Kcic front bid to buy club (2 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

I think the 35p and 1987 thing sort of make it lose seriousness, as well as the Damp Squib. No need for it, just put the offer.

If there was a full on business plan type thing with details and figures it would be a lot more serious and would make you think, which is only why I am asking Michael figures etc.

What makes this different from the other offers of help in the past?

Thing is Nick. If we had sensible owners who had the clubs interests at the top of their priority list Michael wouldn't need to be making any sort of offer to entice our clubs owners to do what's best for the club. They should have done what's best for the club of their own backs a long time ago. Something you continually ignore.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that playing at suxfields to less than 2000 is what's best for the club.

 

---

[Nick]

I am by no means saying playing at Sixfields is best for the club, but we also don't know any details of this offer do we without the details?

It could well be that after 5,000 we need to pay £200k a week and businessmen get 50% of ticket sale money for all we know (Not that I think it is).

 

[lewys33]

The thing is, how can people back it without knowing all of the details?

It is like me offering to pay your mortgage for you (without knowing how much your mortgage is) and then saying "but you will have to pay some" and not actually saying how much you will have to pay.

As soon as there are some workings out, people can start saying SISU are right of wrong to reject it surely?

I am sure all of us would quickly become qualified to analyse this if we had that info

 

[Bennets Afro]

Needs a one step at a time approach. Ideas have been around for some time. Got finance in place so was able to make offer. Next step is sisu's response.

Up to what level of rent are you prepared to play?
Has this idea been discussed with acl and has rental been agreed?

 

[kg82]

Needs a one step at a time approach. Ideas have been around for some time. Got finance in place so was able to make offer. Next step is sisu's response.

Fair play to getting all this sorted, but do you think SISU will go for it? It doesn't seem any different to previous bids and, as we've seen with those, SISU hold all the cards - they won't walk away without some serious financial compensation.

 

[Houdi]

Most fans have always accepted the real and only reason SISU have taken for playing at Sixfields is to try and distress ACL, with the continuing court cases pursued for exactly the same reason. I doubt if anyone truly believes that SISU aren't aware that they would be easily financially better off playing at the Ricoh, even they aren't that stupid.
In view of this,it is hard to see why fans suddenly believe there is any chance of SISU agreeing to a plan which will result in increased revenue streams to their bitter enemies at ACL. It would make no sense at all, and is why they wouldn't have ever considered the Hoffman deal last year.

 

[Grendel]

Most fans have always accepted the real and only reason SISU have taken for playing at Sixfields is to try and distress ACL, with the continuing court cases pursued for exactly the same reason. I doubt if anyone truly believes that SISU aren't aware that they would be easily financially better off playing at the Ricoh, even they aren't that stupid.
In view of this,it is hard to see why fans suddenly believe there is any chance of SISU agreeing to a plan which will result in increased revenue streams to their bitter enemies at ACL. It would make no sense at all, and is why they wouldn't have ever considered the Hoffman deal last year.

Exactly. This is ridiculous.

 

[The Gentleman]

The thing is, how can people back it without knowing all of the details?

It is like me offering to pay your mortgage for you (without knowing how much your mortgage is) and then saying "but you will have to pay some" and not actually saying how much you will have to pay.

As soon as there are some workings out, people can start saying SISU are right of wrong to reject it surely?

Nice of you to answer for Rob, but as he has previously told us that he is in constant contact with the other groups about what is happening, I would hope he would have an idea what is going on. So if that is true I would like his take on it, not you answering for him as you have already told us what you think.

 

[Nick]

Nice of you to answer for Rob, but as he has previously told us that he is in constant contact with the other groups about what is happening, I would hope he would have an idea what is going on. So if that is true I would like his take on it, not you answering for him as you have already told us what you think.

I haven't answered for him, he will be more than able to answer for himself

I was only saying why it is hard for people to back it.

 

[chiefdave]

As the crowd will ALWAYS be over 5000 then the rent will never be free for the Club

From what I see it's no different to them paying the rent themselves

It might be easy to look at it as a simple business proposition. To illustrate (using very rough made up figures).

