torchomatic
Well-Known Member
The difference is Coventry City will NEVER own their own ground. Big difference. Our future hinges on ownership.
Sisu - it's always somebody elses fault (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter skyblueiom
- Start date
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
...just want to point out that sales in F&B are likely substantially more than the estimations given time and again on these forumns? Where are you getting these figures of £100k for example?
Just take a simple look. 23 home games, throw in a couple of cup games. OK 25.
How many concession stands are there at the Ricoh? A dozen? have you tried getting served there at half time? Have you any idea how much can be taken in 15 minutes? Again before the match?
How about the catering for the events on match days? the private boxes etc?
Think again how much is generated. If I was looking at it conservatively I would begin my estimates at £400k a season as a minimum.
Then there's sponsors deals, naming stands, advertising hoardings and the list goes on. How many of these streams are involved in those talks?
The financial world changed in 2008 and everyone had to re-adjust. SISU anymore than anyone else did not see that coming when they took it on. They tried to react but faild badly making mistakes. That is the past. It's the here and now that matters and precisely why renegotiations have to take place. Ajustments are needed and that can be done when both sides are honest and prepared to compromise properly and stop sticking it to each other in a spat worthy of a ringside seat.
Just take a simple look. 23 home games, throw in a couple of cup games. OK 25.
How many concession stands are there at the Ricoh? A dozen? have you tried getting served there at half time? Have you any idea how much can be taken in 15 minutes? Again before the match?
How about the catering for the events on match days? the private boxes etc?
Think again how much is generated. If I was looking at it conservatively I would begin my estimates at £400k a season as a minimum.
Then there's sponsors deals, naming stands, advertising hoardings and the list goes on. How many of these streams are involved in those talks?
The financial world changed in 2008 and everyone had to re-adjust. SISU anymore than anyone else did not see that coming when they took it on. They tried to react but faild badly making mistakes. That is the past. It's the here and now that matters and precisely why renegotiations have to take place. Ajustments are needed and that can be done when both sides are honest and prepared to compromise properly and stop sticking it to each other in a spat worthy of a ringside seat.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yep it was full of pride. Last regime didn't pay football clubs for players we bought off them, owed the taxpayer a fortune and left local business with IOU's. Yes I was welling up with pride then. Even prouder when the DTI started investigating our "overseas scouts" under the Richardson era.
Sorry but that is delusional. We have been a basket case for a long, long time. Sisu haven't got a clue which is good as they would have closed us down 2 years ago.
No one else is on the horizon.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
True this is my opinion - What SISU should have done was looked over all the fine details before they signed up its what anyone else would do when applying for a job, you read the Terms and then if it suits you go for it, unfortunately SISU decided they were pass that and just signed to take over the club without looking at the history of the Ricoh's finances or terms of revenue, which if they had done I am sure they would have pulled ACL and CCC up on when taking over because it's something that they could have been done straight away. The £30,000,000 figure that you have quoted could have been used to buy a share or the Arena itself, with a way to keep ACL in streams of revenue on a percentage basis over a period of time.
We are in the situation we are in now because of that idicoy in management, TF has done better since he came onboard with JS, but again SISU have dug there foot in the ground and continued to make a stand against ACL's terms with former owners and current agreement which has seen us slip into a very dark place.
Lets hope that SISU manage to come to an agreement on the rent with ACL, like I said in a previous post I don't believe ACL/CCC have been great in this situation, but this situation does boil down to Mis-Management, Poor Fact Finding, Naive Ex Owners and Stubborn adults who need there heads banged together...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Was there a different way .........................
So at what point did SISU offer to buy the income sources that the club sold and had the money for?
At what point did CCFC lease those income streams ?
At what point did CCFC use/hire the facilities at the Ricoh in a sustained manner away from match days to create new income streams
has the basis of the set up changed at all since 2008 in real terms?
have the same opportunities existed since 2008 but never been taken?
