Revenues - how much are they worth? (38 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

CCFC Holdings Ltd as it held the player contracts and other club assets.

Not of 'real' value worth pursuing for the lost rentals, had it? Bearing in mind the time we're discussing here...

 

---

[Ian1779]

Yes. It's business. Get Director's Guarantees to make sure they're committed and candid to all agreements. It's just good practise. When SISU came to the club, people were talking in glowing terms about these 'hard nosed' astute businessmen. Now ACL have been shown to be the party that properly covered off all bases, they're accused of being duplicitous?!?

So the principle of the club bring screwed out of match day revenues it basically generated sits fine with you?

 

[Ian1779]

No it wouldn't, the figure calculated today wasn't a rent payment. McGinninty and Robinson were guaranteeing rent.

It was based on a non-payment of rent.

 

[Grendel]

So the principle of the club bring screwed out of match day revenues it basically generated sits fine with you?

Of course it does -- as long as ACL prosper that's all that matters to most of the clowns on here.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So the principle of the club bring screwed out of match day revenues it basically generated sits fine with you?

It sold them. It wasn't forced to. It sold them. Am I happy about that? No. But they're gone. And if the current owners want them back, they need to buy them. That's just life.

It's like selling your house, then complaining you can't have your Christmas Dinner in your 'favourite' dining room. It's insane

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

Not of 'real' value worth pursuing for the lost rentals, had it? Bearing in mind the time we're discussing here...

Which is exactly why the contract between CCFC Ltd and ACL isn't worth anything and is now null and void.

 

[Grendel]

It sold them. It wasn't forced to. It sold them. Am I happy about that? No. But they're gone. And if the current owners want them back, they need to buy them. That's just life

How much for 3 years then?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How much for 3 years then?

How stupid is that question? I mean. Really. Think about it

 

[Grendel]

How stupid is that question? I mean. Really. Think about it

No it isn't. If the club initially want a 3 year deal how much will the securing of revenues which average £100,000 profit per annum cost?

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

It sold them. It wasn't forced to. It sold them. Am I happy about that? No. But they're gone. And if the current owners want them back, they need to buy them. That's just life.

It's like selling your house, then complaining you can't have your Christmas Dinner in your 'favourite' dining room. It's insane

The house and the land no longer exist in your scenario. The buyer and seller now have nothing. Bad deals all around. Time for a new deal.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Which is exactly why the contract between CCFC Ltd and ACL isn't worth anything and is now null and void.

You won't move away from this, will you? What if - and bear with me here - but what if ACL own a contract that says they, and/or the JV company or whatever, hold a monopoly for all catering revenues for any football event held at the Ricoh Arena - or whatever it's called now or at any time in the future? It doesn't matter who owns the football club, be it ARVO, SISU, Ban-Ki Moon or Jimmy Krankie for that matter - the revenues are ACL's. That, I suspect, is what they hold

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

No it isn't. If the club initially want a 3 year deal how much will the securing of revenues which average £100,000 profit per annum cost?

I'm sorry - but that hypothesis is just insane. You don't know. I don't know. Any figure is wild conjecture

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The house and the land no longer exist in your scenario. The buyer and seller now have nothing. Bad deals all around. Time for a new deal.

No. the buyer has - and is using - a monopoly over what he's bought. His dining room. His turkey. His trimmings

 

[Buster]

Grendel . Why are you trying to second guess negotiations?
What's all this, how much , what cost stuff? Not going to get anywhere is it
What's your point ,I'm lost?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Grendel . Why are you trying to second guess negotiations?
What's all this, how much , what cost stuff? Not going to get anywhere is it
What's your point ,I'm lost?

It's to force 'a value' from anyone, which he can then argue against. To argue against an absolute guess. That way, he moves the focus of the debate onto the mythical value, not the case in point. It's the same every time. Which is why I refuse to entertain it

 

[Rusty Trombone]

It was based on a non-payment of rent.

Well compensation for breaking the lease mainly, but I guess it could be spun in a way to suggest it was for non payment of future rent.

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

You won't move away from this, will you? What if - and bear with me here - but what if ACL own a contract that says they, and/or the JV company or whatever, hold a monopoly for all catering revenues for any football event held at the Rocoh Arena - or whatever it's called now or at any time in the future? It doesn't matter who owns the football club, be it ARVO, SISU, Ban-Ki Moon or Jimmy Krankie for that matter - the revenues are ACL's. That, I suspect, is what they hold

I suspect that the catering contractor isn't exactly happy with the way the way the contract is going at the moment and would be happy to vary terms that would generate say 200k+ paying customers come into the Ricoh over the course of the football season.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I suspect that the catering contractor isn't exactly happy with the way the way the contract is going at the moment and would be happy to vary terms that would generate say 200k+ paying customers come into the Ricoh over the course of the football season.

