Nick
Administrator
It seems that way, they must have been assigned the trainees as it is shit so Wasps got the big guns involved. They don't have a PR Machine though you understand
Meet Wasps Tonight And Ask Your Questions (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter ashbyjan
- Start date
It seems that way, they must have been assigned the trainees as it is shit so Wasps got the big guns involved. They don't have a PR Machine though you understand
skybluefred
New Member
CCC/ACL had no reason to suspect that sisu had any interest in buying the stadium,surely the sisu statement that we are building our own stadium
is proof of that.
sisu should have said to the CCC we are dropping all litigation claims against you,we are interested in buying the Ricoh on as long a lease as possible.
Can we start talks to bring this about. We are not aware that sisu made any approach since the return from the cobblers graveyard.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Surely attempt after attempt to distress ACL showed that they had a very real interest in taking over. Asset on the balance sheet, sell it with the club in one package and that's that.
skybluefred
New Member
The failed attempt to distress ACL happened a long time before the move to the cobblers which was another failed attempt.
Since the failed court case all we have heard from sisu is we are building a tin pot stadium of our own outside of the City's
boundaries. It is highly unlikely this would be acceptable to the FA/FL given their new dictat on Clubs not being moved out of there area's.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The League are spineless and will back down at the first hint of legal action, but SISU haven't claimed anything about where the stadium would be built. CCC have no good reason to block it and there's more than one viable site in Coventry itself.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They just love being in Coventry, I hope there's no sting in the tail to all of it.
skybluefred
New Member
Is there? where about's are they and what would they cost. Are they in area's that would be acceptable to local residents ?
Would they get planning permission ?. Don't forget sisu have been going to announce the whereabouts of said site for at least
two years. It's pie in the sky which I'am sure you are aware of.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
In which case this would put it at early summer. What were Sisu/Otium comments about the Ricoh and a new stadium again at that time?
If you were in the councils shoes what would you have done?
Nick
Administrator
Kept it as it was making money and I had been giving it loads to the press about how wrong it was to move teams because it made the other party look bad and me look good. So as I was so passionate about teams belonging in their city I couldn't have sold up dirt cheap to an out of town club, as it was making money
Astute
Well-Known Member
And at the same time enjoy wasting time and money on fruitless litigation when they kept telling you what they wanted without wanting to negotiate with you
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
And at the same time enjoy wasting time and money on fruitless litigation when they kept telling you what they wanted without wanting to negotiate with you
But it was making money because sisu illegally stopped paying rent in April 2012 remember something that really helps the profits.
Nick
Administrator
It was making money without ccfc wasn't it?But it was making money because sisu illegally stopped paying rent in April 2012 remember something that really helps the profits.
Nick
Administrator
I'd done nothing wrong so I'd keep winning and it would be paid for, agree with time thoughAnd at the same time enjoy wasting time and money on fruitless litigation when they kept telling you what they wanted without wanting to negotiate with you
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I was half jesting hence the whistle but yes ACL did say that but I think we all know they were spinning it a bit. I wouldn't say they were lying because it stood up in a court of law but obviously ccfc being there paying ridiculous 100k a month rent to not paying a penny has to be crippling?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Spinning it? Thriving, doubling turnover, profitable they told a court of law. And PWKH told us on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nick
Administrator
If it wasn't true and they said it, is that not lying?
It is like saying this new stadium is "spinning it a bit"
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Well whatever, I don't really care. It's ACL. I have no interest in them. the facts are clear as day they sold ACL for 5.77m which a few years earlier was worth around 19m so a huge loss.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Spinning it? Thriving, doubling turnover, profitable they told a court of law. And PWKH told us on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Great, he told a few lies. We get told lies every time our chairmen opens his mouth. Proof all as bad as each other.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Spinning it? Thriving, doubling turnover, profitable they told a court of law. And PWKH told us on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Which bits are wrong?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I look forward to the answer. I honestly don't know the figures as much as people on here.
Nick
Administrator
Ask the people who keep saying they had to sell and that SISU had distressed them. Can't be that distressed if it is doubling turnover, thriving and profitable can it?
albatross
Well-Known Member
Why can you not see that no matter what the offer there was no deal to be done with SISU. Pretty much any offer that ACL / CCC made would always be countered with a lower conditional offer from SISU to continue to distress the company. Even in the last chance saloon they did not put something on the table that was worthy of serious consideration. A conditional offer for about the same, with legals still pending. Even if was to be rejected they baulked in the off chance that someone however unlikely that ACL might say yes OK you are on lets do it.
What's to say that they did not distress the club intentionally so that they could further distress ACL, look at the record and strategy , two ten point deductions, no investment in the team. We need the freehold bollocks !!! 250yrs is between 150 and freehold , so go on be professional and strike a deal! But no could not do it.
We will not intervene in the WASPS process ... enter open letter and impassioned addressed with the eventual Comuniversity social conscience (about 7 yrs too late).
I have nearly 50 Yrs of watching my city Suffer to outside influences, Tory Govts, industrial closure , relocation outside of the city, unemployment, the best rugby team a shadow of its former self, the sky blues in free fall and and the last ignominy was our one real identifying feature the football team taken too but Not for survival but as part of a bid to get the Stadium for nothing.
Time for a change
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I guess we will have to wait until February when the accounts filing deadline is to find out if ACL were being distressed by the dispute. One thing is for certain understanding the ACL financials changes as from October 2014.
My own guess for the year to 31/05/14 is that turnover has increased from the 14.5m in the 2013 accounts (2013 was almost double 2012). However I suspect that has been negated in terms of net profit by the costs of the dispute , certain costs being allocated to ACL and possibly certain costs of reorganisation and the sale. The effect being that it could show a loss for 2014, but a small profit possibly more likely, despite an increase in turnover and that cashflow was extremely tight. Which would sort of fit with the various comments floating around. It could also point as to a reason for sale - the cash was running out because of the dispute - add to that the need to repair and refurb certain areas and to develop others to drive the business forward and perhaps there is a further indicator as to why sold. They were short on cash and at a decision point now.
However what the sale has done is to draw a line under the dispute for ACL. Costs will no longer be incurred and/or allocated to it relating to the dispute. There may also be savings made going forward relating to duplication of roles in Wasps and ACL etc. Certainly if I was going in there as a new owner I would be looking at all costs to see if there were savings or efficiencies to be had. The financials for 2015 will start to change for ACL. There is of course the proviso of Wasps creating new costs for ACL to extract funds to the holding company
The focus for wasps has got be maintaining the turnover of the non stadium whilst driving up footfall in the stadium itself. Crowds at 6 or 7k for football and rugby simply will not cut it because the revenue received probably does not cover the costs of opening up all of the stadium. Wasps are clearly going all out to maximise their attendance, yes there are free tickets but attendance brings other income sources doesn't it.
They have a fixed small income from CCFC with perhaps contribution to match day costs, and what would be a small amount of F&B, car park etc due to low numbers. Crowds at 6 or 7k could leave both Wasps/ACL and CCFC making a loss from CCFC match days (and from Wasps matchdays probably). So it is in both their interests to talk, compromise and to do a deal even if short term. Yes there is a 2+2 deal in place that doesn't mean it can not be renegotiated - and for 4 years CCFC on the basis of the deal in place wouldn't have to accept an increase in cost, but equally Wasps do not need to gift away any income either - but they could choose to compromise.
We are probably not going to start getting any real idea as to success or not until the accounts for 2016 are filed. Figures for 2014 and 2013 are likely to include a series of one off costs and costs relating to the dispute with SISU that will not reoccur.
My own guess for the year to 31/05/14 is that turnover has increased from the 14.5m in the 2013 accounts (2013 was almost double 2012). However I suspect that has been negated in terms of net profit by the costs of the dispute , certain costs being allocated to ACL and possibly certain costs of reorganisation and the sale. The effect being that it could show a loss for 2014, but a small profit possibly more likely, despite an increase in turnover and that cashflow was extremely tight. Which would sort of fit with the various comments floating around. It could also point as to a reason for sale - the cash was running out because of the dispute - add to that the need to repair and refurb certain areas and to develop others to drive the business forward and perhaps there is a further indicator as to why sold. They were short on cash and at a decision point now.
However what the sale has done is to draw a line under the dispute for ACL. Costs will no longer be incurred and/or allocated to it relating to the dispute. There may also be savings made going forward relating to duplication of roles in Wasps and ACL etc. Certainly if I was going in there as a new owner I would be looking at all costs to see if there were savings or efficiencies to be had. The financials for 2015 will start to change for ACL. There is of course the proviso of Wasps creating new costs for ACL to extract funds to the holding company
The focus for wasps has got be maintaining the turnover of the non stadium whilst driving up footfall in the stadium itself. Crowds at 6 or 7k for football and rugby simply will not cut it because the revenue received probably does not cover the costs of opening up all of the stadium. Wasps are clearly going all out to maximise their attendance, yes there are free tickets but attendance brings other income sources doesn't it.
They have a fixed small income from CCFC with perhaps contribution to match day costs, and what would be a small amount of F&B, car park etc due to low numbers. Crowds at 6 or 7k could leave both Wasps/ACL and CCFC making a loss from CCFC match days (and from Wasps matchdays probably). So it is in both their interests to talk, compromise and to do a deal even if short term. Yes there is a 2+2 deal in place that doesn't mean it can not be renegotiated - and for 4 years CCFC on the basis of the deal in place wouldn't have to accept an increase in cost, but equally Wasps do not need to gift away any income either - but they could choose to compromise.
We are probably not going to start getting any real idea as to success or not until the accounts for 2016 are filed. Figures for 2014 and 2013 are likely to include a series of one off costs and costs relating to the dispute with SISU that will not reoccur.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
They'll have to think of another stick to beat the club with. I'm sure they'll come up with something.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Is that the club or the people who run the club?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Isnt the truth of the matter that the previous stakeholders don't have to beat the club with anything going forward........... they no longer want or need to care. (you can question if they ever did if you choose)
The new owners would like to do business with the club but they wont have based their success on having to, so in that sense whilst there may be no stick they don't care as such either
The survival, I was going to say success but think right now that's the wrong word, is based on the decisions of CCFC's owners and them"caring" enough to keep it going. The club is not the heartbeat of most of the community any more and that's a real problem
The only ones that do care are the fans and even they to some extent are apathetic and a little divided as to the way forward.
Looks to me that the club is out on a limb right now and very much on its own. Would argue most clubs are not in that position nor indeed did we used to be. Not sure decision makers will be looking to beat it as such but unlikely they will be looking to do it any favours either.
My own opinion is that we need to be making tough decisions for the club, need to be looking forward not back, and until we stop feeling sorry for ourselves and expecting things simply because we are a football club then we will continue to be isolated in a downward spiral.
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
Why are you making so many points about ACL not being in profit and saying that it is similar to SISU and this supposed new ground when you don't have the slightest evidence that ACL were making a loss? Yet if someone was making allegations against SISU where there was no proof you and a few others would be shouting out for the proof.
And then you wonder why people accuse you of double standards of defending SISU and attacking ACL/CCC :thinking about:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well it flips to suit the argument usually, so you choose depending on your point of view.
Nick
Administrator
I haven't said they were making a loss. I have said that it is the same people who say that "CCC had to sell", "ACL was distressed by SISU" and then that it was "thriving, double turnover", "ACL dont need the club".
I am not saying any of those are true, I'm not an accountant. Just that surely it can't be all of them so which is it?
Try reading, I have never once said they were making a loss as I don't know. My point is about people chopping and changing about how successful was to suit. If it was so successful, why sell so cheap?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It wasn't very successful, but seemed to be turning a small profit without our club. It wanted our club but was being held to ransom by SISU. That is why we ended up in Northampton. That was something not wanted by anyone other than Northampton and SISU. I have read all your comments again. And they point towards CCC not being truthful with comments made if not saying that they have lied about the turnover and profit.
Are you saying that you have not seen me state why I think CCC let Wasps have the arena? If not I will say it yet again. It was costing CCC a lot of time and money fighting the constant fruitless litigation. This is at a time of council budget cuts. Money is better off being spent on services that change peoples lives than fighting a hedge fund. Yes they would get some costs back after each court case, but would never get all costs back. Then you have the time spent with these cases that would be better spent elsewhere. This is why I say I am pissed off with CCC for letting the arena go to Wasps, but also understand why they did so. But whichever way you look at it you can't say that CCC did the right thing by letting them have it. But also I would prefer the money to be spent on services that people need to improve their lives than on a football stadium.
I put a lot of the blame on the constant stupid comments from Fisher. Maybe he was just trying to put pressure on CCC. But what would have been better would have been to make an offer and let us all know about it. We could have then made our own minds up. But they just had to do it their way. And most of us knew that is was a dangerous way to play games. And the end result has shown this to be true.
CCC wankers. But I see the reason.
SISU wankers. Cared about nothing but money. Lost the gamble which has cost our club badly.
Wasps have taken advantage. Pissed off with the end result. But can't blame them for taking advantage.
Nick
Administrator
So was it successful or was it crippled by SISU so they had to sell? It was CCC / ACL / PWKH saying how well it was doing without CCFC, yet people are saying they had to sell / it was distressed?
I agree, it could well be because of hassle rather than losses.
Astute
Well-Known Member
It was successful in making the arena less profitable. It was successful in reducing it's value. It was successful in making a football ground redundant. But in no way at all can anyone but Wasps count it as a success. Everyone with anything to do with Coventry has lost out. And lost out badly.
Nick
Administrator
That is my point, either it did like you say or they were doubling turnover and getting stronger without CCFC Etc.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But as you also know turnover is different to profit. The company that I work for looks for profit to be at least 30% of turnover on what we make. The product I presently am involved in has a target of 35% of turnover. I am changing jobs soon. That product has a target of 20%. But then you have the costs of all of the non value added expenses. These costs reduce the profitability of the money making sections.