We have to pay acl £24m for revenue rights (1 Viewer)

[AFCCOVENTRY]

That is the real problem. We are being held to ransom by acl and the council on this.

The wonderful previous regime of McGinity at co sold our revenue stream rights to acl for £6m.

Now if CCFC want revenue streams back we have to pay £24m for it.

 

---

[WillieStanley]

How are the ACL sympathisers going to blame this on SISU?

 

[philmcc]

No wonder they said they might as well spend 30 mill on a new stadium!

 

[CovKingChris]

So a Council & Charity that are in it for profit.

Talk about corrupt.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

The rent on the stadium is fine but the price we have to pay for the revenue streams is x4 what we sold them for originally. That's some crazy inflation figure in there!

 

[Grendel]

Another argument no doubt ignored by MMM and the others who worship the ground Mutton and his greedy coherts walk on.

The caveat is if this is true. It came from an independent source and if is true blows the argument apart.

No sausages today MMM just a big dollop of humble pie.

 

[ouch]

and that is just the revenues. in total sisu need about 80 million to buy the grounds. may as well build and own outright for half or less. the council will kill the club. and still our fans fall for the p.r spouted out by the council

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

If those figures are correct, and that's a big if, then it's exorbitant and unjustifiable. See that Grendel, it's called measure in debate.

However, bear in mind we lost £6m last year alone. Free rent, yes, free rent would bring that to £5m. They'd need a whole lot of burgers sold to cover that.

I make it - very approximately - £25 per person per game. Profit.

Even at 100% mark up, who eats £50-worth of burgers at every home game? Who eats that? Except for the stewards...

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

So when people are saying the club is being stupid saying they will be build their own ground is because it is a better option than paying £24m to access stadium revenue streams on a ground you don't own!

Building a stadium you own 100% is financially better for the club.

Now you can see why acl refuse to allow mediators in to sort this out as they know they will lose this battle.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So when people are saying the club is being stupid saying they will be build their own ground is because it is a better option than paying £24m to access stadium revenue streams on a ground you don't own!

Building a stadium you own 100% is financially better for the club.

Now you can see why acl refuse to allow mediators in to sort this out as they know they will lose this battle.

What a ludicrous statement. Would Joy actually turn up to meet with mediators? If so, why would she do so, and only send unempowered stooges to the last ACL meeting, who then renage on what they've agreed? And if she won't turn up, again, then there's no point

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

If those figures are correct, and that's a big if, then it's exorbitant and unjustifiable. See that Grendel, it's called measure in debate.

However, bear in mind we lost £6m last year alone. Free rent, yes, free rent would bring that to £5m. They'd need a whole lot of burgers sold to cover that.

I make it - very approximately - £25 per person per game. Profit.

Even at 100% mark up, who eats £50-worth of burgers at every home game? Who eats that? Except for the stewards...

Fisher is not talking just about refreshments revenue in his interview

He wants other revenue streams from the Ricoh as well, he specifically mentioned naming rights and advertising sponsorship

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

What a ludicrous statement. Would Joy actually turn up to meet with mediators? If so, why would she do so, and only send unempowered stooges to the last ACL meeting, who then renage on what they've agreed? And if she won't turn up, again, then there's no point

There's a difference on agreeing the stadium rent... Even fisher said that's fine.

It's the revenue stream which we are being held to ransom about.

Listen to all the interviews again and it becomes more obvious.

Acl refuse an outside expert like Deloittes to get involved? Why is that?

 

[Grendel]

If those figures are correct, and that's a big if, then it's exorbitant and unjustifiable. See that Grendel, it's called measure in debate.

However, bear in mind we lost £6m last year alone. Free rent, yes, free rent would bring that to £5m. They'd need a whole lot of burgers sold to cover that.

I make it - very approximately - £25 per person per game. Profit.

Even at 100% mark up, who eats £50-worth of burgers at every home game? Who eats that? Except for the stewards...

Surely though the argument is about turnover and FFP.

The revenue made would allow a significant hike it the wage budget next season.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Does anyone know the composition of the £24m? Is it contracts in place?

I am aware that increased revenues will enable us, by virtue of increased turnover, to increase the wage cap infer the FFP model.

But, say the £24m is contracts in place, then ACL aren't going to gift that are they? However, if its a figure plucked from nowhere, then it's wrong.

Fisher should supply more information as to how the figure has been calculated so that we can take an educated view on it

 

[rupert_bear]

Where did this £24million figure come from. It's all right jumping on the nasty old ACL/Council bandwagon but is it true ?

 

[Grendel]

Where did this £24million figure come from. It's all right jumping on the nasty old ACL/Council bandwagon but is it true ?

An independent journalist who often writes articles about the club in the daily mail.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

I can understand after 10 years the £6m we sold at is £12m .
But £24m??

CCFC are the biggest advertisers of the Ricoh and we do it for free.