Option A
You can run your business from location A, it costs you £150K a year and you get approx. 46,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person, revenue of £460K, you pay rent of £150K a year so a profit of £310K

Option B
You can run your business from location B, it costs you £150K a year and if you get less than approx. 110,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person (revenue of £1.1m) you pay zero rent so make £1.1m profit. If you get, as expected, approx. 230,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person revenue is £2.3m, let's assume you pay rent of £400K a year including matchday costs so a profit of £1.9m.

I don't think you have to be a genius business person to conclude the only result of taking option B would be to benefit the company you are running. There is zero risk involved, the only possible outcome can be that your business would be better off.

The thing is, how can people back it without knowing all of the details?

In my opinion we have all the detail we need. KCIC have offered to cover the rent unless the crowds at the Ricoh are at such a level that we are significantly better off than playing at Sixfields. They have offered to show proof of funds so clearly it's not just some PR stunt. The fact that they can show proof of funds should be enough to show people its a serious and genuine offer. There is absolutely no valid reason for SISU to turn this down, its a perfect deal for them if what they have been telling the fans is correct, they don't have to deal with ACL, they are covered against loss of revenue compared to Sixfields if people refuse to return while SISU are in control and it covers the period in which they claim they will build the new stadium.

 

[Nick]

It might be easy to look at it as a simple business proposition. To illustrate (using very rough made up figures).

Option A
You can run your business from location A, it costs you £150K a year and you get approx. 46,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person, revenue of £460K, you pay rent of £150K a year so a profit of £310K

Option B
You can run your business from location B, it costs you £150K a year and if you get less than approx. 110,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person (revenue of £1.1m) you pay zero rent so make £1.1m profit. If you get, as expected, approx. 230,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person revenue is £2.3m, let's assume you pay rent of £400K a year including matchday costs so a profit of £1.9m.

I don't think you have to be a genius business person to conclude the only result of taking option B would be to benefit the company you are running. There is zero risk involved, the only possible outcome can be that your business would be better off.



In my opinion we have all the detail we need. KCIC have offered to cover the rent unless the crowds at the Ricoh are at such a level that we are significantly better off than playing at Sixfields. They have offered to show proof of funds so clearly it's not just some PR stunt. The fact that they can show proof of funds should be enough to show people its a serious and genuine offer. There is absolutely no valid reason for SISU to turn this down, its a perfect deal for them if what they have been telling the fans is correct, they don't have to deal with ACL, they are covered against loss of revenue compared to Sixfields if people refuse to return while SISU are in control and it covers the period in which they claim they will build the new stadium.

Proof of funds for the buyout (£50 odd k) but it says confident they can come to an agreement about the rent with ACL, which means they don't actually know how much the rent will be do they? To be honest, them saying proof of funds doesn't mean anything, I could make a "genuine offer" of £35 (for the Sixfields distance) and show them the cash but it doesn't mean it would be taken seriously does it.

That is the reason I was asking the questions earlier in the thread to get some more information.

 

[Spionkop]

Its not hard for me to back it, and I suspect a few thousand others. It could be starting point for negotiations. It could put Sisu on the spot.
If the FL see the concerted efforts that are being played out & Sisu knock them back, when sanity tells everyone SISU would be quids in on this deal, compared to Northampton...then it may be a trigger for them to ask questions of Sisu. It may, just may, be a starting point. As I said earlier, Sisu take the branch. You bastards.

 

[DaleM]

It might be easy to look at it as a simple business proposition. To illustrate (using very rough made up figures).

Option A
You can run your business from location A, it costs you £150K a year and you get approx. 46,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person, revenue of £460K, you pay rent of £150K a year so a profit of £310K

Option B
You can run your business from location B, it costs you £150K a year and if you get less than approx. 110,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person (revenue of £1.1m) you pay zero rent so make £1.1m profit. If you get, as expected, approx. 230,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person revenue is £2.3m, let's assume you pay rent of £400K a year including matchday costs so a profit of £1.9m.

I don't think you have to be a genius business person to conclude the only result of taking option B would be to benefit the company you are running. There is zero risk involved, the only possible outcome can be that your business would be better off.



