how long do you think ccfc will be financially viable for otium/sisu? (28 Viewers)

[Godiva]

If there is a piece of land that can be developed to provide premises for other businesses, then why haven't one of the big developers spotted it? And why would anyone bother building a football stadium, surely a lot more money in building premises for other businesses? My claptrapometer is twitching.

To attract other bussineses the site will need a core that attract punters. Like a football stadium bringing in 10.000 people every other week.
It wouldn't work if Pizza Hut or KFC bought a large piece of land hoping that their presence will attract other businesses they can sell leases to. The number of customers they will attract is very limited. But build a shopping mall, a large cinema or a football stadium housing a well known football club and you have a very different situation.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

To attract other bussineses the site will need a core that attract punters. Like a football stadium bringing in 10.000 people every other week.
It wouldn't work if Pizza Hut or KFC bought a large piece of land hoping that their presence will attract other businesses they can sell leases to. The number of customers they will attract is very limited. But build a shopping mall, a large cinema or a football stadium housing a well known football club and you have a very different situation.

I've said on here a few times now, it's not an attractive piece of land. Not suitable for housing. It's an awkward shape too.

They're probably hoping that John Lewis will open there - remember that ridiculous ambition to have a 'John Lewis' in Coventry - yet when we had our own department store (Owen Owen / Allders) they did their level best to make the City Centre as inaccessible as possible that shoppers just stopped coming. It's now Primark.

 

[Godiva]

Ooh er missus!

Oh, you're home early, dear. NW is just here to borrow a cup of sugar. Honestly.

 

[valiant15]

Oh, you're home early, dear. NW is just here to borrow a cup of sugar. Honestly.

Not that old chestnut...........................

 

[lordsummerisle]

I just hope that the vicar doesn't turn up unexpectedly..

 

[RPHunt]

But build a shopping mall, a large cinema or a football stadium housing a well known football club and you have a very different situation.

That's a novel idea. Maybe you should suggest this to one of the large property groups, British Land or Land Securities possibly, as it's something they have obviously never thought of.

My claptrapometer is rising steadily.

 

[Grendel]

My claptrapometer is rising steadily.

Stop talking to yourself that'll bring it down.

 

[Noggin]

Yeah beat me to it - that prime land ready for development - that nobody has developed and the council expects the club to.

surely you feel exactly the same way though about the fact Fisher is telling us developers are going to be willing to pay for half+ of our stadium for us. It seems to me that is a much less attractive proposition than adding to the Ricoh. I don't really think the economic climate makes either of the options particularly attractive but especially not the new stadium one.

 

[skybluetony176]

Moving to the Ricoh without owning it or at least the stadium operation (ACL) restricted the clubs economical situation so much that it really haven't been able to at the same time live within means and field a competitive team. Up till Ranson left the club was focusing on fielding a competitive team rather than balancing the costs and income. Losing between £3m and £6m per year is not exactly living within means.

That is more or less the basis for the current situation.

The sense in the current 'transition' is that building a new stadium or buying ACL (100%) will increase income streams and provide a better foundation for the future. I would prefer a ccfc/ACL merger, but that is not likely as neither CCc or Higgs or many fans are approving this under sisu ownership, so it makes sense sisu go for option two and build a new stadium.

i don't disagree that moving back to the ricoh either owning the ground or acl would be the best situation. what i cant accept is that moving the club to sixfields against the wishes of the fans is in the best interest of the club economically or for any other reason. especially when their was an offer on the table for 10years rent at a sensible level that wouldn't slash gate revenue by 80% not to mention merchandise sales etc, who knows they might even have income from shirt sponsorship and all shitsu had to do was drop a judicial review that they have no chance of winning yet still appeal, presumably because they have ran out of ideas. there is just no financial sense in the move to the sixfields.

lets assume that shitsu are serious about building a new ground on the out skirts of Coventry, lets go further and say that it will be more suited to our best crowds from the highfield road era and has a great atmosphere. i think there are few fans who wouldn't accept that and possibly more than you think that think acl and ccc had it coming. but the reality is that this process is going to take a lot longer than the 3-5years fishface says it is going to take. 1st they have to find some land and buy it, try buying a house and see how long that whole process takes and that's on a much smaller scale and an everyday event. you then have to apply for planning permission, the 1st stage of which is outline application. ie you ask the local authority if you can build a football stadium on said piece of land with a capacity of say 18,000. this is not going to be like building a new kitchen on the side of your house this is going to be a long drawn out process with public consultation and possibly shitsu's favourite hobby, litigation. if out line approval is then given you need to draw up exact plans for detailed application. again further public consultation, nimby A wants landscaping adding so it doesn't spoil his view, nimby B wants the access moving as he wont be able to get to the tip on a Saturday afternoon with his hedge clippings. this is going to mean several re-designs and then eventually detailed application is accepted and you then go to tender for the building of said stadium. again a long drawn out process, specs have to be written for everything from the finish on fishfaces office to light fittings around the ground. so with my laymans understanding its clear to me that 3-5years is ambitious at best or pie in the sky at worse, 10years is more likely. so now moving to sixfields makes no commercial sense either.

so it begs the question why move in the 1st place when the best option is to accept the 10year rent deal.

either shitsu are the most incompetent football club management team since peter risdale (who has financial links to ray ranson and has finally been banned from running a football club) and his buddies, or they have another agenda other than running an efficient and successful football club.

either way who is going to be saddled with the debt of building the proposed new ground (lets call it never never land) CCFC and i would argue that buying the ricoh will be a lot cheaper and have a bigger revenue stream, this is why we need rid of shitsu, so this can happen.

 

[lordsummerisle]

surely you feel exactly the same way though about the fact Fisher is telling us developers are going to be willing to pay for half+ of our stadium for us. It seems to me that is a much less attractive proposition than adding to the Ricoh. I don't really think the economic climate makes either of the options particularly attractive but especially not the new stadium one.

The greatest twist, extremely unlikely, but would be hugely funny, would be that Haskell is the property developer involved in building the alleged new stadium.

Be more spinning heads than The Exorcist on here.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The greatest twist, extremely unlikely, but would be hugely funny, would be that Haskell is the property developer involved in building the alleged new stadium.

Be more spinning heads than The Exorcist on here.

Hmm, similar to my fleeting thought that maybe Haskell were to buy some or all of ACL... and promptly sell it on to SISU.

 

[skybluetony176]

NOPM supports the SISU business plan in your scenario.

!

you will have to explain that one too me, i'm at a lost to see an explanation of how it works in shitsu's favour

 

[skybluetony176]

Where has anyone said its about reduced costs?

then whats the point in doing it, we were better off how it was before

 

[lordsummerisle]

you will have to explain that one too me, i'm at a lost to see an explanation of how it works in shitsu's favour

If they exist to pile on debt and make money out of that debt as many believe, then they can only do that with a loss-making enterprise.

Increasing the losses through NOPM therefore makes it a more viable plan.

If they were making money, then it would be difficult to load debt onto a profitable venture.

NOPM = SISU

 

[shmmeee]

Moving to the Ricoh without owning it or at least the stadium operation (ACL) restricted the clubs economical situation so much that it really haven't been able to at the same time live within means and field a competitive team. Up till Ranson left the club was focusing on fielding a competitive team rather than balancing the costs and income. Losing between £3m and £6m per year is not exactly living within means.

That is more or less the basis for the current situation.

The sense in the current 'transition' is that building a new stadium or buying ACL (100%) will increase income streams and provide a better foundation for the future. I would prefer a ccfc/ACL merger, but that is not likely as neither CCc or Higgs or many fans are approving this under sisu ownership, so it makes sense sisu go for option two and build a new stadium.

OK. But why move to Northampton while you're building it?

 

[skybluetony176]

The whole area would still be derelict had the Council not encouraged Richardson et al to use it as the site for Arena 2000. Even back then they were interfering, the other site at Parkside would have been far better.

we were already in the best site, highfield road how i miss you.

 

[skybluetony176]

If they exist to pile on debt and make money out of that debt as many believe, then they can only do that with a loss-making enterprise.

Increasing the losses through NOPM therefore makes it a more viable plan.

If they were making money, then it would be difficult to load debt onto a profitable venture.

NOPM = SISU

thanks, i see where you are coming from and yes that makes sense. lets hope that they are not dumping debt on the club though because either way it aint good news for the club.

 

[skybluetony176]

Hmm, similar to my fleeting thought that maybe Haskell were to buy some or all of ACL... and promptly sell it on to SISU.

if that was to happen i have to admit that i wouldn't be surprised. the whole shitsu experience had left me very wary of haskell

 

[SkyBlueBlood]

I think we became financially unviable for SISU the minute they signed up to play in Northampton, sadly their arrogance did not see it.

 

[CCFCSteve]

With people still accepting TF's word and talking about additional income streams being the real reason for the current circumstances, does anyone actually know what income would be generated from match day revenues ? I'm still not convinced its large enough to be going through this mess but I might be wrong. Also, I presume the costs of these revenue streams (cost of sales, staff etc) would be deducted from any calculation ? ie is it therefore the profit on the additional revenue streams.

 

[Godiva]

i don't disagree that moving back to the ricoh either owning the ground or acl would be the best situation. what i cant accept is that moving the club to sixfields against the wishes of the fans is in the best interest of the club economically or for any other reason. especially when their was an offer on the table for 10years rent at a sensible level that wouldn't slash gate revenue by 80% not to mention merchandise sales etc, who knows they might even have income from shirt sponsorship and all shitsu had to do was drop a judicial review that they have no chance of winning yet still appeal, presumably because they have ran out of ideas. there is just no financial sense in the move to the sixfields.

lets assume that shitsu are serious about building a new ground on the out skirts of Coventry, lets go further and say that it will be more suited to our best crowds from the highfield road era and has a great atmosphere. i think there are few fans who wouldn't accept that and possibly more than you think that think acl and ccc had it coming. but the reality is that this process is going to take a lot longer than the 3-5years fishface says it is going to take. 1st they have to find some land and buy it, try buying a house and see how long that whole process takes and that's on a much smaller scale and an everyday event. you then have to apply for planning permission, the 1st stage of which is outline application. ie you ask the local authority if you can build a football stadium on said piece of land with a capacity of say 18,000. this is not going to be like building a new kitchen on the side of your house this is going to be a long drawn out process with public consultation and possibly shitsu's favourite hobby, litigation. if out line approval is then given you need to draw up exact plans for detailed application. again further public consultation, nimby A wants landscaping adding so it doesn't spoil his view, nimby B wants the access moving as he wont be able to get to the tip on a Saturday afternoon with his hedge clippings. this is going to mean several re-designs and then eventually detailed application is accepted and you then go to tender for the building of said stadium. again a long drawn out process, specs have to be written for everything from the finish on fishfaces office to light fittings around the ground. so with my laymans understanding its clear to me that 3-5years is ambitious at best or pie in the sky at worse, 10years is more likely. so now moving to sixfields makes no commercial sense either.

so it begs the question why move in the 1st place when the best option is to accept the 10year rent deal.

either shitsu are the most incompetent football club management team since peter risdale (who has financial links to ray ranson and has finally been banned from running a football club) and his buddies, or they have another agenda other than running an efficient and successful football club.

either way who is going to be saddled with the debt of building the proposed new ground (lets call it never never land) CCFC and i would argue that buying the ricoh will be a lot cheaper and have a bigger revenue stream, this is why we need rid of shitsu, so this can happen.

OK. But why move to Northampton while you're building it?

Tony, let's boil your post down to the question I have put in bold/italics. And I will include shmmeee's post as it kind of ask the same.

To who was it the best option and in what time frame?
If we agree that either owning ACL or owning its own stadium is the best long term scenario for the club, then that should be the starting point when asking how, why, who, when and how much.
As CCc and Higgs has made it very clear that ACL is not becoming an assets under sisu ownership, there's only one way to look and plan for - building a new stadium and mover there as soon as possible.
If ACL are only offering a 10 year lease on low rent (and btw that exclude match day cost and does not include any access to income streams like F/B etc) then accepting sisu will be locked down to an undesireable situation for 5 or 6 years longer than going to Northampton while building.
That deal setup is designed to relieve the financial set back for ACL, Compass and all businesses in and around the Ricoh and secure them 10 years of income.

The problem is ACL are not allowed to offer a sensible deal of a three year lease as the minimum lease accepted by the FL is 10 year. Or so I am told by OSB.
If this is true, then that fact alone will make sure ccfc will not ever play at the Ricoh (unless ACL are sold to ccfc).

 

[Godiva]

if that was to happen i have to admit that i wouldn't be surprised. the whole shitsu experience had left me very wary of haskell

Haskell is just another pawn in the game ... brought to the game by Hoffman/Elliott.

 

[Astute]

With people still accepting TF's word and talking about additional income streams being the real reason for the current circumstances, does anyone actually know what income would be generated from match day revenues ? I'm still not convinced its large enough to be going through this mess but I might be wrong. Also, I presume the costs of these revenue streams (cost of sales, staff etc) would be deducted from any calculation ? ie is it therefore the profit on the additional revenue streams.

Look on the bright side. I would think that they only have to sell an extra 8 pies to make up for each ticket not sold since our move. If our gates are going to be 10,000 lower they will only have to sell an extra 80, 000 pies between the 2, 000 going to the games to make up for the losses.

 

[Astute]

If this is true, then that fact alone will make sure ccfc will not ever play at the Ricoh (unless ACL are sold to ccfc).

One slight problem with your thoughts. SISU have admitted that the ground would be built and owned by someone else. So they will still need a 10 year lease. It would also cost more than the Ricoh.

This is why I am sure that it won't get built but is only a bargaining tool to get the Ricoh on the cheap.

 

[Noggin]

Tony, let's boil your post down to the question I have put in bold/italics. And I will include shmmeee's post as it kind of ask the same.

To who was it the best option and in what time frame?
If we agree that either owning ACL or owning its own stadium is the best long term scenario for the club, then that should be the starting point when asking how, why, who, when and how much.
As CCc and Higgs has made it very clear that ACL is not becoming an assets under sisu ownership, there's only one way to look and plan for - building a new stadium and mover there as soon as possible.
If ACL are only offering a 10 year lease on low rent (and btw that exclude match day cost and does not include any access to income streams like F/B etc) then accepting sisu will be locked down to an undesireable situation for 5 or 6 years longer than going to Northampton while building.
That deal setup is designed to relieve the financial set back for ACL, Compass and all businesses in and around the Ricoh and secure them 10 years of income.

The problem is ACL are not allowed to offer a sensible deal of a three year lease as the minimum lease accepted by the FL is 10 year. Or so I am told by OSB.
If this is true, then that fact alone will make sure ccfc will not ever play at the Ricoh (unless ACL are sold to ccfc).

There is nothing wrong with being locked down to a long lease overall it is much better for you then playing elsewhere.

Simple numbers used but in all cases I'm being generous to SISU with them, the truth supports the lease at the Ricoh much more.

400k rent - 10 year lease. Total cost 4million. average crowd - 10k people - 25 home games - average ticket price £15. Over 5 years you bring in 18.75mill - the 4 mill rent (which is for 10 years not 5) = 14.75 mill revenue.

at northampton no lease, 150k rent, total over 5 years 750k. average crowd 2.5k - 25 home games - average ticket price £15 over 5 years brings in 4.7 mill - rent under 4 mill.

So you are 10mill revenue - rent better off at the ricoh even though you are going to be paying rent for 5 years unused. Oh and you get to stick it to acl too during those last 5 years they arn't getting all the side benefits like food sales.

Obviously there is some food and beverage income at northampton but that is going to be more than negated by the other loses from the much lower crowds like much lower merchandising sales.

The fact of the matter is there is no buisness case for playing in northampton while building a new stadium even if you would be tied into a 10 year lease at the ricoh that you would only use half of.

 

[Godiva]

One slight problem with your thoughts. SISU have admitted that the ground would be built and owned by someone else. So they will still need a 10 year lease. It would also cost more than the Ricoh.

This is why I am sure that it won't get built but is only a bargaining tool to get the Ricoh on the cheap.

I have never heard Fisher admitting the ground would be built and owned by a third party - I heard him at the fans forum saying the structure was not yet decided.
Having stadium and club owned by different companies is not a big problem as long as both companies are owned by the same Holding company. That way a purchaser will always only have to negotiate with one part to purchase club and stadium. It's also the only way to ensure club and stadium are following the same strategic development.

 

[shmmeee]

Tony, let's boil your post down to the question I have put in bold/italics. And I will include shmmeee's post as it kind of ask the same.

To who was it the best option and in what time frame?
If we agree that either owning ACL or owning its own stadium is the best long term scenario for the club, then that should be the starting point when asking how, why, who, when and how much.
As CCc and Higgs has made it very clear that ACL is not becoming an assets under sisu ownership, there's only one way to look and plan for - building a new stadium and mover there as soon as possible.
If ACL are only offering a 10 year lease on low rent (and btw that exclude match day cost and does not include any access to income streams like F/B etc) then accepting sisu will be locked down to an undesireable situation for 5 or 6 years longer than going to Northampton while building.
That deal setup is designed to relieve the financial set back for ACL, Compass and all businesses in and around the Ricoh and secure them 10 years of income.

The problem is ACL are not allowed to offer a sensible deal of a three year lease as the minimum lease accepted by the FL is 10 year. Or so I am told by OSB.
If this is true, then that fact alone will make sure ccfc will not ever play at the Ricoh (unless ACL are sold to ccfc).

Forget the CVA.

If Sisu know they've got a watertight way out of the lease (which they did it seems) then why stop paying ret and hand the timing to ACL?

Surely once you decide to build a stadium you do all the groundwork, buy some land, ACL are all "WTF is this guy doing?", when the stadium is ready you walk out on ACL and liquidate CCFC Ltd.

 

[Godiva]

There is nothing wrong with being locked down to a long lease overall it is much better for you then playing elsewhere.

Simple numbers used but in all cases I'm being generous to SISU with them, the truth supports the lease at the Ricoh much more.

400k rent - 10 year lease. Total cost 4million. average crowd - 10k people - 25 home games - average ticket price £15. Over 5 years you bring in 18.75mill - the 4 mill rent (which is for 10 years not 5) = 14.75 mill revenue.

at northampton no lease, 150k rent, total over 5 years 750k. average crowd 2.5k - 25 home games - average ticket price £15 over 5 years brings in 4.7 mill - rent under 4 mill.

So you are 10mill revenue - rent better off at the ricoh even though you are going to be paying rent for 5 years unused. Oh and you get to stick it to acl too during those last 5 years they arn't getting all the side benefits like food sales.

Obviously there is some food and beverage income at northampton but that is going to be more than negated by the other loses from the much lower crowds like much lower merchandising sales.

The fact of the matter is there is no buisness case for playing in northampton while building a new stadium even if you would be tied into a 10 year lease at the ricoh that you would only use half of.

I actually asked a month ago or so if sisu couldn't just sign a 10 year lease and then pay up the remainder of the lease when the new stadium was finished, but I was told ACL wouldn't allow it and make sure the club was contractual bound to play at the Ricoh for all 10 years. I believed that and this is why I abandoned supporting the idea of staying while building.

 

[skybluetony176]

Godiva

read noggins post at the bottom of page 13, he's broke it down in simple terms. ccfc/shitsu/scrotium stand to make more money by being at the ricoh than being at sixfields. so in answer to your question everyone benefits ccfc/shitsu/scrotium make more money and we get the chance to watch our Coventry city play their home game in, wait for it, Coventry city.

its plain and simple shitsu are trying to starve acl to death, 1st by going on rent strike and then after ccc restructured their debt taking the club away from the city regardless of what anyone thought. acl have not forced them into liquidation that's the path shitsu chose when they decided to not drop the judicial review and accept the new rent offer, an offer which clearly makes more financial sence and wouldn't have alienated not just the majority of your current customers but generations of customers that they are most likely loosing.

as i said earlier either shitsu are the worst football directors team since risdail and his cronies or they have a separate agenda, or both.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Godiva

read noggins post at the bottom of page 13, he's broke it down in simple terms. ccfc/shitsu/scrotium stand to make more money by being at the ricoh than being at sixfields. so in answer to your question everyone benefits ccfc/shitsu/scrotium make more money and we get the chance to watch our Coventry city play their home game in, wait for it, Coventry city.

its plain and simple shitsu are trying to starve acl to death, 1st by going on rent strike and then after ccc restructured their debt taking the club away from the city regardless of what anyone thought. acl have not forced them into liquidation that's the path shitsu chose when they decided to not drop the judicial review and accept the new rent offer, an offer which clearly makes more financial sence and wouldn't have alienated not just the majority of your current customers but generations of customers that they are most likely loosing.

as i said earlier either shitsu are the worst football directors team since risdail and his cronies or they have a separate agenda, or both.

You cannot impose conditions on a CVA. You are either accepting the offer for your debt or your not.

If the new rent offer was serious, why hasn't it been made since the Creditors' Meeting?

 

[skybluetony176]

I actually asked a month ago or so if sisu couldn't just sign a 10 year lease and then pay up the remainder of the lease when the new stadium was finished, but I was told ACL wouldn't allow it and make sure the club was contractual bound to play at the Ricoh for all 10 years. I believed that and this is why I abandoned supporting the idea of staying while building.

but even if that is true it still makes more commercial sense. it takes the pressure of shitsu so they don't have to buy the 1st scrap of land they can and build a half thought out football stadium. they get time to find and purchase the best bit of land, get the finances sorted, come up with the optimum stadium design and then don't end up having to overspend because the build project gets behind after 2 frosty nights in January and a drought of 2 sunny days in may when they need to double the work force overnight as happened with the new Wembley stadium. they would actually get the chance to do some forward planning (something they don't seem to do) and make the right decisions (again something they don't seem to do)

 

[skybluetony176]

You cannot impose conditions on a CVA. You are either accepting the offer for your debt or your not.

If the new rent offer was serious, why hasn't it been made since the Creditors' Meeting?

the conditions were not within the CVA they were outside. they said they would accept the CVA if they signed a 10 year lease and dropped the judicial review. shitsu declined which rendered the club homeless, shitsu were the last people who had an opportunity to stop this happening and chose not to take it.

 

[ESB]

How is this thread surviving, no new facts since the rejected CVA & JR, yet we're getting 500 word essays. Curious?

 

[fernandopartridge]

the conditions were not within the CVA they were outside. they said they would accept the CVA if they signed a 10 year lease and dropped the judicial review. shitsu declined which rendered the club homeless, shitsu were the last people who had an opportunity to stop this happening and chose not to take it.

They are not outside. If you won't do something without something else happening it is conditional. They were imposing conditions on the agreement, end of.

 

[Astute]

They are not outside. If you won't do something without something else happening it is conditional. They were imposing conditions on the agreement, end of.

Something SISU would never do I suppose :thinking about: