New Ricoh deal? (5 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Nick

Nick

Administrator
oldskyblue58 said:
That works both ways both ways though doesn't it. I am sure Wasps could say that but equally SISU could cry foul even if the deal were reasonable
Click to expand...

Then the PR war would start, who would people believe?

There would be a huge upturn of people on here and the comments on CET for example, that guy who didn't know Warwick Uni was in Coventry but was apparently a die hard city supporter from Coventry but always logged in from London was my favourite.

I think even if the offer was taking the mick, the large % would believe Wasps and not actually want detailed information about the offer. That large % would probably be the loudest too, like when people were shouting for the free rent offers from Michael to be accepted, then went mental when somebody asked him for info about it and the terms.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Some of the new comments on the CET just show that they need to block PR companies too.

This one is my favourite:

Roger Michael Mcdougall: "If only we had owners like Wasps! It's amazing what Wasps have done with the stadium and the match day experience they provide for their fans in only a short space of time!"
Click to expand...
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
skybluetony176 said:
I think that the naming rights to the ground are the ace up our sleeve. There's no doubt CCFC raises the profile of The Ricoh, Wasps or no Wasps, especially as you say the more successful we are. It's in there interest for us to stay and be successful.
Click to expand...

The naming rights are not quite as simple at the Ricoh to many other grounds though. Part of the value is Wasps, part is CCFC (certainly) but part is also the other parts of the business there. It looks to me that the Wasps Group focus is looking to maximise the other parts of the business and not everyone is a football or rugby fan. Each part raises the profile so long as it is successful....... so far we have had 3 months of success in L1.

The Wasps plan seems to be putting the financial and reputational bedrock based on the commercial side of the Arena not the two teams (well certainly not CCFC anyway). imo CCFC only becomes a real influence on that if it achieves something and play offs is a minimum in that. For instance we would have hardly a mention on SSN had we not been winning and in top six...... coverage when we were struggling last season was little so did that enhance naming rights?

In terms of the stadium naming rights then if we want a share of that would we be expected to share some more of the stadium costs too?
 
Last edited:
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
The naming rights are not quite as simple at the Ricoh to many other grounds though. Part of the value is Wasps, part is CCFC (certainly) but part is also the other parts of the business there. It looks to me that the Wasps Group focus is looking to maximise the other parts of the business and not everyone is a football or rugby fan. Each part raises the profile so long as it is successful....... so far we have had 3 months of success in L1.

The Wasps plan seems to be putting the financial and reputational bedrock based on the commercial side of the Arena not the two teams (well certainly not CCFC anyway). imo CCFC only becomes a real influence on that if it achieves something and play offs is a minimum in that. For instance we would have hardly a mention on SSN had we not been winning and in top six...... coverage when we were struggling last season was little so did that enhance naming rights?

In terms of the stadium naming rights then if we want a share of that would we be expected to share some more of the stadium costs too?
Click to expand...

What about our "image rights"? The use of ccfc to advertise/promote the Ricoh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
I asked simon why he'd included the last paragraph

His reply

Underlines possible options if the arrangement doesn't work out for any reason. Much like the paragraph before about a new stadium. I think we all hope it doesn't come to that though!

Fair point
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
stupot07 said:
What about our "image rights"? The use of ccfc to advertise/promote the Ricoh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

value still comes down to how successful the team is though. Do we know that CCFC don't get some sort of royalty now for use of their trademark?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Sky Blue Pete said:
I asked simon why he'd included the last paragraph

His reply

Underlines possible options if the arrangement doesn't work out for any reason. Much like the paragraph before about a new stadium. I think we all hope it doesn't come to that though!

Fair point
Click to expand...

And it is dramatic! Like Kent being recalled.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Nick said:
I am paying 15p every time they see your signature!
Click to expand...

what only 15p ! will have to check the contract ...... kerrrrrching ! :laugh:
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Its never be clarified what the 50% of F&B actually is has it? 50% of revenues or 50% of profit?
Click to expand...

I would say it is very obvious. Wasps wouldn't want to risk losing money on it. They would have to make a 100% profit after all costs on everything they sold just to give away 50% of revenues just to break even. So it will be a split on profit made. But if Wasps were not running it what would SISU do? Most probably bring someone in to run it for them. Just like they do with the club shop. And that isn't done for free. So it isn't as bad as some like to make out including SISU in respect of profit made. The difference it does make is for the income generated. And this decides the maximum which can be spent on the squad. But even this can be changed via a gift from SISU and not a loan. But they have said it won't be happening. They have wasted enough money as it is.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
I would say it is very obvious. Wasps wouldn't want to risk losing money on it. They would have to make a 100% profit after all costs on everything they sold just to give away 50% of revenues just to break even. So it will be a split on profit made. But if Wasps were not running it what would SISU do? Most probably bring someone in to run it for them. Just like they do with the club shop. And that isn't done for free. So it isn't as bad as some like to make out including SISU in respect of profit made. The difference it does make is for the income generated. And this decides the maximum which can be spent on the squad. But even this can be changed via a gift from SISU and not a loan. But they have said it won't be happening. They have wasted enough money as it is.
Click to expand...

