Revenues - how much are they worth? (5 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did

It makes no difference. Why can't you understand that? Once sold, the future of the selling party becomes immaterial to the validity of the contract of the buyer. ACL have a monopoly. As they bought it. That's it. Please don't embarrass yourself any more with this one

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic

Thats fresh coming from you.
Taking treads off subject and never answer the bullshit you spout. The
So if we are looking for double standards look no futher .

you seem to know it all enlighten us with your knowleadge?

 

[skybluetony176]

I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic

Does it matter which company sold them when the company who purchased them are still around and not going anywhere? Otium are going to have to buy them it's as simple as that. The distressing has failed spectacularly they better hope that Higgs are still willing to sell. Sisu have fucked up good and proper and it's time you faced up to it as well as them.

 

[lift tower]

whatever the revenues are worth surely if the club wanted them that badly it would be cheaper to buy them than build a new stadium?

 

[skybluetony176]

whatever the revenues are worth surely if the club wanted them that badly it would be cheaper to buy them than build a new stadium?

Don't point out the obvious LT. You've got to see the bigger picture. If sisu don't get a return for their investors some posters on here will cry.

 

[lift tower]

Don't point out the obvious LT. You've got to see the bigger picture. If sisu don't get a return for their investors some posters on here will cry.

As an outsider looking in (albeit one with a slightly skewed take on it, Northampton fan with a Coventry born and supporting mrs who would prefer to visit the ricoh every other boxing day than watch telly at the inlaws) it seems to me like Joy has got you lot arguing amongst yourselves over the most demented things. I honestly dont think anyone, including Fisher and Labovitch, believes the shite they are coming out with about revenues etc, its just a script. The only two people that are happy with the sixfields rent arrangement appear to be Cardoza and Joy and the fact that she wont show her face in public to me says it all.

 

[skybluetony176]

As an outsider looking in (albeit one with a slightly skewed take on it, Northampton fan with a Coventry born and supporting mrs who would prefer to visit the ricoh every other boxing day than watch telly at the inlaws) it seems to me like Joy has got you lot arguing amongst yourselves over the most demented things. I honestly dont think anyone, including Fisher and Labovitch, believes the shite they are coming out with about revenues etc, its just a script. The only two people that are happy with the sixfields rent arrangement appear to be Cardoza and Joy and the fact that she wont show her face in public to me says it all.

Think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[shmmeee]

Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did

Shit. So all those games I bought from KSoft need to go back? And all that chocolate from Woolworths?

Fuck me, judging by the absolute irrational bollocks you're having to resort to to continue your ridiculous stance things must be bad for Sisu.

I suppose we can get Robbie Keane back for free too?

 

[skybluetony176]

I suppose we can get Robbie Keane back for free too?

Be nice if we could. Unfortunately Grendulls Law is just a figment of his imagination.

(Edit) Can you let me have that address for the woolworths returns. I still have some plates left from the first dining set I bought when I left home 20years ago. As its law I better send them back as I'm too pretty to go to prison

 

[Ian1779]

Oh God. Not again. We sold our rights to that stadium management company!!

Charlton are in complete control of their stadium.

Even is we didn't sell our rights to them we would have only ever had 50% of it.

You're trying to suggest two situations are similar when they are worlds apart.

 

[skybluetony176]

Charlton are in complete control of their stadium.

Even is we didn't sell our rights to them we would have only ever had 50% of it.

You're trying to suggest two situations are similar when they are worlds apart.

Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?

I could simply weep, to be frank.....

 

[skybluetony176]

I could simply weep, to be frank.....

Now you're making me feel bad MMM

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?

Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving

 

[skybluetony176]

Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving

Shocking isn't it. You can see why none off these brainiacs have six figure salaries doing multi million pound deals on the telephone

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Ha heard now...
So a company sold their rights, then went bankrupt.
So the new owners who paid for these rights should now be forced to sell them on to the company who gained access to the rest of the business?

But before that could happen the new company in turn went bankrupt?
Changed its name moved its business away and now should also be given back all rights so it has more to sell when bankruptcy comes around again,
Phew correct me if I'm wrong.
So we are saying is that before you buy a struggling business check that you are getting everything you need to make it successful
Lets put it this way.
I was forced to sell my shares should I now get them back as the company I sold them to no longer exists.

Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving

 

[skybluetony176]

Lets put it this way.
I was forced to sell my shares should I now get them back as the company I sold them to no longer exists.

I take it you mean your shares in the club that SISU said you could trust them with? Sure, why not. It's Grendulls law. You and everyone else.

 

[Hobo]

Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did

I sold a car to my mate. He has now hit hard times and is selling that car. Cheeky sod won't give it to me for nothing, it was mine after all.

At times Grendel you sound like Tim Fisher.

 

[shmmeee]

Just like to remind everyone that Otium stole our club and should never have been given the Golden Share.

They never proved they were the club against the mountain of evidence they weren't.

To me that was the day we were cheated out of our club by the FL and it doesn't get mentioned enough on here.

 

[Grendel]

What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.

 

[Grendel]

I sold a car to my mate. He has now hit hard times and is selling that car. Cheeky sod won't give it to me for nothing, it was mine after all.

At times Grendel you sound like Tim Fisher.

That is truly the worst analogy I have ever seen posted on here.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That is truly the worst analogy I have ever seen posted on here.

At least it's not Hitler buying a Volkswagen...

 

[sky blue john]

What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.

Lol lmfao !!!
How will the existing catering company profit if it hands all revenue over to Sisu ?
How much of this extra revenue will be spent on the team when the club have to make 1.8 million profit every year just to pay Arvo their interest ?
To pay this 1.8 million alone CCFC would require probably about 6 million of yearly turnover based on a 30% profit margin !
Why do you always support Sisu's actions and so insistent that a hedge fund should profit after what they have done to our club ??

 

[shmmeee]

What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.

All of this is based on some unproven belief that Sisu's timescales has anything to do with the football club.

The Ricoh isn't for us G. It's for Sisu to sell the land on for development. What happens to us is immaterial.

We're as likely to be left with no ground paying rent to a new owner of the Ricoh and paying off Sisus debt as we are to be sold as a package with the ground.

 

[ccfcway]

What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.

The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.

The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;

- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement

- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns

ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.

The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.

This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.

they are building a new stadium, we will get the revenues.

Its coming grendal, they will get the revenues and have said various times in the past they will fund the short term losses.

Dont know why you are worried about ACL having "business stability" In 2 - 4 years we will be in the new stadium and ACL will have to fend for themselves.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

they are building a new stadium, we will get the revenues.

Its coming grendal, they will get the revenues and have said various times in the past they will fund the short term losses.

Dont know why you are worried about ACL having "business stability" In 2 - 4 years we will be in the new stadium and ACL will have to fend for themselves.

It is undortunately true. SISU maintain a new ground is Plan A.

Therefore, we should be campaigning for ACL to talk to SISU and arrange a short term deal. Doesn't have to extort the club, but nor does it have to be perfect.

That said, we have to actually campaign for them to talk to them, not to say it's understandable that they don't...

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

According to the laws of insanity that prevail in here, the Pheonix Four, who aquired the assets of Rover; should be able to reclaim all the rights and designs to the Mini name from BMW. The contractual relationships seem to mirror ours totally. Rights sold. Selling entity no longer in existence.

So, we're building Minis back at Longbridge, right?

 

[Jack Griffin]

All of this is based on some unproven belief that Sisu's timescales has anything to do with the football club.

The Ricoh isn't for us G. It's for Sisu to sell the land on for development. What happens to us is immaterial.

We're as likely to be left with no ground paying rent to a new owner of the Ricoh and paying off Sisus debt as we are to be sold as a package with the ground.

Yes, there is the nub of the situation, SISU & Joy can't be trusted not to screw up the club even more even if they get something back when they sell.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving

Shocking isn't it. You can see why none off these brainiacs have six figure salaries doing multi million pound deals on the telephone

TBF, if they can convince anyone to behave like that then I can see why they are well paid.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.

The clear fact you state is only SISU's preferred option, it doesn't make it the only option. If they don't get given the match day revenues for free or at a cheap price (and I do hope they can come to an agreement over these), then I don't think they can carry on for a great length of time funding the club, eventually any investor will decide enough is enough.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

This is all a red herring, anyway, according to the information given to the SBT in 2013; Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903. That on an average crowd of 13,236. What's is worth now that the club has been run into the ground?

It's an easy emotional one for people to get worked up about. Like the 'average League One rent'. Surely the club deserves the pie money on match days. Seems right doesn't it?

But it ignores the fact the club sold those rights, it ignores the fact that the real net worth is lower than is being wasted on legal fees and the Sixfield farce and it proves there's another agenda here - freehold, freehold, freehold.

Thing is, if SISU simply declare that, it's not so easy to keep the blind, ignorant and ill-informed hanging onto their every word; and blindly defending it against all reason....

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It is undortunately true. SISU maintain a new ground is Plan A.

Therefore, we should be campaigning for ACL to talk to SISU and arrange a short term deal. Doesn't have to extort the club, but nor does it have to be perfect.

That said, we have to actually campaign for them to talk to them, not to say it's understandable that they don't...

The problem with that being that in order for that to work, you have to believe that SISU have any plans to build a new stadium. What evidence can you supply that shows they're doing anything other than smokescreening in that regard?

How can you deal with a party who's medium term solution seems to be nothing but a work of fantasy?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The problem with that being that in order for that to work, you have to believe that SISU have any plans to build a new stadium. What evidence can you supply that shows they're doing anything other than smokescreening in that regard?

Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams rather than hand them over, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?

But it's a short term rent deal based on a next phase that - all evidence suggests - isn't happening. How is that good for the club in any way? And given SISU know there is 'no new stadium', they're unlikely to enter negotiations when they know the knight in shining armour hasn't got a horse. Never will have and was never going to

 

[sky blue john]

Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?

Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?

Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?

I think you will find Sisu have set their stall out for another season at sixfields and the last thing they would want is a short term rental at the Ricoh.
As you said in your other post it depends if Acl want the club back.
I should imagine Acl do want the club back but are not prepared to be pissed about by Sisu. I can fully understand this.
Most companies I have worked for if you don't want to deal with someone or the job is a pain you put your price up. So if you get the work at least your compensated profit wise. I feel this will probably be the case with Acl. What incentive have Acl got to take CCFC back ?