Pro-SISU / Anti-SISU (13 Viewers)

[MichaelCCFC]

I've got my Carlisle ticket and with the JPT too that's what I'm really looking forward to......But....reality is that we face a possible winding up notice, eviction from the ricoh, liquidation if sisu were to walk away, and lord alone knows what else. So I'll enjoy myself Thursday and Sunday but it would be nice to know that come the end of the season when hopefully we'll be in the play offs, the ricoh will still be our home, ccfc still exists, the financial crises of the last 10+ years are behind us and the Sky Blues are moving in a positive direction. Sounds utopian? What's needed is for acl and sisu to work together. What most of the posts here show is that being pro/anti sisu/acl is pointless, and we really have no idea what is going on and the true facts of the matter. What we should be demanding is that acl-sisu are more open and transparent about what's going on and if they can't come to an agreement between themsleves then now is the time for arbitration.

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I would still like Grendel to answer the 'what next' point I often raise. That's what I always struggle with when considering SISU and the much discussed Ricoh question. So help the reconsideration, a few facts, I think:

- ACL stepped in when CCFC had sold Highfield Road, and couldn't complete the new stadium
- ACL offered McGinnity a 'stepped' rental, higher for higher leagues and lower for lower leagues, and he refused them and settled for the rental fee much discussed
- SISU, in completing due diligence when buying the club, became responsible for all ongoing contracts - such as stadium rental - or could, perhaps, have renegotiated at the time
- SISU demanded shares from supporters for free against the promise of a debt-free tomorrow
- In five years, SISU have sold players for twice the worth of those they have bought
- We are now in our lowest league position for two generations, with gates almost half of what they were when SISU took over
- Far from being debt-free, we are now some c.£40m in the red, and in a position whereby administration would be improbable and therefore liquidation more liable. The club's position arguably never more perilous
- ACL's position has been vindicated by court and now there's a winding up order on the table

In light of the above, and given that in accounts filed in 2011, a £6.7m loss was reported. Even with no rent and matchday income, we'd still have lost in excess of £5m. In one season.

So, even with no rent, matchday income and shares given for free; we're still in free-fall. Can you please tell me: what's next?!?

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Whats next?

Maybe we should find another collection of super-rich mugs to flush their cash down the shitter on a loss making asset-less club....

.....Until we do (on the 12th of never) we better stick with Sisu.....

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Missing an important detail MMM: The club sold its stake in ACL to the Higgs to meet other debts.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Missing an important detail MMM: The club sold its stake in ACL to the Higgs to meet other debts.

True, dear chap. My chronology wasn't exhaustive, but I tried to concentrate on the interface between SISU and the rental agreement, us the fans/shareholders and the ongoing live car crash the financial situation remains

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Here we go again ..........

Don't know of any fans that are not for a rent reduction. Most are unhappy in at least one way they are going about getting a reduction. I would be much happier if they were paying what they see as a fair rent. They are paying no rent at all. They have said about playing elsewhere. How many STH's would be happy with this? How many are happy with the uncertainty this brings to the club? How many are happy with the non payment at all?

There are many other reasons that fans are unhappy with the situation. This doesn't mean fans don't want a reduction. The uncertainty is the worse thing of all.

No there are some who are totally against rent, arguing that the 1.3 million is a fair an justified rent

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

MMM...

Your first point is the one that sticks in my throat where SISU, and certain other posters are concerned. Astute said "Nobody wants to see high rent" That includes me! I do NOT however, want to see our football club, "Bite the hand that kept us alive" because we certainly wouldn't exist today without ACL. Fair play on both sides, and a hell of a lot less "Bully Boy tactics from SISU" wouldn't come amiss!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

MMM...

Your first point is the one that sticks in my throat where SISU, and certain other posters are concerned. Astute said "Nobody wants to see high rent" That includes me! I do NOT however, want to see our football club, "Bite the hand that kept us alive" because we certainly wouldn't exist today without ACL. Fair play on both sides, and a hell of a lot less "Bully Boy tactics from SISU" wouldn't come amiss!

I gave up shares. As did my father. We didn't find those shares in a bush. We bought them. I've since seen the promises made at the time seemingly vanish into thin air.

Now ACL are being bullied into giving up rent. Is is high rent? Yes. But it's what McGinnity wanted and what SISU assumed legal responsibility for. So, if ACL give up the rent, as I and others gave up shares, the club still isn't viable.

That's what I want to see. A 'bigger plan'. That would make the shareholder's sacrifices, and ACL's potential sacrifices worthwhile. I just don't see it!?!

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

Why would a genuine supporter be against the club paying less rent? I don't get how that is possible?

Less rent/more favourable rent agreement means more money for the club to invest in other areas such as players and therefore hopefully greater success.

Pay some negotiated rent - YES. Pay no rent NO! Do you really believe that geting the stadium rent free will mean more money will be invested in the team?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Pay some negotiated rent - YES. Pay no rent NO! Do you really believe that geting the stadium rent free will mean more money will be invested in the team?

It can't. Financial Fair Play means we are limited to 65% (I recall) of turnover as being our wage cap. Spend any more than that and we're in embargo. Saving on rent reduces operating costs, but doesn't push up turnover. I wish people would understand this

 

[torchomatic]

Oh, I don't know I could give you quite a list. Anyway, they'll like your post so you'll know who they are.

Here we go again ..........

Don't know of any fans that are not for a rent reduction.
.

 

[torchomatic]

I love the phrase "Bully Boy tactics" and "Mayfair Hedge Fund". If we had a £1 for every time that's used SBT could pay the rent for those bully boy Mayfair hedge fund types.

MMM...

Your first point is the one that sticks in my throat where SISU, and certain other posters are concerned. Astute said "Nobody wants to see high rent" That includes me! I do NOT however, want to see our football club, "Bite the hand that kept us alive" because we certainly wouldn't exist today without ACL. Fair play on both sides, and a hell of a lot less "Bully Boy tactics from SISU" wouldn't come amiss!

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

It can't. Financial Fair Play means we are limited to 65% (I recall) of turnover as being our wage cap. Spend any more than that and we're in embargo. Saving on rent reduces operating costs, but doesn't push up turnover. I wish people would understand this

MMM...I was really questioning the poster's naivety in believing that IF there was money available it would be invested in the team.

 

[torchomatic]

Which they have been doing.

MMM...I was really questioning the poster's naivety in believing that IF there was money available it would be invested in the team.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Can I just clarify the point above? Our turnover in 2011 was £10.3m. My guess now is that in the lower league it's closer to £6m.

Therefore, our 'wage cap' is set at 65% of that turnover figure - namely some £3.9m. That's where the limit for our wages is derived from, not 'free cash'.

(If it's true we offered McGoldrick £10K per week to stay, that would equate to 20% of our total wage bank on one player).

With a squad close to 30 players, that therefore means our average wage would be in the parish of £2.5K per player per week. There are a few young players in the squad, so the median value would be of interest; but whilst in this division, an indication of where our finances need to be

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

It can't. Financial Fair Play means we are limited to 65% (I recall) of turnover as being our wage cap. Spend any more than that and we're in embargo. Saving on rent reduces operating costs, but doesn't push up turnover. I wish people would understand this

I asked this on another thread but I don't remember weather you answered it

Say we were 20k p/w (1 million a year) under the maximum amount allowed under financial fair play, if the club started paying the 1.3 million rent again then that 20k p/w would be used on the rent rather than improving the squad

Just because our maximum in 65% doesn't mean the club have the means to actually fulfil the maximum surely

 

[Grendel]

MMM...I was really questioning the poster's naivety in believing that IF there was money available it would be invested in the team.

What their not? Have you not been around this season?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I asked this on another thread but I don't remember weather you answered it

Say we were 20k p/w (1 million a year) under the maximum amount allowed under financial fair play, if the club started paying the 1.3 million rent again then that 20k p/w would be used on the rent rather than improving the squad

Just because our maximum in 65% doesn't mean the club have the means to actually fulfill the maximum surely

No, sorry - missed it. I was either asleep or 'over-refreshed'. Or both! In précis, no.

Turnover is sales revenue. The total a business can earn. For us it would be via ticket receipts, television money, cup runs, the club shop, etc. Every ounce of cash we take from each area of the business is sales revenue and that's a businesses' turnover. Literally, how much cash the business 'turns over'.

Normally a business accounts something like this: sales (turnover) minus direct cost of sales gives gross profit; thereafter indirect and other costs leaves net profit. Or loss!!

So, say a pub for example - why not? Total sales = turnover. Direct cost of sales such as beer and food gives 'gross' profit on trading. Minus overheads such as rent wages, telephone, electric, etc gives a 'net' position.

The FFP rules are based on 65% of turnover, or sales. A rent reduction could reduce our overheads. But it wouldn't increase our sales - or turnover.

The only caveat being that if CFCC received match-day income, this would increase turnover as it's something they don't get at the moment. But I understand this contract has been sold on by ACL in any case.

Does this help at all?!?

 

[Grendel]

No, sorry - missed it. I was either asleep or 'over-refreshed'. Or both! In précis, no.

Turnover is sales revenue. The total a business can earn. For us it would be via ticket receipts, television money, cup runs, the club shop, etc. Every ounce of cash we take from each area of the business is sales revenue and that's a businesses' turnover. Literally, how much cash the business 'turns over'.

Normally a business accounts something like this: sales (turnover) minus direct cost of sales gives gross profit; thereafter indirect and other costs leaves net profit. Or loss!!

