The October rumour (19 Viewers)

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Is one of them still advising Dale?

He died

 

---

[mark82]

No he died half way through last season.
Not a joke btw.

He died

Who died? Dale?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Who died? Dale?

No the hat

 

[clint van damme]

Nonsense about the 'hotel group'. The hotel is owned by ACL and only run by Hilton under a franchised agreement.

so wouldn't Hilton be upset about the reduction in footfall or would there be some sort of sliding scale based on customer numbers which could see reduced franchise fees, (if there are any in the agreement).

 

[pastythegreat]

20k ? At at Andrews ? You can halve that and then take a bit more off.

A bit like most were adamant we wouldn't get more than 3k there this season.... hows that panning out so far?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[pastythegreat]

Thing is if we get promoted we won't be able to play in Birmingham I believe it is in the FL rules.
Then again we could move to Villa.

It says nothing g about such a rule on the efl website. This is clearly just a rumour some are making up and using as scare tactics. Numerous clubs in numerous leagues ground share and do it well. Just look at Milan for a 1st class scenario. There is no reason why, if we were promoted, Blues and ourselves couldn't harmonise together in the same ground (apart from when we play each other ).

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[pastythegreat]

If we get promoted and wasps still don’t give up their stance then it means they’re either stupid or flowing in riches.

Well, they ain't got 2 pennies to rub together so.......

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[pastythegreat]

So where do we go then ?

Boycott w**ps and force them either: a)out or b) to sign a deal suitable for ccfc.
I genuinely think, the best way to rid CCFC of SISU, is to unite the club and the stadium.
SISU wont sell without a sensible offer, nobody will make a sensible offer for a L1 club with no stadium and no training ground and a fan base that cant agree on anything.
And no, I dont want to be w**ps or Hoffman/CCC owned. That's a fucking no go in my eyes. Turn off the life support now if that's the only option.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[theferret]

It says nothing g about such a rule on the efl website. This is clearly just a rumour some are making up and using as scare tactics. Numerous clubs in numerous leagues ground share and do it well. Just look at Milan for a 1st class scenario. There is no reason why, if we were promoted, Blues and ourselves couldn't harmonise together in the same ground (apart from when we play each other ).

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Yep. Wimbledon played Palace at Selhurst Park as the home team. Pretty sure Charlton did too during their ground share.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Boycott w**ps and force them either: a)out or b) to sign a deal suitable for ccfc.
I genuinely think, the best way to rid CCFC of SISU, is to unite the club and the stadium.
SISU wont sell without a sensible offer, nobody will make a sensible offer for a L1 club with no stadium and no training ground and a fan base that cant agree on anything.
And no, I dont want to be w**ps or Hoffman/CCC owned. That's a fucking no go in my eyes. Turn off the life support now if that's the only option.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

A boycott should have been the stance when they arrived.

Unfortunately our trust Will probably organise a bucket collection for them if they get financially distressed

 

[Skyblueweeman]

so wouldn't Hilton be upset about the reduction in footfall or would there be some sort of sliding scale based on customer numbers which could see reduced franchise fees, (if there are any in the agreement).

I doubt there would be any sliding fees you mention. Whilst I've not seen the contract itself, franchise agreements tend to run whereby Hilton would be a % of profits or revenue based on sales performance.

If I'm honest though, I doubt CCFC not being at the Ricoh will affect the hotel that much. I reckon that the large % of the hotels business mix is midweek transient (your average business person travelling) or meetings and events based business/groups. I'd hazard a guess and say weekend leisure business would make up less than 10% of their revenues.

Whilst a 10% loss looks bad, they'll forecast any shortfalls in one market segment and forecast to increase in others to make any shortfall. The DTbH at the Ricoh hardly got any visiting team stays either so it's not like they'll miss out on that either.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Oldskyblue58 - do you ever see a split partnership working and do you think it's ever likely to happen?

No I do not see a split partnership happening and therefore working. Both sides are essentially rocky on the finances why combine and risk it all.

Going to involve wasps giving / selling up 50% for sisu or ccfc to be interested. Wasps wont want to give up control and sisu/ccfc wont want anything other than that. There is no trust between those two sides so how could it work

But it still comes back to what could be available. It should not be beyond the wit of man for example for acl not wasps to grant ccfc a 150 year lease that allows ccfc to retain all the site income (match day or otherwise) that ccfc generates(would pick up the related costs though to do that remember). What our club needs is revenue. A long lease would also have a capital value for the balance sheet. Of course the new long lease would have an acquisition cost or annual rent, which could be costly. However having a long term tenant of say 150 years would add value to acl and therefore wasps and perhaps allow some negotiations on cost.... the alternative being no tenant and no value.

