Why do fans think CCFC should not be profitable? (1 Viewer)

[Rich]

I'm really suprised at the amount of fans that get peeved with the club having an academy that churns out cash cows. Comments like I'm getting fed up that the money from players isn't re-invested it's used to stop the club losing money.

The issue is not Willis leaving, nor Stevenson et al it's the fact that the money isn't reinvested in the playing squad ... it's now targeted at making CCFC a profitable business.

Forgive for thinking that any business at some point needs to start paying it's own way. The owners have somehow created a sustainable business. If they could get a little more success on the pitch, slightly larger crowds, then this additional money I'm sure would be re-invested in the squad.

It appears that they would like the business to support itself instead of them having to keep putting their own money in.

There's a huge problem in the game in my opinion. Should wealthy owners make a club more successful? Marginally, but a club should be sustainable without the need for any investment from additional sources constantly. Arsenal are the only club I can think of that have a real sustainable top flight business model (part of that's through sky high ticket prices).

All fans need to take a step back and say could I own this football club, the answer is no because not many have the funds to support the business. Most BUSINESSES (in general) support the owner with a salary, not the other way round.

 

---

[hill83]

Because that's boring as shit.

 

[SBAndy]

Because no investment = worse on-pitch performance = no hope or reason to continue going.

The club is being strangled due to a lack of product on the pitch. As much as I'd like to think we could find a model whereby we can put a competitive team together on a shoestring, all studies show that it just doesn't happen.

 

[Rich]

Because no investment = worse on-pitch performance = no hope or reason to continue going.

The club is being strangled due to a lack of product on the pitch. As much as I'd like to think we could find a model whereby we can put a competitive team together on a shoestring, all studies show that it just doesn't happen.

So basically then why would anyone own a football club unless it's a bloody rich bloke looking for a hobby?

 

[hill83]

So basically then why would anyone own a football club unless it's a bloody rich bloke looking for a hobby?

Bit of investment. Promotion to the premier league and it's megabucks. Then sell.

Obviously that didn't work for Sisu.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

There are models of clubs that don't lose millions and have moderate success.
What's missing here is transparency and there's a huge lack of trust. Understandably so!

What's hard about we need to be cash neutral
We need your support - we are working on an agreement with wasps or not
If we don't manage an agreement we are in serious trouble

What do I know?

 

[torchomatic]

So basically then why would anyone own a football club unless it's a bloody rich bloke looking for a hobby?

This is where the SISU OUT! Concept fails. We don't just need new owners we need mega rich owners, otherwise we'd have to sell players to survive and apparently no other club apart from CCFC do that.

 

[Otis]

This is where the SISU OUT! Concept fails. We don't just need new owners we need mega rich owners, otherwise we'd have to sell players to survive and apparently no other club apart from CCFC do that.

I think the key is to sell players at the right time (not too early) and to reinvest some of the money into decent replacements.

I don't mind us selling a player for £1.5m if say £300,000 of that is used to buy a replacement.

I do think Stevenson's star is on the rise though and maybe by the summer he could be worth a good deal more.

Be much better for us, obviously, if we could be selling players for £4m - £5m rather than £1.5m-£2m.

As I have said before, I think Stevenson looks a better player than Maddison.

 

[Rich]

This is where the SISU OUT! Concept fails. We don't just need new owners we need mega rich owners, otherwise we'd have to sell players to survive and apparently no other club apart from CCFC do that.

That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

 

[Astute]

That's it, we don't have bad owners.

Are you trying to have a laugh?

Or do you have a punchline you are waiting with on how much worse than bad they are?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

For me they are incompetent. Certainly fisher isn't up to the job

 

[Grendel]

That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

Good luck.

 

[Rich]

Are you trying to have a laugh?

Or do you have a punchline you are waiting with on how much worse than bad they are?

If this was a normal business they would've shut it down along time ago.

Maybe they are bad owners for not making the sensible choice and closing the club down?

 

[ajsccfc]

People do want the club to be profitable, but as far as priorities go it pales in comparison to footballing success by any means (I can only imagine how many times 'speculate to accumulate' has been used here over the years) which is understandable as people would rather see good news on a league table rather than financial reports.

 

[Astute]

If this was a normal business they would've shut it down along time ago.

Maybe they are bad owners for not making the sensible choice and closing the club down?

They are not bad owners because they took us to Northampton.

They are not bad owners because they refused to negotiate on the Ricoh and lost us our ground.

They are not bad owners because they prefer legal action that they will not win than anything else.

They are not bad owners because they blame everyone else for what has gone wrong....including their customers.

They are not bad owners as they don't have a clue on how to run a football club.

They are not bad owners as they keep bullshitting and just about everyone can see it.

OK. You are right. They are not bad owners :shifty:

 

[Deity]

The issue is that the business model they have created is not sustainable and therefore the profits are not sustainable and any potential new owner would see that within 15 mins of entering Due Dilligence.

