have our council done enough (10 Viewers)

[covboy1987]

Have our council done enough for us from the start and have they wanted a return on investment a bit quicker than was possible
If you read about clubs such as Swansea, Manchester City, Brighton & Doncaster to name just a few they have all been through the Mill and the council in all these instances have rescued them as they have looked at the bigger and broader picture and how much income can be generated into these stadium area etc shopping around the stadium casino etc and have certainly put the people first
All of these clubs were skint when their particular councils became involved and in the main did not charge any rent to the said clubs
Although each story has a different deal attached to it such as Swansea sharing with Osprey and Man city now pay rent of £4 million a year, (zero in the early days) small change as they have just signed a deal for naming rights for £40 million a year over 10 years and it's not even there stadium
Swansea were still paying zero rent till fairly recently and they have a management team like ACL in place. Brighton FC reported £1 a year Pepper corn rent not sure what the latest is.
Doncaster similar problems as we have had and threatened to move out after falling out with the council but now have a fabulous deal in place.
The council have the power to solve this problem of where we play and put the people first if they really want it to happen.

 

---

[coop]

I do think the council will help the right owners and people but not SISU.all councils are corrupt in there own way but not as much as our current owners IMO

 

[James Smith]

It should be noted that there should be no criticism of any of the stadium users in relation to the financial position that the SMC faces. The users have almost always paid what has been agreed with them in a timely manner and it certainly not their fault that the stadium is running as a loss.

https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc

James, you are quite right about Doncaster council losing over £300k per year on the Keepmoat stadium and this was despite a contribution of £281k per year from Rovers and all income from naming rights, catering, advertising etc. So without the contribution from Rovers, the losses would have been about £600k per year.

Under the terms of the new agreement, Rovers have to fund these losses and pay £100k per year rent. The council are paying the club £90k per year that was paid to the council for naming rights, but this figure was already included as income so it doesn't do anything to offset the £600k loss.

The club obviously has a great incentive to reduce these costs, but they must do so while providing the community facilities that the council demand.

To sum up, if Rovers can halve the losses that the stadium has been incurring, playing there will cost them £300k per year to fund the loss plus £100k per year rent - i.e. £400k per year for a 15,000 seat stadium.

The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

They've done more for us than our venerable custodians. I'll take democratically elected representatives over private equity.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I do think the council will help the right owners and people but not SISU.all councils are corrupt in there own way but not as much as our current owners IMO

Who can say who the right owners and people are though?

Five years ago the overwhelming majority would have said that Sisu were.

 

[Moff]

The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.

Still I would rather have a successfull team like Doncaster and an unsuccesfull stadium rather than the opposite that we have..... :facepalm:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Who can say who the right owners and people are though?

Five years ago the overwhelming majority would have said that Sisu were.

I don't think they would-they just didn't want to go into administration as they were told that would be the end of the club. It was an "anybody!" situation. That's really not the same as approving or even championing them. And in any case, the majority weren't qualified to comment until they'd experienced the wild adrenalin ride of actually being owned by a private equity firm.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think they would-they just didn't want to go into administration as they were told that would be the end of the club. It was an "anybody!" situation. That's really not the same as approving or even championing them. And in any case, the majority weren't qualified to comment until they'd experienced the wild adrenalin ride of actually being owned by a private equity firm.

A certain reinvention. Good business sense, Ruthless Ray and lots of other things were celebrated by some (not all, but many), while any opposition was shouted down.

 

[georgehudson]

5 yrs +, ago i certainly did not think that they would be good owners,
a minimum of research revealed that they were a 'hedge fund', & a quick search on what hedge funds do convinced me that they would not be good for CCFC in any way

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Well said, I touched on a couple of your points (early help+ Swansea + Donny) but was largely ignored/branded a 'SISU rent boy', I don't see how the CCC can justify bailing out ACL especially when the same council refused to directly aid the club in its prolonged period of need.

There's been much mismanagement of the club, way before SISU, in fact, I think SISU's predecessors have been on par, at best, worse, at worst than SISU, yet, I don't remember protests to get them regimes out.

In this whole debacle, I think it's naive, at best, to suggest one party (either one, for that matter) is at fault.

 

[skyblue1523]

man city and southampton had a idea about sisu. They did'nt let them get hold of their clubs

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

They've done more for us than our venerable custodians. I'll take democratically elected representatives over private equity.

What mandate does the council have to make any decisions on the RICOH? Is the charity elected also? :thinking about:

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'd like the council to offer the same deal to any owner of Coventry City.

I'd also like the council to keep the freehold of the stadium, whoever is the owner of Coventry City.

A football club isn't the place to be playing politics.

 

[torchomatic]

https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc

The Keepmoat was not a resounding success as a stadium.

Odd viewpoint. Surely you want a successful team similar to the Keepmoats' tenants?

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deleted member 5849]

man city and southampton had a idea about sisu. They did'nt let them get hold of their clubs

Southampton preferred administration in fact.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

What mandate does the council have to make any decisions on the RICOH? Is the charity elected also? :thinking about:

Totally missed my point, as per usual, which was about accountability and transparency. Publicly elected officials are far more altruistic than a private equity firm whose only loyalty is to money and profit. Anyone who claims to be a Socialist should at least comprehend that-ideologically, you are entirely opposed to the very existence of private equity :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about:

 

[lordsummerisle]

Southampton preferred administration in fact.

Indeed, and many laughed at Southampton and called them mugs for not letting Ray and Sisu take them over, their loss was our gain apparently.

Mind you, it was the same people who laughed at "Mad" McCarthy for selling Eastwood to us for "only" £1.5 million.

 

[covmark]

The big question is will the council give up their pound of flesh even if we have new owners I dont think they will, I hope I'm wrong though

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Indeed, and many laughed at Southampton and called them mugs for not letting Ray and Sisu take them over, their loss was our gain apparently.

Mind you, it was the same people who laughed at "Mad" McCarthy for selling Eastwood to us for "only" £1.5 million.

And we got Ken. Bet they miss him.

 

[covmark]

Southampton preferred administration in fact.

Bang on mate

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Totally missed my point, as per usual, which was about accountability and transparency. Publicly elected officials are far more altruistic than a private equity firm whose only loyalty is to money and profit. Anyone who claims to be a Socialist should at least comprehend that-ideologically, you are entirely opposed to the very existence of private equity :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about:

... Did we forget the 'bourgeoisie' council as well? I'd also oppose that to, which I do.

The context of the situation is this: we live in a capitalist society where there is private equity so I can't be blinkered based on political views (though it bounds to be inextricably linked somewhere)

You've missed my point, the council didn't get elected on any promise regarding the RICOH, therefore don't have a mandate, also, the voters largely vote on national issues, not local ones... Also, ACL is not an elected body, it is a private company, made up of the CCC and Higgs Charity, so what makes these 'investors' different to SISU (don't take literally, we know SISU are a hedge-fund etc. but my point is they are investors, therefore protection of their interests come first)?

 

[oakey]

What mandate does the council have to make any decisions on the RICOH? Is the charity elected also? :thinking about:

Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?
Didn't CCC
1) rescue the Ricoh project when CCFC had sold Highfield rd?
Doesn't CCC
2) part own the Ricoh arena?
How can some people behave as if none of this has happened?
SBTaylor, you seem to blank any facts that don't suit your view. Why is that?
Why do the comparisons with Doncaster and Swansea get trotted out?
Why not compare our situation with clubs that pay higher rent, such as Walsall?

Intellectual argument does not ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?
Didn't CCC
1) rescue the Ricoh project when CCFC had sold Highfield rd?
Doesn't CCC
2) own the Ricoh arena?
How can some people behave as if none of this has happened?
SBTaylor, you seem to blank any facts that don't suit your view. Why is that?
Why do the comparisons with Doncaster and Swansea get trotted out?
Why not compare our situation with clubs that pay higher rent, such as Walsall?

Intellectual argument does not ignore inconvenient facts.

You've fallen through something!

The council paid £10million towards the £81million cost of the stadium,I believe(but don't know for sure) that the Swansea and Doncaster stadiums were council projects anyway?

If it wasn't for the club, and Richardson's, hesitate to call it "vision" there wouldn't be this wonderful facility anyway. The council would never have had the balls to plan and build something like the Arena on their own.

The Walsall situation is totally different, as the rent is paid to the owner of the ground who is also the owner of the club.

Classic tax-dodge, if circumstances merited it and he needed the ground to lose money for a couple of years I'm sure that the rent would be reduced.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Have I fallen through a hole in the space time continuum and woken in another dimension?
Didn't CCC
1) rescue the Ricoh project when CCFC had sold Highfield rd?
Doesn't CCC
2) part own the Ricoh arena?
How can some people behave as if none of this has happened?
SBTaylor, you seem to blank any facts that don't suit your view. Why is that?
Why do the comparisons with Doncaster and Swansea get trotted out?
Why not compare our situation with clubs that pay higher rent, such as Walsall?

Intellectual argument does not ignore inconvenient facts.

How does any of your points relate to my post? Do you know what mandate means?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

How does any of your points relate to my post? Do you know what mandate means?

By your definition, 99.99% of governments don't have a mandate to deal with the things that they actually do!

 

[oakey]

How does any of your points relate to my post? Do you know what mandate means?

Chortle.
As I am a teacher and you are a pupil I think so.
!)

 

[oakey]

You've fallen through something!

The council paid £10million towards the £81million cost of the stadium,I believe(but don't know for sure) that the Swansea and Doncaster stadiums were council projects anyway?

If it wasn't for the club, and Richardson's, hesitate to call it "vision" there wouldn't be this wonderful facility anyway. The council would never have had the balls to plan and build something like the Arena on their own.

The Walsall situation is totally different, as the rent is paid to the owner of the ground who is also the owner of the club.

Classic tax-dodge, if circumstances merited it and he needed the ground to lose money for a couple of years I'm sure that the rent would be reduced.

So I was right then

 

[James Smith]

Odd viewpoint. Surely you want a successful team similar to the Keepmoats' tenants?

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

I'd love to see a successful team and a prospering club, what fan wouldn't? My point is that the statement

Doncaster similar problems as we have had and threatened to move out after falling out with the council but now have a fabulous deal in place

.

is as far as I know incorrect and no one has provided any evidence that Doncaster were threatening to move out, or had fallen out with the council.

The Keepmoat management company was losing ~£300k a year and that was with the tenants all paying their rent and getting all the extra revenue a stadium generates. So Doncaster Rovers have signed up for a long lease and are paying £100k per year rent plus have got £400k from the council for refurbishment plus money from the naming rights.

However if you add up the annual loss the stadium management company (SMC) was making and add that to the amount Rovers were paying in rent to the SMC it's roughly £600k. Even if Rovers have reduced the losses it would still be costing them as RP Hunt says £400k a year for a stadium with a lower capacity than ours. So that council cheque for £400k would only just cover the costs for a year and it was for repairs and refurbishment . So saying Doncaster Rovers are getting a really cheap deal is possibly slightly wide of the mark.

 

[Grendel]

I'd love to see a successful team and a prospering club, what fan wouldn't? My point is that the statement

.

is as far as I know incorrect and no one has provided any evidence that Doncaster were threatening to move out, or had fallen out with the council.

The Keepmoat management company was losing ~£300k a year and that was with the tenants all paying their rent and getting all the extra revenue a stadium generates. So Doncaster Rovers have signed up for a long lease and are paying £100k per year rent plus have got £400k from the council for refurbishment plus money from the naming rights.

However if you add up the annual loss the stadium management company (SMC) was making and add that to the amount Rovers were paying in rent to the SMC it's roughly £600k. Even if Rovers have reduced the losses it would still be costing them as RP Hunt says £400k a year for a stadium with a lower capacity than ours. So that council cheque for £400k would only just cover the costs for a year and it was for repairs and refurbishment . So saying Doncaster Rovers are getting a really cheap deal is possibly slightly wide of the mark.

They are currently paying £10,000 a year in rent. They get £90,000 discount a season for naming rights the £400,000 is separate.

If we had a similar arrangement we would have access to all revenues. As it stands FPP rules would give them a bigger budget than us in the league

Interesting you really are avoiding discussion on other clubs such as Swansea.

 

[Grendel]

Chortle.
As I am a teacher and you are a pupil I think so.
!)

I hope you don't teach business or economics -- Home Economics by any chance?

 

[James Smith]

They are currently paying £10,000 a year in rent. They get £90,000 discount a season for naming rights the £400,000 is separate.

If we had a similar arrangement we would have access to all revenues. As it stands FPP rules would give them a bigger budget than us in the league

Interesting you really are avoiding discussion on other clubs such as Swansea.

Yes but the naming rights were already included in the losses incurred by the SMC, if you read the council scrutiny document https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc it shows that money as being included. So it doesn't matter if they are getting £90k for that, it doesn't offset the losses that Rovers will have to cover as they lease the stadium. I'm not avoiding Swansea I just haven't looked at it yet.

 

[oakey]

I hope you don't teach business or economics -- Home Economics by any chance?

Chortle, Chortle.
No, I teach English, Humanities and Social Sciences... To A level, as it happens, so I am used to barrack room lawyers.
Comment is free, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Grendel]

Yes but the naming rights were already included in the losses incurred by the SMC, if you read the council scrutiny document https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/db/chamber/.\reports\5 smc update.doc it shows that money as being included. So it doesn't matter if they are getting £90k for that, it doesn't offset the losses that Rovers will have to cover as they lease the stadium. I'm not avoiding Swansea I just haven't looked at it yet.

From an FPP perspective which arrangement would be better for the football club?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Chortle.
As I am a teacher and you are a pupil I think so.
!)

How did your post relate to my post in any way? It came from nowhere and as I said, has nothing to do with my post.

 

[James Smith]

From an FPP perspective which arrangement would be better for the football club?

That depends, it seems to me that it's useless to be able to spend masses on your squad under FFP if you've not got the money to spend.