Jump to content
IGNORED

Good news for Coventry City

chinapig

By chinapig
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

So, an other club in a better position than us ! yippee 

In financial terms, think of them a bit like Newcastle under Ashley.

Run reasonably well albeit not profitable unlike Newcastle, not investing much cash or much if any equity.

New owner can then should they so choose, if they can afford put the accelerator down for a while. Bit like Hull too, but better side than Hull pre takeover.

In short, if it goes through I fear so.

Of course not guaranteed. He could blow their financials within 18 months to 2 years, decide he is the man and wants his own man!!

Sack Robins and appoint some 'big name', or some manager with faded glories or relative novice! Or remortgage the stadium if he gains ownership- or anything really...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Three ways that could go..

Could put him in a significantly positive position to buy Coventry...bet it cost markedly less than some of the 'fair value' sale and leasebacks!!

£17m for that...vs £81.1m for Pride Park, £70m was is for the Bet365, £60m for Hillsborough and £56.7m for Villa Park!! St Andrews at £22m looks alright as did Reading given land values in South East but still more than Ricoh in both cases. Distressed sale too, I get that!

Or he could push up the rent. Medium to long term depending on current arrangements

Or, maybe a new big Sports Direct regional hub.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted

The article suggests that the purchase of the club means it leaves it debt free. 
Does this mean that the purchaser is paying off the money owed to HMRC or does it mean the debt to HMRC is written off? 
Hopefully the former……

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Harry said:

The article suggests that the purchase of the club means it leaves it debt free. 
Does this mean that the purchaser is paying off the money owed to HMRC or does it mean the debt to HMRC is written off? 
Hopefully the former……

I'm sure that it's the former, it's a relatively small debt anyway I believe and if not for their postponed games and the impact on cash flow- all 4 were at home in a month to 6 week period-the issue wouldn't have arisen I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Three ways that could go..

Could put him in a significantly positive position to buy Coventry...bet it cost markedly less than some of the 'fair value' sale and leasebacks!!

£17m for that...vs £81.1m for Pride Park, £70m was is for the Bet365, £60m for Hillsborough and £56.7m for Villa Park!! St Andrews at £22m looks alright as did Reading given land values in South East but still more than Ricoh in both cases. Distressed sale too, I get that!

Or he could push up the rent. Medium to long term depending on current arrangements

Or, maybe a new big Sports Direct regional hub.

I think your last point is the most likely outcome. 

Simon Jordan looked at buying the club and previously made some cryptic comments that the council wanted the arena developed into something else. 

Yesterday he elaborated on those previous comments. The council were very keen for Ashley to buy the arena...

People look at Ashley's previous ownership of a football club and assume that means he wants CCFC. They overlook what he actually made his money in. 

From what I heard, the actual stadium bowl brings in very little revenue to the stadium company, Coventry only pay a modest rent. The stadium bowl requires 15 million of work to be done on it. 

They recieved a few bids of 30 million but upon due diligence the bids were reduced down to about 10 mil. Probably cos of the work that needs to be done to it. 

I really can't see how it would be profitable to keep the stadium bowl in the long term. Huge running costs with only a small return. 

This is Mike Ashley. 

We all know Coventry refused to pay 1.2 million rent. So more likely to be in the 500k bracket. If Ashley has to spend 15 million to just keep the bowl operating as a sports venue. Then that's 26 years for him to earn just that back and that's on the basis the 500k is profit, which it's not. I just can't see it. 

I'm no financial expert but if someone buys something for 17 million and then knocks it down and builds something else that is then worth a lot more than 17 million then on the books that's a profit right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm sure that it's the former, it's a relatively small debt anyway I believe and if not for their postponed games and the impact on cash flow- all 4 were at home in a month to 6 week period-the issue wouldn't have arisen I expect.

I believe Coventry are extremely close to administration. They had to sell Hyam on the cheap to generate cash flow. 

This new owner yesterday said that SISU do not have the funds available to plug any gaps. 

