A new stadium and some searching questions (1 Viewer)

skybluetony176 · Mar 28, 2015

ccfcway said:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/tim-fisher-says-coventry-city-4713943

Just the 21 months ago now.

Fisher hoped we would be 2/3 of the way to building it by now, but we havent even found some land.

Reading that really goes to show just what a bad joke this whole new stadium farce has been. Imagine if you were stupid enough to believe it in the first place how many disappointments you'd have had over the last two years. How many times have we heard the immortal words "big announcement on the new stadium coming in X number of weeks"? Talking of which its April next week and we still haven't heard the big announcement in the new year. Now I'm a generous chap so I'm willing to count the first quarter as the new year so will we get this announcement by the end of March? Sounds like a question for the SCG ointlaugh:

TheParsonsHose · Mar 28, 2015

Wasps should buy CCFC.

Noggin · Mar 28, 2015

chiefdave said:
The key word there is guess. What's the point of guessing, educated or otherwise? If, and as we all know it's a very big if, things ever start to move forward then we can asses the options.

If energy is going to be expended on anything regarding a new stadium would it not be better to push Tim Fisher for the details we need to know rather than speculating on the finances of something we don't know the specification or location of?

There's huge variance in costs. The Ricoh was what, £120m? As you say York was £40m and Bournemouth £15m. So using them as a basis for an educated guess, without knowing the stadium specification or location, how much is it going to cost?

There is huge variance in costs but we don't need to know how much it's going to cost to know it's not viable, weather the stadium costs 100mill or 30mill, weather they can borrow money at 5% or 50%, there is no reasonable assumption scenario where building the new stadium is financially viable especially while the club is attracting such small crowds in league one and has such a low sponcer appeal, especially while the city already has too many large supermarkets and out of town shopping areas, especially while the city already has as more stadium, concert and convention capacity as it needs and especially while the club and group of companies are in such a poor financial position that investors would expect massively bigger upside to take on the risk,

You say it's a waste of energy but it takes 2 minutes to think about the situation and come to the realisation it's not viable under present circumstances, hundreds of times more effort than that has been spent arguing about it because no one took the few minutes to show how completely nonsensical it is and put it to fisher. We shouldn't still be talking about this after 2 years, it's unbelievable that sisu have managed to keep people on the hook for so long.

mrtrench · Mar 28, 2015

TheParsonsHose said:
Wasps should buy CCFC.

I'm sure they'd consider it but that's not the sticking point. SISU needs to be done first - to realise that they're going to have to write off their losses and there is nothing but more losses ahead. Until they've exhausted the options to get back money lost then the club isn't for sale.

shmmeee · Mar 28, 2015

Noggin said:
That is not and never has been the simple truth, at least while we are a league one club if we are unable to buy into the Ricoh then renting is the most financially viable option by a very significant margin.

This is more important than the stadium for me. Where do the ownership see us heading? Are we looking for promotion? Are we consolidating? What's the plan? The message at the moment seems to be sticking in the lower leagues to keep costs down. At the first stadium commitee meeting Sandra Garlick (as well as claiming that planning permission was going in summer 2014) stated that the club didn't think we needed more than the low teens in terms of capacity because that's the trend in the last 15 years (the steepest sustained decline in the club's history) which would suggest that there are no plans at the club to improve our league status.

I'd like some form of plan on that before we worry about a new stadium.

Sky Blue Harry H · Mar 28, 2015

I still don't understand why it has to be all about finances...

Noggin;887006[I said:
]because that's the only thing that affects weather[/I].

Now, I'm confused....is that why it's raining in Warwick at the moment, or why it hosed it down in the Grand Prix earlier? It's all Bernie Ecclestones fault?

Ashdown · Mar 28, 2015

New Stadium................oh please ! Why do people waste their breath, even if the shits did miraculously build one, they'd milk the fanbase to satisfy their own ends anyway. There will be folk genuinely celebrating our slim survival from relegation from League 1 like it's a major triumph when the club has not been so low for over 50 years !

SkyblueBazza · Apr 11, 2015

"Located within two hours of 75% of the country" (BBC sport)...precisely why Wasps plan is to unite with CCFC under one ownership, in one stadium.
MASSIVE catchment for a truly successful football club. The bid will come.

PUSB

Como · Apr 11, 2015

Only thing that makes sense.

How much rent would SISU want for the hypothetical new stadium? How many pies would you need to sell to make up the difference?

skybluetony176 · Apr 11, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
I still don't understand why it has to be all about finances...

Arena 2000. Enough said.

italiahorse · Apr 11, 2015

SkyblueBazza said:
"Located within two hours of 75% of the country" (BBC sport)...precisely why Wasps plan is to unite with CCFC under one ownership, in one stadium.
MASSIVE catchment for a truly successful football club. The bid will come.

PUSB

We need Sisu to give CCFC to Wasps.

stupot07 · Apr 11, 2015

SkyblueBazza said:
"Located within two hours of 75% of the country" (BBC sport)...precisely why Wasps plan is to unite with CCFC under one ownership, in one stadium.
MASSIVE catchment for a truly successful football club. The bid will come.

PUSB

Sorry, but what a load of rubbish.

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

skybluetony176 · Apr 11, 2015

stupot07 said:
Sorry, but what a load of rubbish.

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

I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong but I can't help get the feeling that something is brewing. TM talking long term despite only having been contract with the current owners until the end of the season and no talk of extending or negotiating an extension beyond this. What if TM's appointment is part of a bigger plan? What if that plan doesn't include SISU and as part of that plan TM has come in earlier than anticipated because the plan doesn't really want to begin in league 2?

Of course TM could just be waiting to see how the season pans out before committing long-term but personally I'm not going to bank on it.

stupot07 · Apr 11, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong but I can't help get the feeling that something is brewing. TM talking long term despite only having been contract with the current owners until the end of the season and no talk of extending or negotiating an extension beyond this. What if TM's appointment is part of a bigger plan? What if that plan doesn't include SISU and as part of that plan TM has come in earlier than anticipated because the plan doesn't really want to begin in league 2?

Of course TM could just be waiting to see how the season pans out before committing long-term but personally I'm not going to bank on it.

unless I'm reading your post correctly, you're suggesting that the conspiracy that TM being hear is part of some conspiracy theory/long term plan/change of owners, etc, over the more plausible just waiting to see how this plans out before committing?

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

skybluetony176 · Apr 11, 2015

stupot07 said:
unless I'm reading your post correctly, you're suggesting that the conspiracy that TM being hear is part of some conspiracy theory/long term plan/change of owners, etc, over the more plausible just waiting to see how this plans out before committing?

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

I'm suggesting both as possibilities, nothing more.

Of course. Neither could be the case.

albatross · Apr 11, 2015

I think that the real hard questions have not been addressed at all.

We are continually told that we need a stadium in order to access 365 Day revenue , yet not one person as yet has stated what difference this will make to our balance sheet. Yet there are many on here who parrot that phrase as if it the golden bullet to solve all the clubs ills. Any new stadium will not have the facilities , capacity or transport infrastructure of the Ricoh so immediately it will play second fiddle and what ever the Ricoh generates our new stadium will make just a fraction of that whilst having to pay for itself. If we build this stadium then we will remain on Par with Walsall who run Markets in their carpark to balance the books. Surely our ambition for a Club and City this size is the premier league.

If we look at the Business of running a rugby club there is a salary cap that immediately makes it easier to budget and the income from the stadium could well be 30 to 50% of their income if it is run correctly.

If you truly examine the business plans of big clubs in the premier league there is no mention of 365 revenue at all in the business plan of Man Utd. Their main areas of income are . Match Day ticket sales, Sponsorship (Old Trafford as far as I am aware has not sold naming rights) , TV , merchandising and exploiting other media and mobile opportunities. Their business plan and marketing strategy are on their website , just google it.

Whilst we have to accept that our current predicament that we are limited in addressing the revenue opportunities above, which are the biggest earners for Man UTD investment of 30+Million in a New ground will never produce the return of any success on the field.

Jack Griffin · Apr 11, 2015

CCFC sponsorship income has collapsed under SISU, their antics have seen even long term partners withdraw support.

Don't get conned by Fishers statements about new a stadium, in what sense is that any different to the fiasco of moving from Highfield Road to the Ricoh, it looks to me like a very similar mistake, another big punt.

albatross · Apr 11, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
CCFC sponsorship income has collapsed under SISU, their antics have seen even long term partners withdraw support.

Don't get conned by Fishers statements about new a stadium, in what sense is that any different to the fiasco of moving from Highfield Road to the Ricoh, it looks to me like a very similar mistake, another big punt.

I agree 100%

Success on the Field = Sponsorship
Success on the Field =increased TV Money
Success on the Field =Increased Ticket sales
Success on the Field =increased merchandising sales

Success on the Field =More revenue

Owning a new stadium = ?

stupot07 · Apr 11, 2015

albatross said:
I think that the real hard questions have not been addressed at all.

We are continually told that we need a stadium in order to access 365 Day revenue , yet not one person as yet has stated what difference this will make to our balance sheet. Yet there are many on here who parrot that phrase as if it the golden bullet to solve all the clubs ills. Any new stadium will not have the facilities , capacity or transport infrastructure of the Ricoh so immediately it will play second fiddle and what ever the Ricoh generates our new stadium will make just a fraction of that whilst having to pay for itself. If we build this stadium then we will remain on Par with Walsall who run Markets in their carpark to balance the books. Surely our ambition for a Club and City this size is the premier league.

If we look at the Business of running a rugby club there is a salary cap that immediately makes it easier to budget and the income from the stadium could well be 30 to 50% of their income if it is run correctly.

If you truly examine the business plans of big clubs in the premier league there is no mention of 365 revenue at all in the business plan of Man Utd. Their main areas of income are . Match Day ticket sales, Sponsorship (Old Trafford as far as I am aware has not sold naming rights) , TV , merchandising and exploiting other media and mobile opportunities. Their business plan and marketing strategy are on their website , just google it.

Whilst we have to accept that our current predicament that we are limited in addressing the revenue opportunities above, which are the biggest earners for Man UTD investment of 30+Million in a New ground will never produce the return of any success on the field.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

You cannot compare us to man united and their global brand and the fact most PL clubs get a good 85-90% of their turnover handed to them before they have kicked a ball, sold a shirt, agreed a sponsorship deal. This % drops dramatically as you drop down the league's. Therefore you had to extract every penny you can from every avenue. Success on the pitch is important, sponsorship is important, getting 100% matchday profits is important and every other income 365 day per annum you can get is important.

Even man united exploit 365 day pa income, so your post is inaccurate to say they don't matter. If there was no financial benefit to it, every single club (bar us) wouldn't be doing it.

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/?utm_source=ManUtdCom&utm_medium=Menu&utm_campaign=UnitedEvents

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/downloads/United_Events_Brochure.pdf

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

skybluetony176 · Apr 11, 2015

stupot07 said:
You're comparing apples with oranges.

You cannot compare us to man united and their global brand and the fact most PL clubs get a good 85-90% of their turnover handed to them before they have kicked a ball, sold a shirt, agreed a sponsorship deal. This % drops dramatically as you drop down the league's. Therefore you had to extract every penny you can from every avenue. Success on the pitch is important, sponsorship is important, getting 100% matchday profits is important and every other income 365 day per annum you can get is important.

Even man united exploit 365 day pa income, so your post is inaccurate to say they don't matter. If there was no financial benefit to it, every single club (bar us) wouldn't be doing it.

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/?utm_source=ManUtdCom&utm_medium=Menu&utm_campaign=UnitedEvents

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/downloads/United_Events_Brochure.pdf

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

But with the exception of the 365 day a year stadium revenue we should be doing everything that they're doing but on a much smaller scale and we aren't. We have a joke of a club shop devoid of anything to buy too far away from the ground we play in and not in the city centre where it would get a greater foot fall through the door. Sponsorship is diabolical thanks in the large part from the idiotic decision to up sticks to Northampton, I would argue that reaching 100% of our potential match day ticket sales would be a far bigger windfall than reaching 100% of the revenue at the Ricoh on match days.

These owners can't get anything right, even the basic's. Until they can get the basic's right 100% of revenue won't make any difference because it will only be a small percentage of bigger picture they're incapable of delivering. 50% of 100% is more than 100% of 20% and that's why 365, 100% etc is nonsense. You have to get the basics right first.

stupot07 · Apr 11, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
But with the exception of the 365 day a year stadium revenue we should be doing everything that they're doing but on a much smaller scale and we aren't. We have a joke of a club shop devoid of anything to buy too far away from the ground we play in and not in the city centre where it would get a greater foot fall through the door. Sponsorship is diabolical thanks in the large part from the idiotic decision to up sticks to Northampton, I would argue that reaching 100% of our potential match day ticket sales would be a far bigger windfall than reaching 100% of the revenue at the Ricoh on match days.

These owners can't get anything right, even the basic's. Until they can get the basic's right 100% of revenue won't make any difference because it will only be a small percentage of bigger picture they're incapable of delivering. 50% of 100% is more than 100% of 20% and that's why 365, 100% etc is nonsense. You have to get the basics right first.

We had the basics pretty much right before moving to Northampton, don't disagree the club shop has been a joke this year. It needs an improvement in every area including access to 365 day income.

They used to have a shop in the city centre but they closed it because it was not cost effective. There would be nothing wrong with the Gallagher if they had a decent temporary stall on matchday's. The problem with the gallagher is the fact there's been no stock.

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

bigfatronssba · Apr 11, 2015

As things currently stand our income should easily be amongst the top half of teams in this division. Yet we are struggling to stay up, and still losing money. Now you have to ask what is wrong there. It can't be income potential, so it's either outgoings are too high, or poor management.

Now how is a new stadium going to reduce outgoings, or solve the problem of poor management?

chiefdave · Apr 11, 2015

stupot07 said:
We had the basics pretty much right before moving to Northampton, don't disagree the club shop has been a joke this year. It needs an improvement in every area including access to 365 day income.

Good point Stupot, every aspect of the club is a state right now but look back at when SISU came here and we were in the championship. Pretty much all the things being talked about were in place. Could some things have been better, of course that's always the case. We shouldn't ignore the fact then when we did have all these things in place we were still near the bottom of the table in terms of revenue.

bigfatronssba said:
As things currently stand our income should easily be amongst the top half of teams in this division. Yet we are struggling to stay up, and still losing money. Now you have to ask what is wrong there. It can't be income potential, so it's either outgoings are too high, or poor management.

Could be a more general problem with football in that, despite FFP, other sides are prepared to lose money. Look at Pompey in L2. They must have the greatest revenue by far as they're getting 15K every week yet running at break even (well actually their budget allowed for 7 figure losses in the last 2 seasons) they have come nowhere near challenging for promotion. I know that spend doesn't directly relate to success but it helps!

Hobo · Apr 11, 2015

Samo said:
Yup, could be the single most significant decision in our club's history.

I think SISU deciding not to buy into the Ricoh and going on a rent strike was the most significant decision in our club's history.

I think in years to come Wasps will demonstrate why their judgement was so poor, unfortunately.

albatross · Apr 11, 2015

stupot07 said:
You're comparing apples with oranges.

You cannot compare us to man united and their global brand and the fact most PL clubs get a good 85-90% of their turnover handed to them before they have kicked a ball, sold a shirt, agreed a sponsorship deal. This % drops dramatically as you drop down the league's. Therefore you had to extract every penny you can from every avenue. Success on the pitch is important, sponsorship is important, getting 100% matchday profits is important and every other income 365 day per annum you can get is important.

Even man united exploit 365 day pa income, so your post is inaccurate to say they don't matter. If there was no financial benefit to it, every single club (bar us) wouldn't be doing it.

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/?utm_source=ManUtdCom&utm_medium=Menu&utm_campaign=UnitedEvents

http://unitedevents-manutd.com/downloads/United_Events_Brochure.pdf

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

Income from weddings and conferences are irrelevant for Man U and pretty much every top tier club. I would bet good money that the profit from this type of activity would not pay for Wayne Rooney's wages. From your own post it can only make up a small percentage of 10 to 15% of their turn over.

The 365 day a year revenue may help in the lower leagues (Walsall said that they got good income from a market in their car park) But if you are reliant on that when assembling a football team then ambition can only amount to League One.

Which ever way you slice and dice it 365 income from the stadium will not sustain any premiership team is a diversion promoted by SISU to divert attention away from their failings.

So Spending 30+ million to host weddings and conferences in now a good investment?

chiefdave · Apr 11, 2015

albatross said:
Which ever way you slice and dice it 365 income from the stadium will not sustain any premiership team

Of course the TV revenues dwarf other revenues when you reach the PL. The problem is how do you get there?

That's why revenues are key, you need them to reach the top level. Just look when we were last in the Championsip. We had decent crowds, all the commercial side of the club was being run to a decent level in terms of sponsorship, corporate, club shop etc yet are revenues were at the bottom end of all the clubs.

albatross · Apr 11, 2015

chiefdave said:
Of course the TV revenues dwarf other revenues when you reach the PL. The problem is how do you get there?

That's why revenues are key, you need them to reach the top level. Just look when we were last in the Championsip. We had decent crowds, all the commercial side of the club was being run to a decent level in terms of sponsorship, corporate, club shop etc yet are revenues were at the bottom end of all the clubs.

I agree with you CD

But we have to consider what revenues would it bring the club. We will have to spend 30+ Million to get a stadium, Then we must service that Debt (at about 5%) and run the place only then can we consider contributing revenues from the stadium.

Please tell me what the contributing net revenues would be if we had access to these 365 revenues? No one EVER has spelt out what the bottom line is here . It seems to be accepted wisdom.

The club are seemingly planning this arse about face. If we had premiership revenues then we may actually afford to build something

chiefdave · Apr 11, 2015

albatross said:
But we have to consider what revenues would it bring the club. We will have to spend 30+ Million to get a stadium, Then we must service that Debt (at about 5%) and run the place only then can we consider contributing revenues from the stadium.

Please tell me what the contributing net revenues would be if we had access to these 365 revenues? No one EVER has spelt out what the bottom line is here . It seems to be accepted wisdom.

The problem is there's too many unknowns hence the need to see the business case and financial projections for a new stadium against renting off Wasps. We don't know how the stadium would be funded, what % would be debt, who would owe the debt, what rent we would be charged, what facilities there would be to generate money etc.

The one thing we do know is that staying at the Ricoh under Wasps ownership means we can't be competitive in the Championship and are therefore highly unlikely to ever return to the PL. For that reason alone in my opinion any possible alternative is worth a look. Sure if it's all properly looked into and it doesn't' work then we're stuck with what we have but what we have isn't great so if there's a chance even a slight chance that an alternative might lead to a better future it's worth looking into.

albatross · Apr 11, 2015

chiefdave said:
The problem is there's too many unknowns hence the need to see the business case and financial projections for a new stadium against renting off Wasps. We don't know how the stadium would be funded, what % would be debt, who would owe the debt, what rent we would be charged, what facilities there would be to generate money etc.

The one thing we do know is that staying at the Ricoh under Wasps ownership means we can't be competitive in the Championship and are therefore highly unlikely to ever return to the PL. For that reason alone in my opinion any possible alternative is worth a look. Sure if it's all properly looked into and it doesn't' work then we're stuck with what we have but what we have isn't great so if there's a chance even a slight chance that an alternative might lead to a better future it's worth looking into.

I disagree here at 100K rent and the share of F&B + car parking Its pretty much like playing there for free. even 10K supporters paying 10 Quid covers the cost. The rest of the season pays for everything else. I think that we should maximise this agreement for the short - Mid Term as the maths add up. All we are paying for is the team rather funding any big capital land needed to build anything.

Tonylinc · Apr 11, 2015

I agree with albatross here. One big game (ie Chelsea in the FA cup) pretty much covers our rent for the season. Any other "income", can be considered as profit. Also any new stadium will obviously be built on the cheap and as such will not include the facilities that the Ricoh has. Can you therefore tell me from where this mythical 365 income is coming from?

Jack Griffin · Apr 11, 2015

chiefdave said:
The problem is there's too many unknowns hence the need to see the business case and financial projections for a new stadium against renting off Wasps. We don't know how the stadium would be funded, what % would be debt, who would owe the debt, what rent we would be charged, what facilities there would be to generate money etc.

You will never see any such details, whenever have this management disclosed anything they didn't legally have to?

SkyblueBazza · Apr 14, 2015

Twenty-eight English clubs are now owned overseas, increasing the risk of tax avoidance

http://gu.com/p/47fj4

Scroll down & it's yet another example of pure brilliance in the transparency stakes.

PUSB

SkyblueBazza · Apr 14, 2015

stupot07 said:
unless I'm reading your post correctly, you're suggesting that the conspiracy that TM being hear is part of some conspiracy theory/long term plan/change of owners, etc, over the more plausible just waiting to see how this plans out before committing?

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

Lol...as you disagree with it - it's a conspiracy? If you agreed would it be a plan?
You're not a journalist are you?

PUSB

A new stadium and some searching questions (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency