tisza
Well-Known Member
yes and no. the rent was high but the original plan was always to offset it by the club buying back into ACL .
Would You Still Go ? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter bringbackrattles
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
£182,500
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Based on what?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So there's 41 years on the initial 50 that cost ACL £21m, that's £420K a year so for the number of days we need rent should be under £30K a year. Then for the next 200 years the cost to ACL is £27.7K a year so we should be paying under £2K a year.
Even then that's £1.05m + interest a year. Why was it CCFC's responsibility to pay all of ACL's loan but receive essentially nothing in return?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. The club tried to renegotiate four months after moving in. Two years before SISU showed up.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
And before that the club negotiated as well didn't they?
When they were offered as sliding scale rent based in success and attendances.
The club rejected it asking for a fixed rent.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Maybe so. But to say that the rent wasn't an issue before SISU turned up is total fabrication.
Nick
Administrator
Do we know what the sliding rent was? Maybe that was an even worse deal?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The rent was a small problem and any reduction would help.
The actual problem was player wages which by far was the biggest cost.
Interesting to know what the sliding scale for D1 would have been though and the PL.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Rent is a problem but it was not THE problem.
If we were in the PL the £1.4M would not be a problem.
When you need to trim your budget you need to look at everything.
Rent reduction would help but player costs reduction would have saved us from Sisu.
Player wages are key, that's why the fair play rules came in.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Martcov said before Tim showed up. I assume meaning it wasn't an issue for SISU before then.
Although yes the rent was always too high.
Nick
Administrator
So the wage budget gets trimmed like sisu did, then look at the outrage because we aren't signing messi....
If the rent was lower we may not have had to sell the income streams, which in turn would have more money coming in for wages, maybe?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It think it has been stated on here before. It was linked to division and attendances. (Sounded quite reasonable if I recall)
The club rejected it as the envisaged themselves only going straight back up (higher rent)
Not what actually happened unfortunately
Nick
Administrator
Were the numbers posted too? I can't remember
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure no figures were actually given, just PWKH saying it was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes there was something on here before about the club asking about changing it before SISU turned up, I am sure. However I think it may have not gone down too well as it was the club themselves who said they wanted the fixed rent and they rejected the sliding scale not that long before the request.
(Sorry most of this is me just trying to recall the endless debates on here so I could be way off the mark)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No figures have ever been disclosed
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I thought the mechanics of it were posted on here and that the club rejected is as they only envisaged going up not down?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
That's right. I think I may have even asked him outright on here if the reports were true - it was in the CET, Dec 2005 - I think he dismissed it with a "oh, it wasn't a serious discussion" kind of thing.
Pretty sure no figures were actually given, just PWKH saying it was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Everything needs to be done over time.
I initially supported Sisu in trying to balance the books but it needs to be done gradually.
Sisu also made some strange decisions regard managers and players I have yet to understand.
Those income streams should have been negotiated at the point when Sisu were discussing taking over CCFC.
The issue of rent and income streams certainly would have been identified in any due diligence they carried out.
Nick
Administrator
I agree, they should have been dealt with. Do we know they didn't try?
Also, its all well and good the people who say "well its sisus fault for taking it on"'. I'll think that next time oaps are paying 5k for a 200 quid burglar alarm on watchdog, their fault for signing up to it. The person having their pants down isn't in the wrong. Isn't that how it works?
Nick
Administrator
Doesn't make a difference does it? What happens if the OAP used to be a lawyer and should know better?
It doesn't make it excusable like some try to does it?
Of course when SISU came in they should have played hardball in terms of rent and revenues BUT it doesn't excuse the fact it was extortionate in the first place does it?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure no figures were actually given, just PWKH saying it was offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
No I don't think he said it was this amount dropping to that amount or rising to that amount.
I think it was a case of a fixed rent was a greed that was set in relation to the rent the club were paying at Highfield road before leaving was it 950k.
It was a bit more for the Ricoh for obvious reasons.
Then it was offered as a rent that would go up and down depending on the division and attendances.
