Butts Park Arena is new home (19 Viewers)

[AFCCOVENTRY]

You can't do much on the site of the Butts area...

 

---

[bezzer]

It's not going to happen. I think the majority of people know that. We'd all love an inner City ground but the Butts isn't going to be it.

I thinks it's just something SISU think they can use as a bargaining tool when it comes to negotiating a new lease at the Wasps ground.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Sorry to piss on every ones chips including the author of the article but a move to the butts is financial suicide. If you get promotion this year and put another 6 to 7000 arses on seats you would earn at an average of £15 pound a ticket 2.7 million a season, if you get to the prem attendances and prices are even higher. Its just not financially viable to go to a ground with a lower capacity if you have a well supported successful team, the club need to think outside the box for extra revenue. What extra income would you attract at the butts, lower capacity equals less pie and beer money, how much more or less than they are being given now at the Ricoh would need to be worked out. Where would the conferencing and hotel facilities be put that Tim has suggested, its a financial no brainer for me, get a long term deal with Wasps sorted as quick as possible and put to bed the pie in the sky idea of a new stadium. PUSB

And where's the boulevard we were promised in Tims cartoon plans we were shown?

Or is that the one to the new council house buildings they are building, mind you they could open up a ticket office there.
But honestly Tim has said on many occasions it needs to be of a certain size to get in all they require to make the club self funding, Has that changed now is owning a stadium with no other events on during the week good enough.
Renting out small conference rooms wouldn't generate that much income, especially if there is no where to park when you get there.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Not singling you out but why are people stating as fact that its 12K? The Reid article says 12-15K or 20K plus if we get promoted.

Well In my defence that is the figure I have been quoted by Tim Fisher on at least 2 occations.
And as you say it said 12-15 I am guilty of being very optomistic when it comes to CCFC but on this occasion I am not will save them millions making the ground smaller.

 

[italiahorse]

Sorry to piss on your chips too, but what access to revenue are Wasps going to give us exactly? This will be a hugely limiting factor under FFP, and more so in the Championship if we should ever get there.

Almost twenty years ago we gambled the club's future on building a huge, flash stadium for bigger attendances then we've ever been able to maintain - this based on us being and staying in the top division. We've seen the result and it genuinely was financial suicide.

The last thing we need is another grandiose scheme based on the suggestion of future glory, but I also don't see much future at the Ricoh for us beyond the level we're at.

The Butts, very unlikely as it is to actually happen (imho), is about the best compromise solution I've seen so far.

There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.

ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..

The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.

So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.

The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.

 

[italiahorse]

A 2 tiered 18000-20000 seater with option to add-on.

Stick to baking

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Sorry to piss on your chips too, but what access to revenue are Wasps going to give us exactly? This will be a hugely limiting factor under FFP, and more so in the Championship if we should ever get there.

Almost twenty years ago we gambled the club's future on building a huge, flash stadium for bigger attendances then we've ever been able to maintain - this based on us being and staying in the top division. We've seen the result and it genuinely was financial suicide.

The last thing we need is another grandiose scheme based on the suggestion of future glory, but I also don't see much future at the Ricoh for us beyond the level we're at.

The Butts, very unlikely as it is to actually happen (imho), is about the best compromise solution I've seen so far.

Sorry Duffer but your wrong. We would now be owning the Ricoh if it was not for the ineptitude and greed of our current owners trying to scam a deal through financial manipulation. That's I why I said they need to look out side the box for alternative revenue streams to achieve more income, its not just about the pie sales. Its not about having a flash stadium either, its about having a ground large enough to fulfil the potential of a city and club of our size. PUSB

 

[James Smith]

The location is great being in town. The club would however have to try and aim for the majority of the crowd to come by public transport. In London for example many of the stadiums have almost no parking for supporters and they have no problems.

The issue for me is that we would hit a celling on where we could go as a club. If we remained a Championship/League One club for our remaining future, 20,000 would be perfect. However if we became a stable Premier League club, 20,000 isn't enough. Look at clubs similar to our size like Leicester, Southampton and even Stoke. It really limits where we could progress to as a club.

I remember going to Loftus Road and walking through a traffic jam caused by the football. Nightmare to get to on foot and made worse by the fact that it was a midweek kick off and there were severe problems with the tube that night. Having said that don't really want to be any further out than the Ricoh.

 

[Nick]

There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.

ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..

The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.

So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.

The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.

So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?

 

[Grendel]

So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?

Also the model in the Championship is totally different

 

[italiahorse]

So if we are blagging ffp where do we get the money to give the players?

As I said in the text the owners would need to fund the difference.

To be honest though the club will need someone to do that anyway if we need to get to the PL.

 

[Nick]

As I said in the text the owners would need to fund the difference.

To be honest though the club will need someone to do that anyway if we need to get to the PL.

Doesn't that defeat the object of getting more revenues for the club?

It's like saying instead of getting a new job I'll just blag the mortgage that I earn more, then I'll just have to get a loan to pay the difference.

 

[italiahorse]

Doesn't that defeat the object of getting more revenues for the club?