Do the club buy in and sell on matchday income in their match day packages? - so they understand the principle of buying in to sell on then ?:thinking about:
Think we need to get past this ACL is not letting us have the income argument if you look at it there are and always have been ways round it. The opportunity to gain additional income has always been there. The ability to affect the FFP rules has always been there. You have to assume the problem is that the club do not want to pay for it ............. but were happy enough to sell it for millions.
:thinking about:
I agree FFP is a potential problem but lets get to the real nitty gritty .......... there has always been ways the club could get hold of additional turnover.
So that would be rent sorted ..... check
Additional Turnover available ..... check
ways to increase profit or decrease losses available ..... check
next question or reason why it is everyone elses fault is ?
So at what point did SISU offer to buy the income sources that the club sold and had the money for?
At what point did CCFC lease those income streams ?
At what point did CCFC use/hire the facilities at the Ricoh in a sustained manner away from match days to create new income streams
has the basis of the set up changed at all since 2008 in real terms?
have the same opportunities existed since 2008 but never been taken?
Do the club buy in and sell on matchday income in their match day packages? - so they understand the principle of buying in to sell on then ?:thinking about:
Think we need to get past this ACL is not letting us have the income argument if you look at it there are and always have been ways round it. The opportunity to gain additional income has always been there. The ability to affect the FFP rules has always been there. You have to assume the problem is that the club do not want to pay for it ............. but were happy enough to sell it for millions.
:thinking about:I agree FFP is a potential problem but lets get to the real nitty gritty .......... there has always been ways the club could get hold of additional turnover.
So that would be rent sorted ..... check
Additional Turnover available ..... check
ways to increase profit or decrease losses available ..... check
next question or reason why it is everyone elses fault is ?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I saw this a few moments ago, you can almost hear them laughing from where we are.. :jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
From Trust discussions with ACL the F&B figure is only for the concourse outlets and the numbers come directly from ACL. I too was surprised how low the margins are for this type of operation but subsequent independent enquiries have shown that 15% margin is about right. The corporate is on top of that and that is provided to CCFC on a contract basis which they then sell on at a profit. Naming rights for the stadium were not on the table. Arrangement for advertising hoardings is all those at pitch side are directly the clubs, all those affixed to the stands are directly ACL'S. Car parking 900 (50% of spaces) was being supplied to CCFC for free for them to sell on.
As has been pointed out CCFC sold their rights to the revenues for £6.5m when they sold their shares in ACL. They had the opportunity to buy those shares back in the summer, even signed a Heads of Terms agreement but then never followed it though.
As has been pointed out CCFC sold their rights to the revenues for £6.5m when they sold their shares in ACL. They had the opportunity to buy those shares back in the summer, even signed a Heads of Terms agreement but then never followed it though.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
They are being offered right to Turnover Paxman not the rights to the profits from it. By concession ACL have said their share of the profits on matchday concourse F&B made can go to CCFC. It would be Credit income £1m credit cost of sales £1m
Sisu-it's always somebody else's fault.
Once again more lies from Sisu,it was only a couple of days ago that they said that they were looking to bring in another Striker, now because of the embargo they were not able to do anything. They must have known at the time of that statement that the embargo was going to be put in place so to me the implication is to try and make ACL take the blame for Sisu's ineptitude,and to look bad in the eyes of the City Fans.
I would remind you that ACL is a Coventry Charity for the people of Coventry whereas Sisu is a business for the Clients of Sisu & that is all Sisu are interested in.
Regards.
Once again more lies from Sisu,it was only a couple of days ago that they said that they were looking to bring in another Striker, now because of the embargo they were not able to do anything. They must have known at the time of that statement that the embargo was going to be put in place so to me the implication is to try and make ACL take the blame for Sisu's ineptitude,and to look bad in the eyes of the City Fans.
I would remind you that ACL is a Coventry Charity for the people of Coventry whereas Sisu is a business for the Clients of Sisu & that is all Sisu are interested in.
