The low down on ARVO (35 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

No, that was when sisu couldn't/wouldn't pay ACL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Why wouldn't Mr Appleton re-run the admin process when ACL requested it? Surely he must have been working for them if we went into administration for a debt to ACL?

 

---

[martcov]

Do you think our long term future (say 15-20 years time) is playing in a wasps owned stadium containing yellow and black seats and WASPS RFC written in the seats?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I don't think we have a long term future without fresh investors in the club. SISU have done their bollocks and have yet to find a way out. The stadium talk is just crap. No-one has made a case on this thread. Just inventing figures and scenarios. I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work. Understandable, but cloud cuckoo land I think. One day we may yet end up in the same group as Wasps. The stadium is already there. They seem to making a success of it ( early days though ). No point renting off them long term, but maybe buying in or being bought in. Who knows, but I don't think we will be seeing a new stadium near Cov..

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Look, I used the figures as an example - it was not the final figures from Fishers calculations. Why try ridiculing the numbers when the concept is the essential part?

The stadium cannot be the only business there, so the land spot must be large enough to house additional buildings. That also means there are more than the club to share the lease costs. It also means there will be more business for the stadium management company and more FFP/SMCP bonus for the club.

The numbers are key to the concept.

Are you now suggesting in your theoretical scenario that the club will own the management company and will be responsible for the loan repayments?

 

[stupot07]

Well the colour of the seats isn't really critical to the future of the club. Just over 2 years ago Mark Robins was moaning about Sky Blue seats and half the posters on here were calling for a seat colour change.

What I am absolutely certain of though, is doing the wrong thing is far worse than doing nothing. And being dependent on a small stadium construction to cover CCFC losses, as well as its own construction costs is just going to end in disaster.

The topic always gets steered this way and it's just not relevant to whether or not a new stadium is a viable proposition. Even if the current situation isn't viable that doesn't increase the viability of an obviously significantly worse option it just means we are screwed.

I'm not talking about sisu and this tinpot stadium, which until we see proper financial figures/projections we cannot support nor write off.

I'm talking about long term 20 years time, well after sisu have left.

A fair few would like us to sign a long term rent agreement with wasps, personally I can't see this as a viable option in the long term. I can't imagine going and sitting on a yellow seat watching the sky blues playing in a stadium built for us. It's not going to happen, and future decent owner will want to own a stadium and will look to build one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Identity, identity, identity.

 

[Hobo]

The numbers are key to the concept.

Are you now suggesting in your theoretical scenario that the club will own the management company and will be responsible for the loan repayments?

No numbers without land, without numbers no investores.......................................................................................?

 

[chiefdave]

I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work.

We are desperate. And now owning the Ricoh is off the table a new stadium saving our future is pretty much the only tiny bit of hope we have left.

If staying at the Ricoh is our best option then the best we can hope for is being a team equitable to the likes of Yeovil, for whom success is an occasional season in the championship. I know most of us are supporters due to where we were born and not because we tried to pick a winning team but that's not what any of us signed up for and I suspect would be hard for a lot of people to accept given our history, size of the city etc.

I'm not saying we're a 'big' club or have a divine right or anything like that but come on, we should be above that level. We should at least be able to sustain a top half championship team, crowds of 20K or more and visits to the PL.

 

[stupot07]

I don't think we have a long term future without fresh investors in the club. SISU have done their bollocks and have yet to find a way out. The stadium talk is just crap. No-one has made a case on this thread. Just inventing figures and scenarios. I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work. Understandable, but cloud cuckoo land I think. One day we may yet end up in the same group as Wasps. The stadium is already there. They seem to making a success of it ( early days though ). No point renting off them long term, but maybe buying in or being bought in. Who knows, but I don't think we will be seeing a new stadium near Cov..

We won't have a good long term future without new owners, but we also have no future as long term tenants in someone else's stadium.

We won't be bought out by wasps, it just isn't going to happen.

Wasps aren't going to want to sell shares in ACL and access to the revenues they need to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby.

And whilst no one has put forward figures to support sisu, no ones really put a case against it, because it's all on the bag of a fag packet uninformed, finger in the air made up figures regardless. Until we see a proper business case we can't say either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Godiva]

I don't think we have a long term future without fresh investors in the club. SISU have done their bollocks and have yet to find a way out. The stadium talk is just crap. No-one has made a case on this thread. Just inventing figures and scenarios. I don't mean to have a go at people, but it reads like desperation - you want it work. Understandable, but cloud cuckoo land I think. One day we may yet end up in the same group as Wasps. The stadium is already there. They seem to making a success of it ( early days though ). No point renting off them long term, but maybe buying in or being bought in. Who knows, but I don't think we will be seeing a new stadium near Cov..

And I could say you don't want it to work.
One thing is certain though - it definitely doesn't work where we are. We can't even win a football match there.

 

[Delboycov]

We have no future in a tinpot stadium built OUTSIDE Coventry....that is what those that have been taken in by the SISU BS...particularly Godiva who has backed them from the off fail to see! What feckin revenues?! The ever dwindling fan base will have disappeared other than those who support the lads regardless of what town or city we reside in......

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Who ever own the club have to go to Wasps and try to buy in to ACL.The only benefit all the income from the activities at the stadium means is they could pay the loan back quicker. It gives them no additional spend on the pitch as their is in place a salary cap for the foreseeable future. It's the sensible thing to do and will cost a lot less than building a new ground. Sisu are desperate to survive in this league for some reason, I genuinely believe that something is going to happen in the closed season we may be closer to the end game then we all think.

 

[Captain Dart]

Bristol City are redeveloping 3 stands for £45m.

Good luck to them with that..

Bristol City chairman delivers verdict on £11.8million loss

By This is Bristol | Posted: November 04, 2010

Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/CITY-FINANCES-MESS/story-11288073-detail/story.html#ixzz3WhcIzEhk
Follow us: @BristolPost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook

​

BRISTOL City were today counting the cost of Championship football after announcing club record losses of £11.8million for the last financial year.
Chairman Steve Lansdown insisted the latest loss is sustainable, but admitted the club's current balance sheet is "a mess."

then the white knight flashes the cash

Steve Lansdown wipes out £35 million of debt at Bristol City

BRISTOL City majority shareholder Steve Lansdown has wiped out £35 million of football club debt at a stroke.

Faced by a deficit of £12.9 million for the year ending May 31 2013 and overall debts of £55 million, City's owner has taken drastic action to stabilise the League One club's finances.

​

​

 

[martcov]

Who ever own the club have to go to Wasps and try to buy in to ACL.The only benefit all the income from the activities at the stadium means is they could pay the loan back quicker. It gives them no additional spend on the pitch as their is in place a salary cap for the foreseeable future. It's the sensible thing to do and will cost a lot less than building a new ground. Sisu are desperate to survive in this league for some reason, I genuinely believe that something is going to happen in the closed season we may be closer to the end game then we all think.

I think you are bang on. Stadium sounds great, but doesn't add up. Wasps have the lease. It is a done thing and we don't have options. SISU have lost - even they see that in that they are trying to get something out of the JR, which is their last hope. Mowbray has said they don't have professional structures in place on the footballing side - shows no long term plan there. No stadium site, costings etc. all points to a quick get out if necessary.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

IMO it will be difficult o be successful as WASP's tenants but being realistic SISU have no ability but more importantly no desire to build a stadium - all talk of a stadium whilst SISU are in charge is a waste of time. Had SISU got the ricoh would CCFC had seen the benefit or would it be the cash cow to recover their investment by charging CCFC a long term high rent deal. Unfortunately whilst SISU are still in charge the only way is down.

 

[Noggin]

We won't have a good long term future without new owners, but we also have no future as long term tenants in someone else's stadium.

This is a sound bite and doesn't change the fact that building a new stadium is worse than remaining as long term tenants in someone elses stadium

We won't be bought out by wasps, it just isn't going to happen.

Quite probably true

Wasps aren't going to want to sell shares in ACL and access to the revenues they need to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby.

This isn't true though, Wasps don't need revenues they need profit, it would be in everyones interests to have the stadium shared by two successful clubs, costs are lower, revenues are higher, profit is higher (even after it's halved imo) and the wasps get a big chunk of cash to start with, however wasps probably arn't going to want to sell to sisu, they arn't trustworthy and have made it clear their desire is to run the club on a shoestring, this isn't the club wasps would want to share with, they would want to share with a ccfc that is attracting lots of fans and sponsorship. A Wasps/CCFC (New Owner) Ricoh in the championship would provide much more profit for wasps to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby than them competing against a new ccfc stadium (not that it's happening)

And whilst no one has put forward figures to support sisu, no ones really put a case against it, because it's all on the bag of a fag packet uninformed, finger in the air made up figures regardless. Until we see a proper business case we can't say either way.

