Covstu
Well-Known Member
They know as well as we all do that their prospects are slim so i think it is niave to think that this is that last throw of the dice. They are here long term.
The Sky Blues trust needs to spearhead a takeover (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter OyJimmy
- Start date
They know as well as we all do that their prospects are slim so i think it is niave to think that this is that last throw of the dice. They are here long term.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Been saying this since the start about the Ricoh, SISU with the Ricoh is a far better prospect than without. They would likely sell this on for a tidy profit as a package, whereas now they have no-where to go after JR (appeal on appeal on appeal).
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Exactly why they will never liquidate the club.
You cannot exclude liabilities from the balance sheet and base a price solely on assets.
The price of shares will always be considered from the point of projected profit/loss and the ability to gain an interest on the investment (the purchase) going forward. That interest will take into consideration the ability to service debts and to realise assets as part of the projected profit/loss.
The reference to ACL was on principle, not discussing the nature of any asset or liability.
Would never work and the argument would last years
Surely it is now down to more personal matters
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
We have already had that.........
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
I personally would be happy with someone who actually knows how to run a football club.
Probably not too many of those around either.
Neutral Fan
Member
The OP is probably correct.
Until the supporters own a big chunk/all of the club, you will continue ''to have things done to you'' rather than influencing events.
Don't want to sound unkind but I followed the AFC Wimbledon story closely and their fans just seemed to have more wherewithal than Covs, for whatever reason.
Until the supporters own a big chunk/all of the club, you will continue ''to have things done to you'' rather than influencing events.
Don't want to sound unkind but I followed the AFC Wimbledon story closely and their fans just seemed to have more wherewithal than Covs, for whatever reason.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
How would you suggest a fan base of under 10K raises £50m or more to buy out SISU? That's before you even consider the amount needed to purchase a stake in the Ricoh or build a new stadium.
I think they would sell for a lot less, they need to cut losses ASAP.
We have a stadium that's our home, do long term rental agreement. Show them we can be run properly and find some people who can run a football team, the fans do need to be involved even if only percentage.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think the Portsmouth fans have a lot of wherewithal and they really have improved their lot haven't they?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If you mean they're still in existance then yes they have.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well no they haven't - how has fan involvement actually improved their situation? They are by far the biggest team in that league and are drifting to relegation.
If you apply your logic sisu have kept this club in business and have a stronger position in the leagues so I guess they are heroes to you Tony.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Would there have been a Portsmouth if the fans hadn't stepped in? I don't think so, so that's an improvement over non existance isn't it.
I know you like to turn all of your post in to a defence of SISU and twist any other post into a defence of SISU but dont insult me suggeting it's my logic or what they mean to me.
The measure of SISU is how they have improved our position since their arrival. They haven't, unless you can tell me otherwise. Unlike the Portsmouth fans who have improved their situation by keeping the club and dream alive.
They're also 1 place higher in their league than we are in ours plus they have a game in hand on the teams below them unlike most of the teams below us who have a game in hand over us. Not forgeting its only the bottom 2 in league 2 that go down not 4. So currently they look safer than us.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Great a long term rental deal, just like before. How do you run the club properly and "show ambition" when your access to revenues are so limited?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It's a different kettle of fish, buying from administration when the purchase price is so cheap, and you get to buy a stadium for c£1.5m as part of the deal.
There is no club where fans own 50%+ above League two.
Not sure who fan ownership fits in with Jan's calls for the club to splash the cash.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Great a long term rental deal, just like before. How do you run the club properly and "show ambition" when your access to revenues are so limited?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Has anyone (including SISU) actually done the homework of how much the non matchday revenues are off set by the 365day a year cost of running a stadium? To pay out theres Gas, Electricity, Rates, Cleaning, General maintenance, Repairs etc. etc. If we get the right long term rent deal how much worse off our we actually going to end up being without the burden of paying to run a stadium on top of the debt from building it?
I know someone is going to quote FFP but thats only a cap on what you can spend not what you actually have available to spend.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
60% of turnover can be spent on wages IIRC, hence SW keeps saying 60p in the pound goes to the team.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Which is why I'd like to see the business case before righting off the new stadium. My (less than) ideal would be for us to purchase 50% of the ricoh, which isn't going to happen. But we had a long term rent deal, with little not access to revenues, we've been paying our utilities, cleaning, contribution to repairs (matchday costs).
A long term rent deal is just more of the same, wasps will certainly expect more than the £100k we're currently paying.
At the end of the day we need to figures in order to inform a decision, my guessing is that it will come down to which is the "least worse" option.
Rock < ccfc > hard place
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I think he's trying to say if you got £5m income, FFP says you can spend £3m on wages, but if your running costs before players wages are more than 40% say 50%, then actual cash you only have £2.5m to spend on players, so would need to borrow/make a loss of £500k to max out the allowance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which is why I'd like to see the business case before righting off the new stadium. My (less than) ideal would be for us to purchase 50% of the ricoh, which isn't going to happen. But we had a long term rent deal, with little not access to revenues, we've been paying our utilities, cleaning, contribution to repairs (matchday costs).
A long term rent deal is just more of the same, wasps will certainly expect more than the £100k we're currently paying.
At the end of the day we need to figures in order to inform a decision, my guessing is that it will come down to which is the "least worse" option.
Rock < ccfc > hard place
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I wouldn't disagree with any of that which aside from the fact i think its a red herring can't get behind the new stadium. Forget the building plans, apart from a few sound bites (basically the same model as the Ricoh development but on a much smaller scale) SISU have never presented the business plan of why it must happen as appossed to a right long term rent deal. We're never going to find out what is avilable if SISU keep talking 2 years with a +2 year option, oh and by the way we might want another year after that commitment. Where's the carrot to get more revenue, matchday or otherwise?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think he's trying to say if you got £5m income, FFP says you can spend £3m on wages, but if your running costs before players wages are more than 40% say 50%, then actual cash you only have £2.5m to spend on players, so would need to borrow/make a loss of £500k to max out the allowance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Exactly. I cant help think that SISU are using FFP rules as a red herring.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
But if it's a red herring for Sisu, it's a red herring for every league one and two club. There must have been some analysis done by the FL to conclude 55-60% should be disposable income, after all the idea is for clubs to become self sufficient and only spend what they earn and to stop so many going into insolvency.
You never know the 2 + 2 deal might be a good driver to get a better deal and revenues, wasps a get a taste to what we're worth to them and decide they need us to stay.
For me if we do stay then in the medium to long term anything less than 50% ownership is unacceptable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You never know the 2 + 2 deal might be a good driver to get a better deal and revenues, wasps a get a taste to what we're worth to them and decide they need us to stay.
For me if we do stay then in the medium to long term anything less than 50% ownership is unacceptable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
But if it's a red herring for Sisu, it's a red herring for every league one and two club. There must have been some analysis done by the FL to conclude 55-60% should be disposable income.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The reality not the principle. I dont believe that 60% of turnover will ever be spent on players wages by SISU going forward. With or without ground ownership. Their days of investing in the team are long gone and IMO they will never return those days.