In my opinion we have all the detail we need. KCIC have offered to cover the rent unless the crowds at the Ricoh are at such a level that we are significantly better off than playing at Sixfields. They have offered to show proof of funds so clearly it's not just some PR stunt. The fact that they can show proof of funds should be enough to show people its a serious and genuine offer. There is absolutely no valid reason for SISU to turn this down, its a perfect deal for them if what they have been telling the fans is correct, they don't have to deal with ACL, they are covered against loss of revenue compared to Sixfields if people refuse to return while SISU are in control and it covers the period in which they claim they will build the new stadium.

Stop being sensible . It's all about the pies. Didn't you know ?.

Pies pies pies .

(The only decent ones IMO were the Balti ones . Rest were shit)

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

To be honest, the main thing that the offer does is to highlight the complete absurdity of SISU keeping us in Northampton.

But there are very few who need convincing of that (outside the SISU Boardroom ).

 

[stupot07]

Other than Coventry playing in Coventry, the CCFC bank account benefiting from the extra revenue from ticket sales (I do believe ticket sales count towards FFP, ot is it just the tea and coffee money?) and perhaps we can start looking like a proper football club again.

Yes it wouldn't really change anything would it. What you meant was it wouldn't benefit sisu's long term plan for their investors.

No that's not what I'm saying. We all know that being at Ricoh is significantly financially better than being Sixfields. We know and sisu know it. Sisu are there for a reason, whether we agree with that reason or not.

If sisu wanted to return to the Ricoh to access greater revenue streams that would do so by they're own accord.

The rent offer, whist sounds good for us fans, in reality is no different than Hoffmans. We will get more than 5k so the club will have to pay the money back therefore the club would be paying the rent anyway.....


....which then leads back to the point that sisu know that being at the Ricoh makes more financial sense, yet are choosing not to play there, this rent offer changes nothing from their POV IMO, whether we like it or not.

We can show option a = Sixfields no money and option b = Ricoh more money, all we want no ones disputing that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Houdi]

It might be easy to look at it as a simple business proposition. To illustrate (using very rough made up figures).

Option A
You can run your business from location A, it costs you £150K a year and you get approx. 46,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person, revenue of £460K, you pay rent of £150K a year so a profit of £310K

Option B
You can run your business from location B, it costs you £150K a year and if you get less than approx. 110,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person (revenue of £1.1m) you pay zero rent so make £1.1m profit. If you get, as expected, approx. 230,000 visitors a year at an average £10 per person revenue is £2.3m, let's assume you pay rent of £400K a year including matchday costs so a profit of £1.9m.

I don't think you have to be a genius business person to conclude the only result of taking option B would be to benefit the company you are running. There is zero risk involved, the only possible outcome can be that your business would be better off.



In my opinion we have all the detail we need. KCIC have offered to cover the rent unless the crowds at the Ricoh are at such a level that we are significantly better off than playing at Sixfields. They have offered to show proof of funds so clearly it's not just some PR stunt. The fact that they can show proof of funds should be enough to show people its a serious and genuine offer. There is absolutely no valid reason for SISU to turn this down, its a perfect deal for them if what they have been telling the fans is correct, they don't have to deal with ACL, they are covered against loss of revenue compared to Sixfields if people refuse to return while SISU are in control and it covers the period in which they claim they will build the new stadium.

But there is a perfectly valid (from SISU's point of view) reason for them rejecting this offer. Firstly there is no new stadium, or at least that's what most people truly believe. Secondly accepting this offer would scupper forever any chance SISU have in distressing ACL. Of course SISU will 'spin' other reasons why they can't accept the offer, but they can hardly admit the truth can they.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I am by no means saying playing at Sixfields is best for the club, but we also don't know any details of this offer do we without the details?

It could well be that after 5,000 we need to pay £200k a week and businessmen get 50% of ticket sale money for all we know (Not that I think it is).

The offer letter was published, the details are public knowledge. What do you think is being concealed?

If you want details then maybe you should ask SISU where & when they propose to build their stadium, either that or admit they are not going to build one and are only intent on distressing ACL.