I don't agree with this at all, even under generous assumptions for sisu the numbers don't work, if you can't make a fag packet calculation that makes sense then you arn't going to get a proper business case. Sure sometimes you do a back of fag packet calculation think something is viable and then realise when you really get into it that you are mistaken but it doesn't really happen the other way. If something looks horrible with your generous assumptions then it's for the most part horrible.

You shouldn't take any of this to mean I don't want ccfc to own a stadium because I absolutely do, I'd even support one a little outside our boundaries with no issue whatsoever, but what you want and what makes sense arn't the same thing and just because the situation is bad now that doesn't increase the viability of an even worse situation.

 

[stupot07]

Who ever own the club have to go to Wasps and try to buy in to ACL.The only benefit all the income from the activities at the stadium means is they could pay the loan back quicker. It gives them no additional spend on the pitch as their is in place a salary cap for the foreseeable future. It's the sensible thing to do and will cost a lot less than building a new ground. Sisu are desperate to survive in this league for some reason, I genuinely believe that something is going to happen in the closed season we may be closer to the end game then we all think.

Not necessarily. 1) that's presuming they have already maximised their wage bill, and 2) you can have 2 'star' players outside of the cap of which they can pay what the want to,' and 3) there seems to be pressure to scrap the wage cap, at the very least there will likely be a year on year increase of it I suspect.

Then there's the fact that they wasps were losing £3m per annum (again we don't know if they are maximising their wage bill), and ACL were losing £400k. So there's a funding gap - we won't know whether that will be bridged until 2-3 years down the line and crowds settle.

Then there's the costs of moving, buying land and building academy and training facilities in/around Coventry, so there's plenty for wasps to be spending money on above paying the loan off.

Unless wasps struggle financially, o see no reason why they will sell 50% to ccfc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Ian1779]

Why wouldn't Mr Appleton re-run the admin process when ACL requested it? Surely he must have been working for them if we went into administration for a debt to ACL?

But they didn't did they....

 

[Nick]

A Wasps/CCFC (New Owner) Ricoh in the championship would provide much more profit for wasps to be self sustainable and compete at the top of Europe rugby than them competing against a new ccfc stadium (not that it's happening)

Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.

 

[stupot07]

Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.

I don't think it would anyway. If there was a 50% ACL partnership, wasps would keep all of their revenue, we would keep all of our revenue, then the additional revenues would be split. I believe this is what happens with Swansea and Ospreys. You'd have to share stand sponsorship, stadium sponsorship, but the rest would be unique to each other.

And what costs would be shared? Ticketing (maybe?), shop (it was barely big enough to fit ccfc stuff in, so won't be big enough for both, plus loss of identity?)

All over stuff would either remain in ACL, wasps, ccfc.

I fail to see other than a lump sum, how it would increase wasps profits.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[martcov]

Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.

I think we should be working out what Wasps need in order to make a comparison to other options. We may have to negotiate with them.

 

[Ian1779]

It will be because I saw it posted on twitter by a SBT committee member. As you are so certain about peoples motives can you tell me what his angle is?

By the way what is your angle, you as always post a defence of anything that makes SISU look bad? (in this case an indirect defence to deflect discussion away from the topic of the blog which is ARVO/SISU/CCFC ownership).

Is there even an angle? It is merely a rehash of already well publicised and discussed information. Next you'll be passing it off as an exclusive like some former CET reporter people love to criticise.

I don't have an angle. We are fucked. We've been fucked since the day we sold Highfield Road.

We all want SISU to leave... but when they do we will end up in one of two scenarios.

1) No 'big' investor comes in and the club is run by a consortium of local businesses/supporters trust. We have to run at a level where we can be self sufficient. This means L1 (most likely L2) for the future as we have no assets and no way to get any assets.

2) A big investor comes in and plows money in. If that doesn't finish with us in the PL then sooner or later they will get bored of doing it and want the club to stand on it's own two feet.. or worse want a return on their investment... sound familiar?

We have no hope - unless we can find a way to build our own ground. This is the choice that any owner will be faced with. Wasps will not give us a share of anything at the Ricoh.. they will need it to find their assault on the Premiership/European Rugby.

Right now it the numbers don't quite add up. SISU's plans should be scrutinised - yet in the same breath people are happy to take the 'wing it and see' approach offered by those looking to remove the current owners.