It would have to be revenue - profit apportionment would be virtually impossible to calculate.

The costs will paid for by the club as match day costs.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
value still comes down to how successful the team is though. Do we know that CCFC don't get some sort of royalty now for use of their trademark?
Click to expand...

No idea.


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

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I would expect no long term deal is being discussed.

This would have many complex factors and conflicting expectations from both parties.

Revenues, sponsorship, league the club are in would be just a few factors. Match costs would escalate of crowds grew, wasps will want significant increases from promotions and of its a ten year deal the premier league possibility has to be included. Then the arrangement would be very different to what we have now.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
But you do agree that we get a share of the takings ?
Click to expand...

No we don't know what we get and we don't know what we pay for them.
It seems pretty certain costs are dictated by how much of the ground is open but the deal is shrouded in secrecy. It's entirely possible the costs to maintain the revenue streams actually cost more that the profit generated from the revenue as we have no input to cost structures - that's if we get any at all.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
How long is any stadium naming rights going to be for. Ricoh was 10 years wasn't it? At the moment we are only there till end of the season , which might get extended by 2 years. On what is what value does CCFC actually add to the naming rights for the whole complex?

Unless CCFC commit to staying at the stadium longer term why would Wasps consider sharing the stadium naming rights ? Even if they did then would it be reasonable to expect CCFC to contribute to some more of the stadium costs - no backer is going waste money on a stadium not up to scratch?

The annual amount at L1 or Championship level is not a massive amount of money (Premiership may well be more but anyone see us there in the next few years/decade?). Say it is shared then it will be a percentage less than 50% given the other items that contribute. Could well be less than 33%. Is it more likely that any value will be used to mitigate any rent charged?

Got to get past the thinking we see too often of "we are ccfc we should have it , they should give it us, its ours by right, it was built for us its ours.... etc " Might not like it but the world has moved on and that world is very financially driven - we wont get owt for nowt. There are deals to be done but not for free there has to be tangible benefit to both sides. Just demanding the source of income 100% without the associated cost is just not going to happen

Just thoughts really
 
Last edited:
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
M&B Stand said:
I'm surprised there's not more pressure on Wasps to give the club the best possible deal. Both from within the football clubs fanbase and around the city.

Hopefully they're working on a proper deal, who knows, maybe there is a symbiotic relationship to be made. Surely it's in Wasps interests that ccfc be allowed to flourish.
Click to expand...

Isn't it confused by Sisu saying they are building a new stadium and also JR1 and JR2 in the pipeline?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
Isn't it confused by Sisu saying they are building a new stadium and also JR1 and JR2 in the pipeline?
Click to expand...

This is why people shouldn't be surprised.

Justifications and excuses for the franchise at every turn
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
But you do agree that we get a share of the takings ?
Click to expand...

I think it was confimed we get a share of something now we just don't know any details so its hard to make a judgement on it. Seems that while we might have gained a little here matchday costs have increased so is there any net benefit?
 
S

Specs WT-R75

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
How long is any stadium naming rights going to be. Ricoh was 10 years wasn't it? At the moment we are only there till end of the season , which might get extended by 2 years. On what is what value does CCFC actually add to the naming rights for the whole complex?

Unless CCFC commit to staying at the stadium longer term why would Wasps consider sharing the stadium naming rights ? Even if they did then would it be reasonable to expect CCFC to contribute to some more of the stadium costs - no backer is going waste money on a stadium not up to scratch?

The annual amount at L1 or Championship level is not a massive amount of money (Premiership may well be more but anyone see us there in the next few years/decade?). Say it is shared then it will be a percentage less than 50% given the other items that contribute. Could well be less than 33%. Is it more likely that any value will be used to mitigate any rent charged?

Got to get past the thinking we see too often of "we are ccfc we should have it , they should give it us, its ours by right, it was built for us its ours.... etc " Might not like it but the world has moved on and that world is very financially driven - we wont get owt for nowt. There are deals to be done but not for free there has to be tangible benefit to both sides. Just demanding the source of income 100% without the associated cost is just not going to happen

Just thoughts really
Click to expand...


It seems logical that if there is a long term lease discussed that there needs to be terms discussed for each league separately. It is clear that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for CCFC is the PL and is it worth Wasps trying to squeeze an extra 100k/y profit from us if they could get 1m if we make it back to the promised land.

I agree that there still has to be something for both sides, but as we know it's going to be incredibly difficult if we make it to the Championship without a further cash injection from our owners...
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
CCFC said:
Why would ACL do that though when they know they are in a position to force the club into a deal which is heavily in ACL's favour?
Click to expand...

They need to get the balance right.
If they could offer CCFC a deal that is more beneficial than them owning your own stadium, with all the costs and risks associated with it and yet make £5M/Year themselves from it. Would that not be a good deal ?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
italiahorse said:
They need to get the balance right.
If they could offer CCFC a deal that is more beneficial than them owning your own stadium, with all the costs and risks associated with it and yet make £5M/Year themselves from it. Would that not be a good deal ?
Click to expand...

It would depend how much Wasps were making from it, wouldn't it?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Guess the meeting next week is cancelled then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top