Why did I say acl not wasps. The head lease is in acl but also acl is a separate company to wasps which means if the rugby fails the right to play at ricoh can be protected. Likewise wasps rugby is protected from a ccfc failure. A partnership may well not provide such clear protection. The caveat to that is there needs to be certainty as to how acl repays its share of the wasps bond to wasps finance plc and thereby the bondholders

I know people will say no we need our own stadium if so they also must accept that the club either pays direct or by way of a holding company rent the finance costs of such ownership. That could for many years out weigh the extra incomes of our own stadium or a potential long lease involvement at the ricoh. If the results are pretty much the same as the example above (ie 100% of our income, asset on the balance sheet opportunity to create other revenues) why do we need to build our own, other than the privilege of saying we control it.... such control always comes at a cost not just revenue. No one has detailed the case for ownership finance wise as yet.... only catchy sound bytes. Quite happy for the owners to explain properly and convince me how it works, especially when so few clubs make a profit outside of the top division despite owning their stadiums.

 

[shepardo01]

Boycott w**ps and force them either: a)out or b) to sign a deal suitable for ccfc.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I think most CCFC fans are boycotting Wasps.
General public are so ignorant of situation that some, who more than likely read the Cov Tel and listen to CWR and the trust when they are on radio/tv, actually believe that Wasps are right to not deal "as SISU are taking legal action against them!"
Which obviously isn't the case... but that is what the PR leads them to see!
What IS needed is some kind of Vocal and well populated action at a Wasps game!..
Only problem is, those who could push it/publicise it, )like with the marches before) .. CWR, Cov Tel, and the Trust, are not interested in having anything said/done against Wasps/council....
This needs to change... how, I have no Idea...

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

No I do not see a split partnership happening and therefore working. Both sides are essentially rocky on the finances why combine and risk it all.

Going to involve wasps giving / selling up 50% for sisu or ccfc to be interested. Wasps wont want to give up control and sisu/ccfc wont want anything other than that. There is no trust between those two sides so how could it work

But it still comes back to what could be available. It should not be beyond the wit of man for example for acl not wasps to grant ccfc a 150 year lease that allows ccfc to retain all the site income (match day or otherwise) that ccfc generates(would pick up the related costs though to do that remember). What our club needs is revenue. A long lease would also have a capital value for the balance sheet. Of course the new long lease would have an acquisition cost or annual rent, which could be costly. However having a long term tenant of say 150 years would add value to acl and therefore wasps and perhaps allow some negotiations on cost.... the alternative being no tenant and no value.

Why did I say acl not wasps. The head lease is in acl but also acl is a separate company to wasps which means if the rugby fails the right to play at ricoh can be protected. Likewise wasps rugby is protected from a ccfc failure. A partnership may well not provide such clear protection. The caveat to that is there needs to be certainty as to how acl repays its share of the wasps bond to wasps finance plc and thereby the bondholders

I know people will say no we need our own stadium if so they also must accept that the club either pays direct or by way of a holding company rent the finance costs of such ownership. That could for many years out weigh the extra incomes of our own stadium or a potential long lease involvement at the ricoh. If the results are pretty much the same as the example above (ie 100% of our income, asset on the balance sheet opportunity to create other revenues) why do we need to build our own, other than the privilege of saying we control it.... such control always comes at a cost not just revenue. No one has detailed the case for ownership finance wise as yet.... only catchy sound bytes. Quite happy for the owners to explain properly and convince me how it works, especially when so few clubs make a profit outside of the top division despite owning their stadiums.

Good post.

I feel with any potential holding company (which would ultimately be SISU owned and controlled) as well as receiving the lease/mortgage costs from the club I suspect an additional management fee would also be charged to the club on top of those already in place.

As the club still requires an injection of cash each year to cover losses from the master fund (which has interest charged and as we're not paying this back at the moment compound interest is becoming increasingly important) arguably such an arrangement will just leave the club more indebted long term to SISU and its related companies

When Tim Fisher was going on about needing to own a stadium to get all revenue streams it took a long time before he admitted that the club wouldn't actually own the stadium anyway - it'd be in a holding company and the club would be paying rent to that company. Although it takes some of the cost and risk off the club in terms of maintenance etc it's likely that the rental cost would either cover all those anyway as well as having a profit margin slapped on or the club would be directly responsible for things like pitch maintenance.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Am I the only one who wished this thread had been titled Punt for Sky-Blue October?