Now, that's pragmatism; and I agree with you at last. Could be described as the 'welcome' by-product of a distressing process, couldn't it? Just kindly remind me where I've heard that one, can you?

 

[Grendel]

I suspect that the catering contractor isn't exactly happy with the way the way the contract is going at the moment and would be happy to vary terms that would generate say 200k+ paying customers come into the Ricoh over the course of the football season.

Yep 5% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.

 

[ccfcway]

No it isn't. If the club initially want a 3 year deal how much will the securing of revenues which average £100,000 profit per annum cost?

3 years tops from now we will have new stadium where we get all of the revenues and can benefit from it. SISU have confirmed they can cover losses before that, whats the problem ?

 

[ccfcway]

Yep 5% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.

who cares, it will all be ours soon

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

No. the buyer has - and is using - a monopoly over what he's bought. His dining room. His turkey. His trimmings

Intangible assets don't really work like that. If you had shares in Woolworths would you still be turning up to where they usually had their AGM to cast your votes in a company that no longer exists saying you paid £x for your shares and you demand your rights?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Intangible assets don't really work like that. If you had shares in Woolworths would you still be turning up to where they usually had their AGM to cast your votes in a company that no longer exists saying you paid £x for your shares and you demand your rights?

Bad analogy. That's one single business, going bust. Simple. As I very much expect, ACL hold a monopoly over the Ricoh's catering; at least in part signed away by our previous owners in a guise no longer in existence. Doesn't matter. The signed monopoly goes on long after the contracting party or officer doesn't exist any more. You can't vaporise a contracting party to a monopoly and think all right cease and you can start again

 

[Grendel]

Intangible assets don't really work like that. If you had shares in Woolworths would you still be turning up to where they usually had their AGM to cast your votes in a company that no longer exists saying you paid £x for your shares and you demand your rights?

It really should be re-named ACL talk - the way people obsess about this stupid little Company is alarming.

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

Now, that's pragmatism; and I agree with you at last. Could be described as the 'welcome' by-product of a distressing process, couldn't it? Just kindly remind me where I've heard that one, can you?

Well that's business. ACL seemingly took advantage of CCFC when it was down to agree terms of £1.2m rent pa plus match day revenues leaving very little scope to survive without 20k+ crowds. As I've said before, time for a new deal.

 

[Grendel]

Bad analogy. That's one single business, going bust. Simple. As I very much expect, ACL hold a monopoly over the Ricoh's catering; at least in part signed away by our previous owners in a guise no longer in existence. Doesn't matter. The signed monopoly goes on long after the contracting party or officer doesn't exist any more. You can't vaporise a contracting party to a monopoly and think all right cease and you can start again

So if they tried to attract a new tenant they wouldn't offer revenues as an inducement? You sure about that?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It really should be re-named ACL talk - the way people obsess about this stupid little Company is alarming.

Oh dear....

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So if they tried to attract a new tenant they wouldn't offer revenues as an inducement? You sure about that?

Where did I say anything like that?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

It really should be re-named ACL talk - the way people obsess about this stupid little Company is alarming.

You realise it was you that started the thread.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You realise it was you that started the thread.

:claping hands:

 

[Grendel]

You realise it was you that started the thread.

Indeed and the slithering defence and justification of this company at the expense of the well being of the club is frightening.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Indeed and the slithering defence and justification of this company at the expense of the well being of the club is frightening.

Given your stance; you probably can't see the irony in that statement, can you?

ointlaugh:

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I think on that high note; I may take my leave of you this evening; as to quote a colloquialism, I believe you've been 'owned', Mr Grenduffy

 

[SkyBlueWomble]

Bad analogy. That's one single business, going bust. Simple. As I very much expect, ACL hold a monopoly over the Ricoh's catering; at least in part signed away by our previous owners in a guise no longer in existence. Doesn't matter. The signed monopoly goes on long after the contracting party or officer doesn't exist any more. You can't vaporise a contracting party to a monopoly and think all right cease and you can start again

ACL has a monopoly over the rights to the catering at the Ricoh - that's it's position as leaseholder of the Ricoh from ultimately the council. This is nothing to do with past agreements with the club. ACL no longer has any say over the club's revenue streams because it no longer has a contract with the club. If ACL wants the club back it will have to make concessions on how it deals with the revenue in the ground on match days.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Indeed and the slithering defence and justification of this company at the expense of the well being of the club is frightening.

I guess a lot of people think that having a financially healthy company owning the lease to our ground could be beneficial to the club, a cheap rent deal is certainly better for us than buying or building a ground.