The low down on ARVO (43 Viewers)

[Noggin]

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

Then I'm positive it would be in wasps interests to sell half to us (for the right price of course) (as long as we were intending to invest in the team to get back to the championship, which probably would mean new owners first) especially over us leaving and setting up a competitor to acl.

 

---

[chiefdave]

Then I'm positive it would be in wasps interests to sell half to us (for the right price of course) (as long as we were intending to invest in the team to get back to the championship, which probably would mean new owners first) especially over us leaving and setting up a competitor to acl.

Unless they seriously think Fisher is going to build the new stadium and it will be in a location and with facilities to rival the Ricoh there is absolutely no incentive for them to give us increased access to revenues.I

f anything they have the opportunity to charge us more for less. If they say we will extend the deal but the rent is now £500K and you only get 25% of matchday revenues or profits (whichever it is at the moment), what other option do we have? Do we go back to Sixfields again, would the FL authorise that for a second time?

The only way we are getting anymore from Wasps / ACL is if one or both of them are in financial difficulty.

 

[Grendel]

Then I'm positive it would be in wasps interests to sell half to us (for the right price of course) (as long as we were intending to invest in the team to get back to the championship, which probably would mean new owners first) especially over us leaving and setting up a competitor to acl.

I am totally baffled by your logic on this.

Out of interest what would you determine the right price?

 

[chiefdave]

Out of interest what would you determine the right price?

If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.

 

[Nick]

If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.

It's been said plenty of times that it was always about the the 100% including Wasps people on here too. It is either going to be a hefty profit from what they paid or a bail them out of the shit transaction isn't it?

 

[Grendel]

If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.

I can only assume the logic is the sale price massively outweighs the purchase price and also involved discharging some of the loan.

Hence the "profit"

 

[Noggin]

I am totally baffled by your logic on this.

Out of interest what would you determine the right price?

I have literally no idea what the right price is. I just utterly disagree with the fact that wasps wouldn't be willing to sell to us meaning we have to build our own stadium and I'm positive that wasps would be willing to sell half again as long as the price was right.

In what way does my logic baffle? both wasps and ccfc need each other and a stadium owned by both has reduced cost, increased revenue, increased profit and is more attractive to further investment and sponsorship than ccfc and wasps having two competing stadia.

 

[Nick]

Price right for who though?

 

[Noggin]

Unless they seriously think Fisher is going to build the new stadium and it will be in a location and with facilities to rival the Ricoh there is absolutely no incentive for them to give us increased access to revenues.I

f anything they have the opportunity to charge us more for less. If they say we will extend the deal but the rent is now £500K and you only get 25% of matchday revenues or profits (whichever it is at the moment), what other option do we have? Do we go back to Sixfields again, would the FL authorise that for a second time?

The only way we are getting anymore from Wasps / ACL is if one or both of them are in financial difficulty.

Wasps need us almost as much as we need them otherwise we wouldn't have such a generous deal but you are of course absolutely right that it is very likely that they don't believe we are going to build a stadium and thus significantly lowers it's value as a bargaining chip.

But people can't have it both ways, they are saying we have to build our own stadium as wasps won't sell half to us, if that did mean we were going to build then at that point it would be massively in wasps interests to sell half to us.

Of course as we run the club into the ground we become less and less important to wasps and so I'd not be surprised if they wouldn't sell to the untrustworthy sisu, but under new ownership that promised to rebuild the club then it would be in everyone interests to have a shared stadium and work together.

 

[chiefdave]

I have literally no idea what the right price is.

As an absolute minimum you'd be looking at £6m (the price Wasps paid) to take a 50% stake in a company with a £14m debt. However it is highly unlikely they would sell at that price and would undoubtedly want a decent profit.

At what point does that become an unviable option against a new stadium. For example if Wasps want £10m for a 50% stake is that a better option than building a new stadium is that a better option than owning a 100% stake in a new stadium management company with a £20m debt?

