffing paint thinners. I've got more chance of being the next big Euro Lottery winner than Coventry City have of finding a lunatic willing to just keep throwing money at the club.

[adge]

what the fuck will I do on Saturdays now as at the moment I really can't be arsed with the shower of shit. How the fuck did this ever happen?

Go and watch/get involved in grass roots football! Wish i had of done it years ago instead of forking out to watch Gary MacSheffrey,Andy Thorn and the like make a mug out of me. Along the same lines as Steven Pressley and Jordan Clark making mugs out of you lot next season.

[Roger Mellie]

Clean the bedsit boss. That'll keep you occupied.

[The Yid]

As for the stadium - the council did not pay £113m did they? You need to strip out the Tesco contribution, grants from local enterprise funds before you find the value the council covered. And let's also be clear how they paid for it. It didn't come from Council funds, not taxpayers pockets... It was borrowed, with ACL as the vehicle and the council as guarantors.

Spot on, again. Tesco reportedly gave £60 million - I'm guessing they're not getting any of the pie and pint money. Would presume the original Casino people paid for their part of the build too. If those facts are correct (Which they are), the council paid out very little. As for not wanting to give the ground to a hedge fund as they will only try to make a profit on it, that sort of bullshit is probably where you realise these conversations are no longer worth having, as we're dealing with idiots. I doubt any of the bidders were coming in to make money and pour it back into the club, and if you believe differently I would suggest you stop sniffing paint thinners. I've got more chance of being the next big Euro Lottery winner than Coventry City have of finding a lunatic willing to just keep throwing money at the club.

Tesco paid £59.4 towards the stadium. The contribution of Council was 10m investment - 21m was a loan so a total of 31m. The deal struck for the club was for 50yrs lease at 1.3m a year. So lets say the club stayed and paid the full terms of the lease - thats £65 MILLION - and at the end of the lease the club still own fuck all of the staium, have had no access to revenue streams for those 50 years AND the Council/ACL have not only paid the loan, recieved back their initial investment and screwed the club for £34 MILLION!!!! Yes there will have been interest on the loan, but not £34 fucking million pounds worth.

And people think these **** are the good guys.

You couldn't make this shit up......

[AD]

Tesco didn't pay £60m towards the stadium - they bought the land on the other side of the railway for a superstore. And I bet the profit margins on that make the Arena look like a pauper! So shouldn't be be calling Tesco **** for buying that land and making a fortune off it instead of giving it to the club?

And there isn't just interest - what about the ongoing costs of 50 years of upkeep and maintenance - that in itself would be millions, more than likely tens of millions over than timescale. And there's inflation. In 50 years £1.3m would be like chicken feed. Yet as an older stadium the need for maintenance will have increased, as will the costs of the material and labour to do it. Take all that into account and there's actually very little left over at the end of the agreement.

And don't forget that the club had the option to buy back the stadium at a fraction of the market rate (less than what it would cost for the heap of shit they intend to build now if figures bandied around at the time were accurate) so initially it's highly unlikely either side believed that lease would last the full term as the club would own the stadium long before then. But SISU chose not to. And don't say they couldn't afford it, because if SISU reckon they can find the money now (which I don't reckon they can), during hard economic times with an ailing club with alienated supporters and no potential for ancillary income, not to mention a damaged reputation, it sure as hell could have raised it for the Ricoh then.

And I ask again, would you prefer that money going towards council services and Higgs charity causes, or towards another yacht or penthouse for the uber-rich? Because one things for certain - it sure as hell wouldn't be going on Coventry City.

You really do need to get out of this belief that Coventry City would end up with the stadium if ACL went under and SISU got hold of it - just change the name of the landlord from ACL to SISU/Otium.

Sid - I've no problem with a hedge fund making a profit on the stadium - after all it's what a business is for. But not when it was at the detriment of the football club. If you think ACL are fucking the club over you ain't seen nothin' yet. SISU would pick the bones clean and leave the club with a worthless carcass on the brink of collapse worth nothing. And don't say I didn't warn you.

[The Englander]

Yawn....

[slobbydan sillibic]

Well I`ll go,if I have to travel 12 000 miles anyway, an extra 34 wont hurt.....

[king chillout]

And don't forget that the club had the option to buy back the stadium at a fraction of the market rate (less than what it would cost for the heap of shit they intend to build now if figures bandied around at the time were accurate) so initially it's highly unlikely either side believed that lease would last the full term as the club would own the stadium long before then. But SISU chose not to. And don't say they couldn't afford it, because if SISU reckon they can find the money now (which I don't reckon they can), during hard economic times with an ailing club with alienated supporters and no potential for ancillary income, not to mention a damaged reputation, it sure as hell could have raised it for the Ricoh then.

I see it the same way.

SISU could have bought the stadium or part of it at a knock down price but chose not to.

It's my belief that they never intended to pay a penny for the stadium and were always going to go down the blackmail/hostage route.

[bolix]

It's moronic to talk about FFP as a sticking point.
Sisu are treating fans like mugs with this line but then looking at some of the prejudicial idiocy on here that's not surprising.
Sadly for the club a succession of vile owners have fucked it over but Sisu are probably the worst.
I'm all for closing it down but wouldn't be hopeful that even a Phoenix club would be embroiled in the same old shit.

[billythefish]

It's moronic to talk about FFP as a sticking point.
Sadly for the club a succession of vile owners have fucked it over but Sisu are probably the worst.

