COVENTRY - Ricoh Arena (32,609)

[CovAD]

1. It's nothing like owning it. The club pay a rent of £1m to use the stadium and rent office space. They don't get any of the other income (food sales etc.), nor do they get any of the income from the attached conference and entertainment facilities, hotel etc, or from any concerts that go on in the main arena. Should they fail to pay the rent they could be evicted like any other tenant. OK, it's hard to think what other main uses the pitch area could have, but the attached facilities on their own are just as profitable and don't need the club/stadium for that to continue.

2. Although it's only anecdotal, when City won the cup all those years ago, local businesses were thriving with productivity through the roof as the workforce was happy. It doesn't take a PhD to work out a link between a good state of mind and output.

And maybe it doesn't put a case for a publicly funded stadium, but if those facilities attract better players and the team do well because of a better squad, the stadium has in some way lead to that improvement.

And if it had been just a football stadium I'm not sure it would have got funding -it was more to regenerate a very poor area of the city that had been derelict for the best part of 15-20 years. The attached facilities and retail park created jobs in a deprived area. I consider that an OK use of funds.

Are you saying that if it looked nice but wasn't as practical you'd be less inclined to disagree with the use of public funds to build it? On what grounds? Pretty things make people happy, happy people work harder? Doesn't sound a great deal different to football team wins, people are happy, happy people work harder. Next time we'll build something that looks like the Guggenheim instead....

You can argue til the cows come home about the other things the money could have been spent on, and whether they're worthier etc, but I think the overall scheme with the regeneration and job creation could be considered worthy.

3. Fair enough, just because of the area you're from it's not your fault or decision, but it's hard to deny that Manchester has received a lot of government backing in the last ten years or so, with government departments, the BBC sport etc moving north. Some of that is indeed sour grapes as the Midlands region has seen less investment with the North-West seeing arguably more than it's fair share.

It's just a bit annoying when someone from an area that has benefited so much from public investment (whether they agree with it or not) has a go at somewhere else for a fraction of the same investment and says the city should be denied services to pay for it - should Manchester have the billions spent on it recouped by Whitehall depriving the area of its services?

The Commonwealth Games/Olympic bid was given a lot of public money to secure and a lot of new infrastructure and buildings were created with it. Eastlands was built by the public purse and practically given to Man City as a gift.

[PrevaricationComplex]

1. More likely rent will be re negotiated. But lets wander into fantasy land for a minute, covcity get evicted
The council now have a £113m 'arena' and no tenant or likely tenant. What they have is a football stadium shaped building housing the profitable facilities you mentioned This scenario may actually be the modern day equivelent of killing a monkey after confusing him for Napoleon.

However you've missed the point slightly, A football stadium is not a public service. And you've not put forward a case for it being so. The team is the only reason this place exists weather they own it or not.

2.
a) You're right it's not a case for publicly funded stadia.
b) £113m worth of public gift to private company is the only way to do that?
c) This is a false dichotomy that I've never suggested existed. What I'm saying is; it'll be like complaining about a homeless person getting charity, no logic behind it at all. Just a feeling that it's somehow bad.
d) Lets not drift sideways into what money should be spent on in a more general sense (not the place for it), But why should a private company get a hand out?

So far we've only discussed weather or not this is a regressive development in terms of the public good, we've not covered how bad this is for football...

Its really bad. Not exactly fair competition is it, unless ofcourse they're all at it . The pikeys businessmen in charge of west ham wanted a hand out when they were in charge of Birmingham, thankfully that fell through. However the poorest council in London are now giving those tossers £40m (in a very dubious way) to convert an athletics stadium which cost half a £billion. The cumstains of America carpetbaggers that F'ed up Liverpool; had things gone differently, they would have a free £170m (+ I reckon) stadium and a global brand they paid nothing for, literally a license to print money.

Now I see this whole thing as a bad thing. For football for one, but more importantly for public money.

3.

should Manchester have the billions spent on it recouped by Whitehall depriving the area of its services?

If it was given to United/city/sharks/salford reds/LCCC then absolutely yes... You're still labouring under the misapprehension that public investment and handing out free money to rich bastards* is inseparably the same thing. it isn't.

Eastlands was built by the public purse and practically given to Man City as a gift.

So we agree it's a bad idea. I wish the PL or FA would somehow make them buy it, and generally put rules in place against public subsidy. On their list of problems it's probably quite low in priority. Maybe if I put this solution forward first you wouldn't have been so offended. They can't have it both ways, incredibly high ticket prices justified by saying well, "we're a business at the end of the day" and claiming to be some sort of pillar of the community when they want a hand out. I'm VIOLENTLY opposed to BS displayed here, and surprised there isn't more outrage at the antics of the west ham tossers et al.