 

[christonabike]

I would like a stadium like Oxfords. I know it’s not massive but every time we sold a player we invested some of it into building a bigger stand just like the old days. We don’t need a shiny 30k capacity at the minute let’s walk before we can run.
If you look at the Ricoh CCFC don’t get any revenue from the Casino or Tesco’s only from over priced shyte served up by Wasps who get the majority of profit.
It’s been stated we need the F&B revenues a 1000 times and it’s the only way a club can survive. Some shyte deal that puts the club at risk whilst propping up Wasps and every other fooker is ok as long as we are back in COV innit bruv.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

No I do not see a split partnership happening and therefore working. Both sides are essentially rocky on the finances why combine and risk it all.

I know people will say no we need our own stadium if so they also must accept that the club either pays direct or by way of a holding company rent the finance costs of such ownership. That could for many years out weigh the extra incomes of our own stadium or a potential long lease involvement at the ricoh. If the results are pretty much the same as the example above (ie 100% of our income, asset on the balance sheet opportunity to create other revenues) why do we need to build our own, other than the privilege of saying we control it.... such control always comes at a cost not just revenue. No one has detailed the case for ownership finance wise as yet....

So, if in three years time we are still playing at St Andrews, the football club could go into partnership with Birmingham f.c.

And share all the costs of running St Andrews , SISU will SAVE the cost of having to build a new stadium .


How does the name, THE BRUMMIE SKY BLUES F.C sound.

 

[Grendel]

Good post.

I feel with any potential holding company (which would ultimately be SISU owned and controlled) as well as receiving the lease/mortgage costs from the club I suspect an additional management fee would also be charged to the club on top of those already in place.

As the club still requires an injection of cash each year to cover losses from the master fund (which has interest charged and as we're not paying this back at the moment compound interest is becoming increasingly important) arguably such an arrangement will just leave the club more indebted long term to SISU and its related companies

When Tim Fisher was going on about needing to own a stadium to get all revenue streams it took a long time before he admitted that the club wouldn't actually own the stadium anyway - it'd be in a holding company and the club would be paying rent to that company. Although it takes some of the cost and risk off the club in terms of maintenance etc it's likely that the rental cost would either cover all those anyway as well as having a profit margin slapped on or the club would be directly responsible for things like pitch maintenance.

No business with a brain would not have a holding company in place so that’s a red herring and it’s very very different if the owners of the holding company and the club are one and the same

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

No business with a brain would not have a holding company in place so that’s a red herring and it’s very very different if the owners of the holding company and the club are one and the same

It is, but it has happened before where the stadium has been put in a holding company which was a subsidiary of the same company that owned the club. All seemed fine. Parent company then decides to sell the club but keep the stadium holding company. Do you trust SISU not to try and pull that stunt should they ever own the stadium? I don't.

I'd say the people buying the club were truly idiotic in not insisting the stadium holding company was included in the deal or it's off, and if they couldn't afford both the didn't have the resources to get involved anyway.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I would like a stadium like Oxfords. I know it’s not massive but every time we sold a player we invested some of it into building a bigger stand just like the old days. We don’t need a shiny 30k capacity at the minute let’s walk before we can run.
If you look at the Ricoh CCFC don’t get any revenue from the Casino or Tesco’s only from over priced shyte served up by Wasps who get the majority of profit.
It’s been stated we need the F&B revenues a 1000 times and it’s the only way a club can survive. Some shyte deal that puts the club at risk whilst propping up Wasps and every other fooker is ok as long as we are back in COV innit bruv.

Seriously how much would they make a year from F and B?
Also if it is so important how come Wasps are struggling with 2 lots of F&B?

 

[Grendel]

It is, but it has happened before where the stadium has been put in a holding company which was a subsidiary of the same company that owned the club. All seemed fine. Parent company then decides to sell the club but keep the stadium holding company. Do you trust SISU not to try and pull that stunt should they ever own the stadium? I don't.

I'd say the people buying the club were truly idiotic in not insisting the stadium holding company was included in the deal or it's off, and if they couldn't afford both the didn't have the resources to get involved anyway.

I do trust them in the sense that the club is worthless without the holding company and no one would buy it

 

[clint van damme]

Seriously how much would they make a year from F and B?
Also if it is so important how come Wasps are struggling with 2 lots of F&B?

I've always though it's a bit of a smokescreen.
We had 20,000 empty seats at the Ricoh, a large sum of potential revenue by filling them.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'd rather we didn't just jump back at the first opportunity just to be in Cov only for us to be in this situation again in a year or two. Any solution needs to be for the medium to long term. A minimum of 10 years.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I do trust them in the sense that the club is worthless without the holding company and no one would buy it

We say that but it'd be up to the buyers to enforce that - I reckon they'd at least try and pull a fast one and see if the potential owners (or more likely their lawyers) had their heads screwed on). Without a stadium now they're asking for millions for the club as well as servicing the debt they're owed.

