CarpyCov84
New Member
I'm lost what these clowns actually want ???
Last edited:
Sisu's Thinking... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CarpyCov84
- Start date
Wyken Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
SISU want a ground where we shall get 100% of the income.
Without the income we shall not be able to comply with the Financial Fair Play ruling (maximum 60% of income can be spent of players' wages). Without complying with the FFP we will not have a competitive team, thus spiralling down the leagues.
Hence why if we ground share we will strike a deal where we receive all revenue streams of income.
The other option of course is to go to the previous regime, which was to pay £1.2 million a year and receive fuck all. Wuld even say the 400k regime but that's still not good enough.
The only way forward is to own/have a tenancy agreement where CCFC receive all streams of revenue. If that means building a new stadium then so be it.
Without the income we shall not be able to comply with the Financial Fair Play ruling (maximum 60% of income can be spent of players' wages). Without complying with the FFP we will not have a competitive team, thus spiralling down the leagues.
Hence why if we ground share we will strike a deal where we receive all revenue streams of income.
The other option of course is to go to the previous regime, which was to pay £1.2 million a year and receive fuck all. Wuld even say the 400k regime but that's still not good enough.
The only way forward is to own/have a tenancy agreement where CCFC receive all streams of revenue. If that means building a new stadium then so be it.
Not going to make much out of a handful of pies and a few pints of beer the sisu lovers will be buying.
Just a huge relief to read a post from someone who actually understands the true reasons for 'ground share' and building a stadium that we receive 100% of ALL income streams!
FFP is going to test the resolve of many, many FL clubs.
FFP is going to test the resolve of many, many FL clubs.
Sisu want the Ricoh
Maybe there will be a few ccfc fans as well.
So 11000 x 20(ish including kids season tickets and walk ups, rough average) = 220000 per game x 23 league games = 5+million in ticket sales alone.
Now compare this to the 3000 at wherever x 20 = 60000 per game x 23 = 1.32 million .
Even if they got 6000 it is only 2.6 million. That is income for 3+ years.
So even if they paid 1.2million rent they are left with 3.8 million. Timmy better hope they get 9000 fans to make the figure they would have got at the Ricoh because once they take debt interest and management fees out there will be nothing left for the team and we WILL be relegated.
Cup games not included.
They are also going to have to pay rent and matchday costs wherever they go.
Would you like to disect the figures which are going to be about right and tell me and every other fan how you come to your conclusion?
covmark
Well-Known Member
No no no, if you follow ccfc you'll obviously be a sisu loving rent boy, scabby cheerleading sheep. Come on you should know this by now
It's got nothing to do with pies but the £19.8m income the club has been denied since 2005 from naming rights, stand sponsorship, advertising and match day parking.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
What part of they sold that for £6.5M don't you understand.. and £19.8M is pie in the sky figure, how do you make that old nonsense up, ACL have only ever made limited profits and they still owe £14M a cost incurred for building the Arena, an asset the club have paid nothing towards.
Last edited by a moderator:
covmark
Well-Known Member
Who did sisu?
Bloody hell that would make a big dent in the 70million debt . Sisu could have taken even more money out in management fees.:claping hands:
They buy a suitable ground (larger than needed for a stadium alone). Now they have an asset. Then they get planning permission to build a stadium - probably a 20k seater. Then they start selling off pieces of the surrounding land to other parties. That generate a profit. Other parties will build hotel, shops, fastfood outlets etc. That attract more people, generate more businesses and activities. That increases the land value - thereby increase the asset value of the land still owned by a company in the SB&L group.
The stadium is finansed by the land sale and a mortgage.
All activities inside the stadium will be run by a 'ACL' equivalent owned by a company in the SBS&L group. That way all income streams will benefit the club towards profitability and the FFP.
It would make no sense if a company outside the SBS&L group owned and operated the stadium as that would only duplicate the disaster of Ricoh/ACL. To be able to later sell the club and regain their investment the club and stadium must be in the same company group.
thegameaintstraight
New Member
I suggest about £35m and that is the nub all our troubles.
How much have sisu taken out of the group and put in their own off shore account?
How much of the £70m debt is actually owed to other than the owners?
Why did sisu put in their money as loans, free of interest, without an installment plan and no due date? Why not put the money in as equity?
What is the purpose of the management fees?
Please explain ...
I appreciate that but by then CCFC will be 100 million plus in debt to one of SISU's companies. It will never be allowed to happen in the city boundaries and sites like Brandon will never get the necessary permissions. It is mayhem on the 46 as it is.If SISU had accepted the 400k deal with the pies cross referenced etc etc then IMO they would be a lot better off than this hair brained scheme. It may be too late by the time this comes to fruition Godiva and CCFC will be a bankrupt non league team.
If they had been more ethical and truthful business people they could own 50% of ACL now and be talking to the council about the other half. Guaranteed income,less debt and a better facility than they can hope to build on the cheap.
You imagine that a company that are so incompetent, as to have got themselves into this current mess, could achieve any of the above?