Things like the Olympics are a different story, The time to make a case against them is before you get them (I was open to the idea), after that it's a case of making the best of it and supporting your Country. I don't mind UKathletics getting their own modern stadium after the games, I mean what else were they gonna do with the place? Ditto the commonwealth games, my only objection with comms was that it wasn't sold to city and money recouped for the RDA and spent elsewhere.

*LCCC is actually incredibly poor, but same principles stand. Even if it means more rain delays/ crappy facilities and eventually no international tests then so be it. A multi-purpose 25/30k rugby/cricket stadium for sale sharks and lccc with retractable roof would be very cool, but only the govt can pay for it so it shouldn't happen! I'm open to the idea of loans and sympathetic planning conditions but no subsidy.

[CovAD]

Originally Posted by PrevaricationComplex

1. More likely rent will be re negotiated. But lets wander into fantasy land for a minute, covcity get evicted
The council now have a £113m 'arena' and no tenant or likely tenant. What they have is a football stadium shaped building housing the profitable facilities you mentioned This scenario may actually be the modern day equivelent of killing a monkey after confusing him for Napoleon.

However you've missed the point slightly, A football stadium is not a public service. And you've not put forward a case for it being so. The team is the only reason this place exists weather they own it or not.

2.
a) You're right it's not a case for publicly funded stadia.
b) £113m worth of public gift to private company is the only way to do that?
c) This is a false dichotomy that I've never suggested existed. What I'm saying is; it'll be like complaining about a homeless person getting charity, no logic behind it at all. Just a feeling that it's somehow bad.
d) Lets not drift sideways into what money should be spent on in a more general sense (not the place for it), But why should a private company get a hand out?

So far we've only discussed weather or not this is a regressive development in terms of the public good, we've not covered how bad this is for football...

Its really bad. Not exactly fair competition is it, unless ofcourse they're all at it . The pikeys businessmen in charge of west ham wanted a hand out when they were in charge of Birmingham, thankfully that fell through. However the poorest council in London are now giving those tossers £40m (in a very dubious way) to convert an athletics stadium which cost half a £billion. The cumstains of America carpetbaggers that F'ed up Liverpool; had things gone differently, they would have a free £170m (+ I reckon) stadium and a global brand they paid nothing for, literally a license to print money.

Now I see this whole thing as a bad thing. For football for one, but more importantly for public money.

3.

If it was given to United/city/sharks/salford reds/LCCC then absolutely yes... You're still labouring under the misapprehension that public investment and handing out free money to rich bastards* is inseparably the same thing. it isn't.

So we agree it's a bad idea. I wish the PL or FA would somehow make them buy it, and generally put rules in place against public subsidy. On their list of problems it's probably quite low in priority. Maybe if I put this solution forward first you wouldn't have been so offended. They can't have it both ways, incredibly high ticket prices justified by saying well, "we're a business at the end of the day" and claiming to be some sort of pillar of the community when they want a hand out. I'm VIOLENTLY opposed to BS displayed here, and surprised there isn't more outrage at the antics of the west ham tossers et al.

Things like the Olympics are a different story, The time to make a case against them is before you get them (I was open to the idea), after that it's a case of making the best of it and supporting your Country. I don't mind UKathletics getting their own modern stadium after the games, I mean what else were they gonna do with the place? Ditto the commonwealth games, my only objection with comms was that it wasn't sold to city and money recouped for the RDA and spent elsewhere.

*LCCC is actually incredibly poor, but same principles stand. Even if it means more rain delays/ crappy facilities and eventually no international tests then so be it. A multi-purpose 25/30k rugby/cricket stadium for sale sharks and lccc with retractable roof would be very cool, but only the govt can pay for it so it shouldn't happen! I'm open to the idea of loans and sympathetic planning conditions but no subsidy.

Do you actually understand how the building/complex is laid out and has been funded?

1. There are a number of other tenants in the arena other than Coventry City - the G casino, the de vere hotel, gym, Yorkshire Bank offices, bars and restaurants. Plus there's the other exhibition halls available for gigs/weddings/conferences etc. All of this operates independently to the main stadium, so should the stadium not be in use the complex is still viable because of it's location near to the M6 and easy access to BHX. Having Coventry City use the stadium is obviously useful in terms of more revenue and having the main stadium occupied but it doesn't need Coventry City to survive.

2. When the council put forward half of the funding to the arena it created the ACL Ltd company to run it. The arena is run/owned by the private limited company ACL Ltd. ACL Ltd is wholly owned by Coventry City Council. Therefore ACL Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the council and thus the arena is ultimately owned by the council. Should someone wish to takeover ACL Ltd, or buy the arena from it, then that money would go back into the public purse as it would be appropriated to its shareholders, Coventry City Council.