And that of course is before you start to consider if Tim Fisher is right (it does happen every now and then!) and ACL, with the loan still in place, are not viable moving forward.

There seems to be a section of our fanbase who believe Wasps will pretty much handover whatever we ask for and / or we can just keep renting off them and everything will somehow be OK. Doesn't seem to me that either of those options are a good way forward, unless we're happy with our current position in the football pyramid.

 

[Nick]

Wasn't the deal done before Wasps were here?

 

[Noggin]

If they wanted shared ownership wouldn't they have just let our bid for Higgs share go unchallenged instead of making a bid for it themselves? As they purchased that share you would have to assume that in the unlikely event they would sell it to us they would want more than they paid so we'd be paying above market rate.

I absolutely think we'd have to pay more than wasps paid for it. You know what paying double what wasps paid would be? massivly massivly better value than building our own stadium, this is why it makes so little sense, if they weren't willing to properly outbid wasps for the ricoh then there is no way in a million years that they are going to spend many times over that money for something worse and 5 years further on.

 

[chiefdave]

But people can't have it both ways, they are saying we have to build our own stadium as wasps won't sell half to us, if that did mean we were going to build then at that point it would be massively in wasps interests to sell half to us.

That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.

Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?

If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!

 

[Noggin]

At what point does that become an unviable option against a new stadium. For example if Wasps want £10m for a 50% stake is that a better option than building a new stadium is that a better option than owning a 100% stake in a new stadium management company with a £20m debt?

I wouldn't do that deal but forced to chose do I believe 10m for half the ricoh vs 20m for the whole of a new stadium that still take the ricoh, absolutely I do. not that I believe for a second that this new stadium can be built for anything like as cheap as that even double that seems unlikely.

 

[chiefdave]

You know what paying double what wasps paid would be? massivly massivly better value than building our own stadium.

You don't know that, it's impossible for anyone to know that. In your suggestion we would pay £12m for a 50% stake in a company with a debt of £14m that, from their last account, is struggling to make a profit.

What you don't know is the cost of a new stadium and how the prop co would be set up. Without knowing that its impossible to say one is massively better than the other. What if the prop co purchases a 250 years lease for £10m, how is that worse than paying Wasps £12m.

It's all guesswork at this point hence why I repeatedly say we need to see the business plan & financial forecasts for both options to decide which is the best way forward.

 

[chiefdave]

I wouldn't do that deal but forced to chose do I believe 10m for half the ricoh vs 20m for the whole of a new stadium that still take the ricoh, absolutely I do. not that I believe for a second that this new stadium can be built for anything like as cheap as that even double that seems unlikely.

There's not really a response that can be made to that as what you are saying is you would prefer to pay more for less!

 

[Noggin]

That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.

Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?

If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!

Is 100k vital, probably not, but without us the value of stadium naming rights falls as does the value of all the leases to places like the casino. If ACL wasn't viable when we were doing well and paying large rent it sure as hell won't be if we go.

I bet most of us aren't giving any money to wasps anyway but god surely we couldn't think it was a good idea to start distressing another company so we can try again to get the ricoh on the cheap, this plan the first time has done massive damage to ccfc.

I absolutely agree with you though that as we run our club into the ground we become less and less relevant to wasps and if anything as our attendance falls it makes it alot more likely that they would pressure us for higher rent.

 

[Noggin]

There's not really a response that can be made to that as what you are saying is you would prefer to pay more for less!

no it's not, 10m for half of acl which has a well respected events business, leases from restaurants, casino, major shops and restaurants and a 33kish stadium (even with a 14m) loan is absolutely better value than all of a new 18k seater stadium for 20mill (again not that I believe for a second that it's possible for this price) but thats how terrible the new stadium idea is, even in this ridiculous scenario where we are paying 4 times what wasps did and we are pretending the new stadium is much cheaper than it would be, it's still a bad option.

anyway I'm out, have a good day.

 

[Hobo]

That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.

Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?

If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!