 

[Sky Blues]

Fisher is not talking just about refreshments revenue in his interview

He wants other revenue streams from the Ricoh as well, he specifically mentioned naming rights and advertising sponsorship

Which interview did Fisher say this in?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Which interview did Fisher say this in?

Listen the the YouTube video in the Shane oconnor thread

 

[Heyzeuss84]

Is there a link to this?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I can understand after 10 years the £6m we sold at is £12m .
But £24m??

CCFC are the biggest advertisers of the Ricoh and we do it for free.

It depends on the value of contracts in place though, doesn't it. Let me give you an example, if ACL have negotiated a deal whereby Sony sponsor the arena after Ricoh's tenure, and the value of that is £15m over five years then that contract had a value. They will be looking for some value from such contracts as part of the deal.

The above being an example for illustrative purposes only. Just so I'm not accused if me stating it as sacrosanct in the future.

That's why I asked if anyone knew where the figure was derived from

 

[Grendel]

It depends on the value of contracts in place though, doesn't it. Let me give you an example, if ACL have negotiated a deal whereby Sony sponsor the arena after Ricoh's tenure, and the value of that is £15m over five years then that contract had a value. They will be looking for some value from such contracts as part of the deal.

The above being an example for illustrative purposes only. Just so I'm not accused if me stating it as sacrosanct in the future.

That's why I asked if anyone knew where the figure was derived from

The naming contract is wholly dependant on the football club being in place. Without the club there are named sponsored or the sponsorship value drops massively. The club should be allowed a significant part of that.

 

[Sky Blues]

I can understand after 10 years the £6m we sold at is £12m .
But £24m??

CCFC are the biggest advertisers of the Ricoh and we do it for free.

Are the revenue streams CCFC sold and the revenue streams with an alleged sale price of £24m comprised of identical revenue streams? e.g. if the club is seeking access to the naming rights now, were they also part of the income streams previous sold off by the club? (And if they were it seems a really stupid deal to sell for £6m something which quickly generated £10m!!)

 

[Desperados]

i thought SISU want access to the revenue streams as part of the rental deal, not looking to buy them outright?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The naming contract is wholly dependant on the football club being in place. Without the club there are named sponsored or the sponsorship value drops massively. The club should be allowed a significant part of that.

Again. I wouldn't argue with that. There are arenas sponsored without sporting provision though, such as the O2. That's why I'm saying I'd like to understand the maths behind the figure. If its preposterous, we can then all make that judgement

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Are the revenue streams CCFC sold and the revenue streams with an alleged sale price of £24m comprised of identical revenue streams? e.g. if the club is seeking access to the naming rights now, were they also part of the income streams previous sold off by the club? (And if they were it seems a really stupid deal to sell for £6m something which quickly generated £10m!!)

Of course this was another quick fire mess McGinity got is into. As we as selling our stadium for dirt cheap to acl they also sold our income revenues for a stupid price.

As much as people complain about Sisu and acl and council.

McGinity cocked the move to Ricoh up in spectacular style.

 

[ashbyjan]

On behalf of the Sky Blue Trust have just spoken to a Director of ACL who has said that this figure of £24 million is completely erroneous. There have not been discussions for the total revenue rights at all and he is mystified where this number has been created from. The profits from the food and beverages on match days is being offered to the club for free, worth about £100k and if the club wishes to reflect the revenue or sales (around £1m) for salary cap reasons then that could be arranged. Also we were told that if the club wishes to negotiate on individual revenue streams such as car parking etc then ACL would be willing to do so but up till now these have not been mentioned.

Just to clear up all the nonsense that is being spouted about rent etc the highlights of the deal being offered are rent is £400 K including match day costs, then club would receive the ACL profits from match day catering, around £100k and a rate rebate of £150 k and this is how the total of £150,000 per season has been arrived at.

 

[Sky Blues]

On behalf of the Sky Blue Trust have just spoken to a Director of ACL who has said that this figure of £24 million is completely erroneous. There have not been discussions for the total revenue rights at all and he is mystified where this number has been created from. The profits from the food and beverages on match days is being offered to the club for free, worth about £100k and if the club wishes to reflect the revenue or sales (around £1m) for salary cap reasons then that could be arranged. Also we were told that if the club wishes to negotiate on individual revenue streams such as car parking etc then ACL would be willing to do so but up till now these have not been mentioned.

Just to clear up all the nonsense that is being spouted about rent etc the highlights of the deal being offered are rent is £400 K including match day costs, then club would receive the ACL profits from match day catering, around £100k and a rate rebate of £150 k and this is how the total of £150,000 per season has been arrived at.

Thank you Jan for seeking some clarity.

 

[chiefdave]

Now if CCFC want revenue streams back we have to pay £24m for it.