And you haven't said why redeveloping a contaminated, derelict wasteground to provide jobs for a local area which is quite deprived, getting people off welfare and paying into the state via taxes isn't a worthwhile use of public funds?

[PrevaricationComplex]

You clearly haven't understood anything I've written, you're just repeating yourself now. All of your 'points' have been addressed above. This is clearly getting nowhere, I'm off.

[CovAD]

Quite clearly not. What is the point your making?

That rich businessmen shouldn't be given free public money? if that's the case who exactly are the rich businessmen that've been given the free money from the building of the Arena complex?

What do you consider worthwhile use of public funding? For me it's providing essential services to the people that can't afford them themselves like healthcare etc and possibly infrastructure to help promote private investment that the private sector never want to pay for themselves.

I don't agree with massive handouts to private companies, like has happened with the banks and various manufacturers, especially in the motor industry, to entice them to open or retain a plant in this country.

But I understand the economic reasoning behind it, with job creation/retention reducing welfare payouts and the social problems associated, as well as the tax revenues from the manufacturers, employees and their suppliers. This is the reasoning behind the funding of the Ricoh - it created jobs, it aided redevelopment. It provides income for the state via their taxes and the rental paid on the units while reducing their costs by reducing the amount of welfare paid out and the costs associated with joblessness such as ill health and social disorder.

I'd love you to explain your argument to me a bit more clearly because I can't see what exactly you're so worked up about.

[flavze]

Originally Posted by CovAD

Quite clearly not. What is the point your making?

That rich businessmen shouldn't be given free public money? if that's the case who exactly are the rich businessmen that've been given the free money from the building of the Arena complex?

What do you consider worthwhile use of public funding? For me it's providing essential services to the people that can't afford them themselves like healthcare etc and possibly infrastructure to help promote private investment that the private sector never want to pay for themselves.

I don't agree with massive handouts to private companies, like has happened with the banks and various manufacturers, especially in the motor industry, to entice them to open or retain a plant in this country.

But I understand the economic reasoning behind it, with job creation/retention reducing welfare payouts and the social problems associated, as well as the tax revenues from the manufacturers, employees and their suppliers. This is the reasoning behind the funding of the Ricoh - it created jobs, it aided redevelopment. It provides income for the state via their taxes and the rental paid on the units while reducing their costs by reducing the amount of welfare paid out and the costs associated with joblessness such as ill health and social disorder.

I'd love you to explain your argument to me a bit more clearly because I can't see what exactly you're so worked up about.

i have no idea what he's on about either, what you have explained makes complete sense to me.

[leadbelly]

Ugly identikit bowl.

[adeaide]

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by leadbelly

Ugly identikit bowl.

Still more inventive than your comments.

[RMB2007]

When moving into a new stadium ends up going pear-shaped.

League One - Coventry given Boxing Day deadline

Coventry have been given 21 days to pay their unpaid rent or face the threat of a winding-up order.

Ricoh Arena bosses are owed £1.6million in total from the club - £1.1 million in rent after the Sky Blues stopped making their payments 10 months ago. Should the club fail to meet the Boxing Day deadline, they would have to declare themselves insolvent and face closure.

A full statement from Arena Coventry Limited, the stadium owners, read: "Following the refusal of Coventry City Football Club and its owners, Sisu, to pay outstanding rent to Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), the ACL Board has today issued a statutory demand to Coventry City Football Club (CCFC)."

The statement continued: "The statutory demand covers the £1.1million owed by CCFC to ACL in rent arrears of a total £1.6million owed by the club.

"This is not a course of action the ACL Board wanted to take. However, the behaviour of Sisu, the owners of CCFC, has left the board with no choice but to issue the statutory demand."

The League One club were unavailable for comment when contacted by Press Association Sport.

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7...182018456.html

[MS20]

If it really came down to it, Coventry could just flog their players.

[RMB2007]

Doubt that'll happen.

UPDATED: Coventry City threaten to leave Ricoh after being given 21 days to pay £1.1m rent debt

RICOH Arena bosses have given Coventry City 21 days to stump up their unpaid rent – or the club will face closure.

Stadium company ACL - jointly owned by the Higgs Charity and Coventry City Council – has issued a statutory demand for the £1.1million arrears owed by CCFC.

If they fail to meet the Boxing Day deadline, the Sky Blues, bankrolled by Sisu for the last five years, would have to declare themselves insolvent or face a winding up order.

Tonight Sisu responded by threatening to find a more affordable home away from the Ricoh.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/cov...2746-32370027/

[RMB2007]

Coventry City looking at possible Nene Park move

Coventry City have explored the possibility of playing their home matches at Nene Park.

The story was broken by the Coventry Telegraph this morning, who understand the npower League One club have inquired about switching their home fixtures to the Irthlingborough venue, which currently lies empty and with no power with Kettering Town currently unable to afford the running costs.