I think you are right, the Wasps business plan doesn't see the presence of CCFC as essential. Early days but they are already ahead of their projections and Richardson has been able to stop pumping in money that was just going down the drain.


re a NOPM approach from football fans? I don't think the majority of city fans are not going, I think they are being supported by Rugby fans from Coventry, Warwickshire and Birmingham.

 

[chiefdave]

re a NOPM approach from football fans? I don't think the majority of city fans are going, I think they are being supported by Rugby fans from Coventry, Warwickshire and Birmingham.

I wasn't seriously suggesting we mount a campaign, more illustrating the fact that if our presence, at a rent of £100K, was essential to their plans it wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge.

 

[skybluetony176]

There's not really a response that can be made to that as what you are saying is you would prefer to pay more for less!

You mean like SISU with the new stadium as apposed to making a sensible offer for the Ricoh?

 

[Hobo]

I wasn't seriously suggesting we mount a campaign, more illustrating the fact that if our presence, at a rent of £100K, was essential to their plans it wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge.

Just realised my post should read "the majority of city fans are not going."

well I know they are looking to invest heavily in a local training facility and currently looking for a suitable site around the Coventry Warwickshire area. I bet they stand more chance of attracting fresh investment than SISU?

i just think waiting and hoping they fail will just see us deteriorate further!

 

[stupot07]

That's not having it both ways, that's you taking one point (Wasps won't sell) and then making an assumption that they need us to stay.

Wasps have already stated their business plan does not require CCFC to stay at the Ricoh. While I'm sure they would like us to stay is £100K a season plus F&B (which can't be huge given our attendances are in freefall) really that vital to their business plan?

If it is then I think we should be pushing all football fans to say NOPM to Wasps and starve then out so we can get the Ricoh for ourselves!

not at all. This is where the logic falls down.


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

 

[Grendel]

not at all. This is where the logic falls down.


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

Yes and if they really want to maximise profit and revenue wait a couple of years and then negotiate a deal for £1 million a year and zero revenues.

 

[Noggin]

Yes and if they really want to maximise profit and revenue wait a couple of years and then negotiate a deal for £1 million a year and zero revenues.

Still a better option than going to Northampton or building a new stadium.

 

[chiefdave]

Still a better option than going to Northampton or building a new stadium.

How? With Grendel's example it would be £1m a year for the next 250 years so £250m, for which we would get no revenue access. In what way is that better than building a new stadium where we get access to all revenues?

It's all hypothetical of course but just shows again that all scenarios need to be worked up fully to allow the best way forward to be chosen.

 

[Noggin]

How? With Grendel's example it would be £1m a year for the next 250 years so £250m, for which we would get no revenue access. In what way is that better than building a new stadium where we get access to all revenues?

It's all hypothetical of course but just shows again that all scenarios need to be worked up fully to allow the best way forward to be chosen.

If we are going to be making ludicrous hypotheticals £30million invested in the stock market getting an average of 7% (which you'd expect over that timeframe) for 250 years turns your 30million into over 1 QUADRILLION! pounds. £1,135,516,381,376,901.25 compound interest is pretty awesome over 250 years.

 

[chiefdave]

If we are going to be making ludicrous hypotheticals £30million invested in the stock market getting an average of 7% (which you'd expect over that timeframe) for 250 years turns your 30million into over 1 QUADRILLION! pounds. £1,135,516,381,376,901.25 compound interest is pretty awesome over 250 years.

Well that doesn't really answer the question does it. How is renting at £1m a year with zero revenue access (Grendel's example) better than building a new stadium?

I'm not understanding why people are eager to dismiss the idea of a new stadium out of hand when even the independent experts the CT roll out say staying at the Ricoh on a rental deal means more of the same for years to come. Fair enough if its all worked up for various options and a new stadium isn't viable but at the moment it just seems to be getting dismissed out of hand.

 

[stupot07]

If we are going to be making ludicrous hypotheticals £30million invested in the stock market getting an average of 7% (which you'd expect over that timeframe) for 250 years turns your 30million into over 1 QUADRILLION! pounds. £1,135,516,381,376,901.25 compound interest is pretty awesome over 250 years.