Something just doesn't seem right with this new owner. He doesn't appear to have the funds to run a Championship club. 

When he asked the court to delay the sale of the arena the judge said his bid "lacked any substance" that alone would concern me if this was us. There fans just appear to be pleased to be getting rid of SISU so are not really questioning if this guy is the real deal. 

I'd be sceptical about the debt free claims. SISU said that when they took over. The debt isn't actual debt from real money. It's debt from interest etc. It will just be moved around on paper. 

In an interview after court yesterday he said  - “The deal is done,” “As long as I am approved, the deal is done. It’s clean.

Just something about that wouldn't sit right with me. Oh and the fact he was sat alongside William Storey at the court hearing. 

Also don't the EFL require a new owner to guarantee that the club will play in that City for at least 10 years as part of the approval process? They only have an 8 year lease...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
25 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I believe Coventry are extremely close to administration. They had to sell Hyam on the cheap to generate cash flow. 

This new owner yesterday said that SISU do not have the funds available to plug any gaps. 

Something just doesn't seem right with this new owner. He doesn't appear to have the funds to run a Championship club. 

When he asked the court to delay the sale of the arena the judge said his bid "lacked any substance" that alone would concern me if this was us. There fans just appear to be pleased to be getting rid of SISU so are not really questioning if this guy is the real deal. 

I'd be sceptical about the debt free claims. SISU said that when they took over. The debt isn't actual debt from real money. It's debt from interest etc. It will just be moved around on paper. 

In an interview after court yesterday he said  - “The deal is done,” “As long as I am approved, the deal is done. It’s clean.

Just something about that wouldn't sit right with me. Oh and the fact he was sat alongside William Storey at the court hearing. 

Also don't the EFL require a new owner to guarantee that the club will play in that City for at least 10 years as part of the approval process? They only have an 8 year lease...

Thanks, interesting.

Evidently I should have added a question mark to the end of the topic title!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So if all goes to plan:

The football club will be owned by a local businessman, Doug King.

But the stadium by someone else, Mike Ashley.

If this counts as good news for Coventry City fans, I'm lost for words.

It's sad that a football club finds itself in a position where their fans are begging Mike Ashley to buy them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
italian dave

italian dave

Posted
Posted
On 18/11/2022 at 10:19, chinapig said:

Thanks, interesting.

Evidently I should have added a question mark to the end of the topic title!

 

On 18/11/2022 at 10:55, Merrick's Marvels said:

So if all goes to plan:

The football club will be owned by a local businessman, Doug King.

But the stadium by someone else, Mike Ashley.

If this counts as good news for Coventry City fans, I'm lost for words.

Yes and yes....

Time for that question mark to be added maybe?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TomF said:

Sits back, waits for them to enviably go into admin, buys them off the administrators for £1. 

Textbook Mike Ashley. 

Although into administration means a 1 or 2 year business plan plus a 12 point deduction and if certain minimum thresholds not met the potential of another 15...are such criteria and conditions to Mike Ashley's liking?

EFL Insolvency Policy is in some respects quite clear.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another Ashley strategy might be bump the rent up a bit but not too far that SISU look elsewhere and take all of the Commercial non matchday revenue for himself.. it was quite high pre Covid.

Surprisingly having just checked it ran at a loss!! Mike Ashley otoh I'd back to bump up the revenue and knock down the cost base over time.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/2022/december/news-statement-following-receipt-of-an-eviction-notice-from-frasers-group-new-owners-of-the-cbs-arena/

Statement from Coventry. He's tried to bump the rent up and or change the terms of the lease it would seem.

It's not a lease. It's a licence so therefore they are not afforded the same protections you get from a lease. 

I'm really not sure it was a good move on Covs part to release that statement criticising the new owners of the arena. 

In all of the turmoil they have been through, there is one constant in it all and thats them. Coincidence? 

They were the ones that signed a licence, and apparently under very favourable terms. They then can't really complain when the licence is suddenly not to their benefit. That's the risk they took. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It's not a lease. It's a licence so therefore they are not afforded the same protections you get from a lease. 