 

[torchomatic]

I seriously think there's something wrong with you.

What's wrong with asking questions. When did that start to be frowned upon?

Let's hope KCiC don't issue a "Take an Overdose for KCiC. That'll show 'em" You going to doing unquestionably, are you?

Neither Nick or I or anyone for that matter has said "Being in Northampton is great". FFS, you need to get a grip.

How the fuck is the club coming back while the long term future is sorted something to nit pick about?

I'm genuinely stunned.

Correct me if I'm wrong Michael, but it seems to me that the offer is about getting us home while Seppala and Lucas play split or steal. The fact that it's free for less than 5k would (again correct me if I'm wrong) guarantee it's better for the club financially than Sixfields.

Seriously. Nick. Torch. You need to have a fucking word with yourself. Do you even want Cov back or is it too comfortable on your high horse in Northampton?

Unbelievable!

"Just asking questions" you're not fucking 12 Nick, you know what you're doing.

Oh, and well done Michael. Yet again putting other fans' groups lack of acton to shame.

Edit: to be honest, though the ownership offer is an obvious joke, I'd say that if anything you're doing a Seppala and offering above the market value for something that's worthless. Shame there's no JR process for private companies if she turns it down. As we know from Grendel and Nick, it's all about market value. It'd be insane to turn it down as no-one is offering more. And as we know from Grendel and Nick, that's how a market works and to do anything else is a sign of conspiracy

Edit 2: Michael, if/when this is turned down, you should release a press release using the same words as the Sisu JR skeleton argument about CCC turning down the offer for ACL, and how this is obviously irrational

 

[lewys33]

Exactly. This is ridiculous.

So we should just accept this?

 

[Nick]

The offer letter was published, the details are public knowledge. What do you think is being concealed?

If you want details then maybe you should ask SISU where & when they propose to build their stadium, either that or admit they are not going to build one and are only intent on distressing ACL.

I have said many a time I also don't believe there is a stadium

The details aren't public knowledge as they haven't got the rent figures have they?

 

[chiefdave]

To be honest, the main thing that the offer does is to highlight the complete absurdity of SISU keeping us in Northampton.

But there are very few who need convincing of that (outside the SISU Boardroom ).

Just for that reason it is worthwhile. SISU either ignore it or respond and reject it and make themselves look even more incompetent by ignoring an offer everyone can see is in our best interest, or they respond and accept and we've back at the Ricoh.

Of course we all know the FL will do nothing but this all adds to a body of evidence that clearly shows we could be playing in Coventry and it is purely down to our owners decisions and objectives that we are not.

 

[Grendel]

Is it April 1st?

This is bollocks.

 

[lewys33]

Is it April 1st?

This is bollocks.

I assume you are still routing for Brian Patton then?

 

[SuperFred]

50k hahaha this must be a joke

 

[Nick]

How the fuck is the club coming back while the long term future is sorted something to nit pick about?

I'm genuinely stunned.

Correct me if I'm wrong Michael, but it seems to me that the offer is about getting us home while Seppala and Lucas play split or steal. The fact that it's free for less than 5k would (again correct me if I'm wrong) guarantee it's better for the club financially than Sixfields.

Seriously. Nick. Torch. You need to have a fucking word with yourself. Do you even want Cov back or is it too comfortable on your high horse in Northampton?

Unbelievable!

"Just asking questions" you're not fucking 12 Nick, you know what you're doing.

Oh, and well done Michael. Yet again putting other fans' groups lack of acton to shame.

Edit: to be honest, though the ownership offer is an obvious joke, I'd say that if anything you're doing a Seppala and offering above the market value for something that's worthless. Shame there's no JR process for private companies if she turns it down. As we know from Grendel and Nick, it's all about market value. It'd be insane to turn it down as no-one is offering more. And as we know from Grendel and Nick, that's how a market works and to do anything else is a sign of conspiracy

Edit 2: Michael, if/when this is turned down, you should release a press release using the same words as the Sisu JR skeleton argument about CCC turning down the offer for ACL, and how this is obviously irrational

Ahhh so I am not allowed to ask Michael any question? Is that how things work?