The club said no we would prefer a fixed rent as we will not go down further we will only go up, so we don't want the rent to go up.
Again this is just me remembering stuff on here. So I could off the mark
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by PWKH
a couple of days ago in another thread I wrote:
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
Found this but haven't found the sliding scale bit yet, sorry
a couple of days ago in another thread I wrote:
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
Found this but haven't found the sliding scale bit yet, sorry
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Stupid really isn't it? They used Bryan Richardson's fuck up as the blueprint for the rental deal at the Ricoh? "in the final years at HR" we had sold the ground to Wimpey and had to rent it back off them while Richardson's Folly was completed.
Fucking idiots.
Fucking idiots.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
From CCFC (Holdings) Accounts 2005
By Covsupport News Service
Paul Fletcher back in 2005
The following is from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd's annual report for the 31st of May 2005 and provide some useful comments.
The following is taken from the statement that appeared in those accounts by then Managing Director Paul Fletcher.
MOVE TO THE RICOH
"The Club had high hopes on and off the pitch for the move to the new stadium. In financial terms, the Club budgeted broadly in-line with the experience of other clubs moving into a new stadium, to increase its revenue by 50%. This meant that despite the loss of profits from sponsorship, board advertising and catering, the Club would nonetheless have sufficient increase in income from the major sources of revenue with which it was left - season ticket and matchday sales, merchandise and boxes - to generate for the first time in many years an operating profit and positive cash flow. £1m was due to come into the Club.
Sadly, as is now public, these hopeful plans were dashed by two factors. 1) the late opening of the stadium, and 2) our own inadequate preparations to exploit the opportunities afforded by the new stadium. The Club's estimate of the cost to it commercially from the late opening amounted to over £1m. The factors were the loss of a high profile opening friendly; the loss of our opening home fixtures particularly Norwich which would have been our first League fixture; and the loss of merchandising sales which had not been planned around a major drive to take place in the new premises.
There was one other factor that cost us dear, namely the unscheduled changes to Coventry City Council's Section 106 agreement in respect of potential parking areas. This more less doubled the size of the no parking zone and the impact on our season ticket sales was heavily adverse. We were 50% below our budget. Discussions on improving the situation continue with the Council.
However, this is not the whole story. Our own preparations were not professional or thorough enough. Had the Ricoh been ready on time we would have certainly done much better and we would have avoided the short term cash crisis that hit us. But when we look around at other similar clubs, they are better organised and obtain much higher revenues from those activities that are still with the Club.
THE CASH CRISIS
In any event, the outcome, due to this combination of factors, was that by September last year, the Club had suffered a serious cash outflow of £1m in the preceeding months and was in breach of its overdraft limit. After a difficult but constructive negotiation we have reached agreement with the Co-operative Bank to enable the club to trade with confidence for the future. I would like to thank the Co-operative Bank for their support. We have also reached agreement with Arena Coventry Limited who operate the stadium, for compensation amounting to £280,000 due to the late opening of the stadium. Whilst, this is much less than the Club considered it could have legitimately claimed, we recognise that ACL itself has suffered considerable financial losses. Further discussions continue with ACL to agree a two tier rental agreement whereby the Club pays rent of £500k in the Championship and £1.5m in the Premiership. We hope to make an announcement in the near future."
By Covsupport News Service
Paul Fletcher back in 2005
The following is from Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd's annual report for the 31st of May 2005 and provide some useful comments.
The following is taken from the statement that appeared in those accounts by then Managing Director Paul Fletcher.
MOVE TO THE RICOH
"The Club had high hopes on and off the pitch for the move to the new stadium. In financial terms, the Club budgeted broadly in-line with the experience of other clubs moving into a new stadium, to increase its revenue by 50%. This meant that despite the loss of profits from sponsorship, board advertising and catering, the Club would nonetheless have sufficient increase in income from the major sources of revenue with which it was left - season ticket and matchday sales, merchandise and boxes - to generate for the first time in many years an operating profit and positive cash flow. £1m was due to come into the Club.