I'm really not sure it was a good move on Covs part to release that statement criticising the new owners of the arena. 

In all of the turmoil they have been through, there is one constant in it all and thats them. Coincidence? 

They were the ones that signed a licence, and apparently under very favourable terms. They then can't really complain when the licence is suddenly not to their benefit. That's the risk they took. 

Ah okay,  lease v license..sounds a fairly unusual situation in a football context but then I suppose Coventry's situation is highly unusual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That aside, I certainly have sympathy with Coventry on the Football side snd their fans.

Gone through more in the last decade or so turmoil wise, than a lot of clubs have endured in several.

In struggling to have any sympathy. Their fans despised Wasps. They celebrated quite hard when Wasps went bust. I don't think any genuine sports fan should celebrate the demise of another professional club, especially one that allowed them to return to the City. 

It's kinda ironic that Wasps going bust has therefore seen them become homeless. Sometimes you gotta be careful what you wish for. 

Cov becoming homeless would almost certainly trigger administration for them.

The EFL have in the past warned them that any moving of home games, for what ever reason will also trigger a points deduction. The EFL are getting fed up of it now. They cant just keep moving games out of the City because they want to pay a cheaper rent. 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another Ashley strategy might be bump the rent up a bit but not too far that SISU look elsewhere and take all of the Commercial non matchday revenue for himself.. it was quite high pre Covid.

Surprisingly having just checked it ran at a loss!! Mike Ashley otoh I'd back to bump up the revenue and knock down the cost base over time.

The deal to buy the arena has never made sense to me. 

I believe the current fee they are paying to be around 300-400k. 

The stadium is falling apart and needs 20 million of work done to it. 

It would take a hell of a long time to earn back the purchase price and the maintenance costs and that just doesn't seem to be the Mike Ashley way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'd not be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for Coventry. Its been coming for a long time that a decent sized club would go bust. It's probably the wake up football needs. 

They have no assets apart from the players and they are in tens of millions of debt to Sisu. 

Derby were in a worse position no? Although there were some unique aspects to that that didn't make sense at the time and still don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigTone

BigTone

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

More likely a negotiating tactic to increase rental income from the pitch, which is a small part of the arena income. 

Possibly but I suspect he can see club ownership as a very achievable goal at a much reduced price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Derby were in a worse position no? Although there were some unique aspects to that that didn't make sense at the time and still don't.

I think the dealbreaker for Coventry is their ability to play games in their City. 

Derby looked likely to always have that option. 

If Coventry have to leave the City again I can see them putting the club into administration and selling off the crown jewels to get some money back for themselves. 

Who's gonna wanna own and fund a Championship club that doesn't play in its own City and only gets what something like 5k crowds? It wouldn't be sustainable at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think the dealbreaker for Coventry is their ability to play games in their City. 

Derby looked likely to always have that option. 

If Coventry have to leave the City again I can see them putting the club into administration and selling off the crown jewels to get some money back for themselves. 

Who's gonna wanna own and fund a Championship club that doesn't play in its own City and only gets what something like 5k crowds? It wouldn't be sustainable at all. 

Fair but the two very odd items that seemed to be applicable to Derby were...

1) The fact that a winding-up order for Derby and this was pre Covid appeared to be knocked back at Court has never been correctly explained, maybe their HMRC debt was far lower in January 2020. Obviously it racked up during Covid and then there was the long period where HMRC did very little in terms of enforcement owing to Covid-19.

2) The MSD life support. Never have I seen or heard of this sort of thing pertaining to a club in administration. Yet MSD just bunged them loans now and then to keep trading.

Coventry appear not to have the second without doubt and the first most definitely.

We exclude the debt to SISU in this case- potentially a paper debt as you say, much like Derby and their debt pile to Mel Morris in Autumn 2021- and their situation is comfortably worse in certain ways.

Why did Derby have a significantly greater guarantee btw? Looked at objectively is there so big a difference?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here we go.