 

[Noggin]

Who really cares about what Wasps need to be self sustainable though? So we get promoted and get loads of fans in to help Wasps be sustainable? I'd much rather CCFC were self sustainable before anybody else.

You should be a politician

He said wasps won't sell half of acl to us because they need all the revenues, my point was that that selling half to us and us doing well is good for wasps, it would increase both theirs and our self sustainability.

 

[Noggin]

I don't think it would anyway. If there was a 50% ACL partnership, wasps would keep all of their revenue, we would keep all of our revenue, then the additional revenues would be split. I believe this is what happens with Swansea and Ospreys. You'd have to share stand sponsorship, stadium sponsorship, but the rest would be unique to each other.

And what costs would be shared? Ticketing (maybe?), shop (it was barely big enough to fit ccfc stuff in, so won't be big enough for both, plus loss of identity?)

All over stuff would either remain in ACL, wasps, ccfc.

I fail to see other than a lump sum, how it would increase wasps profits.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Stadium sponsorship and stand sponsorship would be much higher for a premiership rugby/championship football club than just premiership rugby. The number of home games there is basically tripled over just having the rugby club there, this affects the viability of both business they can set up themselves like a sports bar and the viability of all the buisness's on the Ricoh land, restaurants, shops, casino etc, the amount of money the leases/rent etc that these bring into acl are going to be very heavily dependent on the amount of fans that visit. There are huge amount of costs that are shared, maintenance, business rates etc while certain costs go up overall the total company becomes much more efficient.

Then there is the fact that selling half to us prevents both us leaving and us becoming a competitor for concerts/events (unfortunately the fact that I'm sure they don't believe we are going to build a new stadium lowers this value)

I find it completely bizarre that so many people seem to be able to hold two such conflicting opinions that a)ACL under wasps isn't viable especially if we leave and b) they won't sell any of ACL to us because they want to keep this revenue to themselves, completely ignoring the fact that revenue really isn't at all relevant it's all about profit and if they believe a then there is no profit.

 

[Ian1779]

Stadium sponsorship and stand sponsorship would be much higher for a premiership rugby/championship football club than just premiership rugby. The number of home games there is basically tripled over just having the rugby club there, this affects the viability of both business they can set up themselves like a sports bar and the viability of all the buisness's on the Ricoh land, restaurants, shops, casino etc, the amount of money the leases/rent etc that these bring into acl are going to be very heavily dependent on the amount of fans that visit. There are huge amount of costs that are shared, maintenance, business rates etc while certain costs go up overall the total company becomes much more efficient.

Then there is the fact that selling half to us prevents both us leaving and us becoming a competitor for concerts/events (unfortunately the fact that I'm sure they don't believe we are going to build a new stadium lowers this value)

I find it completely bizarre that so many people seem to be able to hold two such conflicting opinions that a)ACL under wasps isn't viable especially if we leave and b) they won't sell any of ACL to us because they want to keep this revenue to themselves, completely ignoring the fact that revenue really isn't at all relevant it's all about profit and if they believe a then there is no profit.

Of course revenue is important... salary cap in Rugby and SCMP in football is based on revenue.

 

[Sbarcher]

Why even think of building a stadium or buying into Wasps/ACL when we pay about £4000 per game renting. Seems to me, SISU should be trying to extend this for as long as possible. This will come out of revenue, not capital so with the ticket money and 50% share of matchday revenues (F&B + parking) they should be in a position to put money into the team (that is once the "management fees" have been paid!).

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not sure where the information in the blog takes us or how it can used in any effective way. It doesn't really make the details of ARVO any clearer

From what I can see ARVO are not owned by NEPSSI. ARVO are in partnership with others to form NEPSSI to carry out investment activity. It doesn't mean that NEPSSI have any investment/stake or ownership in CCFC or indeed in ARVO. The blog makes clear members of NEPSSI can leave if the want to but that is not unusual in such entities, nor does it necessarily indicate financial problems in NEPSSI

The people or entities named are business partners of ARVO and SISU in NEPSSI but that does not mean there are close links. I think you have to look at how hedge funds and private equity entities work they often form partnerships or strategic alliances that spread the risk, or back to back investments it doesn't mean necessarily close links.

Seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence and assumptions.

For me it would still come back to "where does it take us" The bottom line is that to change ownership any buyer would have to deal with ARVO & SISU and specifically Seppala & Coleman. There is no need to talk to Fisher or Waggott (although they would no doubt be involved they are not decision makers on ownership) nor would you approach NEPSSI. It is back ground information but nothing more and will have no bearing on a solution in my opinion.