Football clubs are emotive subjects and can do funny things to people and they make rash, stupid decisions.

 

[Hobo]

Boycott w**ps and force them either: a)out or b) to sign a deal suitable for ccfc.
I genuinely think, the best way to rid CCFC of SISU, is to unite the club and the stadium.
SISU wont sell without a sensible offer, nobody will make a sensible offer for a L1 club with no stadium and no training ground and a fan base that cant agree on anything.
And no, I dont want to be w**ps or Hoffman/CCC owned. That's a fucking no go in my eyes. Turn off the life support now if that's the only option.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

How can I or any city fan boycott Wasps if they dont go???

 

[Grendel]

We say that but it'd be up to the buyers to enforce that - I reckon they'd at least try and pull a fast one and see if the potential owners (or more likely their lawyers) had their heads screwed on). Without a stadium now they're asking for millions for the club as well as servicing the debt they're owed.

Football clubs are emotive subjects and can do funny things to people and they make rash, stupid decisions.

Well hardly - the club in the last period of admin was never going to be purchased by anyone else. Without shares in a management company no one will buy other than that idiot Hoffman

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Well hardly - the club in the last period of admin was never going to be purchased by anyone else. Without shares in a management company no one will buy other than that idiot Hoffman

And the fact you bring up Hoffman after stating no-one would want to buy it shows that there are people out there who would. I didn't say sensible people I just said people. I bet there'd be fans groups looking to get the money together if they could.

If you showed Hoffman the books of any other club in a similar state as ours and asked if he wanted in, the answer would be a straight no. But because it's CCFC and he has an irrational attachment he's put in bids.

 

[pastythegreat]

How can I or any city fan boycott Wasps if they dont go???

Then let's stage a protest. Peaceful obvs.
Get a few thousand of us, each with a pair of handcuffs, and handcuff ourselves to a turnstile. Stop ALL entrance to the stadium. Let the insects play to an empty stadium. That'll send a message.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

And the fact you bring up Hoffman after stating no-one would want to buy it shows that there are people out there who would. I didn't say sensible people I just said people. I bet there'd be fans groups looking to get the money together if they could.

If you showed Hoffman the books of any other club in a similar state as ours and asked if he wanted in, the answer would be a straight no. But because it's CCFC and he has an irrational attachment he's put in bids.

Hoffman didn’t actually declare any financial input and the consortium collapsed when - surprise surprise - Derek Richardson was suspected of being on board

Also he has clearly a grudge with sisu abs that seems to be why he keeps meddling

 

[Hobo]

Then let's stage a protest. Peaceful obvs.
Get a few thousand of us, each with a pair of handcuffs, and handcuff ourselves to a turnstile. Stop ALL entrance to the stadium. Let the insects play to an empty stadium. That'll send a message.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I think that will turn people against us preventing people entering a stadium.

But I can see value in protest outside the stadium stating Coventry should be allowed to play in Coventry.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Oldskyblue58 - do you ever see a split partnership working and do you think it's ever likely to happen?

It could be called Cov n' Trys

 

[pastythegreat]

I think that will turn people against us preventing people entering a stadium.

But I can see value in protest outside the stadium stating Coventry should be allowed to play in Coventry.

It's already been done. Northern wisdom done it. Nobody paid attention

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[clint van damme]

It's already been done. Northern wisdom done it. Nobody paid attention

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

It was only organised the night before and it got PSB group a meeting with Richardson which sounds like it was a belly tickling excersise but I'm sure a bigger, more organised protest would cause a few ripples.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It's already been done. Northern wisdom done it. Nobody paid attention

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Nobody is interested all you get are excuses.
If people are passionate about an issue they would turn up.

 

[shepardo01]

It was only organised the night before and it got PSB group a meeting with Richardson which sounds like it was a belly tickling excersise but I'm sure a bigger, more organised protest would cause a few ripples.

I attended off the back of here but was also in the WhatsApp group for the PSB group meet. I don't think any turned up from there.
However, since "PSB group" had his little meeting with uncle Nick from Wasps, his twitter has been embarrassingly one sided against guess who....yes, SISU!
He refuses to say what was said but has obviously been well and truly sucked in (off!) by what his new mate Nick from Wasps has told him. He retweeted anything remotely anti sisu and has even jumped in on a few Lies Reid comments in support!
That account is now embarrassing!
Definite action at a wasps game is required.
I'm sure we can get the trust, cov tel and cwr on board to publicise like they did with the marches a few years back!... oh, wait a minute.... :-/