Sixfield rent (1 Viewer)

[spongebob]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/coventry-city/10294857/.html …
Not sure if this has already been posted but if its true were paying over £170,000 per season to play at sixfields !

 

---

[Danceswithhorses]

So that makes it £172500pa rent paid, less some meagre beer and pie sales...still sounds like financial suicide

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So that makes it £172500pa rent paid, less some meagre beer and pie sales...still sounds like financial suicide

Agreed. There is no way that levels of losses like this stack up against playing at the Ricoh; even at the previous rent levels, and with no income. With the offer of lower rents and share of incomes; the choice between the Ricoh and Sixfields is an absolute no-brainer - unless there's an unspoken 'sub-plot', of course. And that's just a direct financial analysis, ignoring the club being torn apart, a generation of supporters who may be lost having never seen their club play in their home town, or the disaster that will be FFP adherence in coming seasons.

There is only one reason 'the club' is doing this; and we all know what it is

 

[Sky Blues]

Mr Fisher's so-called "League 1 average rent"... for a League 2 ground.

I'm sure all those who fumed that Doncaster only pay £10,000 a year* will be on here soon screeching what a rip-off this is and attacking Northampton for charging too much.

(*If you believe Doncaster's stadium only costs them £10,000 a year, then I suggest you read my first post here: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/24428-Thanks-Doncaster)

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Mr Fisher's so-called "League 1 average rent"... for a League 2 ground.

I'm sure all those who fumed that Doncaster only pay £10,000 a year* will be on here soon screeching what a rip-off this is and attacking Northampton for charging too much.

(*If you believe Doncaster's stadium only costs them £10,000 a year, then I suggest you read my first post here: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/24428-Thanks-Doncaster)

This is a travesty. And they're picking up a loan from their council to increase capacity:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-23168498

I demand a judicial review too!

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Only 2 possibilities for Sisu's crazy business decision to go to Sixfields.

1. To distress ACL and get the Ricoh on the cheap
2. They are using CCFC as a debt pit.

The money is still on 1. How long can they carry on with that strategy, before they distress themselves, or their investors? Or they liquidate and get out....

 

[jan87]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/coventry-city/10294857/.html …
Not sure if this has already been posted but if its true were paying over £170,000 per season to play at sixfields !

I posted this several weeks ago after Tim confirmed to me the rent they were paying to play at Northampton. I asked him why he had refused the offer to play at the Ricoh for nothing, he said the offer was never made to him. I told him that the offer was probably made to PA as he was in charge of the club at the time, why was this not passed on to TF. I wonder

 

[@richh87]

I posted this several weeks ago after Tim confirmed to me the rent they were paying to play at Northampton. I asked him why he had refused the offer to play at the Ricoh for nothing, he said the offer was never made to him. I told him that the offer was probably made to PA as he was in charge of the club at the time, why was this not passed on to TF. I wonder

At the next opportunity, someone needs to put it to Fisher that their game plan is to distress ACL. I'd like to hear his excuse for why they are suing the council over a loan which in effect gave ACL the stability to offer CCFC lower rent.

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Not accusing SISU here, but if their intention was to offload debts into CCFC, It wouldn't bother them one iota how long they put off "Building a stadium".."Returning to the Ricoh" The £1m bond to the FL is peanuts, and could be paid out of SISU's "Small change pocket" It would mean for the next 5 years SISU have a "Negative Bank" in which to get rid of debts by dumping it all on to the "Club" then finally Liquidating. (This is only an option, and I'm in no way accusing SISU of actually intending to do this)

 

[skybluetony176]

Agreed. There is no way that levels of losses like this stack up against playing at the Ricoh; even at the previous rent levels, and with no income. With the offer of lower rents and share of incomes; the choice between the Ricoh and Sixfields is an absolute no-brainer - unless there's an unspoken 'sub-plot', of course. And that's just a direct financial analysis, ignoring the club being torn apart, a generation of supporters who may be lost having never seen their club play in their home town, or the disaster that will be FFP adherence in coming seasons.

There is only one reason 'the club' is doing this; and we all know what it is

Exactly. This is why I can't understand why people are only angry and willing to shout about what ACL/CCC done (past tense)

The suxfields situation is current and doing more damage to our club and in more ways than ACL/CCC actions have ever done.

This is all fans should be concerned with at this moment in time.

 

[Grendel]

Exactly. This is why I can't understand why people are only angry and willing to shout about what ACL/CCC done (past tense)

The suxfields situation is current and doing more damage to our club and in more ways than ACL/CCC actions have ever done.

