torchomatic
Well-Known Member
CCFC were never going to get the stadium no matter what they did. The dice was always loaded against them. As I said, you would think it would anger CCFC fans, but apparently not.
Holding Wasps to Account (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Skybluesince82
- Start date
CCFC were never going to get the stadium no matter what they did. The dice was always loaded against them. As I said, you would think it would anger CCFC fans, but apparently not.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Weren’t SISU asked time and time again for a business plan which they never produced, the council always needed to shift Arena liabilities to someone else, SISU were not going to take those debts on. I think it was clear all SISU wanted to do was let someone else take a hit on the debt, acquire the asset, flip it at a profit and bugger off.
On the other hand Wasps wanted to move in, embed and invest and they had what appeared to be a credible plan. Also as Wasps have paid off all Council debts should they fail then there is no liability on the tax payers, the bond holders get stuffed & if they do I for one shall not lose any sleep.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
CCFC were never going to get the stadium. Sisu would have got it. Big difference.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
its called brinksmanship designed to put as much pressure on the other side as possible by leaving it to the last minute. All sides have used this tactic regularly including SISU
From the Wasps perspective there is no great need to get it done now, when it runs out in 19 months time. CCFC have no immediate alternative. Wasps would say they are honouring the contract in place that was basically agreed before they bought ACL. Their argument would be they are providing exactly what has been agreed and have taken no action to break those agreements and damage CCFC. You (the global "you" that is) don't have to agree with that of course. There may be legal stuff in the background but I doubt it is the real reason, it is just them playing a longer game with a convenient excuse to hide behind.
From the CCFC point of view they need something sorted a bit sooner than that because of signing off two years of accounts as going concerns before the lease is up. If there is nothing in place then can the future of CCFC be assured 12 months from date of signing? So the pressure is a little more on CCFC/Otium/SISU to get something somewhere sorted
There is of course the simple recourse to the status quo that exists now, neither side will really see that as the best option I would guess
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Bet they aren't now, pitch is not in a good state at all.
Who says they haven't been going over and above before now?
Like when ACL still allowed them to play there despite not paying rent?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
True. Wasps don't own the Ricoh, a Maltese hedge fund does, but I don't see you complaining about that. As I have said many times CCFC will never own their own stadium again no matter who owns us. I have also pointed to other stadiums, Man Utd no longer own Old Trafford for example, so really it's a weak argument. As long as the club get the full 365 revenue then I don't care who does.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But that's the problem. SISU use those tactics and people go mad branding them a disgrace. Wasps do the same and its hailed as good business.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In fairness we don't know what the reason for that is.
I don't think Wasps would let the maintenance schedule slip to undermine CCFC, is there another reason (in the same way that they are cutting costs in relation to food and drink)?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And only one side gets blamed for it.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Don't think that's true Torch, the vast majority were and still are angry about the sale.
The biggest problem we had was the people who could have made a difference and who were closest to the main players just stood by and let AL and her minnions destroy any real hope we had.
Maybe its just our councillors have the spine of a jellyfish and we're more worried about upsetting our great former leader.
If you could talk off the record to some I'm sure a fair few would have had huge reservations about it , but like I say, self preservation kicked in.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This statement is why the Trust should be let near the club.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Good point, that never crossed my mind. It will be interesting if the situation is addressed in the next set of accounts due out in a couple of months.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yes, worrying that JE is held in such high regard and gets away pretty much scot free.
Nick
Administrator
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I despair !!
trevelfarandwide
Well-Known Member
Gosford Green still looks spacious:
gosford green coventry - Google Search
Haven't seen it for years, mind. Still, a few deck chairs, a few torches, bish bash bosh, Timmy and Joy have a 'new stadium'.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
But they re-paid the debt by using borrowed money from the bond scheme.
Looking at it now it is no different to the Glazers at Manchester United, they took over by borrowing the money.
I also noted the wasps owner made sure he had his money back 1st off.
Did the viable business plan that Wasps put forward mention the fact they would borrow 30 odd million within weeks.
Nick
Administrator
Imagine if joy did it and paid herself back a few mill...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He won't answer for a while. He needs to get hold of duggins to tell him how to respond.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just some comment on the F&B's
I think CA/TF referred to a particular year when stating they got 15% of the turnover - actually the calculation is I believe they get a 50:50 split of the net profit which equates for that year to 15% of turnover. CCFC are of course not directly responsible for any costs or risk.