It's like saying instead of getting a new job I'll just blag the mortgage that I earn more, then I'll just have to get a loan to pay the difference.

It just shows how you can get round the FFP rules and reality we are talking about owners need to put money into the club to increase chances of promotion.

In fact in the Championship loosing 'big' money is allowed and shows how if you really want to get promoted you need to have a good backer.

 

[oldfiver]

There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.

ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..

The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.

So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.

The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.

You are behind on Rugby player budgets : http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/22/premiership-rugby-mike-mccafferty-rfu

Also if you think the senior players are remunerated solely through the Club payroll then you are widely mistaken

Remember also that WASPS /ACL now have a financial committment linked to F&B in the stadium to Compass as part of their loan strategy so they cannot commit 100% to CCFC

 

[oldfiver]

There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.

ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..

The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.

So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.

The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.

A small point it is SCMP in Leagues 1 and 2 - slightly different criteria

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/ - slightly out of date but not much

 

[torchomatic]

And your alternative is this:

You said the plot !!
Waste of time discussing this. If we settle for the Butts we settle for mediocrity.

 

[italiahorse]

A small point it is SCMP in Leagues 1 and 2 - slightly different criteria

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/ - slightly out of date but not much

Yes I know, but the 60% figure still applies

 

[Grendel]

If they were planning for different outcomes from the start the words 12-15K wouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. It would be 20k with potential fo expansion.

Don't worry Tony it will all sound the same on CWR where ever we play

 

[italiahorse]

And your alternative is this:

View attachment 4793

Did Oliver not get what he wanted in the end?
Seemed to work.

If you don't ask you don't get !!

 

[italiahorse]

Don't worry Tony it will all sound the same on CWR where ever we play

Unless you only have a DAB radio.

 

[oldfiver]

Yes I know, but the 60% figure still applies

it also includes equity monies put into the club and outright donations ( counted as turnover ) but not loans

 

[italiahorse]

it also includes equity monies put into the club and outright donations ( counted as turnover ) but not loans

.... and there lies one of our problems. If you want to move up the leagues it appears you need to put money into the club as donations.

 

[stupot07]

There's a few things about the FFP.
We are allowed to spend 60% of our income on players wages because it assumes that 40% is used to balance the books.

ACL proposed a few years ago that we could have all the football incomes and they would cross book it so they then charged us all those income back. These incomes effectively would be included in the 60% and the charge back would be in the 40%.
Effectively the income for all the sales could be used in the 60% although in theory we hadn't taken any actual incomes into the club..

The down side of this is that we have a bigger player budget but the owners would need to actually fund the shortfall.

So in theory FFP can be stretched to include all the current ACL Football incomes but requires the owners to input the actually player costs.

The fact that Wasps are restricted to £5M a year player budget (IIRC) means this could be accounted for within both FFP systems.

Why would the owners do that if they can inject equity if they want to boost turnover?

Oh and wasps can sign 2 players for what every they want to pay them outside the wage bill. Sam burgess was on £500k pa at bath.


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

 

[covcity4life]

can we limit the rugby chat please? shit sport

 

[ccfcway]

Rumours about this afternoon that a magazine distribution firm is helping with the funding of the new ground in exchange for lifetime sponsorship of the stadium

http://www.seymour.co.uk/

The Seymour Butts stadium

 

[gingerrobccfc]

Just to give an idea of what may or may not be possible:

View attachment 4789

The Den has a 20,146 capacity.

View attachment 4790

20,520 capacity at the Liberty Stadium.

Had the same idea to do a quick speculative photoshop and the usual bowl design of most new grounds just doesn't fit (e.g. Keepmoat). However, something with a more traditional layout like Meadow Lane would seem to be more fitting to to the constraints of the Butts Park Arena and that capacity is 20,211.

​

 

[chiefdave]

As I said in the text the owners would need to fund the difference.

So the big plan is to run up debt?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

As an Earlsdonite, I know planning ain't easy around them parts.

Can I come and park at your place?

 

[skybluesam66]

if we played at the butts - we could all park at the ricoh - get the train into town and walk from there

 

[hill83]

if we played at the butts - we could all park at the ricoh - get the train into town and walk from there

Better start queuing for the train now then

 

[torchomatic]

Only £136 return too. Bargain.

if we played at the butts - we could all park at the ricoh - get the train into town and walk from there

 

[skybluetony176]

So the big plan is to run up debt?

It's not allowed to be debt is it? Doesn't it have to be put in as equity?

 

[stupot07]

It's not allowed to be debt is it? Doesn't it have to be put in as equity?

Not the way Italia is suggesting, as sisu would be funding losses not adding to turnover.


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

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Excited by the prospect but won't happen, Earlsdon Retire Village will object, don't want a football stadium on their doorstep. Would love to have an inner city ground but there is a shortage of space. Was suggested earlier that with the change in retail habits then a failed store might be feasible for redevelopment ASDA Whitley may be one but a long way from any pubs.

 

[Grendel]

So the big plan is to run up debt?

It's what his new friends at wasps do so why not?