A few thoughts on recent statements (1 Viewer)

[shmmeee]

So on that basis we were grossly overcharged on the original deal weren't we?

Not sure anyone's ever argued otherwise.

Though of course, on that basis we were in League 1, you'd need the same figures for the Championship to know exactly how grossly we were being overcharged (if we were, I have no idea what the figures are for stadia like ours).

 

---

[TheOldFive]

In terms of the whole site then the RIcoh is not just a football stadium in fact the football stadium part is less than 50%. But that is just an aside more importantly ....

In terms of CCFC then there is even by renting (at a reasonable value) a scenario whereby CCFC could actually be profitable. If the cost structure currently set up ( £4m to £5m )is transferred to the Ricoh then assuming revenues increase to at least 2013 (£6.5m) levels that could see the club profitable (not seen that in decades). The trouble with that is expectation. If fans expect just because we are back at the Ricoh that they splash the cash then I think there is going to be an expectation gap. However SP has proven that you do not need in L1 to spend millions to be successful (well for half a season anyway) certainly it wouldn't take much spending to stabilise the club for a season in the top half and at least challenging. That could be done out of cash flow. Then build from there...

Superb Post. Nail on the Head.

 

[ccfc92]

Not sure anyone's ever argued otherwise.

Though of course, on that basis we were in League 1, you'd need the same figures for the Championship to know exactly how grossly we were being overcharged (if we were, I have no idea what the figures are for stadia like ours).

The key point. We aren't renting a crappy 7,500 seater stadium.

Wait. We are. But I mean, we weren't. You know what I mean

 

[shmmeee]

The key point. We aren't renting a crappy 7,500 seater stadium.

Wait. We are. But I mean, we weren't. You know what I mean

Be careful pulling at that thread though. You may find yourself making the argument the Ricoh is too big for a club our size.

 

[ccfc92]

Be careful pulling at that thread though. You may find yourself making the argument the Ricoh is too big for a club our size.

Yeahh :thinking about:

Silly me. It's not like we sold it out for the "tacky" JPT :facepalm:

 

[Grendel]

Not as grossly over charged on that basis at sixfields. Funny our owners don't see that as an issue.

We are not permenant tenants so that figure is not relevant and you don't know what it is.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure anyone's ever argued otherwise.

Though of course, on that basis we were in League 1, you'd need the same figures for the Championship to know exactly how grossly we were being overcharged (if we were, I have no idea what the figures are for stadia like ours).

Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing

I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.

 

[skybluetony176]

We are not permenant tenants so igure is not relevant and you don't know what it is.

Using OSB's formula it shouldn't be much over £20k a season. Are you suggesting it's less than that?

 

[ccfc92]

We are not permenant tenants so that figure is not relevant and you don't know what it is.

Would it be relevant if it was your point you were trying to prove?

 

[Grendel]

Using OSB's formula it shouldn't be much over £20k a season. Are you suggesting it's less than that?

I'm suggesting his formula is nonsense as shown by the fact that London road is three times the price of Portman road.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm suggesting his formula is nonsense as shown by the fact that London road is three times the price of Portman road.

I'm only interested in the club (that's your usual line isn't it) and where our club is concerned suxfields is the worst rent deal this club has ever had to endure. And that's before you factor in things like location, facilities etc.

 

[ccfc92]

I'm only interested in the club (that's your usual line isn't it) and where our club is concerned suxfields is the worst rent deal this club has ever had to endure. And that's before you factor in things like location, facilities etc.

I've played football at places with better facilities than Sixfields

 

[Grendel]

I'm only interested in the club (that's your usual line isn't it) and where our club is concerned suxfields is the worst rent deal this club has ever had to endure. And that's before you factor in things like location, facilities etc.

I don't know what the deal is - how much do they pay and do they get F and B revenue included?

It's also not worse if it was full every week which again renders the capacity argument worthless.

 

[ccfc92]

I don't know what the deal is - how much do they pay and do they get F and B revenue included?

It's also not worse if it was full every week which again renders the capacity argument worthless.

Do you have a rough estimate of how much sixfields rent is per year/ our use?

 

[Grendel]

Do you have a rough estimate of how much sixfields rent is per year/ our use?

The figure quoted is £175,000 with access to revenues and zero match day costs. Could be rubbish but if it's true a full house would make it viable.'

It's a deal with the lease owner though and not the council so it's not relevant really.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't know what the deal is - how much do they pay and do they get F and B revenue included?

It's also not worse if it was full every week which again renders the capacity argument worthless.

How many tens of thousands of pounds are they making of the F&B from an average 2000 a week?

From the NTFC fans I've talked to general consensus is it's around £175k a season the lowest figure I was told was £150 a season. From what Rob S said the £220k OSB suggested using his formula was too high to be entertained. If that's true and we filled suxfields game in and game out sisu are paying less than £81k a season to even entertain it.

Can you see that being the case?

 

[skybluetony176]

The figure quoted is £175,000 with access to revenues and zero match day costs. Could be rubbish but if it's true a full house would make it viable.'

It's a deal with the lease owner though and not the council so it's not relevant really.

A full house would spell the end of this club. There's nothing viable about that.

 

[shmmeee]

What's the current capacity of Sixfields? 7k or so?

If we were selling it out, there's a good argument we'd be selling 10-11k if not more in Cov. It'll never be like for like for the simple reason that it's not in Cov.

@G: you have a point about rent not correlating to ground quality. I've always said id be happy for CCFC to play at cost, would be a great move by ACL, but less likely with the current owners.

 

[ccfc92]

The figure quoted is £175,000 with access to revenues and zero match day costs. Could be rubbish but if it's true a full house would make it viable.'

It's a deal with the lease owner though and not the council so it's not relevant really.

Just done the maths, and yes. Probably a huge profit, in relation to income minus rent. But then take off wages etc, and that profit of £1.2 million (5,500 x £253 - the adult price for a premium season ticket) suddenly goes away. Going on the basis 2,000 attendees are away fans.

7,500 fans in there, how many spend money at the ground? Let's say 5,000 spend £5. £25,000 per game. £575,000 per season. So £1.2 million + £575,000 F+B. So round that off at £2million.

And that's in the best scenario of 7,500 adults paying full whack for season tickets. So what's our outgoings?

 

[Grendel]

How many tens of thousands of pounds are they making of the F&B from an average 2000 a week?

From the NTFC fans I've talked to general consensus is it's around £175k a season the lowest figure I was told was £150 a season. From what Rob S said the £220k OSB suggested using his formula was too high to be entertained. If that's true and we filled suxfields game in and game out sisu are paying less than £81k a season to even entertain it.

Can you see that being the case?

I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.

 

[Astute]

Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing

I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.

Man City pay at least 2.5m IIRC. And they were not given a 50% share in anything.

 

[Astute]

I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.

Are you calling SISU an industry now?

 

[Grendel]

Are you calling SISU an industry now?

The FOOTBALL industry - Christ.

 

[Grendel]

Man City pay at least 2.5m IIRC. And they were not given a 50% share in anything.

What's the deal for them if they are in the championship or league one?

Also why are you scrabbling around trying to find ab example of a higher rent? Find one outside the premier league - find one.

 

[ccfc92]

I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.

I assume you mean attendances/ spending up and down with regards football?

 

[Grendel]

I assume you mean attendances/ spending up and down with regards football?

I mean there is no logic in football at all. % of turnover on salaries, constant losses, workers paid massively more than management. And of course rental payments.

 

[shmmeee]

workers paid massively more than management.

Spoken like true management

 

[skybluetony176]

I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.

It's a shame sisu didn't use it when they signed us up to suxfields. It would have got us a better deal than they managed themselves and at the same time they expect to pay less at the Ricoh than using the formula. If nothing else it proves sisu are flawed.

 

[ccfc92]

I mean there is no logic in football at all. % of turnover on salaries, constant losses, workers paid massively more than management. And of course rental payments.

But surely going by them points, it's the same as any other business?

Normally in wages it's: Managers > Workers.

In football it's: Players > Mangers/Board.

Plus with regards turnover in normal business, you use this to reinvest to make the business grow. So surely using a % of turnover to get better players (reinvesting) grows the business?

And with regards rental payments, I don't know many businesses that don't pay for premises, water, electric, heating.....


As much as I agree football seems to be a unique industry, the foundations of the industry are the same as any other surely?

 

[skybluetony176]

What's the deal for them if they are in the championship or league one?

