lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
So we didn't go to Northampton and we're not back at The Ricoh on a short term deal?
Thank fuck for that, it was all just a nightmare after all. Was as detailed as that whole series of Dallas that never happened too.
Fisher's Remarks... (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Samo
- Start date
So we didn't go to Northampton and we're not back at The Ricoh on a short term deal?
Thank fuck for that, it was all just a nightmare after all. Was as detailed as that whole series of Dallas that never happened too.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Isn't it strange how the same posters keep trying to blame ACL/CCC for a lot of what has gone on. And these same posters come out with the same untruths whilst waiting to have digs when someone states the facts.
The Ricoh was our home. And under the FL rules the shortest contract was a ten year rolling contract. But SISU said that they were forced out. A blatant lie but.....
They then told the FL that they needed a temporary home whilst they built a new ground or our club would fold. This all was happening at the end of 2012. The FL allowed it as they wanted to keep our club afloat. But they told SISU they had three years and another two as long as they could show the progress.
But you already know all of this.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I thought losing the JR was the plan.
Leamington Pete
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
In this thread, LS has been correct that a short term deal was not on offer from ACL, but is now.
He is also correct that mediation was point blank refused, but was then accepted.
He also appears to be correct (if you believe such luminaries such as David Conn, who gets a big following on here as being accurate, after all) that f&b revenues are now on offer, where previously they were not.
Isn't it strange that some people appear to want to blindly defend everything to do with ACL, and assume that pointing the following out makes somebody pro-SISU.
Objective my bollocks.
However, the past is the past, and we will get nowhere re-living it when a long term solution needs to be found. If SISU and ACL can put the past to the side, then we should too.
Jack Griffin put up a nice little piece from John Beech that included stating the obvious, that any deal would have involved compromise from both sides. Well, here are ACL's compromises and it's a bloody good thing they were prepared to make some, that should be congratulated. It's not to be celebrated that one side or the other gets crushed to the ground, I'm no fan of a financial dispute. However, it is to be celebrated that the club is back... it is to be celebrated that it appears Seppala, Reeves, West and Lucas were very flexible and keen to do a deal, this bodes well for the long term resolution.
Shame this didn't happen somewhat earlier, but we are where we are, and at least there's more hope now than previously, as all sides appear to have more openness than previously.
Last edited by a moderator:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Um. They were offered several short term deals before. They were offered not just less rent but at one point no rent. They're been offered F&B deals before as well and we don't know exactly what they got.
Frankly every man and his dog has claimed credit as being the mediator as well not sure how much stock I'd put in that.
Stop posting bollocks.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They have never been offered less than a 10 year deal and not offered any f and b revenue
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
You could try reading stuff first before just posting random stuff from inside your head.
Just a thought.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Wasn't the no rent offered only to the administrator whilst we were in administration?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think it is pretty clear that both sides have had to compromise on this. January 2013 was frustrated bargaining positions on both sides nothing more, neither side publically were prepared to give or even countenance movement from entrenched positions. Both sides played hard ball but be it the right timing, fans pressure, financial need or right person right place both sides have produced a deal. What happened 18mths ago is clearly going to be different to now, things changed, positions become more or less defensible, needs change.
At the moment I think as LS has done it is easier to highlight the compromises that ACL have done. No they didn't want a short term deal yes they pushed for a minimum 10years (that complies with FL "rules") Did they offer the F&B no they offered cross invoicing that would have left a 10% return to the club - as I understand it the club have now got something like 15% on the F&B but I am not sure they have access to other income sources like hospitality and car parking and are having to buy those in. Did ACL reject a mediator 18mths ago yes that doesn't mean that the stance hadn't change sometime previous to August 2014 perhaps the right opportunity/person had not arisen (btw it wasn't the dean that was mediator it was the guy he brought with him). Did ACL offer a lower rent January 2013 well yes it was lower than the original lease it seems they have gone lower still from a position they had said was their best offer. So significant compromises to get a deal done.
But so too there were significant compromises by CCFC/SISU. Would only return as owners - it hasn't happened. Then it was would consider a long lease or a short lease whilst ground built - no long lease so far and no evidence ground being built, they are day rent clients. Rent is cheaper but they also have less space and less control. Must have all match day incomes - well it would seem pretty clear they have not actually got that eg car parking 2000 spaces at £10 a pop goes it seems to ACL not CCFC. There will be gains in income like match day tickets , sponsorship and advertising that can be done away from ACL but the set up is a daily stadium hire which means they must clear the site every game. F&B's it seems they get a commission/share on sales of 15% or so for concourse F&B - in the scheme of things that's is not going to be all that much. Hospitality I would guess is sold by ACL/IEC/Compass to CCFC for CCFC to sell on which is why things like the Eon lounge will only be open if there is pre-booked demand.
If you look at the financials (estimates for that's all it can be) then the major gain for the club is the ticket income followed by increase in sponsorship & advertising. That all impacts on the SCMP calculation significantly. The F&B that was so important really doesn't add a lot, less than 4% of the SCMP I would estimate. Was that really a deal breaker?, it surely wasn't a difficult compromise if it had such little effect?
The biggest compromise is that CCFC is now a day rent client with no value in the arrangement and no security of tenure. That can of course change but it impacts in some ways far sooner than some may think...... next February the Club auditors have to sign off accounts saying the club is a going concern for at least 12 months after that (ie at February 2016) the two years rent agreement runs out August 2016. There must be concerns for the auditors to consider in under 6 months time
I would suggest there will be increased pressure from next summer to find a much more permanent solution at the Ricoh and perhaps the prospect of SISU moving to the side lines with a placed "sale" at that time (especially if we were to be promoted).
At the moment I think as LS has done it is easier to highlight the compromises that ACL have done. No they didn't want a short term deal yes they pushed for a minimum 10years (that complies with FL "rules") Did they offer the F&B no they offered cross invoicing that would have left a 10% return to the club - as I understand it the club have now got something like 15% on the F&B but I am not sure they have access to other income sources like hospitality and car parking and are having to buy those in. Did ACL reject a mediator 18mths ago yes that doesn't mean that the stance hadn't change sometime previous to August 2014 perhaps the right opportunity/person had not arisen (btw it wasn't the dean that was mediator it was the guy he brought with him). Did ACL offer a lower rent January 2013 well yes it was lower than the original lease it seems they have gone lower still from a position they had said was their best offer. So significant compromises to get a deal done.
But so too there were significant compromises by CCFC/SISU. Would only return as owners - it hasn't happened. Then it was would consider a long lease or a short lease whilst ground built - no long lease so far and no evidence ground being built, they are day rent clients. Rent is cheaper but they also have less space and less control. Must have all match day incomes - well it would seem pretty clear they have not actually got that eg car parking 2000 spaces at £10 a pop goes it seems to ACL not CCFC. There will be gains in income like match day tickets , sponsorship and advertising that can be done away from ACL but the set up is a daily stadium hire which means they must clear the site every game. F&B's it seems they get a commission/share on sales of 15% or so for concourse F&B - in the scheme of things that's is not going to be all that much. Hospitality I would guess is sold by ACL/IEC/Compass to CCFC for CCFC to sell on which is why things like the Eon lounge will only be open if there is pre-booked demand.
If you look at the financials (estimates for that's all it can be) then the major gain for the club is the ticket income followed by increase in sponsorship & advertising. That all impacts on the SCMP calculation significantly. The F&B that was so important really doesn't add a lot, less than 4% of the SCMP I would estimate. Was that really a deal breaker?, it surely wasn't a difficult compromise if it had such little effect?
The biggest compromise is that CCFC is now a day rent client with no value in the arrangement and no security of tenure. That can of course change but it impacts in some ways far sooner than some may think...... next February the Club auditors have to sign off accounts saying the club is a going concern for at least 12 months after that (ie at February 2016) the two years rent agreement runs out August 2016. There must be concerns for the auditors to consider in under 6 months time
I would suggest there will be increased pressure from next summer to find a much more permanent solution at the Ricoh and perhaps the prospect of SISU moving to the side lines with a placed "sale" at that time (especially if we were to be promoted).
Last edited:
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Neither acl nor sisu come out of the fiasco looking anything other than bad (there's lots of other words that could be used but 'bad' will do). The secrecy of the deal allows them both to hide their failings and contradictions. As fans, we are still in the hands of two companies whose interest is their own financial position and who look anything but efficient and effective. There's a lot of talk about 'what next' - anyone got views on what now needs to be done to build a long-term sustainable future with football success and fans treated decently?
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Today's article in the Cet suggests that there is no F&B deal. But the club get a share of sponsorship.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
He also says that ACL don't get a penny of F and B income as it all goes to a catering company. The catering company 77% owned by ACL.
Not a dig at ACL, more at his journalism.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
not sure I would agree with mr Chilton to be honest SBJ. For instance the catering company that operates the Ricoh Arena for the next 13 years is IEC Experience Ltd that is 77% owned by ACL. He says the council own 50% and financially supports the other 50% - the other 50% is the Higgs Charity isn't it? etc etc ...........
As such I do not find his contribution with that article useful or even in at least parts of it accurate. So can we be certain CCFC receive no income derived from F&B?
As such I do not find his contribution with that article useful or even in at least parts of it accurate. So can we be certain CCFC receive no income derived from F&B?
Last edited:
lewys33
Well-Known Member
I think a dig at ACL is also fine on that one. They all like their particular hats on specific days don't they?
"I haven't got my catering company hat on today, I am here on behalf of ACL." It all makes me sick.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I could understand your viewpoint if Acl where pocketing the money !
But the money is going towards hotel renovation work.
Your view maybe that its revenue the club are missing out on ?
Even if the club got this revenue would it be used for players or to help fund Arvo's 1.8million annual interest charges ?
Astute
Well-Known Member
So what is there to show that SISU have gained the F+B that they see as so important?
Why is questioning this clusterfuck defending ACL? All sides were to blame at times. But we all know who was willing to negotiate and who wanted everything their way. Does this mean that anyone having a go at those questioning constantly the ACL side of things are defending SISU? To me it doesn't for the vast majority. But some are stating as fact things we know nothing about.
Openness? There is none. Otherwise we would know what is going on. Why is Fisher so unhappy with the deal? FFS everyone's better off with the latest deal. Now they all have a chance of taking things forward.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
You do realise I couldn't give a shit about hotel renovation work?
There just seems to be far too many nooks and crannies in all the different companies. It is bullshit. The football club should be getting all the money it generates, fact.
See what I did there. I put emphasis on a certain part of that statement, so that I am not branded pro/anti this that or the other.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So was the rent free period and reported 150k for the next two seasons which was also reported as less than the rent payable to Northampton a 10 year deal?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes it was a 10 year deal as stated by OSB above.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Our club sold the rights to much more than the revenue raised by our football club after being given it by CCC. SISU refused to buy it back. Mentioning this makes me pro ACL as people keep mentioning :facepalm:
Astute
Well-Known Member
Is that right? Why don't you ask him. You have even mentioned countless times that it was when it was when the admin was started by SISU. It was before the FL started to bend the rules for SISU. It was when there had to be a 10 year rolling contract to keep to the FL rules.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
@ hill83..... http://media0.giphy.com/media/vnWO6InS927mg/200_s.gif
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Yes we do, as is shown in the Q@A.
Though things have changed since then and obviously what was non-negotiable 18 months ago by ACL, has now been negotiated.
Just wish that they could have negotiated then.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Sisu need to buy into ACL with the Higgs share then they will get 50% of ACL profits (Loss).
I believe ACL have sold f&b rights to compass so I assume that is a positive on ACL balance sheet.
Until then CCFC/Sisu will have to negotiate f&b as part of their deal with ACL.
They have no automatic right to it but ACL/Compass need to appreciate that CCFC are increasing their takings so they would be fools to not reflect it in the deal.
I believe ACL have sold f&b rights to compass so I assume that is a positive on ACL balance sheet.
Until then CCFC/Sisu will have to negotiate f&b as part of their deal with ACL.
They have no automatic right to it but ACL/Compass need to appreciate that CCFC are increasing their takings so they would be fools to not reflect it in the deal.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Thanks OSB, you've put into words far better than I could that the deal wasn't all one way as LSI was trying to suggest.
The other point is that this deal effectively only replaces the Northampton deal (exactly same length), and the FL have to see progress on a permanent home, a process which the fans are being kept in the dark on.
The other point is that this deal effectively only replaces the Northampton deal (exactly same length), and the FL have to see progress on a permanent home, a process which the fans are being kept in the dark on.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Not exactly sold the rights to Compass, as OSB said they set up a joint venture, called IEC, which they sold 23% of to compass, for about £4million I think.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I think that OSB reiterated that what was asked for by the club, but rejected by ACL 18 months ago has now been accepted by ACL.
Selective reading is rife on this site.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this has been posted but found this on the telegraph website today
What’s new is that the club will now get a share of revenues from advertising rights and most sponsorship deals.
Under the old contract it, only got money from ticket sales, the shirt sponsorship and advertising boards around the pitch.
Another goal for Sisu but they won’t get a penny from the catering income, meat and drink to most club’s finances. Neither does ACL.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/news-opinion/red-button-thorny-problems-still-7735344
What’s new is that the club will now get a share of revenues from advertising rights and most sponsorship deals.
Under the old contract it, only got money from ticket sales, the shirt sponsorship and advertising boards around the pitch.
Another goal for Sisu but they won’t get a penny from the catering income, meat and drink to most club’s finances. Neither does ACL.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/news-opinion/red-button-thorny-problems-still-7735344
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Maybe you don't realise but if you own a property you have to make provisions for maintenance. If the club owned the stadium then this sort of work would still need to be done.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
And? The rent returns back to £1.3 million for the next 8 years.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Don't think that was or is the case. CCFC have been selling executive boxes and other packages haven't they (always have) that all included hospitality etc but they have to buy the food in from the stadium operators IEC rather than source for themselves
Also the original lease included 900 car park spaces - the club only lost that income when they stopped paying the rent and lease was broken
The last bit about PR company too is a little jaundiced .......there haven't been lots of ACL statements over the last six months so what impact is a PR company having?
Still I am sure he reports it as he sees it
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
Oh the irony.
The rules stated that clubs must have a minimum 10 year rolling contract. Were ACL wrong to offer a 10 year rolling contract?
When the 10 year offer was made Appleton was supposed to be running and making all decisions about our club. The ioffer was made to Appleton. Was this wrong?
The FL had talks with ACL. The FL then tried to broker a deal over 3 seasons to bring us home. Fisher said it was a good offer. Joy said no. Was ACL or the FL at fault?
I would add selective facts as well as selective reading.