Yes ARVO now have considerable influence and control over CCFC affairs - but that's not day to day operational control. It controls the major strategic decisions - like a sale. But we knew that a long time ago in April 2012 when they made the initial loans and took out the first charge that to be the case - that hasn't changed just because it is Otium not CCFC Ltd. CCFC (either as Otium or SBS&L) cannot be sold without agreement with ARVO. All the assets of the SBS&L group or Otium secure the ARVO debt

As for asset value I would think as it stands 4m is an over estimate. To do any deal a new investor would want the assets yes but would also need to settle out football related debts (as defined by FL). Looking at the group or even Otium what investor would take on those debts to ARVO or SISU investors? It simply doesn't make sense to do it. That it is where the problem is for a buyer but also SISU/ARVO.

Interesting background .....

 

[Noggin]

Of course revenue is important... salary cap in Rugby and SCMP in football is based on revenue.

I know exactly how it works thanks, you though don't appear too. Rugby Salary cap is a fixed figure and scmp has so many holes in it to be irrelevant really, but even if it didn't owning half of acl would provide more revenue than the club wanted to spend on players.

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Not necessarily. 1) that's presuming they have already maximised their wage bill, and 2) you can have 2 'star' players outside of the cap of which they can pay what the want to,' and 3) there seems to be pressure to scrap the wage cap, at the very least there will likely be a year on year increase of it I suspect.

Then there's the fact that they wasps were losing £3m per annum (again we don't know if they are maximising their wage bill), and ACL were losing £400k. So there's a funding gap - we won't know whether that will be bridged until 2-3 years down the line and crowds settle.

Then there's the costs of moving, buying land and building academy and training facilities in/around Coventry, so there's plenty for wasps to be spending money on above paying the loan off.

Unless wasps struggle financially, o see no reason why they will sell 50% to ccfc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

You've already answered the premiss of my post. If their is a funding gap and you are loosing money and can't spend more on the pitch why wouldn't you take on a partner to ease your financial burden and knock a big hole in your endebtidness?

 

[Grendel]

I know exactly how it works thanks, you though don't appear too. Rugby Salary cap is a fixed figure and scmp has so many holes in it to be irrelevant really, but even if it didn't owning half of acl would provide more revenue than the club wanted to spend on players.

Nick Eastwood said when purchasing the Ricoh it was the increase in revenues that were of the utmost importance - not profit.

 

[Noggin]

Nick Eastwood said when purchasing the Ricoh it was the increase in revenues that were of the utmost importance - not profit.

It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.

 

[chiefdave]

50% share of matchday revenues (F&B + parking)

This has become one of those things that is now stated repeatedly as fact on here but where has it been confirmed?

Is it really 50% of all revenues, I thought all the revenue went to IEC not ACL. Or is it 50% of profit. If it's 50% of profit is it 50% of the profit from IEC or 50% of the % ACL are entitled to? The detail would mean a significant difference in what we are talking about.

 

[stupot07]

It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.

When I said revenues, I meant actual cash that can be used (I.e. Profit)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Noggin]

Nick Eastwood said when purchasing the Ricoh it was the increase in revenues that were of the utmost importance - not profit.

Which of these situations do you think Wasps would prefer? 10 million revenue and a loss of £100,000 or 7 million revenue and a profit of £500,000? completely made up numbers I don't have the acl accounts to hand.

 

[Grendel]

It doesn't really matter what he said, it's profit they want and need. He couldn't really use the word profit though because there wasn't currently any. He obviously believed with them there he could turn revenue into profit.

No he meant revenue. He said the aim was to make the club the largest in Europe and the first stage was to increase revenues - they are not concerned at incurring losses in the early years in order to achieve a long term strategy.

Having total access to revenues is integral to this strategy - not sharing them.

 

[stupot07]

You've already answered the premiss of my post. If their is a funding gap and you are loosing money and can't spend more on the pitch why wouldn't you take on a partner to ease your financial burden and knock a big hole in your endebtidness?

Not really because ACL have the burden of paying off the loan not wasps, and the repayments are built into the operating costs. wasps need the profits from ACL to cover their losses and further increase and maximise the wage bill, I doubt they will make much extra profit than that, and if they did they could redirect it into building their training facilities or repaying the loan quicker. There is no need for them to want to halve the revenues (and profit with us).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors