Les reid's ct article (13 Viewers)

[_brian_]

You must have spaghetti for brains.

Am I supposed to respond to this tripe?

Spaghetti isn't tripe, it's pasta! LOL!!! Just trying to lighten the mood, guys! Forgive me!!!

 

---

[shmmeee]

Or you could stay in an office too large with an unsustainable rent and go bust losing a 100% of your business?

Those that can't, teach.

You think that the rent would cause us to go bust? Might wanna check our accounts.

Not sure what my profession has to do anything. But Id assume as you obviously wouldn't pass the required Maths test you're even lower down than "those that can't"

 

[Grendel]

Spaghetti isn't tripe, it's pasta! LOL!!! Just trying to lighten the mood, guys! Forgive me!!!

Very good Brian.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

You can't use the fact that they made ridiculous managerial appointments to justify ACL charging them an excessive rent. Even though the point on its own is valid.

It was negotiated when the club was expecting to be in the top flight. Of course it was too much for The Championship, let alone L1, but SISU bought (sorry, took on ownership, for free) the club knowing this. We were told by Ranson that it wouldn't be an issue as SISU would be buying the ground within 1-2 years anyway, and with all our lovely Premier League TV money after promotion, it would have been a drop in the ocean.


SISU could have tried to do something about it before getting ownership, or they could have tried to do something about it-by going through the proper channels, not simply going on rent strike-once it became clear that buying the ground wasn't going to happen as quickly as they had initially told us it was. But it only even became an issue for them well into their tenure. Why didn't they try to get it reduced earlier?


We know all this, though, it's been said a hundred-and-one times.

 

[lordsummerisle]

You think that the rent would cause us to go bust? Might wanna check our accounts.

Not sure what my profession has to do anything. But Id assume as you obviously wouldn't pass the required Maths test you're even lower down than "those that can't"

Who's talking about us?

If people are going to use stupid rental analogies for home and business rental in comparison to a football club renting a football stadium then you have to answer in kind.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You can't use the fact that they made ridiculous managerial appointments to justify ACL charging them an excessive rent. Even though the point on its own is valid.

I can use it to contextualise a number of reasons we are where we are. To concentrate extensively on the rent is blinkered in the extreme. As soon as you start to candidly disassemble the facts of the bigger picture, the holes are so wide as to be ridiculous.

For example; the rent at £1.2m was preposterous was it? I actually think it was way too high; but even at £1.2m; looking at home gates when SISU took charge at 18K, that's £66 per supporter attending, per season. We've now moved to Sixfields, and agreed to pay £170K for 2K supporters; which equates to £85 per supporter for season. So, the original rent against actual crowds actually looks not too bad - even at the Ricoh's oft-quoted 'preposterous' levels.

Well, maybe it's about revenues, eh? Well, no. We get very little at Sixfields, and due to every viable business distancing themselves from the club like a Frenchman does from a hard day's work, we can't get a shirt sponsor. What was the last deal worth? £250K a season over three seasons? What now? Zero. Oh. Okay, it can't be revenues then.

Losses. The last set of accounts filed - late - showed a pre-tax loss of £6.7m. So, these terrible, unfair rental payments that everyone keeps on banging on about to the exclusion of all others would have only accounted less than 20% of those losses. Why aren't people so bothered about the 80%? Or how about total losses over SISU's term? Those reported by the administrator, compared the the total rent charged over term, showed that the rent represented no more than 10% of the total losses accrued.

So, it's not about rent, or revenues. It's about SISU not being able to run a football club during their time. Now they want out and need an asset to act as the pretty wrapping paper for their exit strategy.

Surely, we all see that now?

And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?

 

[davebart]

So, it's not about rent, or revenues. It's about SISU not being able to run a football club during their time. Now they want out and need an asset to act as the pretty wrapping paper for their exit strategy.

Surely, we all see that now?

And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?

cracking stuff

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?

Frankly I think this move has given the club an extension of life (I leave the judgement on whether that is worthwhile to others).

It has no right to exist as is, by all rights should already have been wiped from the football map in its entirity.

So no I don't think the move threatens its very existence, that's been threatened long before.

For at least the past decade.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Frankly I think this move has given the club an extension of life (I leave the judgement on whether that is worthwhile to others).

It has no right to exist as is, by all rights should already have been wiped from the football map in its entirity.

So no I don't think the move threatens its very existence, that's been threatened long before.

For at least the past decade.

We're so much more stable now, aren't we? Definitely a firm footing to base the future on.





















NOT!!!!!!!

 

[fernandopartridge]

I can use it to contextualise a number of reasons we are where we are. To concentrate extensively on the rent is blinkered in the extreme. As soon as you start to candidly disassemble the facts of the bigger picture, the holes are so wide as to be ridiculous.

For example; the rent at £1.2m was preposterous was it? I actually think it was way too high; but even at £1.2m; looking at home gates when SISU took charge at 18K, that's £66 per supporter attending, per season. We've now moved to Sixfields, and agreed to pay £170K for 2K supporters; which equates to £85 per supporter for season. So, the original rent against actual crowds actually looks not too bad - even at the Ricoh's oft-quoted 'preposterous' levels.

Well, maybe it's about revenues, eh? Well, no. We get very little at Sixfields, and due to every viable business distancing themselves from the club like a Frenchman does from a hard day's work, we can't get a shirt sponsor. What was the last deal worth? £250K a season over three seasons? What now? Zero. Oh. Okay, it can't be revenues then.

Losses. The last set of accounts filed - late - showed a pre-tax loss of £6.7m. So, these terrible, unfair rental payments that everyone keeps on banging on about to the exclusion of all others would have only accounted less than 20% of those losses. Why aren't people so bothered about the 80%? Or how about total losses over SISU's term? Those reported by the administrator, compared the the total rent charged over term, showed that the rent represented no more than 10% of the total losses accrued.

So, it's not about rent, or revenues. It's about SISU not being able to run a football club during their time. Now they want out and need an asset to act as the pretty wrapping paper for their exit strategy.

Surely, we all see that now?

And if that's the case, those who defend their actions are justifying an investment business mitigating it's losses at the expense of the football club; by threatening it's very existence, or moving it away from it's home by means of 'leverage'. That's the primary wrong, surely, on every level?

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

 

[duffer]

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

Ah, traditionally you should just close your posts with 'end of'. Everyone knows that means that you're so right that there's no point in debating any further.

Let's just look at that 'excessive' claim. It wasn't excessive when SISU took over, or indeed for the first few years of their tenure.

And it wasn't excessive when the club got it down to £400k and Fisher said 'gentlemen, we have a deal'.

It only became excessive when SISU decided that the only way forward for the club was to distress ACL.

At £400,000 per season, then per seat the rent is about half the amount that we're paying at Northampton. (Assuming £170k/season, 7,000 seats at Sixfields). At £150k per season at the Ricoh, then CCFC are paying five times as much at Northampton, per seat.

Damn Northampton, and their 'excessive' rent forcing the club into penury, eh. Stop paying, that's what we should do, and demand they give us the freehold.

In the meantime remind me again how much profit ACL have paid themselves as dividends. If the rent was excessive they'd have been coining it in, surely.

And you do know how much SISU have levied in management fees and interest, right? Now there's excessive...

 

[fernandopartridge]

Ah, traditionally you should just close your posts with 'end of'. Everyone knows that means that you're so right that there's no point in debating any further.

Let's just look at that 'excessive' claim. It wasn't excessive when SISU took over, or indeed for the first few years of their tenure.

And it wasn't excessive when the club got it down to £400k and Fisher said 'gentlemen, we have a deal'.

It only became excessive when SISU decided that the only way forward for the club was to distress ACL.

At £400,000 per season, then per seat the rent is about half the amount that we're paying at Northampton. (Assuming £170k/season, 7,000 seats at Sixfields). At £150k per season at the Ricoh, then CCFC are paying five times as much at Northampton, per seat.

Damn Northampton, and their 'excessive' rent forcing the club into penury, eh. Stop paying, that's what we should do, and demand they give us the freehold.