Derby- and for the sake of balance I should point out that Birmingham were also subject to one not long before Covid that was withdrawn.

Will try to get better snapshots. The formatting was terrible. Still can't get it right but anyway if you go on Twitter, type in @DERBY5HIRE and "winding up order" you will see them. Under photos too, helps.

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

One more thought.

Officially Mike Ashley isn't now CEO of Frasers. His son in law Michael Murray is.

Or is he just a front with Ashley the back street driver. Murray was a promoter- promoter, events- transferrable skills??

Could it perhaps have been purchased for Murray and a foray into the Events Business..

I will say that the above is pure speculation on my part, except for the bit about a) Murray now being the official CEO of Frasers and b) Murray having a background in promoting.

https://www.drapersonline.com/people/power100-2022/michael-murray-and-mike-ashley

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nongazeuse said:

Tickets for City playing at Coventry BS stadium now on sale so presume licence has been agreed?

 

Possibly, though Frasers' latest statement is pretty vague and general and doesn't resolve things. Still amounts to 'sign the revised licence to be allowed to play there':

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/05/mike-ashley-frasers-groups-serves-coventry-city-fc-eviction-notice-stadium

Frasers Group said it wanted to work with the club to secure its future at the stadium. “Frasers has, throughout all its involvement with the stadium, been supportive of securing the long-term future of CCFC playing its games at the stadium. This position remains unchanged,” it said.

“Prior to acquiring the stadium, Frasers issued a new licence mirroring the terms CCFC had agreed with the previous owners. However, CCFC chose not to sign it at that time.

“A revised proposal, together with a new licence, has been issued to CCFC and will secure the immediate future of CCFC at the stadium.

“Signing the licence would allow for more detailed discussions to take place about CCFC’s long-term arrangements at the stadium, including to accommodate a number of requests which were raised by CCFC. Frasers looks forward to working with the club to host the upcoming games.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Taunton_BCFC said:

Away tickets going on sale Thursday. So assume it’ll be at cov then 

£33 and £20 for under 18s mind!!!!

£28 for adult Coventry fans at AG in October when we played them isn't so different. Should £30 be cut off point at this level?

£20 for U18 is clearly ott.

Are we a bit surprised we are a Category A game? Would have thought that more likely for local derbies or historically bigger clubs or a big one down to yoyo back up again to PL but a bit surprised we are top category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nongazeuse said:

Tickets for City playing at Coventry BS stadium now on sale so presume licence has been agreed?

 

Eviction notice wasn’t til the end of the season anyway, so they’ll be there for the rest of this season regardless. 

Edited by Harry
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shuffle

Shuffle

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£28 for adult Coventry fans at AG in October when we played them isn't so different. Should £30 be cut off point at this level?

£20 for U18 is clearly ott.

Are we a bit surprised we are a Category A game? Would have thought that more likely for local derbies or historically bigger clubs or a big one down to yoyo back up again to PL but a bit surprised we are top category.

It’s New Years Day so maximising revenue through the big crowd they’ll get hence Cat A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
On 06/12/2022 at 15:44, Harry said:

Eviction notice wasn’t til the end of the season anyway, so they’ll be there for the rest of this season regardless. 

I don't think that's correct as staff were asked to return key cards etc immediately. 

My understanding is they have been evicted with immediate effect due to administration/new owners making the precious license null and void. They basically need to agree a new licence or they can't play there.

Frasers said to them, right the old licence is void so we need to agree a new one, SISU said they didn't believe the old one was void. Frasers assured them it was. Frasers said right what we will do is we will agree a licence until the end of the season on the same terms and that's when they will discuss what the future terms will be.

Sisu then refused because they were unhappy that the old licence had 8 years to run where as this new licence would be short term. Sisu then started demanding all sorts of things be put into this new agreement, Frasers said no that will be up for discussion in the summer. Frasers said you ever sign the new short term deal on the same terms, or you leave. Sisu refused to sign.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't think that's correct as staff were asked to return key cards etc immediately. 

My understanding is they have been evicted with immediate effect due to administration/new owners making the precious license null and void. They basically need to agree a new licence or they can't play there.

Frasers said to them, right the old licence is void so we need to agree a new one, SISU said they didn't believe the old one was void. Frasers assured them it was. Frasers said right what we will do is we will agree a licence until the end of the season on the same terms and that's when they will discuss what the future terms will be.

Sisu then refused because they were unhappy that the old licence had 8 years to run where as this new licence would be short term. Sisu then started demanding all sorts of things be put into this new agreement, Frasers said no that will be up for discussion in the summer. Frasers said you ever sign the new short term deal on the same terms, or you leave. Sisu refused to sign.

Either way Sisu/Cov have to leave immediately.

It's unclear whether in respect of the L&T (54) Sisu/Cov were occupying under a Licence/ Tenancy At Will or Lease (and if the latter whether or not the lease was contracted out of the Act or in Cov's (the football club element,) case for a period in excess of 6 months remaining, in which case S23-28 would not apply?) Might even be Sisu held a lease from Arena Cov which was part sublet to Cov in the lesser term? Frasers, in acquiring the asset from Arena Cov, appear to have first offered (as they must,) a revised lease to Sisu on the same terms (change of name only) which implies L&T(54) was applicable. However, the existing lease may have included terms (usually dilapidation or repair,) that Sisu/Cov as Sisu's sub tenant may not have actioned (or be able to afford,) and which the new landlord was calling in. Landlord is king in all matters and immediately exercising tenant obligations is usually the quickest way to shift them if they're potless. I believe Sisu refused to sign the lease within the permitted timeframe AND without raising dispute as to Landlord's actions (as is required by the Act,) hence the lease became void with Frasers offering Cov directly a licence for protection under new terms which Cov found unacceptable.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigTone

BigTone

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 06/12/2022 at 16:44, Harry said:

Eviction notice wasn’t til the end of the season anyway, so they’ll be there for the rest of this season regardless. 

Incorrect. CCFC have been told they must agree to terms on a new licence agreement which will allow them to remain until May 2023.  To date they have refused to sign this. There was another agreement previous that they also refused to sign. Whatever happens there will be one heck of a bunfight with only one loser.

Edited by BigTone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Betty Swallocks

Betty Swallocks

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, OliOTIB said:

True, but we charge 30 odd quid and we do get coach for relatively cheap prices, for example shef utds down to us was £37 for szn ticket holders

The £20 for Under 18’s at Coventry is more absurd than the £30+ for adults. 
A load of us were going to do a dad and lads day out but not bothering now. Few beers and watch the game together at home instead now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, BigTone said:

Incorrect. CCFC have been told they must agree to terms on a new licence agreement which will allow them to remain until May 2023.  To date they have refused to sign this. There was another agreement previous that they also refused to sign. Whatever happens there will be one heck of a bunfight with only one loser.

My mate tells me even a lot of their own fans have fell into believing that the eviction isn't until the end of the season when it is in fact with immediate effect. 

For some bizarre reason, their fans are always wanting to blame anyone else other than SISU. Strange considering what SISU have put them through. But yea, this is in no way SISUs fault and all Mike Ashley's apparently, even tho Mike Ashley has acted just like any new owner of the arena would do. 

The fans are more concerned about a walk out at a council meeting about the sell of the arena rather than the fact they are actually homeless. Very strange. 

All the other companies that are based at the arena, also had to sign new agreements. 

Edited by W-S-M Seagull
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheddarwedlocker

cheddarwedlocker

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

The £20 for Under 18’s at Coventry is more absurd than the £30+ for adults. 
A load of us were going to do a dad and lads day out but not bothering now. Few beers and watch the game together at home instead now. 

Not wrong- crazy that to bring a 6 year old relative with me would cost £21 inc fees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

My mate tells me even a lot of their own fans have fell into believing that the eviction isn't until the end of the season when it is in fact with immediate effect. 

For some bizarre reason, their fans are always wanting to blame anyone else other than SISU. Strange considering what SISU have put them through. But yea, this is in no way SISUs fault and all Mike Ashley's apparently, even tho Mike Ashley has acted just like any new owner of the arena would do. 

The fans are more concerned about a walk out at a council meeting about the sell of the arena rather than the fact they are actually homeless. Very strange. 

All the other companies that are based at the arena, also had to sign new agreements. 

To those thinking Ashley's actions harsh remember all the tenant insurances, warranties and public liabilities under the lease/licence/TaW will similarly have become invalid, as will some of the landlord's as the contracting parties covered have changed. Recall the initial changes were nothing more than the names on the contract, bank/agent and insurance details. The contract details itself didn't change. The mystery here is why they wouldn't sign a revised contract equal to that they already enjoyed?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
W-S-M Seagull

W-S-M Seagull

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

To those thinking Ashley's actions harsh remember all the tenant insurances, warranties and public liabilities under the lease/licence/TaW will similarly have become invalid, as will some of the landlord's as the contracting parties covered have changed. Recall the initial changes were nothing more than the names on the contract, bank/agent and insurance details. The contract details itself didn't change. The mystery here is why they wouldn't sign a revised contract equal to that they already enjoyed?

Sisu appear to be very good at using the press to manipulate their fans. 

I'd like to think if this happened here, our fans wouldn't be so happy to rollover and believe any bs that the owners fed us. 

When Frasers offered the new licence, SISU tried to take the opportunity to add new things into it rather than just signing it.

I think their issue is the length of the licence was reduced from their previous licence. Frasers stance is well that licence is now void so the license til the end of the season is better than the one you currently have. 

8 days before their next home game and its all gone very quiet about whether the game will be at the CBS or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Sisu appear to be very good at using the press to manipulate their fans. 

I'd like to think if this happened here, our fans wouldn't be so happy to rollover and believe any bs that the owners fed us. 

When Frasers offered the new licence, SISU tried to take the opportunity to add new things into it rather than just signing it.

I think their issue is the length of the licence was reduced from their previous licence. Frasers stance is well that licence is now void so the license til the end of the season is better than the one you currently have. 

8 days before their next home game and its all gone very quiet about whether the game will be at the CBS or not. 

Whatever form the initial contract took between Arena Cov & Sisu the term of the revised offer will not have changed (as Frasers wouldn't be legally entitled so to vary, at least not without mutual consent.) The differences in lease, licence & TAW are largely to fit in with accounting convention given if correctly drafted all may mirror each other in terms of risk transfer and security of tenure. My understanding is that contract had 8 years to run (for Sisu) but I'm unsure what arrangement Sisu had with Cov (the football element?) That term might have been shorter. The new licence offer only arose as a result of Sisu refusing to sign the like-for-like contract with their new landlord AND not raising dispute such there was no longer a valid contract between the newly named parties. Sisu having defaulted, Frasers are able to vary (within limits) any new offer tabled as its that, a NEW (not replacement) offer.

Landlords flip all the time and from a tenant perspective it really is as simple as signing to agree in future to pay and notify the new landlord at their agent/bank rather than the the landlord listed in the original contract. As the terms do not otherwise vary this is usually accomplished by a variation deed of assignment, not newly drafted contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, OliOTIB said:

Not wrong- crazy that to bring a 6 year old relative with me would cost £21 inc fees. 

 

5 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

That just doesn’t feel right at all does it! 

Agreed. Although what did we charge for the return fixture?

We have more categories so it muddied the water a bit but for equivalent.

£28- Adult

£10- U12

I don't know if this is inclusive of booking fees? If it isn't that rises to £29 and £11 respectively.

We are better for sure but I also read on Twitter that we have the highest at this level and that claim, it surprises me!

This for reference was for a Category B game. Which our game v Coventry in October was deemed.

Screenshot_20221209-152706_Chrome.thumb.jpg.6df8aa2b20ac736c8daa5be1f1cb30fd.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...