I think this is the problem, the council want a lot more out then they ever put in. The council appear to have put, prior to the bailout of ACL, around £10m of their own with the rest coming from Tesco, grants etc. Can't see them selling it to anyone else for that, even if the ACL loan was paid off. Whenever selling the ground is talked about they state that any new owner would have to agree to contribute significantly to a regeneration program for the area around the Ricoh? Why would anyone agree to that?

It was generally accepted that the formula for buying the Higgs Trust share worked out to about £10m but again that's way more than Higgs paid for it in the first place.

I would love to know exactly what the council and Higgs have put in so far and what they want to walk away. Some people say there's no way SISU should be allowed to get their hands on the stadium, and to be fair I can see lots of reasons to dislike SISU, but why shouldn't they own the Ricoh, what do people think will happen that's so bad? They aren't likely to knock it down to build something else, the only way SISU will have a hope of getting their money back is to maximise the profit the Ricoh makes, surely that would be a good thing!?! If people really want SISU gone surely a club owning it's ground is much more attractive than a club with a unaffordable rent and no income streams or assets?

Sure you could make it so that SISU could not separate the club from the stadium and you can also put a restriction on use, the land Fratton Park stands on for example can't be used for anything other than a football stadium.

 

[ashbyjan]

Dave - in principal you are correct and there are many arguments in favour of the football club and ACL working together to develop the surrounding land and making both companies profitable and successful. The problem is that the trust that there needs to be between any such partners has long since been destroyed. The council is very unlikely to ever relinquish its 50% of ACL but if the owner of CCFC was a company they felt they could work with and mutually benefit then they would not veto the sale by the Higgs Charity of its 50%, however with everything that has gone on that company is v unlikely to be SISU. The antipathy towards SISU can be seen by the unanimous council vote in favour of the loan rearrangement to ACL, not often you see such a united front from the council.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

On behalf of the Sky Blue Trust have just spoken to a Director of ACL who has said that this figure of £24 million is completely erroneous. There have not been discussions for the total revenue rights at all and he is mystified where this number has been created from. The profits from the food and beverages on match days is being offered to the club for free, worth about £100k and if the club wishes to reflect the revenue or sales (around £1m) for salary cap reasons then that could be arranged. Also we were told that if the club wishes to negotiate on individual revenue streams such as car parking etc then ACL would be willing to do so but up till now these have not been mentioned.

Just to clear up all the nonsense that is being spouted about rent etc the highlights of the deal being offered are rent is £400 K including match day costs, then club would receive the ACL profits from match day catering, around £100k and a rate rebate of £150 k and this is how the total of £150,000 per season has been arrived at.

I'm afraid that's not the whole story Jan.

Acl are refusing to give CCFC access to the other revenue streams full stop.

The club cannot compete wage wise next season on food and beverage which is hardly anything.

Acl have told Sisu they have to pay £24m of they want it. Acl don't want the club to have anymore and put a premium on it for the privilege.

Acl are the council. Those board members are all ex Cov council people.

 

[Grendel]

On behalf of the Sky Blue Trust have just spoken to a Director of ACL who has said that this figure of £24 million is completely erroneous. There have not been discussions for the total revenue rights at all and he is mystified where this number has been created from. The profits from the food and beverages on match days is being offered to the club for free, worth about £100k and if the club wishes to reflect the revenue or sales (around £1m) for salary cap reasons then that could be arranged. Also we were told that if the club wishes to negotiate on individual revenue streams such as car parking etc then ACL would be willing to do so but up till now these have not been mentioned.

Just to clear up all the nonsense that is being spouted about rent etc the highlights of the deal being offered are rent is £400 K including match day costs, then club would receive the ACL profits from match day catering, around £100k and a rate rebate of £150 k and this is how the total of £150,000 per season has been arrived at.

The £24 million figure came from an independent source. Would it not sensible to explore answers from that source rather than seek clarification from one of the two sides in dispute.

What have the club said. I assume you have tried toco tact them to get a balanced view?

 

[Grendel]

Thank you Jan for seeking some clarity.

It clarified nothing.

 

[ashbyjan]

Sorry if the facts don't fit your theories but I have put down what ACL have told us directly. The source for this sudden £24 million number is a journalist, granted a well respected journalist, but where did he get this number from?

I was told that ACL are willing to discuss and negotiate individual aspects of ACL's revenue streams but these have not formed part of the current negotiations. Once the basic rent agreement is in place then other aspects can be discussed but to be adding new elements to the equation is just further delaying a resolution which we all would like to see.

Also the board members of ACL are not ex Cov council people, some are current Council employees and others represent the Higgs Charity. One is even an ex CCFC employee I believe.

 

[Sky Blues]

It clarified nothing.

I said thank you for seeking some clarity. Jan has fetched us an answer from one side at least. I also asked earlier in this thread which interview Fisher had discussed it in, but got no answer. Also AFC does not say what his source is for his comments at the top of this page (p4). The whole thread lacks clarity. Until we get it, I doubt we can draw any conclusions from Moxley's claim one way or another.