Regards.
skyblueman
New Member
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It's a damn sight louder from where I'm having to listen to it
I can hear it all the way from Exeter unfortunately but SBM you have my deepest symptahies.
And the usual suspects say I never offer ways out of the impasse. ;-) What Sisu could and should have done is done everything in their power to exercise their option to buy the 50% share of the stadium.
1) They were only going to do this if people were going to trust them.
2) they were only ever going to be trusted by getting things right on the pitch. This after all is what running a football is all about.
3)If they had earned the trust of the Council and ACL they would have secured access to a proportion of the revenue streams that they now present as being the obstacle to their ambition.
Even if you believe them now their toxic past has come back to bite them. They only have themselves to blame and their spin and inability to hold onto managers, players and file accounts only shows them to be unworthy.
At every twist and turn of the way they eschew normal business practice and alienate those they should and could have courted.
They are desperate now and only the desperate will think they have any future.
Ironically the club will have been helped by the Sisu experience. In the future the very public airing of the inherent difficulties will result in a surer footing.....eventually.
Pusb
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I hope to eventually see a que of people rubbing there hands together with glee in the thought of taking us over, but currently it isn't possible and we don't have time on our side..
sky blue zam
Member
any ideas if we get out of this embargo when the one for ffp starts?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
anyone want to listen to TF this morning it is here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014rksd
2hrs 8mins or there abouts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014rksd
2hrs 8mins or there abouts
brinner
New Member
surely releasing Richard Wood would pretty much bridge that 5% gap?
why were sisu handing out pay rises to the likes of david bell last season when they knew this was coming??
i remember sitting in a meeting last year with our board just before we sold juke, at that time they stated "we would be set to break even last year for the 1st time in years", i said "but what about the millions we will lose upon relegation"? they just shrugged their shoulders as if to say fuck knows!!
did they really think we would still stay up when we were about 7 points adrift at the time and about to sell the only bloke who had scored more than a couple of goals for us last season??
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It's all good saying release such and such a player but we need to balance this act and keep a squad that is competitive to compete in whichever league we are playing in and Richard Wood is one of the best if not the best Centre Back we have currently at the club.
With regards to David Bell whoever made that decision needs shooting but at this level he could be like a new signing and hopefully he can help us push on for a Play-Off place and I am glad we have that option that all being well we will be able to utilise.
With regards to players like Juke and all those that have come and gone before him we need to get over it!
mattylad
Member
This is what I have been trying to point out for weeks/months on this board! Do I like SISU....No...... If them getting the deal they want keeps the club in existence and gives the business a chance at recovery do I support it......Yes
All this just pay what you owe or just leave talk is going to end up with no club.
mattylad
Member
FUCK ME!! you dont think we were on our knees before they got here!! What planet were you on!!
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
They are paying rent, and have paid £800K since last spring... :facepalm:
brinner
New Member
also i was chatting to TF before the Preston home league game up in the boxes, TF kept going on about the Preston players walking round the pitch before the game taking pictures on their phones, "look at them, its like they are at wembley, every team that comes here does the same" then he went on about doncaster and what they pay in rent and that we should be paying the same........
so they acknowledge we have a top quality premiership standard ground but expect to pay the same rent as donnie do for a stadium half the size with no where near the same facilities as the ricoh??
dosent work like that im afraid, take responsibility, the deal is on the table, its a good deal, sign it and get the accounts filed!!
so they acknowledge we have a top quality premiership standard ground but expect to pay the same rent as donnie do for a stadium half the size with no where near the same facilities as the ricoh??
dosent work like that im afraid, take responsibility, the deal is on the table, its a good deal, sign it and get the accounts filed!!
mattylad
Member
So Licesters entire ground is worth 17m and then consider that the costing for CCFC to buy 50% of the operating company (not the ground itself) is quoted to be circa 15m
DiveDiveWhereverYouMayBe
New Member
I believe the total wage bill for the Club (playing & non playing staff) was cut from approximately £8.5m two seasons ago to £3.5m last season. Given our ongoing financial plight, such a reduction would seem fairly imperative, although it was unfortunate at best as to how we, the fans (and that's what we all are, so it would be nice if these claims that people don't give a shit about the Club because they have an opinion one way or the other were less common), routinely seemed to be span a line & kept in the dark.