If they were that smart and well financed, what do they need a football club for?
Samo
Well-Known Member
Yeh that should do it.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
That's the issue for me.
They've been playing a very high risk game - but it's our club that they've been playing it with.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
Not sure this point stacks up Fletch - you can only compare like with like......and the ground that Sisu are proposing will fall well short of the same income streams that the Ricoh generates for things like naming rights, parking, advertising and events etc.
there is no way that the new ground will get the same income as the Ricoh does, surely?
100m in debts?
That brings me back to the question I asked, Dale - what is the purpose of the £70m debts? Why did they not simply put in the money as equity?
The answer is simple: To protect against hostile takeovers. The debts will be converted to equity as the club build up assets.
Even if the new stadium cost £30m to build, profit from selling off land and sale of leases to businesses inside the stadium will provide most of the funding.
When the new stadium opens there will be a surge of fans attending the matches ... just like when the Ricoh opened. But as the club now owns the stadium and all revenue streams (all year) it will prevent a financial meltdown to happen again.
Last edited:
Income
CCFC Ltd shows a total income in the year to 31 May 2011 of £10,267,7089 (2010, £9,291,108) an increase of just under £1 Million on the previous year, with Sponsorship, advertising, club shop & promotions contributing £6,341,808 (2010, £4,930,590) and match day receipts of £3,925,900 (2010, £4,360,518). CCFC Holdings Ltd has a total income in the year to 31 May 2011 of £4,478,157 (2010, £4,432,954), which is a small increase on the previous year, with sponsorship, advertising, club shop & promotions contributing £1,791,315 (2010, £1,663,196) and charging management fees of £2,686,842 (2010, £2,769,758). Who these management fees are paid to is not disclosed. Both companies share an income header ‘Sponsorship, advertising, club shop & promotions’. Why the income is split between two linked companies is not disclosed. TV rights are most likely to included in the higher figures reported by CCFC Ltd. SBSL Ltd publish consolidated accounts, which includes all the data from subsidiaries in the group whilst excluding inter-company activity. SBSL Ltd owns CCFC Holdings Ltd, who in turn own CCFC Ltd. SBSL Ltd has a group annual income of £16,021,046, which is an additional £1.2 million than that shown in the accounts of the two subsidiaries combined but includes £3,962,023 (2010, £3,179,589) for sports analysis work conducted by the subsidiary Prozone Sports Ltd. There is no mention of the management fees of £2.6 million (from CCFC Holdings Ltd), so if we consider those to be an internal charge and remove them from the consolidated accounts we arrive at the income stated in SBSL Ltd accounts. The consolidated accounts show similar levels of income to rivals of a similar size and status in the Championship. When comparing the same financial year, Nottingham Forest posted sales of £15.1 million whilst Derby County received £18.1 million. It would appear that the set of accounts posted by SBSL are an accurate reflection on the trading of the club as a whole. Effectively SBSL Ltd is CCFC.
There you go resident accountant has dissected the figures and you can clearly see the management fees . So the£2,686,842 question is where is this money going? We could still be in the Championship if that had filtered down to the team. It is only going to get worse.
Thank to Skybluesquirrel for the info from his blog http://aprisonofmeasuredtime.wordpr...try-city-and-sisu-capital-60-million-in-debt/
Last edited:
williesdonkeykick
New Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes you are right bit the plan is a disaster as it will totally alienate the customer. If they play away for 3 years a lot of supporters will not return as unlike Brighton the club won't be on the up. With no customer first approach failure is inevitable.
williesdonkeykick
New Member
Yes, but it does not prove that any money has actually left the whole group and gone back to sisu.
I asked skybluesquirrel a few times if he could do a cash flow analysis, and until we see that we won't really know how the club works financially.
I also think that the author may have now listened to all three forums and figured out by Brookfields explanations how the relationship was between limited and holdings ... and SBS&L and that may have changed his subjective conclusions on a few things.
We will be much wiser in a few weeks when the 'new' accounts have been signed off and released.
Their whole approach has been a PR disaster without precedence!
But what can you expect from bankers?
They are on a steep learning curve, but it seem too little and too late.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Most of the employees aren't bankers though. If ranson had argued from day one that ACL and the council were screwing the club even ginnetta would have been on board. Only sky blue John, jack and the other council trolls would have complained. ACL could have been ours and we'd be in a different place now. Then appointing someone who had already nearly flattened Southampton, well....
Yes, but Ranson was a football man. I really don't think owning the Ricoh was high on his agenda. And anyway, the rent was relatively small potatos in whole cost scenario back then, and PL was waiting just around the corner ...
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Its going to be very once the accounts which are incorrect are revised probably to add more interest and fees on the debt.
Think we got posts crossed while typing earlier.
That is exactly it , PL was the dream sold to them and it never happened because of one thing or another. As Timmy said the model was to be a yoyo team or sell a PL team. After it went shit shape anyone with any sense would have looked at when FFP was coming in and invested money in the team to at least keep us in the Championship with greater revenue streams etc.