Since then the crowds have reduced so you might expect the F&B turnover at CCFC matches to reduce also. There are fixed costs and certain costs that are semi fixed (eg the number of staff required for health and safety reasons in a concourse outlet). That could well mean that after deducting direct costs of stock sold, the labour element and utilities expenses the current share for CCFC of the net profit is much lower in total and %age terms
IEC Experience limited is the company responsible for the staffing, services & goods in the stadium relating to conferences & events. That company is owned 77% by ACL and 23% by Compass. IEC has no staff (per the 2015 accounts) - the staff (direct & back office) being provided by Compass, I assume on a recharge of hours basis. It doesn't look to me like Compass take a set 60% as claimed above.
Do ACL or IEC account for the CCFC F&B - it isn't clear. ACL do not have the staff to actually do it so i would assume that Compass do on the basis of time recharged to IEC/ACL not a set percentage. That recharge is then used to calculate the CCFC F&B figures and ultimately the share to CCFC
CCFC's contract is with ACL or IEC not Compass. Compass has a contract with ACL & IEC.
As for the £195m claim that equates to £13m pa over 15 years which is the total turnover of IEC per year. There are of course costs paid against that. Compass bought their shares for 4m - not ware of any deal to pay up front for the right to service the IEC total turnover for the next 15 years
IEC does not form part of the guarantee under pinning the bond issue
I think CA/TF referred to a particular year when stating they got 15% of the turnover - actually the calculation is I believe they get a 50:50 split of the net profit which equates for that year to 15% of turnover. CCFC are of course not directly responsible for any costs or risk.
Since then the crowds have reduced so you might expect the F&B turnover at CCFC matches to reduce also. There are fixed costs and certain costs that are semi fixed (eg the number of staff required for health and safety reasons in a concourse outlet). That could well mean that after deducting direct costs of stock sold, the labour element and utilities expenses the current share for CCFC of the net profit is much lower in total and %age terms
IEC Experience limited is the company responsible for the staffing, services & goods in the stadium relating to conferences & events. That company is owned 77% by ACL and 23% by Compass. IEC has no staff (per the 2015 accounts) - the staff (direct & back office) being provided by Compass, I assume on a recharge of hours basis. It doesn't look to me like Compass take a set 60% as claimed above.
Do ACL or IEC account for the CCFC F&B - it isn't clear. ACL do not have the staff to actually do it so i would assume that Compass do on the basis of time recharged to IEC/ACL not a set percentage. That recharge is then used to calculate the CCFC F&B figures and ultimately the share to CCFC
CCFC's contract is with ACL or IEC not Compass. Compass has a contract with ACL & IEC.
As for the £195m claim that equates to £13m pa over 15 years which is the total turnover of IEC per year. There are of course costs paid against that. Compass bought their shares for 4m - not ware of any deal to pay up front for the right to service the IEC total turnover for the next 15 years
IEC does not form part of the guarantee under pinning the bond issue
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Who would give a fukc if we were top of the PL ?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You're not so easily bribed, are you? You want SISU gone at all costs, surely?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I should think so, wasn't knowledge of the Wasps bond prospectus in the public domain for some time before ACL was sold to them?
I'm pretty sure the bonds were mentioned on this site well before it was formally issued. Can anyone remember when?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Life's funny like that.
Last week I was not renewing but after the last game I'm optimistic and renewal is back on.
Similarly if Sisu do what we all want and start to move the club in the right direction all may be forgiven.
However my views on TF are unlikely to change.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
They may well have been captain , would that not make it worse considering members of ccc were convinced the football club would just lump debt onto it.
Nick
Administrator
The same as that members of CCC are now shouting to the FL to make sure Coventry can't move away from the Ricoh?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
no the problem is that there is no working relationship at senior level, no trust on any side. Games of brinksmanship are tactics, used by many organisations - there's nothing wrong in that - I doubt SISU or Wasps care how it is perceived from the outside. Sometimes it works other times it doesn't, depends how strong your hand is
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Delaying any deal may play into Wasps hands.
In 18 months time they could be more established, more financially stable and CCFC may be insignificant in their future plans.
Or ?
In 18 months time they could be more established, more financially stable and CCFC may be insignificant in their future plans.
Or ?
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
totally agree Italia!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
It does anger me !
I do think if Sisu had tried early in their tenure they would now own the stadium.
please tell me at what point was the dice loaded against them ?
Was it when Joy said the stadium was worthless ?
Was it when they stopped paying the rent?
Was it when they tried to negotiate Acl's loan behind their back?
Was it when they moved the club to sixfields ?
Nick
Administrator
The council were speaking to Wasps in 2012 and PWKH was being a ranty bitch in 2011.
Just need to match it up to the timeline.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Must have been the protesters fucking wankers.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Those who set up FC United seemed to...
