TF explains how ........ (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
latest report regarding new stadium build .....

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/sky-blues-chief-tim-fisher-4065237

That would be Lionel Road IN Brentford would it ?

and Brentford who have a ground to sell

A new stadium financed by other development that you have yet to decide on and get planning approval for ..... let alone planning approval for the stadium..... not the greatest financial modelling.....

Anything is possible but ............
 
Last edited:
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
he is completely deluded how are they going to pay for it if nobody turns up why do they not understand this ? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
So the bloke has paid 10 million just for the land and has not built the stadium yet.

He also owns other land he can sell for 10 million.

By the time Brentford build the stadium it will cost him 20-30 million.

I take it when Tim says it won't cost SISU 20-30 million. It is because he doesn't see debt as actually costing anything?

Well it does and would leave CCFC 100 million in debt.

Please keep explaining Tim it gives me more and more confidence this is not happening.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Effectively SISU will pay for the land say 5-10 million then borrow the rest (in the name of CCFC) against that land. They will no doubt borrow against Ryton again as well
100 million here we come......
 
ajsccfc

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
Couldn't we have afforded to keep hold of some players and prevent being in league one and having all this mess?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Brentford have been working on this since October 2002 didnt acquire the site until June 2012 and wont move in until 2016/17 season............. we have to show the FL detailed plans by end July (before start of season).............. :thinking about:
 
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
mr fisher ready to present his plans to the FL
shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-300x252.jpg
 
S

SonofErnie

Well-Known Member
5 key differences between the Brentford plan's and SISU's (I refuse to call them CCFC's):

1. The stadium will be within the boundaries of Brentford
2. It will be in an area where regeneration plans are likely to be accepted
3. They have sensible funding plans
4. They own their own stadium and can utilise the sale of this towards the cost
5. Most importantly - their fans back the plans!!!!!

I'm sure there are more areas if difference, but the above are already enough to make SISU's plans dead in the water. They are desperately trying to convince everyone they are serious to push the price up for bidders. It can't and won't work!
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Brentford have been working on this since October 2002 didnt acquire the site until June 2012 and wont move in until 2016/17 season............. we have to show the FL detailed plans by end July (before start of season).............. :thinking about:
Click to expand...

I take it this is all part of a campaign of double bluff to try and ramp the price up for Ltd.

As in SISU have future plans so will pay a lot for it, so to out bid them you will have to pay a fortune?
 
Otis

Otis

Well-Known Member
SonofErnie said:
5 key differences between the Brentford plan's and SISU's (I refuse to call them CCFC's):

1. The stadium will be within the boundaries of Brentford
2. It will be in an area where regeneration plans are likely to be accepted
3. They have sensible funding plans
4. They own their own stadium and can utilise the sale of this towards the cost
5. Most importantly - their fans back the plans!!!!!

I'm sure there are more areas if difference, but the above are already enough to make SISU's plans dead in the water. They are desperately trying to convince everyone they are serious to push the price up for bidders. It can't and won't work!
Click to expand...

And number 5 there is the most crucial.

We already have a stadium here and the huge majority of fans don't wish for us to move away from the Ricoh.
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Otis said:
And number 5 there is the most crucial.

We already have a stadium here and the huge majority of fans don't wish for us to move away from the Ricoh.
Click to expand...

Problem is 'our' stadium is killing the club. And is isn't actually 'ours'.
 
S

SonofErnie

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
The (potential) new owners do understand this, which is why none of them would wish to continue with the current arrangement (or even the reduced rent deal). What's the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is, the lines of communication and negotiation are now closed to SISU, which is not the case for new owners. SISU have well and truly 'burnt bridges' and 'scorched earth'!
 
djpalms23

djpalms23

Active Member
Tim Fisher = :jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
Problem is 'our' stadium is killing the club. And is isn't actually 'ours'.
Click to expand...

Two points: the rent is less than one tenth of the disclosed debts. Even allowing for zero rent, full F&B's and sponsorship monies, that accululated value would barely scratch the surface of those losses.

If we were £10 million in debt, I would agree with you. But we're not.

Our current owners are 'killing' the club.

Better owners, with access to the Ricoh's income via ownership is where the solution is. Not another SISU iteration at a half-baked stadium built in the troubled kingdom of Fisher's mind
 
Last edited:
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
The (potential) new owners do understand this, which is why none of them would wish to continue with the current arrangement (or even the reduced rent deal). What's the difference?
Click to expand...

They are doing something about in a professional way. Ie trying to buy half of ACL not break them. Did you really need that spelling out?
 
Mary_Mungo_Midge

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
The (potential) new owners do understand this, which is why none of them would wish to continue with the current arrangement (or even the reduced rent deal). What's the difference?
Click to expand...

They appear to have a strategy to secure it via negotiation; as opposed to illegal withholding of cash and evident distressing. That'll be the difference, I guess
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Two points: the rent is less than one tenth of the disclosed debts. Even allowing for zero rent, full F&B's and sponsorship monies, that accululated value would barely scratch the surface of those losses.

If we were £10 million in debt, I would agree with you. But we're not.

Our current owners are 'killing' the club.

Better owners, with access to the Ricoh's income via ownership is where the solution is. Not another SISU iteration at a half-baked stadium built in the troubled kingdom of Fisher's mind
Click to expand...

Losses and debts are different things.
If we owned ACL we (most likely) wouldn't run at a loss.

We don't know the full 'value' of the debts. It may say £70m in the accounts, but that is hardly the exact value across the companies in the group. Sisu have bloated the debts as a protection against a hostile takeover - we see the effect of that right now.
Don't expect a new owner to do it differently!
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
They are doing something about in a professional way. Ie trying to buy half of ACL not break them. Did you really need that spelling out?
Click to expand...

What have they offered Higgs for their shares?
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
The (potential) new owners do understand this, which is why none of them would wish to continue with the current arrangement (or even the reduced rent deal). What's the difference?
Click to expand...
How do you know this, why wouldn't they want to buy the charity share of the Arena as SISU/CCFC started to do?
 
Last edited:
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I genuinely believe SISU do not want to win the bid for Ltd.

They are trying to push the price of it up.

I also think they hope to sell holdings to the buyer of Ltd hence fighting to justify the importance of holdings.

The stadium concept, the more I hear about it the more it confirms they want out
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
They appear to have a strategy to secure it via negotiation; as opposed to illegal withholding of cash and evident distressing. That'll be the difference, I guess
Click to expand...

The comments from TF at the London Supporters Club forum suggests that SISU tried negotiation originally.]

The prospective new owners aren't exactly White Knights are they? If they were, they'd have surely looked to takeover the club when it was in a slightly better position, or is it different for them?
 
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
would be great if somebody else would take over the club and run it correctly, but if somebody would take over the club and run it properly and break SISU in the process now that would be excellent!!:):):p
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
The comments from TF at the London Supporters Club forum suggests that SISU tried negotiation originally.]

The prospective new owners aren't exactly White Knights are they? If they were, they'd have surely looked to takeover the club when it was in a slightly better position, or is it different for them?
Click to expand...

The difference I would imagine is today they deal with an administrator 6 months ago it would have been SISU.

The last two attempts went well dealing with SISU
 
Otis

Otis

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top