£1m per annum rent with no access to revenues is hardly a hypothetical, given we were paying £1.3m per annum with no access to revenues not so long ago.


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

 

[chiefdave]

£1m per annum rent with no access to revenues is hardly a hypothetical, given we were paying £1.3m per annum with no access to revenues not so long ago.

People do seem to be very trusting of Wasps and think whatever we ask for we will get. Not sure the evidence so far supports that.

Since they've been here we've been moved to a smaller changing room, lost use of the warm up area, not been given anywhere to sell merchandise (which the club claim to have requested), not been given anywhere for storage (which again the club claim to have requested). To me there's a suggestion there that's its not all going to be smooth running with Wasps as landlords. Of course you could class all of those as minor things but it does start to paint a picture.

I see nothing to suggest that if, when its time to review the rent, ACL is losing money they won't look to increase our rent, lower our revenue access.

 

[Noggin]

Well that doesn't really answer the question does it. How is renting at £1m a year with zero revenue access (Grendel's example) better than building a new stadium?

I'm not understanding why people are eager to dismiss the idea of a new stadium out of hand when even the independent experts the CT roll out say staying at the Ricoh on a rental deal means more of the same for years to come. Fair enough if its all worked up for various options and a new stadium isn't viable but at the moment it just seems to be getting dismissed out of hand.

It did answer the question.

It's getting dismissed out of hand because it's not viable, it's irrelevent if keeping the status quo means more of the same, that doesn't improve what a horrible plan building a new stadium is, it just means being a ccfc fan is probably going to continue to suck.

If you had 30million you'd be better investing it and paying rent (even high rent) than you would be building a new stadium as things stand, this becomes even more true if you don't have 30million and you'd need to borrow it. The numbers don't work if you've got the money there is much more sensible things to spend it on, if you don't have the money you can't borrow it cheaply enough to make it a better option than paying the rent and the profits from food and beverage/stadium naming etc don't change that, not while we are in this league with such small fan numbers anyway. If your a premiership club and can get big stadium naming rights and you've got 30k people who want to attend each week making it more attractive for people to partner with you then spending the money starts to look better (though still over the very long term and there would still be much better options for spending your money, but an owner who loved the club would do it, thats not what we have though)

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Is the problem perhaps that sisu aren't actually building a stadium? It's getting close to 2 years since they said a new ground would be delivered within 3 years. It's proved a pr/spin masterstroke but 23 months down the line is the reality that it remains no more than that?

 

[Noggin]

£1m per annum rent with no access to revenues is hardly a hypothetical, given we were paying £1.3m per annum with no access to revenues not so long ago.


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

I know it wasn't thats why I didn't say it was a ludicrous hypothetical to Grendel.

It become a ludicrous hypothetical when ChiefDave wanted to compare 250 years of rent to building a stadium.

 

[torchomatic]

It's not hypothetical really though, is it? Under the old deal we would have paid £52M for the life of the lease just to rent with very little revenue. Who knows what the new deal will be? As Dave points out you are very trusting of Wasps. And some of your claims are laughable.

It become a ludicrous hypothetical when ChiefDave wanted to compare 250 years of rent to building a stadium.

 

[Noggin]

It's not hypothetical really though, is it? Under the old deal we would have paid £52M for the life of the lease just to rent with very little revenue. Who knows what the new deal will be? As Dave points out you are very trusting of Wasps. And some of your claims are laughable.

we were foolish not to buy into the Ricoh absolutely when we had the chance but that isn't what we are discussing. But yes it was a ludicrous hypothetical as I showed with an equally ludicrous hypothetical of what you could do with average returns in the stock market with 30mill over the same time period instead of building a stadium.

I have no idea what makes you think I'm trusting of wasps, I've said nothing that indicates that at all.

Which of my comments are laughable? come on if you wish to debate put up or shut up.