Also why are you scrabbling around trying to find ab example of a higher rent? Find one outside the premier league - find one.

Higher than what?

 

[SIR ERNIE]

I've consigned OSB's analysis in the bin where it belongs. It tries to present rational calculations to an industry that's totally irrational. Its a fatally flawed piece if work I'm afraid.

hahahaha

Seriously, I nearly choked on my glass of fine merlot.


Grendel has consigned OSB's analysis to the bin.... It's flawed.


hahahaha


priceless stuff.

I'm sure OSB won't seep tonight.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing

I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.

Wrong. In our democratic, free market society (which judging from your posts you don't appear to be a fan of), the price of everything is determined by demand and supply. It doesn't matter if that is a football stadium or a tin of beans.

Now demand is the football club, and supply is the Ricoh. The level of rent for being the exclusive tenant is dependant on what the football club is willing to pay, and what ACL is willing to accept. For 6 years CCFC were willing to accept the rent as being £1.3m, and ACL were willing to accept that.

CCFC were then no longer willing to accept the rent at that level, hence the negotiations, ACL seen this and were then willing to reduce their demands as free market forces dictate. However ACL, like any business, would only accept a rental reduction of so much, as it starts to reach the point where hosting matches would be no longer profitable. So when Sisu started to take the piss is when this all broke down.

So in a nutshell, rental values have nothing to do with local authorities. They are dependant only on demand and supply.

Demand = The amount of potential users of the Ricoh arena, those willing to pay the most getting priority.

Supply = The amount of 20k+ all seater stadiums in Coventry.

Just these two things, nothing else.

 

[Grendel]

But surely going by them points, it's the same as any other business?

Normally in wages it's: Managers > Workers.

In football it's: Players > Mangers/Board.

Plus with regards turnover in normal business, you use this to reinvest to make the business grow. So surely using a % of turnover to get better players (reinvesting) grows the business?

And with regards rental payments, I don't know many businesses that don't pay for premises, water, electric, heating.....


As much as I agree football seems to be a unique industry, the foundations of the industry are the same as any other surely?

In a normal industry most clubs would not exist. The wealth escalation I'm the premiership is the over riding issue. Relegation from that league usually brings destruction unless an instant return happens. No industry is like football. QPR had more revenue two years ago than ever before but I'd they hadn't been promoted last year would have faced oblivion. That's absurd. Wage escalation has damaged football in the UK and there is no solution. Consider the fact that a F A Cup winner like Micky Gynn earned £200 a week at Coventry and Carl Baker earns £8,000 in league one. My wages have increased tenfold in that period,

 

[ccfc92]

In a normal industry most clubs would not exist. The wealth escalation I'm the premiership is the over riding issue. Relegation from that league usually brings destruction unless an instant return happens. No industry is like football. QPR had more revenue two years ago than ever before but I'd they hadn't been promoted last year would have faced oblivion. That's absurd. Wage escalation has damaged football in the UK and there is no solution. Consider the fact that a F A Cup winner like Micky Gynn earned £200 a week at Coventry and Carl Baker earns £8,000 in league one. My wages have increased tenfold in that period,

I completely agree with your reply.

But surely a club who has never been in the Premiership/ had huge financial success, would be running in a close to profit/ break even financial situation?

My point being, only a well run club could get to the football league from semi-pro level to start with surely?

 

[Astute]

Portman road - £115,000
The Kc stadium - £54,000
City ground - under £200,000
Swansea - nothing

I'm not sure how many more council owned stadiums were there during our time. Ultimately though there is no correlation between ground quality, seats or capacity. It's a smokescreen. Ultimately it's the value the council place on a successful club in its city.

Good choice of grounds.

Portman road. An old ground that owes nobody anything. Just like HR was, but our club still paid over 1m a year rent to a developer and not CCC.

KC stadium. As I have informed you a few times in the past the ground was paid for with money that belonged to the people of Hull and not council money. No loans were needed. The rent was set at the stadiums upkeep level. The clubs owners can't buy the stadium as it belongs to the people of Hull. And yes I was living in the area through the planning stage through to the build of it. I worked with many STH's of the club. I know what went on.

Swansea? The ground where it looks like illegal funding could be looked at and that isn't by the clubs owners.