Indeed - and no guarantee that any of the other bidders wouldnt be any better. Until someone can put the club and ground etc back together then the downward spiral will continue. Who in the right mind would buy a club in debt, with no ground, dwindling support (regardless of where we end up playing) and no assets.

[plastic scouser]

Who in the right mind would buy a club in debt, with no ground, dwindling support (regardless of where we end up playing) and no assets.

SISU.....

...twice !!

[Nick]

League approves

[the boss]

shocking. The league should have for once done the right thing and said no. It would of put us all out of our misery. Utter bollox they come out with to try and justify it Sooner or later they have to stand up to the crooks who are ruining the game.

[The Yid]

Trouble is its the balance between morally reprehensible versus legally allowed. It's completely wrong on so many levels - but the League can't hold the Council accountable for their approach re the stadium. Could the league legally stop it? They've allowed the club to have different levels of ownerahip

I agree that football is fucked - maybe we should have asked Sky what to do - they run football now

[king chillout]

I had little faith in The Football League, they have just proven my suspicions correct.

They cried about Wimbledon after they did fuck all to stop their destruction. They came out with bollocks like, " It must never happen again..... We will put systems in place...blah, blah, blah..."

They will do exactly the same when Coventry City have left the City of their origin and it becomes obvious they will never return......proving just how fucking spineless they are.

The Football League is not fit for purpose.

[billythefish]

Trouble is its the balance between morally reprehensible versus legally allowed. It's completely wrong on so many levels - but the League can't hold the Council accountable for their approach re the stadium. Could the league legally stop it? They've allowed the club to have different levels of ownerahip

I agree that football is fucked - maybe we should have asked Sky what to do - they run football now

Not sure what the League could do to stop it tbh.

The problem is where do you draw the line (5 miles, 10 miles, 30 miles) - if the Ricoh had been built a couple of miles away in Beduff should that mean that the League should stop the club moving there? Plenty of clubs will look to move a few miles away to find space for a new stadium should these all be banned as they are moving the club outside of its traditional home.

SISU have said this is a temporary move and a replacement ground will be built in Coventry (god knows if that will ever happen but I suspect not) based on this what reason would the League give for stopping the move? No point in blaming the League for the failing of this and the other owners in the last 20+ years.

[AD]

Trouble is its the balance between morally reprehensible versus legally allowed. It's completely wrong on so many levels - but the League can't hold the Council accountable for their approach re the stadium. Could the league legally stop it? They've allowed the club to have different levels of ownerahip

I agree that football is fucked - maybe we should have asked Sky what to do - they run football now

Not sure what the League could do to stop it tbh.

The problem is where do you draw the line (5 miles, 10 miles, 30 miles) - if the Ricoh had been built a couple of miles away in Beduff should that mean that the League should stop the club moving there? Plenty of clubs will look to move a few miles away to find space for a new stadium should these all be banned as they are moving the club outside of its traditional home.

SISU have said this is a temporary move and a replacement ground will be built in Coventry (god knows if that will ever happen but I suspect not) based on this what reason would the League give for stopping the move? No point in blaming the League for the failing of this and the other owners in the last 20+ years.

I think the league could have stopped it on grounds of the plans not being finalised. I swear it's regulations said that any groundshare would only be agreed if concrete plans and timescale could be produced along with planning permission.

The problem with that is this is not being talked about specifically as a ground share, more as an 'arrangement', so maybe once again they've circumnavigated the rules on a technicality. Under a groundshare apparently we'd get first say over when to play fixtures as we're higher up the league pyramid, but in this arrangement Northampton do (which is at it should be as it's their stadium)

[billythefish]

Trouble is its the balance between morally reprehensible versus legally allowed. It's completely wrong on so many levels - but the League can't hold the Council accountable for their approach re the stadium. Could the league legally stop it? They've allowed the club to have different levels of ownerahip

I agree that football is fucked - maybe we should have asked Sky what to do - they run football now

Not sure what the League could do to stop it tbh.

The problem is where do you draw the line (5 miles, 10 miles, 30 miles) - if the Ricoh had been built a couple of miles away in Beduff should that mean that the League should stop the club moving there? Plenty of clubs will look to move a few miles away to find space for a new stadium should these all be banned as they are moving the club outside of its traditional home.

SISU have said this is a temporary move and a replacement ground will be built in Coventry (god knows if that will ever happen but I suspect not) based on this what reason would the League give for stopping the move? No point in blaming the League for the failing of this and the other owners in the last 20+ years.

I think the league could have stopped it on grounds of the plans not being finalised. I swear it's regulations said that any groundshare would only be agreed if concrete plans and timescale could be produced along with planning permission.

The problem with that is this is not being talked about specifically as a ground share, more as an 'arrangement', so maybe once again they've circumnavigated the rules on a technicality. Under a groundshare apparently we'd get first say over when to play fixtures as we're higher up the league pyramid, but in this arrangement Northampton do (which is at it should be as it's their stadium)

Maybe but if they did turn it down then what happens? There is no guarantee in place that the club could agree to play at the Ricoh or find an alternative ground in Coventry. Does that mean that they throw the club out or force them to play all the games away from home? Neither would be palatable options and I am guessing that the League would be reluctant to do either. If you were to throw the club out what happens? Do you promote someone, reorganise games etc etc

Regardless of our individual thoughts on this the League have been given an outline plan that is to play at Northampton for three seasons whilst they build a new ground in the Coventry area. They have submitted a £1m bond and confirmation that they will keep the League updated. What more could the club do until the stage when land is purchased, contracts are exchanged etc. None of that will be before the start of the season.