This is all fans should be concerned with at this moment in time.

No it isn't because the club has zero future anyway under the current arrangement. Despite the sneers and the knowing looks the stark reality is this club had a bad deal from the council compared to every other club in the situation.

The other reality people have to ultimately accept is no new owner will deal with the council. For a reason I can never understand they want the owners to do land redevelopment for them. No one is interested.

Sisu I am sure will fail but of they somehow succeeded in getting the club and the ground in one holding entity and removed ACL and the council from the picture then for the long term it would be worth it.

They'll fail though.

 

[chiefdave]

You can't argue that the original deal hasn't worked out well for CCFC, it does make you wonder why the club agreed to it. If we believe PWKH then they took this deal in preference over other options that would have seen them paying less in the lower leagues. The only reason I can think of is that the owners at the time made a strange assumption that we'd shortly be back in the top flight and the rent would be, to a certain extent, insignificant.

If at day one the club had kicked up a fuss you would think they would have had the whole fan base behind them pressuring the council.

Any new owner has a clean slate to pressure the council. First off purchase the 50% stake off ACL and then make an offer for the councils 50%. If the council refuse, and its a fair offer, go public. I think you would then see a great deal of pressure on the council.

If I was SISU I would be making it clear why stadium ownership is needed and how it benefits the club. They've not really done that other than just stating it as fact. It leaves them open to an easy counter argument that the rent only made up a fraction of the annual losses. If they could demonstrate the need for ownership it would certainly change my opinion and I'm sure that of other fans, at the moment I see no reason they need ownership.

 

[CCFC PimpRail]

No it isn't because the club has zero future anyway under the current arrangement. Despite the sneers and the knowing looks the stark reality is this club had a bad deal from the council compared to every other club in the situation.

The naughty council. Imagine if I owned a house, sold it, gambled away the profits, then asked them to build a better one which I then stopped paying rent on because I said it was more than someone else was paying for their council house in Doncaster.

 

[chiefdave]

The naughty council. Imagine if I owned a house, sold it, gambled away the profits, then asked them to build a better one which I then stopped paying rent on because I said it was more than someone else was paying for their council house in Doncaster.

Of course where the analogy falls down is that you getting kicked out of your council house won't affect thousands of people who enjoy spending time at your house and the loss of trade to local businesses is likely to be relatively insignificant. With something like the Ricoh the council would need to factor in things like that. Councils are allowed to subsidise things if it is for the benefit of the local area and local taxpayers.

 

[skybluetony176]

No it isn't because the club has zero future anyway under the current arrangement. Despite the sneers and the knowing looks the stark reality is this club had a bad deal from the council compared to every other club in the situation.

The other reality people have to ultimately accept is no new owner will deal with the council. For a reason I can never understand they want the owners to do land redevelopment for them. No one is interested.

Sisu I am sure will fail but of they somehow succeeded in getting the club and the ground in one holding entity and removed ACL and the council from the picture then for the long term it would be worth it.

They'll fail though.

I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing. The current deal doesn't work (I'm assuming you mean the suxfields deal). The FL have agreed that the club can have a temporary arrangement while sisu build imagination land for at least another 4 seasons, why can't this be the last deal offered by ACL through the FL? The FL obviously approve it otherwise they wouldn't have passed it on to sisu in the first place and financially as a short term solution it makes more sense, for the club if not sisu's investors and I know that you're only interested in the club. So sisu should accept, infact you could even argue that TF is failing in his duties as a director if he doesn't. Didn't OSB mention that he has to act in the best interest of CCFC by law.

Another point. If you really want to shout and point your finger at ACL I can't think of a better place to do it than the Ricoh. I've already said that if we don't get access to the match day revenues I'll quite happily do nopm against ACL by not parking my car there and not buying any pies or drinks once inside.

 

[CCFC PimpRail]

Of course where the analogy falls down is that you getting kicked out of your council house won't affect thousands of people who enjoy spending time at your house and the loss of trade to local businesses is likely to be relatively insignificant.

I forgot to add that you also have the option of either a fixed rent, or a sliding one based on how well you were doing and therefore how many friends came to visit your house...

 

[Jim]

Any new owners would deal with ACL / Council because the current tabled offers for rent are 150k per season.

 

[Grendel]

Any new owners would deal with ACL / Council because the current tabled offers for rent are 150k per season.

No it isn't and no they wouldn't without ownership of the facility their is zero attraction.

 

[skybluetony176]

No it isn't and no they wouldn't without ownership of the facility their is zero attraction.

Just out of interest when did you poll any and all potential professional football club owners?

 

[Grendel]

Just out of interest when did you poll any and all potential professional football club owners?

When did Jim? Why are you addressing just me?

 

[skybluetony176]

When did Jim? Why are you addressing just me?

No, I'm addressing you. You're conveniently forgetting, for the purpose of your estimated facts, that Mr Appleton received more than one bid during administration and at least one of these parties had meeting(s) with CCC.

Was it the same pollsters that Joy used for her every football finance expert in the world says line?

 

[Grendel]

No, I'm addressing you. You're conveniently forgetting, for the purpose of your estimated facts, that Mr Appleton received more than one bid during administration and at least one of these parties had meeting(s) with CCC.

Was it the same pollsters that Joy used for her every football finance expert in the world says line?

The bid could be one pence and certainly would not have looked at rental detail.

I have spoken to people nothing to do with our current owners but previously associated with the club and a director at another football club. This was their view.

Where do you get your view from?

 

[bigfatronssba]

No it isn't and no they wouldn't without ownership of the facility their is zero attraction.

Yet Leeds United managed to be an attractive proposition despite not owning Elland Road.

 

[skybluetony176]

The bid could be one pence and certainly would not have looked at rental detail.

I have spoken to people nothing to do with our current owners but previously associated with the club and a director at another football club. This was their view.

Where do you get your view from?

From the man in charge of the administration process not your imaginary friends that's for sure.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yet Leeds United managed to be an attractive proposition despite not owning Elland Road.

And Northampton Town despite not owning their ground.

 

[bigfatronssba]

And Northampton Town despite not owning their ground.

Also Hull City, Wolves and Leicester are all clubs that didn't own their grounds but have been the subject of a takeover in recent years.

 

[skybluetony176]

Also Hull City, Wolves and Leicester are all clubs that didn't own their grounds but have been the subject of a takeover in recent years.

Aren't West Ham about to move into rented accommodation from a ground they own? Perhaps they need to speak to Joy for some sound advice on how to run a football club, she's connected to every expert in the world you know. Look how she's turned our club around, they could do worse you know ;-)

 

[Grendel]

Excuse me? Councils in general have proved very supportive and viewed the club as a community asset. The view of this council is it treats the club as an excuse for land regeneration and nothing else.

 

[skybluetony176]

Excuse me? Councils in general have proved very supportive and viewed the club as a community asset. The view of this council is it treats the club as an excuse for land regeneration and nothing else.

You seem confused. You're now saying there is attraction without ownership of facilities.

 

[ecky]

Grendel I take it all back your a top bloke......

 

[Ian1779]

Revenue, revenue, revenue... fuck all to do with who owns it. All these clubs that don't 'own' their grounds have a council that allows them to prosper and gives them control of all the revenues.

CCC are either too fucking stupid or too fucking interested in their own agenda to realise this. So the new ground option - no matter how ridiculous it seems, appears to be the only way for the club to have access to these, until CCC wakes up and joins us in the 21st Century.

SISU need to pay a fair value for either the freehold, or failing that a long term lease with 100% revenue control - the existence of ACL os the problem, and realistically it would have to cease to exist if a deal to return to the Ricoh was done.

Also whilst on the subject of the other bids - Michael Byng made it very clear he wanted the stadium and club to be a single entity if he was going to get involved and take the club forward. There's a recurring theme here.

 

[Grendel]

From the man in charge of the administration process not your imaginary friends that's for sure.

One attended the ML meeting. I personally believe his views over yours.

 

[Grendel]

You seem confused. You're now saying there is attraction without ownership of facilities.

No tony your confused. Council owned property is fine of the council demonstrated a desire to work with the club - this council is the exception to the rule - its duplicitous obsessed with getting the club to foot the bill for its regeneration and unfit for purpose.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Ian, no one is disagrees that revenues are important for the club.

However, that has nothing to do with ownership, or even a long lease. It can be achieved whilst still under a rental agreement.

I have yet to hear the argument of why the club needs to own the freehold, or even a long lease.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No tony your confused. Council owned property is fine of the council demonstrated a desire to work with the club - this council is the exception to the rule - its duplicitous obsessed with getting the club to foot the bill for its regeneration and unfit for purpose.

Evil bitch Seppala said she wanted to be involved in the redevelopment of land around the Ricoh.