Jump to content
IGNORED

Good news for Coventry City

chinapig

By chinapig
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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...