Sadly, as is now public, these hopeful plans were dashed by two factors. 1) the late opening of the stadium, and 2) our own inadequate preparations to exploit the opportunities afforded by the new stadium. The Club's estimate of the cost to it commercially from the late opening amounted to over £1m. The factors were the loss of a high profile opening friendly; the loss of our opening home fixtures particularly Norwich which would have been our first League fixture; and the loss of merchandising sales which had not been planned around a major drive to take place in the new premises.
There was one other factor that cost us dear, namely the unscheduled changes to Coventry City Council's Section 106 agreement in respect of potential parking areas. This more less doubled the size of the no parking zone and the impact on our season ticket sales was heavily adverse. We were 50% below our budget. Discussions on improving the situation continue with the Council.
However, this is not the whole story. Our own preparations were not professional or thorough enough. Had the Ricoh been ready on time we would have certainly done much better and we would have avoided the short term cash crisis that hit us. But when we look around at other similar clubs, they are better organised and obtain much higher revenues from those activities that are still with the Club.
THE CASH CRISIS
In any event, the outcome, due to this combination of factors, was that by September last year, the Club had suffered a serious cash outflow of £1m in the preceeding months and was in breach of its overdraft limit. After a difficult but constructive negotiation we have reached agreement with the Co-operative Bank to enable the club to trade with confidence for the future. I would like to thank the Co-operative Bank for their support. We have also reached agreement with Arena Coventry Limited who operate the stadium, for compensation amounting to £280,000 due to the late opening of the stadium. Whilst, this is much less than the Club considered it could have legitimately claimed, we recognise that ACL itself has suffered considerable financial losses. Further discussions continue with ACL to agree a two tier rental agreement whereby the Club pays rent of £500k in the Championship and £1.5m in the Premiership. We hope to make an announcement in the near future."
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Also found this bit I have to go out now, sorry.
It seems to suggest the club wanted the sliding scale
Have not found the sliding scale rent the club rejected
If anyone finds the
It seems to suggest the club wanted the sliding scale
Have not found the sliding scale rent the club rejected
If anyone finds the
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why obviously more for the Ricoh? At HR we got 365 access to all revenues generated by the stadium, at the Ricoh we got no revenues. Hardly comparable is it?
Final years is the key bit there. As I recall the lease on HR increased the longer we stayed there as a penalty of sorts. As we ended up staying a lot longer than originally envisaged due to the delays with the Arena2000 project the lease increased. In any case who decided that was a good way to set the rent? One was a short term lease and the other was supposed to be permanent. Shouldn't other stadium rentals have been looked at and a market rate established?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Exactly right, Dave. "Final years" is the key phrase.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I never paid any attention to such matters till things went tits up, I rather think you didn't either. Who did, I'll bet no one (except maybe OSB)
It seems clear to me the original rent was set to plug the hole in the ACL balance sheet as much as anything else. I'm sure that will be refuted, but in those first 5 years what other way was there without illegal public subsidies?
The complete Arena project was a financial cock up all the way through, no contingency, it relied on CCFC staying in the Premiership & then the ITV TV deal keeping value, neither happened. And to think I wanted the council to commit to seeing the Arena being built, that was a mistake, but to be fair it was an extraordinary situation the result of which would be hard to predict.
Why oh why didn't CCFC go into administration when they were relegated. Probably so the directors took a smaller hit.
The most unpalatable aspect of the SISU policy is to aggressively attempt to seize the stadium asset by attacking the company that was essentially set up only to help CCFC relocate to the Arena.
No way I support those ethics and that style, I decided I will just have to accept whatever befalls CCFC in order to counter people who would do that.
It is now time to go into administration and get new owners who run the club sensibly, for footballing reasons but who do not accumulate massive unsustainable debt year on year.
Lets be clear a bit of debt is OK, but it can't carry over and grow every year over (say) a decade, at some point you have to cut back for a few years and rebalance the books.
Nick
Administrator
Weren't the trust calling for admin to get new owners last time??