We have no stadium or training ground the only material revenue input ( player sales ) is coming to an end with the fire sales of players and the academy future under threat.

Once you factor in the true costs of running a moderately sustainable professional football club the club is not profitable.

 

[scubasteve]

One problem, there won't be a academy to churn out the players in the near future. Due to the antics of our owners.......

 

[SkyBlueZack]

One problem, there won't be a academy to churn out the players in the near future. Due to the antics of our owners.......

Or alternatively, it was out of spite by pwkh. In my opinion of course. Would Derek higgs have inserted such a clause?

 

[christonabike]

CCFC are in the entertainment business i.e provide a product people want to come and see thus bringing in cash. So most importantly you have to provide entertainment and that usually means spending money in the hope that people like the product. Yes you cant continue to trow cash away but fundamentally thats how the business works. Selling these players at every first offer comes along not only reduces the quality of product but also reduces revenue when you could easily wait another 6 months to get a higher figure that would help towards running the club and improving the squad.
Fisher has this strange analogy that its fine to be in the 4th division as long as we are breaking even. Its all down to the product and the standard of football people see will be poor and so will the attendances and it continues to spiral. The truth is they say they have invested or are owed £70M (dont believe a word of it) and they are now grabbing as much of it back as they can and trying to fool everyone by pretending to build a stable club etc.
Sisu dont give a fook about CCFC as he so nicely put it and just want to squeeze every last penny until we are non league and losing money again.

 

[Skybluefaz]

That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

Are you saying we could become a very big fish in league 2? You've got to have aspirations haven't you? I don't mind the business model to be fair. The thing is SISU are in such a hole with the fans that it's difficult to see them enticing fans back to get money in to generate better budgets for the manager and a general better environment for success. Also if we stand to make a profit this year, why are we selling Stevenson in January? It's a bad football and financial decision when his value will grow with time.

 

[scubasteve]

Or alternatively, it was out of spite by pwkh. In my opinion of course. Would Derek higgs have inserted such a clause?

Or the fact that the club told them they were building a new training ground, academy and stadium. Which unless you are deluded you will know it's all lies.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Or the fact that the club told them they were building a new training ground, academy and stadium. Which unless you are deluded you will know it's all lies.

Well unless you are insinuating pwkh is deluded. Then surely he would have known it was lies too? That the club had nowhere to go. That at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, sisu won't be here. That the academy is vital to the club. So do you think Derek higgs would have inserted the same clause?

 

[scubasteve]

Well unless you are insinuating pwkh is deluded. Then surely he would have known it was lies too? That the club had nowhere to go. That at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, sisu won't be here. That the academy is vital to the club. So do you think Derek higgs would have inserted the same clause?

He still has to protect his asset, if the club still maintains its building these facilities then he can't be left with a empty building. Weather he believes them or not, they have to take the threat seriously.

How long should the council, acl, higgs trust, wasps etc be messed around, sued, lied to by our owners. I think we all know once sisu have washed there hands with our club and gone, it will be these entities along with new owners who will pick up the pieces.

 

[Rich]

They are not bad owners because they took us to Northampton.

They are not bad owners because they refused to negotiate on the Ricoh and lost us our ground.

They are not bad owners because they prefer legal action that they will not win than anything else.

They are not bad owners because they blame everyone else for what has gone wrong....including their customers.

They are not bad owners as they don't have a clue on how to run a football club.

They are not bad owners as they keep bullshitting and just about everyone can see it.

OK. You are right. They are not bad owners :shifty:

I knew you'd see it my way eventually.

 

[skybluebeduff]

Does help owning our own ground, having a future for our academy, and somewhere we can call our own to train the players...

SISU ensured none of the above is what they want for this club...

 

[clint van damme]

To me they don't have a business model for the club other than make sure they don't lose money.
Fisher said on CWR that he has other business interests, well I wonder how many of them have no tangible short, medium or long term business plan?

I have no problem with sisu trying to break even or even make a profit but they don't appear to have any idea of how to take the club forward. There are other ways of doing that with out throwing money about. I don't think they have the money to get us competitive in the Championship, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to get us back there.

The one way sisu can increase revenue is increasing attendances, yet they have done absolutely nothing to build bridges with the support and get people back up the Ricoh.
I may have this wrong, but to me Fishers disdain for the support was clear to hear in the interviews he conducted before Christmas.

 

[Esoterica]

I gave SISU a lot of slack early on. I could see what they were trying to do, from Ranson's plan through to distressing ACL, and even though their methods were questionable they would have benefitted CCFC in the long term - so I wasn't too bothered if the shitty council or their stadium management company got shafted.
I could even stomach the Sixfields move IF it achieved their shady aim of Ricoh ownership. Ever since that backfired so spectacularly though and the council sold the club down the river with a 250 year lease to Wasps, then the smoke, mirrors and gross exaggerations have been turned on the fans.

Now I've no issue with the club being run at break even, in fact I find the model admirable in a time of obscene money in the sport, but that needs to go hand in hand with transparency - something SISU have never done. Even when they told us how many fans we need it was grossly miscalculated (or just not true). The accounts need a lifetime of work in that field to make sense of and even experts cannot fully explain it all from the outside looking in. Our players are sold in secrecy and for values that reek of desperation and the product on the pitch has been dire for all bar 6 months.
Even now, with SISU giving up on the club until they get some return on their perceived investment then I could accept it, alongside open and honest communication from our chairman. I would at least have some hope then. But all the Butts bullshit, the Ryton houses, the rumours of not 1 sale but potentially 3 youth products in 1 window with no idea if Slade is getting any at all, no visible progress on either Academy or Ricoh rentals and Fisher blaming the fans. etc leads me to agree with you - they aren't bad owners. They're fucking terrible.

 

[Grendel]

He still has to protect his asset, if the club still maintains its building these facilities then he can't be left with a empty building. Weather he believes them or not, they have to take the threat seriously.

How long should the council, acl, higgs trust, wasps etc be messed around, sued, lied to by our owners. I think we all know once sisu have washed there hands with our club and gone, it will be these entities along with new owners who will pick up the pieces.

Anyone who has had dealings with PWKH may potentially have a different, far less charitable view.

In my opinion of course Peter.

 

[skybluetony176]

If this was a normal business they would've shut it down along time ago.

Maybe they are bad owners for not making the sensible choice and closing the club down?

You've answered your own question there. This isn't a normal business, it's the football business. No other industry would dream of operating in the manor of the football business. This is what makes SISU bad owners not good owners for the club. It's a sink or swim business and the swimmer's all have investment. The current model at the club is all about not costing SISU or ARVO anything and that makes the club a sinker not a swimmer. There will be no rebuilding if we go down to league two under this model. We may get lucky and fluke promotion back to league one straight away but we'll be set up as a league two club trying to break even so we'll probably drop straight back down again. More likely that best case scenario will be further stagnation in league two, worse case is a continual spiralling down of the club.

 

[Brylowes]

Bit of investment. Promotion to the premier league and it's megabucks. Then sell.

Obviously that didn't work for Sisu.

And that is a big part of our problem IMO, anyone purchasing a football club With the sole intention
to sell it for a quick profit, should not be allowed anywhere near a football club.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I gave SISU a lot of slack early on. I could see what they were trying to do, from Ranson's plan through to distressing ACL, and even though their methods were questionable they would have benefitted CCFC in the long term - so I wasn't too bothered if the shitty council or their stadium management company got shafted.
I could even stomach the Sixfields move IF it achieved their shady aim of Ricoh ownership. Ever since that backfired so spectacularly though and the council sold the club down the river with a 250 year lease to Wasps, then the smoke, mirrors and gross exaggerations have been turned on the fans.

Now I've no issue with the club being run at break even, in fact I find the model admirable in a time of obscene money in the sport, but that needs to go hand in hand with transparency - something SISU have never done. Even when they told us how many fans we need it was grossly miscalculated (or just not true). The accounts need a lifetime of work in that field to make sense of and even experts cannot fully explain it all from the outside looking in. Our players are sold in secrecy and for values that reek of desperation and the product on the pitch has been dire for all bar 6 months.
Even now, with SISU giving up on the club until they get some return on their perceived investment then I could accept it, alongside open and honest communication from our chairman. I would at least have some hope then. But all the Butts bullshit, the Ryton houses, the rumours of not 1 sale but potentially 3 youth products in 1 window with no idea if Slade is getting any at all, no visible progress on either Academy or Ricoh rentals and Fisher blaming the fans. etc leads me to agree with you - they aren't bad owners. They're fucking terrible.

Can't really argue with any of that. Well balanced and accurate post.

 

[chiefdave]

Anyone who has had dealings with PWKH may potentially have a different, far less charitable view.

In my opinion of course Peter.

Careful or you'll be getting a PM about his family of lawyers (allegedly).

 

[Deleted member 2477]

That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

Is it april fools

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

You had me for a little while... until the 'we don't have bad owners' line.

 

[Gosford Green]

So basically then why would anyone own a football club unless it's a bloody rich bloke looking for a hobby?

Yes it seems so Unfortunately. Leicester, Chelsea and Man City to name 3 examples. 15 years ago Man City and more recently Leicester was at our level, we got the worst owners in football history, they got lucky especially when it came to ownership.

SISU are a hedge fund, speculators. They cam here to get to the EPL, get the Ricoh then get out at a huge profit, it went wrong disastrously.
Our academy is under threat due to our great owners you describe that will dry up the annual graduate sale, I read your original post twice and can only assume you have been on the crack pipe.