In the meantime remind me again how much profit ACL have paid themselves as dividends. If the rent was excessive they'd have been coining it in, surely.

And you do know how much SISU have levied in management fees and interest, right? Now there's excessive...

The rent was in effect subsidising ACL's mortgage. That's why they haven't paid a dividend.

 

[duffer]

Frankly I think this move has given the club an extension of life (I leave the judgement on whether that is worthwhile to others).

It has no right to exist as is, by all rights should already have been wiped from the football map in its entirity.

So no I don't think the move threatens its very existence, that's been threatened long before.

For at least the past decade.

I'd dispute that, politely.

All this move has done is given SISU an extension on how long they can maintain ownership of the club. If the FL had actually maintained their rules both before and after Administration I think the odds were that SISU would have gone by now.

 

[duffer]

The rent was in effect subsidising ACL's mortgage. That's why they haven't paid a dividend.

Right, that'll be the mortgage they paid to build the stadium. So the rent reflected the cost of the build then, rather than just being some exercise in excessive profiteering as you're claiming.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Right, that'll be the mortgage they paid to build the stadium. So the rent reflected the cost of the build then, rather than just being some exercise in excessive profiteering as you're claiming.

Are they a buy-to-let landlord then?

If CCFC are subsidising the mortgage they paid towards building the stadium, why do they keep claiming that they paid for it?

 

[duffer]

Are they a buy-to-let landlord then?

If CCFC are subsidising the mortgage they paid towards building the stadium, why do they keep claiming that they paid for it?

Not quite sure what you're saying here. ACL are obviously a landlord (or were), and they own the arena (or at least the leasehold).

You claimed the rent was excessive, but seem to accept that it covered the mortgage and that ACL didn't make a huge amount of money out of it. Again, how is that excessive?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

I've always thought that people use terms like 'end if story' in association with a poor debating stance. QED

 

[Grendel]

Not quite sure what you're saying here. ACL are obviously a landlord (or were), and they own the arena (or at least the leasehold).

You claimed the rent was excessive, but seem to accept that it covered the mortgage and that ACL didn't make a huge amount of money out of it. Again, how is that excessive?

Because it means we pay the mortgage and yet we gain no commercial benefit. Paying dividends is only one element of such benefit

I use the term we to refer to the club. It's funny the accusations you throw at me. I think you'll find I defend the club - your interests appear to lie elsewhere.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

Do you consider the quoted sixfields rent of £170k excessive?

Even if the rent had stayed at £1.3m the move to sixfields is currently costing the club around £2.2m a year in revenue. Am I right in what your basically saying is you would rather lose that revenue than pay ACL £1.3m?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Not quite sure what you're saying here. ACL are obviously a landlord (or were), and they own the arena (or at least the leasehold).

You claimed the rent was excessive, but seem to accept that it covered the mortgage and that ACL didn't make a huge amount of money out of it. Again, how is that excessive?

It doesn't matter that ACL didn't make money out of it (they only didn't because of their own borrowing) the fact is that it is excessive when compared with comparable stadia.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've always thought that people use terms like 'end if story' in association with a poor debating stance. QED

I'm pleased for you.

 

[Sky Blues]

Why are you guys debating the rent?

Les Reid wrote: "this is overwhelmingly a dispute over land. It is a dispute over ownership of not just the stadium, but the potential development land around it."

 

[fernandopartridge]

Do you consider the quoted sixfields rent of £170k excessive?

Even if the rent had stayed at £1.3m the move to sixfields is currently costing the club around £2.2m a year in revenue. Am I right in what your basically saying is you would rather lose that revenue than pay ACL £1.3m?

The principle of not paying £1.3m is right but I do take your point regarding it being a bit of a false economy.

 

[theferret]

Do you consider the quoted sixfields rent of £170k excessive?

Even if the rent had stayed at £1.3m the move to sixfields is currently costing the club around £2.2m a year in revenue. Am I right in what your basically saying is you would rather lose that revenue than pay ACL £1.3m?

Why do people continue with this argument, it is a nonsense. It has never been suggested by anyone, least of all SISU, that we are better off in Northampton - on the contrary, their argument (not that I agree with it), is that they take a short term hit for longer term benefits. Comparing the losses at Northampton with those sustained at the Ricoh is pointless given that they have made a deliberate and conscious decision to increase their losses with a view (I suspect) to secure a better deal at the Ricoh than they would have done had they hastily signed a deal on ACLs terms after the option to buy the council own stake in ACL was taken from them.

 

[Grappa]

Weren't they tied into an agreement that had something like 42 years left to run? 42 x £1.3m is an awful lot of money. I'm not so sure temporarily moving to Sixfields is a false economy. Short-term, yes. Long-term probably quite sensible.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Weren't they tied into an agreement that had something like 42 years left to run? 42 x £1.3m is an awful lot of money. I'm not so sure temporarily moving to Sixfields is a false economy. Short-term, yes. Long-term probably quite sensible.

You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Weren't they tied into an agreement that had something like 42 years left to run? 42 x £1.3m is an awful lot of money. I'm not so sure temporarily moving to Sixfields is a false economy. Short-term, yes. Long-term probably quite sensible.

And thanks to SISU's successful rent strike, they were looking at a deal of 450k a year tops. But I suppose it suits your viewpoint to conveniently forget such details.

 

[Grappa]

You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??

And where did I say I believe a new stadium is going to be built?

It seems that the standard argument of many on this site goes like this:

"I think none of the parties in this saga are blameless."

"So you're saying you trust Sisu to build a new stadium then?"

 

[theferret]

You cannot seriously believe a new stadium is going to be built??

No, but it doesn't have to be. If we end up back at the Ricoh paying rent of £150K with access to some other income streams (a distinct possibility) then SISU would have secured, by virtue of the position they have taken, annual savings to the tune of £1.15 million with increased revenues to boot.

Given that, the money they will have lost during the short term exile in Northampton will pale into insignificance when you add up the savings going forward.

I don't agree with these tactics, not one bit, but it is not difficult to see what they are up to, which is why these arguments about false economy are not really relevant.

 

[Grappa]

And thanks to SISU's successful rent strike, they were looking at a deal of 450k a year tops. But I suppose it suits your viewpoint to conveniently forget such details.

And I suppose you drive a Renault?

 

[RegTheDonk]

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

According to the Trust's latest statement, ACL are prepared to discuss things. Excessive rent it may have BEEN, but that's past now. Nothing to stop a new, cheaper agreement, once this JR has been put to bed.

The rent was in effect subsidising ACL's mortgage. That's why they haven't paid a dividend.

But fernando surely, what ACL spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for SISU not paying the rent? End of ..?

 

[skybluetony176]

Thanks for the essay. Like I say, what SISU spend their money on otherwise is no excuse for ACL charging them an excessive rent. End of story.

but the excessive rent (the one thing we all agree pro shitsu or pro NOPM) is a small piece in a very big jigsaw of financial mismanagement. so why focus all your attention on this one small piece? stand back and take a bigger look at the whole picture, imagine its a map of the midlands and in the middle is a green dot for Coventry which strangely enough is where you would expect CCFC to be and down in the bottom 34miles south is a red dot for Northampton which strangely enough is where CCFC should only be for an away cup game.

and then explain to me how this one small piece of that jigsaw has been allowed to dictate the whereabouts of my club? what ACL have charged shitsu for rent is not reason enough for them to move the club away from its home and under no circumstances should the FL have let this happen.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

(the one thing we all agree pro shitsu or pro NOPM)

How about those of us who are anti SISU and anti NOPM?

 

[skybluetony176]

The principle of not paying £1.3m is right but I do take your point regarding it being a bit of a false economy.

talk about an understatement

its more like biting of your nose to spite your face than "a bit of false economy"

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And where did I say I believe a new stadium is going to be built?

It seems that the standard argument of many on this site goes like this:

"I think none of the parties in this saga are blameless."

"So you're saying you trust Sisu to build a new stadium then?"

I dislike apples, therefore I must adore pears.