How can anybody say anything is financially viable when we don't know how much it will be above 5k? Which is why I was asking the questions which some people have got so riled up about? Me asking what sort of figures are there for a 15,000 crowd is a simple question is it and surely just part of the business plan? Do we know how much the people will want when it gets over 5k? Do we know how much the rent and match fees will be? If it is public knowledge then somebody please post it as it isn't on the offer.

I don't doubt it would be much better than playing in Northampton but I am being realistic as in would it happen?

People can whinge about "picking holes" but it is just asking simple questions. What do people expect actual business people to do before they start doing things? They would tear the whole thing apart. Nobody is being offensive and I certainly wasn't but if me asking for an example of what it would cost for 15,000 fans really offends people or is picking holes then that letter should be ripped up and forgotten about if they want to be the middle men between SISU and ACL.

 

[No future with SISU]

At the minute I don't think there is any good in it, but IF the CLUB were to get the stadium dirt cheap or free because of it then there would have been something at the end of it.

Why do people have such an issue with me asking questions? Do they not think SISU will rip it apart to ask things if they take it half seriously?

Another serious question, what makes this different from that crowd funded offer, or the other Hoffman "free rent" deal?

No doubt I will just get called a SISU lover rather than an actual, thought about answer.

It will not be the club getting the stadium free or cheap, it will be a SISU company. Why would that be a good thing?

 

[Jack Griffin]

I have said many a time I also don't believe there is a stadium

The details aren't public knowledge as they haven't got the rent figures have they?

But the club are not paying any rent, that is the whole point of it.. up to 5K crowds they pay nothing.. the letter uses the term de minimus above 5K, look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis basically it is saying the element above 5K crowds is minimal....

 

[diggerdaley]

Realistically how much is the club worth ? I think Wilson is probably worth more than the club.

 

[Grendel]

I assume you are still routing for Brian Patton then?

It's irrelevant and best and shameless publicity seeking at worst.
ACL seem not even to have agreed an arrangement anyway so there is no offer.
It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed this thread is embarrassing - the clubs a laughing stock and this is making us look even more ridiculous.

 

[Nick]

But the club are not paying any rent, that is the whole point of it.. up to 5K crowds they pay nothing..

So over 5k, they will be paying rent and matchday fees won't they? Isn't like the Hoffman one where he would cover all the rent, but of course he would take some of the ticket sales to cover it.

 

[The Gentleman]

Will be interesting to see what Labovitch's response will be seeing as he was supposedly trying to broker some sort of deal.

Nice to the responses we are getting and some unsure about the small print, but what this does give us is a small chance to move forward, start negotiating and see where it takes us. If Sisu just dismiss it out of hand without even saying they will look or try to negotiate then does that not show Sisu up for not even trying to get back to Coventry.

 

[Grendel]

So over 5k, they will be paying rent and matchday fees won't they?

Which means they will every game so embarrassing.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Just for that reason it is worthwhile. SISU either ignore it or respond and reject it and make themselves look even more incompetent by ignoring an offer everyone can see is in our best interest, or they respond and accept and we've back at the Ricoh.

Of course we all know the FL will do nothing but this all adds to a body of evidence that clearly shows we could be playing in Coventry and it is purely down to our owners decisions and objectives that we are not.

Makes you wonder ACL didn't let the club stay on a three year contract "whilst the new stadium was being built" doesn't it really?

Three years guaranteed, and with no real likelihood of a new stadium being built would more than likely have been there in perpeptuity.

 

[The Gentleman]

So over 5k, they will be paying rent and matchday fees won't they?

Same as at Sixfields then?

 

[Grendel]

Will be interesting to see what Labovitch's response will be seeing as he was supposedly trying to broker some sort of deal.

Nice to the responses we are getting and some unsure about the small print, but what this does give us is a small chance to move forward, start negotiating and see where it takes us. If Sisu just dismiss it out of hand without even saying they will look or try to negotiate then does that not show Sisu up for not even trying to get back to Coventry.

Rubbish - there is no offer - ACL haven't been approached.