So, say a pub for example - why not? Total sales = turnover. Direct cost of sales such as beer and food gives 'gross' profit on trading. Minus overheads such as rent wages, telephone, electric, etc gives a 'net' position.

The FFP rules are based on 65% of turnover, or sales. A rent reduction could reduce our overheads. But it wouldn't increase our sales - or turnover.

The only caveat being that if CFCC received match-day income, this would increase turnover as it's something they don't get at the moment. But I understand this contract has been sold on by ACL in any case.

Does this help at all?!?

It doesn't help if we get promoted does it?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It doesn't help if we get promoted does it?

Sorry, I don't understand your post - it's been a long day...

 

[dongonzalos]

So you agree the football club is an essential component for the stadiums success then?

At the moment yes as that is the main purpose of the stadium.
If you are about to go out of business due to the action of that football club, maybe try to attract another football club if that us allowed?
Or try and find another purpose for the stadium that will keep you in business if that is possible.

 

[Grendel]

Sorry, I don't understand your post - it's been a long day...

The FPP rules in the championship I believe are totally different and are aimed at getting clubs to at least break even. Deviation in the first season is an loss of a maximum of £4 million. That was the proposa so rent payments become a very important factor.

 

[Astute]

Rent payments are always important. Not paying any rent is just as important.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The FPP rules in the championship I believe are totally different and are aimed at getting clubs to at least break even. Deviation in the first season is an loss of a maximum of £4 million. That was the proposal so rent payments become a very important factor.

To be frank, a wholly larger debate, dear chap. Yes, you're right it does. But I go also back to where I started this page. In 2011 as a Championship team we lost, circa. £6.7m on £10.3m turnover. Ouch! Even with a lower rent, that'll fall foul of the Championship FFP Panel. Hence my question regarding the 'bigger picture'. Without that, whatever rental is levied is irrelevant given the balance of the finances.

Fisher's whole rent debate ties his comparison to an 'average league one' rental. I think he needs to build a picture around that, and another for the effects of us going up.

Or are you saying ACL should agree to maintain the 'average league one rental' once we go up too; with the balance of the finances still in tatters?

 

[dongonzalos]

Anyway, those who say if you don't back SISU regarding the rent you are not a true supporter rubbish!
You just have a bit if moral fibre about you.

 

[Grendel]

To be frank, a wholly larger debate, dear chap. Yes, you're right it does. But I go also back to where I started this page. In 2011 as a Championship team we lost, circa. £6.7m on £10.3m turnover. Ouch! Even with a lower rent, that'll fall foul of the Championship FFP Panel. Hence my question regarding the 'bigger picture'. Without that, whatever rental is levied is irrelevant given the balance of the finances.

Fisher's whole rent debate ties his comparison to an 'average league one' rental. I think he needs to build a picture around that, and another for the effects of us going up.

Or are you saying ACL should agree to maintain the 'average league one rental' once we go up too; with the balance of the finances still in tatters?

Yes strange you didn't bring up the rules in the championship. They are confusing not clearly the rental arrangement would signicantly hamper the club most noticeably the debt of £ 1 million. The rent should be £200k this year £300k if promoted and the debt wiped out.

 

[oldskyblue58]

this article might help MMM & Grendel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

This is a good link. I just typed a great long response to Grendel and Explorer then crashed, and I need coffee whilst I lament those wasted moments of my life:

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

However - whilst I'm there..... look at the exceptions that mitigate 'non conformance' whilst in The Championship. Look familiar?

 

[sky blue john]

A rent reduction is necessary but as long as its within Acl's means. A rent reduction has been offered and there may or may not be some more movement.
There are plenty of posters on this thread who think fuck Acl as long as ccfc get whatever rent reduction they want.

 

[torchomatic]

Pretty much sums it up for me.

There are plenty of posters on this thread who think fuck Acl as long as ccfc get whatever rent reduction they want.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

@ sky blue john...

There are a lot that have no scruples, but would be the first to complain if it was happening to them

 

[torchomatic]

Talking of double standards. I notice you hero worshiping Dennis Wise on a thread over the weekend and in the same breath having a go at Bowyer and King. Did you forgive Wise for beating up a taxi driver or did you conveniently forget about it? Just curious.

@ sky blue john...

There are a lot that have no scruples, but would be the first to complain if it was happening to them

 

[Grendel]

There are plenty of posters on this thread who think feck Acl as long as ccfc get whatever rent reduction they want.

For once your talking sense. As long as it has no impact on the football club that's a resounding yes from me.

 

[Grendel]

@ sky blue john...

There are a lot that have no scruples, but would be the first to complain if it was happening to them

Depends on what you mean. ACL have had their snouts in the Sky Blue trough for 7 years. Time for some fairness from them.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Depends on what you mean. ACL have had their snouts in the Sky Blue trough for 7 years. Time for some fairness from them.

Had McGinnity not sold our share then this whole matter wouldn't be an issue.