Coventry have threatened to find an alternative home as a war of words with Ricoh Arena owners Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) grew more bitter.

ACL last week issued a statutory demand for the £1.1m arrears owed by the football club in rent, giving City 21 days to stump up their unpaid rent.

If they fail to meet the Boxing Day deadline the Sky Blues, bankrolled by Sisu for the last five years, would have to declare themselves insolvent or face a winding-up order.

It emerged over the weekend that City have turned down a latest offer from ACL which would see a rent reduction of 67 per cent, down to £400,000-a-year from £1.28m, as well as giving the club ten years to pay off what they owe and the chance to take matchday revenue from refreshments.

Now it seems Nene Park is on their radar and the club said in a statement: “Following the issuing of a statutory demand by ACL last week the board of directors of CCFC will, first and foremost, continue to work hard at bringing about a resolution regarding the rent dispute with ACL that will enable the football club to remain at the Ricoh Arena.

“However, in the interim period, they must consider other alternative and appropriate venues which are affordable for a football club to ensure CCFC fulfil their future fixtures.

“The club has therefore commenced the sensible process of making contact with other football clubs to evaluate if their stadiums meet our requirements should negotiations with ACL fail to reach a mutually agreed position on the rent with the result that CCFC is forced to move away from the Ricoh to a new venue.”

Nene Park has sat empty since the Poppies were beaten 7-0 at home by Bashley in the Evo-Stik Southern League Premier Division and have since been playing their home matches at Corby Town’s Steel Park stadium.

Kettering agreed a 25-year lease to play in Irthlingborough last summer as they made the controversial move to Rushden & Diamonds’ former home from their own Rockingham Road ground.

http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/...move-1-4573545

[MS20]

That's a pretty good deal from ACL.

[RMB2007]

Originally Posted by MS20

That's a pretty good deal from ACL.

It certainly is, especially compared to the previous amount. However, I'm pretty sure City want it closer to what they say is the average that other clubs in the league pay in stadium rent, and according to them that's around £170,000. Whether ACL will drop the rent that low remains to be seen, but the latest is they're having more negotiations with the club.

[matthemod]

Makes you wonder how much in lost revenue they will suffer in terms of attendance from having to travel to Irthlingborough. Even if they managed to maintain their current average attendance of around 11k, despite the 44 mile trek to "home games", that'd still be 4k higher than the capacity of Nene Park! Before long they'd be losing precious supporter income, while having to maintain the stadium costs for Nene Park.

This is one of the most obvious bluffs I've seen in a long time.

[CovAD]

It's most definitely desperate bluffing by SISU. The latest is they're in talks with Hinckley, which is nearer but even smaller. Can't see how they'll get that to work - it wouldn't even fit in all the season ticket holders (although a fiar few would probably not turn up and demand refunds) so there's all sorts of potential legal ramifications and costs to do with that, and giving away supporters sufficient tickets. All with absolutely NO gate receipts because it'd be full be fore tickets went on sale.

The overwhelming response appears to be in favour of ACL (90% in a local paper, although this is only a small sample size) as SISU agreed to the rental agreement when they took over the club and don't have a leg to stand on for non-payment. Besides which their whinge that the club is in L1 and is paying so much more than everyone else has nothing to do with ACL. That's their own doing by selling half the squad or letting them leave on a free by not renewing contracts and then not replacing them last year.

So far they also ignore WHY the rent is so much higher than other teams. A lot of those grounds are old and have no outstanding mortgage/loan payments on them, so all that really needs to be covered is running costs. The Ricoh has a pretty substantial mortgage on it - a cost ACL has to service each month and a debt they only have because the football club asked them to get involved when they ran out of money to build the place to begin with. That's got to be paid somehow and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect the football club to be the main contributors towards it.

[RMB2007]

The whole thing sounds like a total farce. Am I correct in saying there was once a protest by the fans to get SISU out?

[C F Looprevil]

Originally Posted by RMB2007

The whole thing sounds like a total farce. Am I correct in saying there was once a protest by the fans to get SISU out?

Doesn't it! Sad to see so many clubs and big ones at that are starting to struggle so much financially!

[CovAD]

Originally Posted by RMB2007

The whole thing sounds like a total farce. Am I correct in saying there was once a protest by the fans to get SISU out?

It's still ongoing - they're very unpopular. Mistake after mistake, bullying tactics and blaming others for their own failings and misgivings. Trouble is with the economy as it is it's very unlikely anyone else is coming in to take it off their hands and an owner paying (most of) the bills is better than no owner at all at the moment.

Supposedly a banker from the city who's a fan has been looking to buy out SISU for a couple of years, although negotiations never last more than a couple of weeks before a new media slanging match starts.

A lot of fans have become wary of stuff like this anyway as we've had two or three pretenders with similar plans.