skyblueman
New Member
As stadiums go that really is a bit of a bargain to be honest I'm really surprised it was bought so cheaply - not sure what the original cost was mind
skyblueiom
Well-Known Member
My reference point was 1987!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh, I see what you've done there. Clever. Your reference point was the Cup winning season. Good job you ignored all the nasty Bryan Richardson selling our own ground stuff.
Last edited:
skyblueiom
Well-Known Member
apologies for not getting my timing right - but lets not focus on anything relevant, lets just have a pop at somebody putting forward his argument in a grown up manner.
quality
quality
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Yeah but Tim Fisher has stated the £400,000 rent fee is not the issue!!! Its the revenue streams from CCFC Matchday events that they wish to have access too, i.e Food and Beverage stands, but have asked for the figures to plan it into a buisness model which ACL haven't agreed to for whatever reason..
I can see where he comes from but lets get real the Ricoh is a lot better than the Keepmoat and no one will argue that not even TF or SISU.
Like I said above ACL won't allow CCFC to plan the revenue figures into their accounts for next season, so this is hampering the ability of being able to file the accounts as proof of financing is needed for 12 months.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Is it a good comparisant but the Ricoh is probably estimated at £25,000,000+ roughly, because;
> ACL want the full oustanding money that they took out on the loan (What they now owe CCC) = £15,000,000
> £6,000,000 For the naming right's for the ground itself
> ACL will want the rest of any outstanding money owed to them regarding the rent plus a suitable profit (For arguements sake £4,000,000)
Also have to think that CCC would not let the Ricoh out their grasps without some buy off.
Like I said its all rough but I would keep ACL and CCC involved with a percentage of the revenues over ten years for example to help give them a profit for the stadium and to keep them a little sweeter, but it could never happen.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Actually the F&B income is just as dependent on numbers at the game as ACL giving TF access to their books. But it is pretty irrelevant really because the only effect that the turnover from F&Bs has is on the FFP rules.
The way the F&B has been offered means CCFC gets the credit in their sales for it but also an exact matching cost in their purchases ...... so it has no effect on cashflow at all. For the club to be viable then it will have to spend less on wages and therefore the FFP limit is probably irrelevant. The only plus to the future budget or cashflow is the £100k that ACl said CCFC can have which represents the ACL profit on the matchd day F&B.
So in reality neither the rent nor the F&B's is holding up the preparation of any budgets.
The way the F&B has been offered means CCFC gets the credit in their sales for it but also an exact matching cost in their purchases ...... so it has no effect on cashflow at all. For the club to be viable then it will have to spend less on wages and therefore the FFP limit is probably irrelevant. The only plus to the future budget or cashflow is the £100k that ACl said CCFC can have which represents the ACL profit on the matchd day F&B.
So in reality neither the rent nor the F&B's is holding up the preparation of any budgets.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Think the 50% of ACL on offer was a lot less than £10m actually
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
According to Eurosport it was built at a £37,000,000, which is over 66% cheaper than the construction costs of the Ricoh according to Wiki
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It's not really irrelevant unfortunately OSB as CCFC would have to predict such figures into there financing over 12 Months while filing there accounts and why they can't agree on that revenue there is no way we can plan for it..
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
ACL have stated that they wanted to go 'open book' on all revenues; so be careful with regards what is being claimed about visibility. They also claim they wanted to minute and publish the most recent meetings with SISU's representatives for the purposes of clarity - which would prevent the misuse of claims such as this - but were prevented from doing so by legal sanction.
Fisher claimed again on the radio today that they are paying 'rent' and have 'paid £800K since last spring'. Listen to it. The claim is clearly made.
Note: he doesn't bear reference to match-day costs, he clearly states 'rent'